Buying a D-SLR, need some opinions

[atutt]

So I'm buying a D-SLR but I'm having trouble selecting one.
I'm stuck between the Rebel XTI, D40 (or D60 if I wait long enough), and the Alpha.
I'm not looking to go pro or anything I just want more than my Fujifilm S700 offers.
I have a budget of $1000 if it need be but I don't want to spend that much.
The one thing I really would like to have is a low ISO setting. My S700 can go as low as 64.

What I'm looking for, are opinions on what you have, what you like and dislike about it.
I've done my research but I can't make up my mind. I'm hoping you guys can help lend some insght. Maybe post an example from your cam.

[lflkajfj12123]

xti or 40d should be more than enough for average shootin

[DataXUnknown]

PM "OMGYO" I'm pretty sure the camera he just bought was a D-SLR.

[Helghast]

I'd buy the XTi.
I have it right now, and I ROVE IT!

The Nikon is nice, but um .. I'm a Canon fanboy.
=X

The Sony Alpha just sucks.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/
..is on of the best site for reviews.

[0100]

I have had the XT for a long time. It's great. The XTi is just the newer model. That is what I would go with. No complaints with canon.

[exitspeed]

D40 hands down. I have one. Dell has it on sale right now too.

Canon for the win.

[andmattsayd]

D40X if you wanna be a winner! :)
i love this camera :)

[kdashy]

The D40/D40x doesn't have an autofocus motor, so if you plan on using anything other than lenses with an ultrasonic motor, you'll have to do the focusing yourself.

[murda-c]

D40 hands down. I have one. Dell has it on sale right now too.

Canon for the win.

maybe you mean 40d?

i'm confused.

I think i'm gonna buy a rebel xti, if only for it's ability to capture indoor sports better, and i go to alot of basketball games.

gonna have to buy different glass though, the kit lens is apparently crap.

[atutt]

^No he was right, my bad for not clarifying.

I was refering to
Canon EOS Digi Rebel XTi
Nikon D40x
ans the Sony Alpha 100

[jfc3po]

i just bought the Canon Eos Digital Rebel XT....got it brand new for 500 even....need some new lenses though....i love it....i take it wth me everywhere

[sb253]

Rebel XT owner here. Good little camera for everyday shooting. Get some good glass and youre set.

+1 for Canon

[exitspeed]

maybe you mean 40d?

i'm confused.

I think i'm gonna buy a rebel xti, if only for it's ability to capture indoor sports better, and i go to alot of basketball games.

gonna have to buy different glass though, the kit lens is apparently crap.

Yea I meant 40D. My bad.

Not 40D. That's a glorified point and shoot.

[murda-c]

Yea I meant 40D. My bad.

Not 40D. That's a glorified point and shoot.


tehehehe you did it again

[exitspeed]

I've have a rough weekend.

I'm just gonna shut up right now...

[lucky7]

LOL, i was going to point all that out. but apparently, i dont need to.

i have an XTi. biggest complaint is the noise. fucking noisy shit. i get so pissed off. from what ive noticed, the older XT is better with noise than the XTi. and the 40D is even better. much better. i wish i had a 40D to be real honest. but it didnt exist when i got my rebel. if you're new, i dont see any point in spending alot. you could roll an XT for a couple of years. build up a nice aresonal of glass, and be happy. it seems ass backwards, but the glass is much more important than the body itself. if you have some know-how, and some nice glass, you can do some amazing shit, even if you have the older, 'lesser' camera body.

the things i like about the XTi, over the XT are mostly aesthetic. 3" LCD, versus 2.5. and all the menu's and settings appear on that same LCD. whereas the XT has a seperate little window for all that stuff.

my opinion goes like this. you're better off with an XT, and a real nice lens, then you are with a 40D and a kit lens. some may dissagree, and thats cool. but if you do, atleast tell me why. this is one of those rare subjects, that i enjoy hearing the other point of view. :keke:

[exitspeed]

Yea I meant 40D. My bad.

Not 40D. That's a glorified point and shoot.

tehehehe you did it again

I've have a rough weekend.

I'm just gonna shut up right now...

I did say it right...Making me think I'm going crazy. :loco: I did have a rough weekend though.

[240trainee]

I'm planning on getting a d40x when I get the money

love Nikon shit, and it's a good starter DSLR for me, I can always expand later.

[95Blue240sx]

If I were you I would get a 20d and tamron 17-50 f2.8. You can find the body for around 400-450 used and the tamron lens for another 300. That gives you some extra for bags and other stuff. I would stay away from the XT/i just for the fact that 20d is far greater for the same price. You also get a better sensor that handles higher ISO better. You wont need to upgrade for a long time with the 20d.

I got the 10d, but the only reason was that I got a KILLER deal on it. The difference between a 10d/20d and the XT/i is huge. My cousin has the XTI and it just feels too small and like a toy(no offense to those who have the xt/i). When you hold the 10d/20d/etc. you feel the weight and the real canon quality in the body. The only complaint is the lcd is too small.

[Pank]

I'm planning on getting a d40x when I get the money

love Nikon shit, and it's a good starter DSLR for me, I can always expand later.

I'd heartily recommend you NOT get that camera. only 3 AF zones? wtf is that crap? not to mention they're AF compatible with like 6 lenses, and the sensor is noisier than a used 20d/xt, which are about the same price.

the d40x is seriously a DSLR for people who don't know about DSLR's.

[atutt]

^Interesting.

I know every DSLR will have it's pros and cons.
I'd like something that has a lot of features so I can learn and play around with them.
I just bought my Fujifilm S700 about 3 months ago and I've already found myself becoming very limited to what I want to do.
I all this will be is a hobby.
All this feedback is great although it does make it harder to decide, lol.
But keep it coming!
Also, does anyone have any eperience with any other DSLR's of the like?
I.E. Fujifilm S5 or anything else?

[kdashy]

Also, does anyone have any eperience with any other DSLR's of the like?
I.E. Fujifilm S5 or anything else?

I have a Pentax K10D, works for me.

In body image stabilization is win.

Mediocre FPS is lame, but I don't shoot sports so its okay with me.

[lucky7]

i agree, rebels are little turds that dont fit in your hand correctly. so buy a battery grip + an extra battery. thats what i did. GB-E3 canon grip = winn.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/968787367_cce20fcf73.jpg
but i still think you'd be perfectly content with an XT. all while saving some cash.

[atutt]

^Any comment on what 95Blue240sx said? You seem to know your stuff! So I want a rebuttal!

[Pank]

he's right, I have an XTI, but i have tiny baby hands, so it sort of works out. The larger grips on the XXD series are WAY BETTER. like, a billion times fucking better. But not enough to warrant the cost of a new one (yet).

The thing you need to remember when you get into the DSLR world is that megapixels really dont mean shit (and can actually be worse to get more MP). You can take the same quality picture with an XT/XTI that you can with a 40d, Nikon etc.

get a body that you can afford, spend the money on good glass.


(also, the Canon XSi is about to come out, which should drive the prices down on XT/XTi's. also it comes with a way nicer kit lense)

[atutt]

he's right, I have an XTI, but i have tiny baby hands, so it sort of works out. The larger grips on the XXD series are WAY BETTER. like, a billion times fucking better. But not enough to warrant the cost of a new one (yet).

The thing you need to remember when you get into the DSLR world is that megapixels really dont mean shit (and can actually be worse to get more MP). You can take the same quality picture with an XT/XTI that you can with a 40d, Nikon etc.

get a body that you can afford, spend the money on good glass.


(also, the Canon XSi is about to come out, which should drive the prices down on XT/XTi's. also it comes with a way nicer kit lense)

Can you elaborate on that part? It would definately help my choice if I understood why that is, lol.

[exitspeed]

I'd heartily recommend you NOT get that camera. only 3 AF zones? wtf is that crap? not to mention they're AF compatible with like 6 lenses, and the sensor is noisier than a used 20d/xt, which are about the same price.

the d40x is seriously a DSLR for people who don't know about DSLR's.

I've read the exact same thing. Like I said the D40/D40x are just glorified Point and Shoots.

[TheSquidd]

Remember, the camera body does about... 20% of the work.

Make sure you save money for lenses, a shoe mount flash, filters, tripod, bag, batteries, a card etc etc

[95Blue240sx]

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q232/zenkimods/BJ.jpg

Canon 10d w/grip. Ballin outta control. :rofl: jk. Im an elitist fuck. Get what you can afford. Theres honestly nothing wrong with the XT/i. You can get them pretty cheap used too, but for the price I would prefer something in the xxD series. If I had to do it over again I would of got the 20d, but Im happy with the 10d.

I heard a big thing with nikon is you need to make sure you get a lens with a AF motor, if not you will be doing all the focusing yourself. Im not sure what model that is, but sounds like a hassle.

Remember, the camera body does about... 20% of the work.

Make sure you save money for lenses, a shoe mount flash, filters, tripod, bag, batteries, a card etc etc

This is true too. Even after getting the camera I bought another flash, wireless triggers, tripod, 2 different camera bags, extra batteries, new lenses, and tons of other crap. It adds up so fast. Its just as bad as buying crap for your car.

[atom]

Can you elaborate on that part? It would definately help my choice if I understood why that is, lol.

I don't really think thats true. More megapixels means more noise because you have to cram more photosites into generally the same size sensor. But most SLR's are using APS-C or full frame size sensors that are big enough that the effects aren't as bad as point and shoot cameras which use much smaller sensors.

Nikon/Canon, meh I think they are close enough that most people starting out with photography will be fine with either. Just go to some store and see which one feels better to you personally. Pentax and even Sony are ok too but IMO most beginners should stick with Nikon or Canon because getting good secondhand glass for them is much easier than the others. I would skip the D40 though if you go Nikon. Shits too basic. Secondhand market is flooded with D200's now. Or wait for D60.

I used to be on sites like dpreview a lot and really most of the Nikon/Canon/Pentax/etc sucks or Nikon/Canon/Pentax/etc rules stuff boils down to typical fanboy bullshit. Just pick one, get some good lenses, and have fun.

Personally I went from Nikon D80 to Fuji S3 Pro. Lots of people say the S3 sucks but I don't care, I do mostly stills/landscapes so it's main shortcomings don't affect much. I dig the Canon 40D too but I'm not gonna switch my glass over. Too much trouble. I'll probably switch to a S5 some day.

[Pank]

Can you elaborate on that part? It would definately help my choice if I understood why that is, lol.

well, for one, if you're doing web work, you dont really need anything over 6mp. You can get good 8x10 prints from a 6mp, so print work is covered too. resolution does not equal sharpness. a slightly out of focus image at 6mp looks EXACTLY the same blown up as a 10mp image.

now, as far as the sensors, they're all the same size (as far as 1.6 crops, full frames, etc etc). As with all photography, you want to get as much light onto the sensor/film as possible. with a 6mp sensor, you have 6 million photosites (for this argument at least, i'm not going to get into the bayer array blah blah blah). with a 10mp sensor, ( same size as 6mp) you have 10 million photosites, but to fit them onto a smaller sensor, the photosites have to be much smaller. since they're smaller, they dont get as much light, and this translates into more noise.

for example, the 12mp sensor in the XSI may actually be more noisy than the 10mp sensor in the XTI, due to it being the same size, but having 2 million more photosites. Theres a lot of in-camera noise reduction, but whenever you reduce noise, you reduce detail (to an extent). DigicIII is very good at this, and its usually not noticible at all, but the fact remains.


I don't really think thats true. More megapixels means more noise because you have to cram more photosites into generally the same size sensor. But most SLR's are using APS-C or full frame size sensors that are big enough that the effects aren't as bad as point and shoot cameras which use much smaller sensors.

APS-C sensors are tiny, and still grain way the hell up at 1600iso in low light. not as bad as P&S's at all, but its still very noticible. "most" dslrs do NOT use full frame sensors, unless you want to buy a 5d from canon, or whatever the nikon equiv is.

[SNC240SX]

I have a Pentax K10D, works for me.

In body image stabilization is win.

Mediocre FPS is lame, but I don't shoot sports so its okay with me.


I have an Olympus E-510. I like it its simple to use 10mp and was pretty cheap. It also has in body Image Stabilization which is nice to have since i cant seem to hold still when shooting.

Seems like me and Kdashy are the blacksheeps of the camera world since everyone seems to have a nikon or canon

[Pank]

the Olympus cameras arent bad, and in body IS is always a plus. It came down to the sensor quality when i was looking at them, though. One plus for Olympus bodies is that they're pretty inexpensive for what you get

[kuro]

Sony Alpha700 has a 1.25 crop but because of Lens choices/availability I would suggest going with a Canon or Nikon of you want a highend setup.

I am currently using an A100 but I will be getting an A350 soon. Why am I staying Sony? because I already have a shitload of Minolta/Sony accessories and lenses.

A couple resized A100K shots
Night shot taken near Roppongi Hills (Tokyo) without the aid of tripod.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f152/Ruttt/DSC01653.jpg

Please ignore the crappy frame:hammer:. This pic was taken on a Hazy fall day with an OEM A100K 18-70 lens.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f152/Ruttt/DSC00302-1.jpg

[ericcastro]

Nikon has better color.

Canon has the lenses.

But look at the future too. Nikon is making huge strides in the "pro sumer" level. Thats where we all are. Canon is trying to work on some 21 mega pixel shit or something??

i would try and get a used Nikon D70s. Or even a D50. cause they are right about the wierd lense thing with the D40. Although, do you need more than those few??

[atutt]

So I came across this deal.
How does this deal appeal to you smart guys?
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Canon-20D-with-vertical-grip-and-Canon-17-85-IS-EF-S-lens-W0QQAdIdZ41091216

[Pank]

shit, you can get a used 30d/lense for 1k. I'd say let it go

[lucky7]

yup. that is a good point. 30D is still somwhat up to date. and the prices are right. very right.

[atutt]

I've been searching for used DSLR's.
A friend mentioned looking into a used Nikon D200.
I found one for under $1000 but I think it would be a bit much no?

This is just getting so confusing now.
So many choices for so many possibilities...

I don't know what the hell to get! lol

[exitspeed]

I've been searching for used DSLR's.
A friend mentioned looking into a used Nikon D200.
I found one for under $1000 but I think it would be a bit much no?

This is just getting so confusing now.
So many choices for so many possibilities...

I don't know what the hell to get! lol

Do you have any friends or family that has a DSLR? If so you may want to go with the brand they have. that way you can swap/borrow lens, etc.

Just a thought.

That's one of the reasons I went with Canon.

[atom]

You're thinking too much. Most of what makes a good picture is the composition anyways, the hardware can't help you there.

[atutt]

My dad has an old school 35mm SLR with Minolta lenses that are about 25 years old. So I don't know if anything will be compatible with those.
My dad hardly ever uses the camera though.
The only friend I have who is remotely interested in photography recently moved to BC. So I won't be borrowing his lenses anytime soon, lol

[atutt]

You're thinking too much. Most of what makes a good picture is the composition anyways, the hardware can't help you there.
I don't doubt I am thinking too much. I just want to make a choice that I will be happy with. I also want something that may be a little more advanced for my abilities but something I could learn to utilize.

There are just so many reasons for me to go with either a Nikon or Canon but there just as many reasons not to.

I know what I want in a camera but what pisses me off are the things I don't know that I want yet.

This was the reason I bought a DSLR style camera in the first place. I knew what I wanted but I didn't know I was going to want more then what it offered. I thought it was more than enough.

[Pank]

You're thinking too much. Most of what makes a good picture is the composition anyways, the hardware can't help you there.

Everyone says that untill their budget point and shoot backfocuses manually (if it even has an option to manually focus) or cant even HIT focus with AF, has severe chromatic abberation b/c of the shitty lense, doesn't shoot in raw, has horrible color reproduction, has limited shutter range, is unusable in anything but 50-100 ISO b/c it grains up so much you cant see anything, making it impossible to shoot anywhere except in bright daylight, or it doesn't have options to change white balance, so all your images are either blue or orange tinted, or it doesn't have a big enough buffer, and you miss the shot anyway, even if it was composed correctly.

Yeah, composition is important, but getting the best gear for your dollar is also very important. why pay the same amount for a substandard DSLR (d40x) when you can pay 200 more and not have to worry about all those other problems, and can concentrate on the composition?

[atutt]

This is what the back of my old school Minolta lenses look like:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSCF2050.jpg

Any chance they would fit a Nikon D80 or Canon 40D?
I've found a pretty good deal on both and they're local too, :D.

[kdashy]

This is what the back of my old school Minolta lenses look like:
Any chance they would fit a Nikon D80 or Canon 40D?
I've found a pretty good deal on both and they're local too, :D.

Pretty sure Minolta lenses will only mount on Sony DSLR's.

Theres probably a mount adapter made to mount them on canons and nikons, but its gonna suck with no AF, Manual aperture, Possible loss of infinity focus, and having to stop down to meter.

Its unlikely those lenses are worth the trouble.

[atutt]

Pretty sure Minolta lenses will only mount on Sony DSLR's.

Theres probably a mount adapter made to mount them on canons and nikons, but its gonna suck with no AF, Manual aperture, Possible loss of infinity focus, and having to stop down to meter.

Its unlikely those lenses are worth the trouble.
I suspected they'd only work on Sony's, but even then would they still work on a Sony?

If I found an adapter it would be cool just to have, I think.

I'm not really concerned if I can keep them or not, or if I could use AF or not. It would just be cool if I could use them on a Nikon or Canon without an adpter but oh well.

[atutt]

Update*

So I ended up picking up a Nikon D80 + 2 lenses + remote + 4 gig card for $700.

The D80 was a month old with exactly 195 actuations on it.

Now if anyone can recamend some good reads, internet or book, please let me know.
Or if anyone can lend me their knowledge or some good tips on how to REALLY use it please let me know.

[Pank]

high five, nice purchase

what lenses did you get? Put the wider/smaller one on and put the camera in manual and walk around for a full day. Shoot into the sun, shoot with your back to the sun, shoot outside looking into a dark house/door, shoot inside looking out of a window, capture something close to you, while trying to keep the BG in focus. Shoot moving cars, keep them sharp while the BG is blurred. Now do that at night.

Make a note of your aperture, ISO, shutter speed the whole time, and read up on how they affect the final image. Strobist is pretty good for lighting, Automotivephotographersnetwork is ok for car shit. POTN is.....well its a site about canon stuff, but its not that specific.

[atutt]

These are my exact lenses according to what they side on their sides.

Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5 - 5.6G ED

Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4 -5.6G

I know they're not the greatest but they'll do fine for now while I get adjusted to the camera and how it works.

Here are some sample pics. I was just playing around trying to see how things work.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSC_0036.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSC_0047.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSC_0060.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSC_0073.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSC_0082.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/atutt/DSC_0083.jpg

[Pank]

the 18-55 is a great walkaround lense.

Read up on managing your white balance, its off on all of those shots. not by much, but enough to notice. not THAT big of a deal really, but it can seperate good shots from poor ones

[exitspeed]

Look into Lightroom too. That way you don't have to worry about WB. You can take care of it in post.

[atutt]

^Thanks for the input guys!

The WB has been my main focus for the past few days. I'm trying out all the differences to see how they react.

Exitspeed:
I don't have the faintest idea of what you are referring to. Is it an editing program?

[exitspeed]

^Thanks for the input guys!

The WB has been my main focus for the past few days. I'm trying out all the differences to see how they react.

Exitspeed:
I don't have the faintest idea of what you are referring to. Is it an editing program?

Lightroom is THE digital photography editing program. Every photo guy on here will suggest you get it ASAP. Then you gotta learn how to use it. :)

[Pank]

^Thanks for the input guys!

The WB has been my main focus for the past few days. I'm trying out all the differences to see how they react.

Exitspeed:
I don't have the faintest idea of what you are referring to. Is it an editing program?

thats the way to do it. Does your camera support creating a WB profile from a reference shot? that way you just have to have a white peice of paper and it sets it for you off the color temperature of the paper.

[atutt]

^Yes it does do that. I figured out how to do it AFTER I took those though, lol.
Although that setting works well it doesn't pick up dark colours sometimes. I think it was due to lower lighting conditions though.

I actually used that back of the D80 instruction manual to set the custom white balance.

I'm actually about to go get some lens filters and then I'm out to a car meet to do some experimental pics. Which I will post up.

[lucky7]

cool man. i used to set custom WB everytime i went out to shoot. im uber lazy now. auto white balance + raw. ill fix it later when im sitting at the cpu. :keke:

but yeah, lightroom is pretty good stuff. anyone else lazy like me and shoot everything with AWB?

[pinkarrowsnow]

I have a d40 with the 18-55mm lens its awesome I highly recommend Nikon have had no problems with mine yet.

[atutt]

Can anyone explain the RAW thing in laymans terms... I don't quite get it.

[blueshark123]

U really can go wrong at all with canons. I have used lots of cameras such as the 40d 20d 5d and mark2 and mark3 all those cameras are great. My favorite is the mark 3 yet it is also the most expensive lol. If i were u i would do exactly what 95blue240sx said about getting a tamron 2.8 lense witha 20d or 4od. i have one as my backup lense and its as good as the canon 2.8 one.

[blueshark123]

Can anyone explain the RAW thing in laymans terms... I don't quite get it.

idk how to explain it very well but When ur shooting raw it just alows the picture to capture more of the image this is good when ur shots are off in lighting to edit them.

[Pank]

Can anyone explain the RAW thing in laymans terms... I don't quite get it.

monitors can only display 8bits of data per pixel. this limits the colors and amount of different steps of brightness it can display.

however, your digital camera can CAPTURE 12 to 14 bits (for most dslrs) of color/brightness data per pixel.

RAW captures the 12 bit image, and allows you to select how/where you want to compress it down to the 8 bit jpg image.
I know how it works in my head, but its hard as fuck to explain.