Digital SLR Cameras

[HayHauler]

I have been following the thread from Fiddle Mike on the General board about the purchase of a Digital SLR camera and wanted to get my Texas fellers thoughts.  I know that Houdini, Serk, and F-Stop have experience, but I need all the help I can get.

I have been watching a Canon T3i on Best Buy for $599 with a 18-55m lense (standard I think?).

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EOS+Rebel+T3i+18.0-Megapixel+DSLR+Camera+with+18-55mm+Lens+-+Black/1980124.p?id=1218304066943&skuId=1980124&st=t3i&cp=1&lp=1

I looked at the T4i, but it seems too cutting edge for what I am looking for and the $$$ was $200 more.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+Canon+EOS+Rebel+T4i+18.0-MP+Digital+SLR+Camera+Kit+with+18-55mm+Lens+-+Black/4837164.p?id=1218540192272&skuId=4837164&st=t4i&cp=1&lp=1
I didn't really want to start a tire/oil type thread about Canon vs Nikon vs Pentax.....
Just need to make sure that I don't get something that will become olsolete in a year or 2.

Thanks in advance...

Hay 
Jimmyt

[Houdini]

Hey Jimmy, I responded to your request in my thread so I won't repeat it here; go read it, I'll wait....

.... OK, first thing is decide do you want simplicity like a point-n-shoot or do you want the ability to change lenses, grips, etc.  If you want a p-n-s AND the ability to change lenses Nikon has the Nikon 1.

Just need to make sure that I don't get something that will become olsolete in a year or 2.

I can assure you that any camera body you buy will be obsolete but functional in a year or two.  If you get a camera body with interchangeable lens the bodies can be replaced every few years IF new options appear that you want but lenses can last as long as 10 years.  I'd recommend that you spend at least as much for the lens as you do for the body but if you go for a high-end lens it could cost as much as 4X what the body does.  The lens makes the difference between an average and an awesome picture, not the camera body.  My Canon pro lenses changed my world and I started getting the pictures I had been trying to get for years with an expensive body and cheap lens, learn from my mistake.  As I mentioned in my thread, I bought the G15 p-n-s mostly due to its super-bright, high-end lens.

Go here and spend a few evenings reading and find the one that meets your needs best.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews
-
FYI- if you get the Canon with the 18-55 from BB, that lens is pretty much crap; upgrade to the 18-135(better), the 24-105 f4L(way better) or the 24-70 f2.8(freakin' awesome) lens.  You'll thank me later if you do.....

I am a Canon guy but I also realize that many manufacturers make good equipment and I'll help you in any way I can to decide.  First decision, fixed or interchangeable lens; IE, simplicity or upgradeable??

[Red Diamond]

Jimmy I bought a Canon EOS 30D about 6 years ago or longer maybe. It has the 28-135 lens on it, Houdini and Charlie are pros, the only thing obsolete about my camera is me. I don't think I'll ever catch on to all the things that can be done with it. Mostly use it in auto.

[Houdini]

I don't think I'll ever catch on to all the things that can be done with it. Mostly use it in auto.

Good point and don't misunderstand what I said.  The camera body can last for many, many years but the manufacturers release bigger, better, badder bodies every year.  The average user may not care or use/need these options.  I never use auto and spend the time learning all of the intricacies and abilities of the camera and attempt to use them all.  I was making beautiful pics with my T2i and upgraded to the 7D and was churning out crap until I spent the time to learn the new camera.  If you have no interest in learning the rules for manual mode then I'd recommend a top of the line point-n-shoot or stick with the T3i but upgrade the lens.

[us385south]

Generally speaking a 50 to 55mm lens is considered a "normal" lens.  But I find that a 28 to 135 or so zoom is a great asset... in that it allows me to frame a shot at reasonable distance without invading the subject's personal space.

If I were in the market for a SLR... I'd buy the body separate and add a 28 to 135 lens as my choice of a standard lens.

Once you put that lens on... it will be your standard shooting lens.

I understand that Best Buy is a national chain... but I have bought several cameras from these guys and have always been satisfied:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/

Photography is entirely about the nature of light.  Period!

The device you use is just that... simply a device for capturing light.  While I will not minimize the attributes of having a fine instrument in hand, I find that understanding the properties and nature of light is far more important than the capture device I might be holding at the moment.

From there... like Houdini says... it's all about understanding how to use the device to capture what you are seeing.

T

[SideCar]

I'm a camera simpleton, but here is a site that a lot of knowledgeable friends rely on for reviews. This guy has been doing camera reviews for a lot of years and you can see the same exact shots with different cameras in his reviews, which I think is helpful. 

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

[HayHauler]

Thanks for all of the info guys.  The body of the T3i is the same price as the kit with the 18-55 lens.  I have to start somewhere and from what I have read, the T3i is a very good body to start with.  Hmmm.....  This I will have to ponder.

Thanks again,
Hay
Jimmyt

[Rocketman]

Generally speaking a 50 to 55mm lens is considered a "normal" lens.  But I find that a 28 to 135 or so zoom is a great asset... in that it allows me to frame a shot at reasonable distance without invading the subject's personal space.

If I were in the market for a SLR... I'd buy the body separate and add a 28 to 135 lens as my choice of a standard lens.

I think you're quoting numbers for 35mm film cameras.  Digital cameras have a smaller area that the image is projected on, thus the math works out that the focal lengths are different for the same effect.  50 mm was "normal" with 35 mm film.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my recollection is that normal for a typical digital camera is more like 30 mm.  Of course, I don't trust my memory, so why should anyone else?  Just know that they're different, and that manufacturers may spec the lenses in real focal lengths, or some sort of equivalent, so that people can look at them in the more familiar 35 mm equivalent.  Pay attention to which they're specifying.

Mark

[Houdini]

Generally speaking a 50 to 55mm lens is considered a "normal" lens.  But I find that a 28 to 135 or so zoom is a great asset... in that it allows me to frame a shot at reasonable distance without invading the subject's personal space.

If I were in the market for a SLR... I'd buy the body separate and add a 28 to 135 lens as my choice of a standard lens.

I think you're quoting numbers for 35mm film cameras.  Digital cameras have a smaller area that the image is projected on, thus the math works out that the focal lengths are different for the same effect.  50 mm was "normal" with 35 mm film.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my recollection is that normal for a typical digital camera is more like 30 mm.  Of course, I don't trust my memory, so why should anyone else?  Just know that they're different, and that manufacturers may spec the lenses in real focal lengths, or some sort of equivalent, so that people can look at them in the more familiar 35 mm equivalent.  Pay attention to which they're specifying.

Mark

50mm is normal on full sensor digital cameras, 35mm is normal on crop sensors.  50mm are inexpensive, 35 mm are very expensive.  Fixed-frame lens are usually very fast and very sharp but you have to zoom with your feet.

The body of the T3i is the same price as the kit with the 18-55 lens.

That reinforces my statement that the 18-55 lens is crap statement, they give it away when you buy the body.

I'll post the results of my G15 test last night in a separate thread

[Rocketman]

Generally speaking a 50 to 55mm lens is considered a "normal" lens.  But I find that a 28 to 135 or so zoom is a great asset... in that it allows me to frame a shot at reasonable distance without invading the subject's personal space.

If I were in the market for a SLR... I'd buy the body separate and add a 28 to 135 lens as my choice of a standard lens.

I think you're quoting numbers for 35mm film cameras.  Digital cameras have a smaller area that the image is projected on, thus the math works out that the focal lengths are different for the same effect.  50 mm was "normal" with 35 mm film.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my recollection is that normal for a typical digital camera is more like 30 mm.  Of course, I don't trust my memory, so why should anyone else?  Just know that they're different, and that manufacturers may spec the lenses in real focal lengths, or some sort of equivalent, so that people can look at them in the more familiar 35 mm equivalent.  Pay attention to which they're specifying.

Mark

50mm is normal on full sensor digital cameras, 35mm is normal on crop sensors.  50mm are inexpensive, 35 mm are very expensive.  Fixed-frame lens are usually very fast and very sharp but you have to zoom with your feet.

I wasn't aware that there were sensors that large with digital.  Thanks for the info.

[f-Stop]

Hey Mark, here's a great stocking stuffer point and shoot camera with a full 35mm size sensor...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891105-REG/Sony_dscrx1_DSC_RX1_Full_Frame_Point.html

Hope I find one in my stocking!  (Well, maybe after I win the lottery...)

 

[Houdini]

Hey Mark, here's a great stocking stuffer point and shoot camera with a full 35mm size sensor...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891105-REG/Sony_dscrx1_DSC_RX1_Full_Frame_Point.html

Hope I find one in my stocking!  (Well, maybe after I win the lottery...)

 

Not exactly Charlie, here is a graph showing the p-n-s sensor sizes;


The largest sensor on this graph is APS-C, like on my 7D which is a crop sensor.

This graph compares the APS-C sensor to a full size (35MM equivalent) sensor


The 1” sensor on the Sony RX100 is large for a p-n-s camera but tiny in comparison to a 35MM equivalent sensor.

[f-Stop]

Yes, quite true for the Sony RX100, but the  afforementioned camera is the Sony DSC RX1.  It has the same size sensor as the Cannon 5D Mark III which is the full 35mm size -- or "full frame".

When I shoot with a camera that has the APS-C size sensor -- like the Cannon 7D or Nikon D300s -- I figure my actual focal length by multiplying the the lens focal length by 1.5.  For example, a 50mm lens will perform like a 75mm lens.  This is a rough guesstimate, but works OK in the field.  (My mind will forever be stuck in 35mm mode from years of film and photography shot with 35mm film.)

 

[Houdini]

Yes, quite true for the Sony RX100, but the  afforementioned camera is the Sony DSC RX1.  It has the same size sensor as the Cannon 5D Mark III which is the full 35mm size -- or "full frame".

DOH!  I read RX1 but my mind registered RX100; probably due to all of the reading I did and almost buying that camera a week ago.

[f-Stop]

Basically, it's the Wild Wild West of Media Capture out there!   

[Houdini]

Speaking of awesome cameras ... and my skillz, for those of you that think a camera makes a photographer

Check out Alex tossing a pick into the crowd


I don't need no stinkin' full frame camera....

[Sigrún]

If you get a camera body with interchangeable lens the bodies can be replaced every few years IF new options appear that you want but lenses can last as long as 10 years.  I'd recommend that you spend at least as much for the lens as you do for the body but if you go for a high-end lens it could cost as much as 4X what the body does.  The lens makes the difference between an average and an awesome picture, not the camera body.  My Canon pro lenses changed my world and I started getting the pictures I had been trying to get for years with an expensive body and cheap lens, learn from my mistake.  

Awaking to the thread a bit late, but could not agree more. Also learned the hard way but after a couple of years realised this is the way to go. Now, I've got me a Canon L series 100-400 for the long work and air shows, Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for the short work, Tamron 28-300 for goofing around in lotsa light and of course the kit Canon 18-55 but that is mostly acting as a dust cap....

The camera body? Still an ancient Canon XT Rebel with some accessories, but it's all in the glasswork.

And just to prove the point that F2.8 lens makes all the difference, here's Sigrún Valkyrie on top of Mt. Nebo a while ago.

[Houdini]

The camera body? Still an ancient Canon XT Rebel with some accessories, but it's all in the glasswork.

And just to prove the point that F2.8 lens makes all the difference, here's Sigrún Valkyrie on top of Mt. Nebo a while ago.

You took that with the Tamron?   Dang!  I may have to reconsider non-Canon lenses.

I took this with my 24-70 2.8 L on a 7D body at the Chinese Lantern Festival


I took this one with my G15 the same night


This little camera keeps blowing my mind

[Sigrún]

You took that with the Tamron?   Dang!  I may have to reconsider non-Canon lenses.

Yessirree

It's not dirt cheap ($400ish) but for my use, definitely worth every penny-

I took this with my 24-70 2.8 L on a 7D body at the Chinese Lantern Festival


I took this one with my G15 the same night


This little camera keeps blowing my mind

And of course what I forgot to say  earlier, DSLR is definitely NOT the only way to go, there are some very nice point-and-shoot pocket cameras out there, as you very well illustrate here. When I'm not dragging a DSLR with me, I usually have an oldish Canon Powershoot IS 590 with me. Not megalomaniac megapixel count, but a  nice lens and plenty of options to work with. Also ( and I've found this surprisingly important ) a good grip on the battery compartment / handle for different angles and steady shots on low light conditions.....