1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Good Beginner's dSLR?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ManagerJosh, Nov 8, 2011.

  1. ManagerJosh

    ManagerJosh Well-Known Member

  2. iTuN3r

    iTuN3r Well-Known Member

    It sure is :) I have t1i and works flawlessly you just need to get used to camera and explore it good to understand the functions .
  3. ManagerJosh

    ManagerJosh Well-Known Member

    Any suggestions for someone who has been classically trained on the traditional SLRs?
  4. iTuN3r

    iTuN3r Well-Known Member

    I am not pro with dslr i just look around youtube and google most of time and hey there nice website : http://slruser.com/

    I have been checking on their site for a while now.
  5. Steve Machol

    Steve Machol Active Member

    Kier likes this.
  6. turtile

    turtile Well-Known Member

    If you know how to use film SLR, you'll have no problem with any DSLR.

    You should shoot in RAW format instead of JPEG for the best results. It takes the actual sensor data.
    ManagerJosh likes this.
  7. Steve Machol

    Steve Machol Active Member

    Kier likes this.
  8. infis

    infis Well-Known Member

    I too the beginner in SLR. Selected what or the inexpensive decision.
    Nevertheless, the choice stopped on Canon EOS 60D Kit 18-135. A difference in cost not big, but nevertheless 60D above a class. In days 5 deliver. I hope that justifies my waitings.
  9. Anthony Parsons

    Anthony Parsons Well-Known Member

    Same place as you with the amateur photographer with his first DSLR... we just went and got a Nikon D3100 with Tamron 18 - 270 VC lens.

    Pretty interesting to learn it all... also pretty complicated stuff at the same time. Well and truly over my head with this one, constantly reading the manual on how to do stuff. One thing I worked out quickly, is that I had to go back and buy a tripod, as I discovered using features of these things is useless without one. No way could I hold a camera steady for 30 seconds on some slow shutter shot. :cautious: If I had a head slap smiley I would have given myself one of them with this one...

    Any expert photographers out there that know lots about this stuff? I did work out RAW is good... I have worked out aperture and shutter speeds and the interesting things they do mixing them around.

    I find myself liking the VC in the lens, combined with the stabilization in the camera as well... for crappy photographers such as myself. :whistle:
  10. TheComputerGuy

    TheComputerGuy Active Member

    I'd shoot for a t2i....great deals versus t3i...and still awesome.
  11. dutchbb

    dutchbb Well-Known Member

    Nikon D90 used to be a very good serious beginners DSLR in terms of price/quality, I didn't check if there is an upgrade though. I'm extremely satisfied with my D700, which is my second one after a cheaper Canon. Nikon's build quality is very high and they are great to use. They also are very good in darker environments. The Nikkor lenses are among the best available.

    When buying a new DSLR you should pick a good body, but what's more important is the lens to go with it. Don't go for cheap basic ones, pick a quality 50mm or go for a quality zoom. The ones you get with the body are almost always pretty bad quality.

    Regarding raw or jpg, raw takes up a lot of space, and not everyone needs it. It really depends on how far you want to take it. Also, the better you take the picture, the less post processing you need to do.
  12. infis

    infis Well-Known Member

    For Canon exists firmware, essentially extending possibilities of cameras of type 5DMII, 550D, 600D, 60D.
    Probably and for Nicon exist alternative firmwares.
  13. TheLaw

    TheLaw Well-Known Member

    IMHO, get the Canon Rebel XSi or the Nikon D60 if you can find them cheap. They are the first generation DSLR cameras with an SDHC card. The resolution is 12MP which is far more than enough and sometimes better than other cameras with higher MP ratings. You should be able to get them for under $500. What I've found is that the price of newer DSLRs approaches that of low end professional cameras making the dollar difference negligible at that price point. You get video recording on some of the new models which is an extra but not wortwhile for the most part and a gimmick. At that price I'd rather get a "full frame" camera and invest in great lenses -- and it's the lenses which make all the difference, not as much the box.
    dutchbb likes this.
  14. Anthony Parsons

    Anthony Parsons Well-Known Member

    I noticed a lot of manufacturers where now scaling back this MP war they've been having, sacrificing quality for numbers, and now coming back to reality for performance and picture quality. Nice to see...
  15. Crazyfruitbat

    Crazyfruitbat Well-Known Member

    not only that - but it really depends on the glass that you have strapped to it too. you can go as high as you want with mega-pixels but the glass will always limit the quality hitting the sensor.
  16. Anthony Parsons

    Anthony Parsons Well-Known Member

    Does glass mean the lens?
  17. TheLaw

    TheLaw Well-Known Member

    Yes... I learned with my first DSLR that the best glass is made for professional cameras. These prosumer DSLRs have some excellent lenses but they are uneven in quality. The size is different than on professional cameras and you'll see the best lenses made for those models. Apparently lenses can continue to make for beautiful shots no matter what camera you're using. The camera boxes themselves will not affect the picture quality anywhere nearly as much as the lenses. Hence I was told to spend the money on the lenses. I got the best prosumer at the time because it was the first model that Canon made that didn't use those huge memory cards that were being phased out. Best decision was to go SHDC with the XSi and get the 55-250 zoom lens and the 50mm portrait (for low light situations - for under $100) and you've got the best lens variation on a budget.

    Kier can probably talk more about this but I was grateful to have learned a great deal with this budget equipment and still pull off shots that people love. There is a lot to learn even with so much automated. Knowing how to frame and set up your shots to allow your camera to provide the sharpest focus in challenging situations, etc. It's exciting. My next camera will be a full frame and I'll spend as much money as I can on an L lens.
    Anthony Parsons likes this.
  18. Anthony Parsons

    Anthony Parsons Well-Known Member

    Cool... no idea what some of that is, but it does sound cool.

    Yer, our lens was near $800 I think... and that's cheap obviously compared to pro lenses. I still have a lot to learn about all that stuff, framing and such.

    Really have to still work out all the functions that the camera itself can do... pretty amazing stuff. Even the HD video on it is pretty good. Not as good IMO as a dedicated video camera, but when you turn on the VC in the lens and autofocus, it does a pretty good live running shoot in 1080p. Good for small, personal stuff, but not for professional IMO.

    The photo quality though I get from mine is pretty awesome... very happy with it. Been learning about how to blur the focus before and after the focus point. Makes for interesting shots. Also been learning about the aperture speed, maybe it was shutter... one of them, for blurring movement effects... so you get that streaked light effect of cars at night time...
  19. Crazyfruitbat

    Crazyfruitbat Well-Known Member

    I think you'd be surprised what you can get from movie modes on DSLRs - one episode of House MD was entirely made up by using a canon 5D mrkii - while not the cheapest camera on the market it's actually getting to be quite old.

    If you look at canon's range of cameras teh 5D mkII is the one with the full frame sensor and has a lot more quality to give it's users, but below that the cameras are all very similar in quality - similar megapixels , flash and stuff but the difference is when you look at usability. I sometimes shoot at conferences with 2 cameras - one is a very cheap rebel, the other is the 7D (which is very close to the 5D) and I can take the 7D, go through the menus while looking through the viewfinder, take my shot. The rebel though is different as I have to go through menus to do the same thing and slows me down. This is what the camera companies do to differentiate a lot of their products - Pros dont want to miss pics due to hunting through menus.

    By the way, shameless plug here - but if you want to talk photography please feel free to join the bi-weekly assignments we have on the site. They are designed for beginners to get into shooting different subject<shameless_plug/>
    Anthony Parsons likes this.
  20. Mike

    Mike XenForo Developer Staff Member

    (I can only speak about Canon here as that's what I shoot.)

    First, the movie modes on the new cameras are very good. The quality is the same quality that you get in the photos (as you'd expect by shooting through the same glass on the same sensor). It's really nice to be able to get a narrow depth of field in video. But--and this is a big but for total amateurs like me--the camera doesn't autofocus in video mode. Of course, you can manually focus (at least with a USM lens) and there is a re-focus button, but it does the standard range search focus (which, given that the mirror is flipped up, is very slow). You need to think about video more like you're shooting a show: shorter, more "fixed" shots (in terms of focus), rather than what you might do with a camcorder. (On a side note, I believe most Canon's limit to 12 minutes of video shooting per time due to file size limits.) I've not used video more than a handful of times on my 7D. Conversely, I know a guy who is a professional cameraman and has shot concerts with a 7D; he raved about the quality of the 7Ds video, over the 60D IIRC. (He did this very cool shot with a semi-broken LensBaby.)

    As far as glass, what TheLaw says is completely right: good lenses will stay with you longer than a good body. I originally had a 350D and upgraded to a 7D, and all of my lenses came with me. (Well, except for one, as I went for an upgrade, but that would've been a big improvement for the 350D.) Something worth mentioning: if you're expecting to stay with an APS-C sensor ("1.6 crop")--which with Canon is anything but the 5D and 1D series--you can look at their EF-S lenses. These sit a bit closer to the sensor, meaning that they can be smaller (and cheaper) than an equivalent EF lens. However, if you ever move up to a full frame sensor, these lenses won't work.

    Canon's pro-level lenses are the "L" range. They have a red ring around the front element. You won't see an EF-S lens tagged as L, but there are a few that are considered that level of quality. Notably, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, to some degree the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, and I believe the EF-S macro is well regarded as well.

    Conversely, don't just consider quality until you really get to that level. Convenience is a big consideration. You'll see the zoom range that you'll cover with the 18-55 kit lens. It'll probably be less than your point and shoot, though I suspect it will be wider. Consider that it you want more zoom ability, you'll have to change lenses. When your going somewhere, you have to think: what lens should I bring? Should I bring more kit in case I want to change? An alternative to this is to go after an "ultra zoom" like Canon's 18-200. You get a wide angle and a telephoto in one. Obviously there are size, speed (in terms of aperture), and quality trade offs with this, but convenience is a bit element.

    I could go on and on... :)
    Anthony Parsons and Brogan like this.

Share This Page