New into DSLR - possibly 550D

[Jonathan Ang]

Hi guys!

I'm in the midst of how to step into the world of DSLR - ever since being disappointed with PNS but not having the budget. Having said - my budget is still very tight!

I should probably list my needs and likes:
Landscape (nature, buildings, skylines etc - thus including low light situations)
Night-shots..did i mention low light?
Macro

Currently I'm looking at the 550D, and for what it's worth, skip the 18-55mm kit lens. I'm probably going to buy a 50mm f/1.8. And left with a zoom lens to fill the gap. Would love a wide-angle lens but i don't have the budget for it..yet. does the 18-135mm kit lens suffice?

Option 1: 550D + 18-135mm kit lens + 50mm f/1.8

I just came across a recommended non-canon lens:
Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

I'm not sure how much it costs compared to the kit lens but thus option 2: 550D body + Tamron + 50mm

Any suggestions?

[rajpradhan]

I just switched over from my Nikon D90 to Canon 550D. I would say go for it! The resolution and full HD video more than justifies the moderate cost. As for lenses, you can work with kit lens for now (plus that 50mm 1.8) and buy better ones later. I got Canon 17-55 f/2.8 which is a very good lens for low light situations. Also got Sigma 150-500 for birding.

[GeStatusProductions]

I'd have to disagree. The kit lens is just so awful, seeing as the build quality and the image quality is so poor. I suggest the 50 1.8, or "Nifty Fifty" with that lens, you can shoot in almost any situation. The only drawback to the 50 is that you get what you pay for. The CA on that lens is pretty bad, but it is a great starter lens. After the 50, I purchased a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM APO (the very first one, since the macro on the newer ones are known to have focusing problems/soft pictures) and it's GREAT. I compared the Sigma to the Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 and the Sigma has more natural contrast. The price tag on the first sigma 70-200mm is about $500 cheaper than the Canon 70-200mm, and on top of that, the Sigma creates better image quality. But since those are the only two lenses I have (and my stupid 35-80mm which I avoid like the plague), I can really only suggest so much. So if you're into portraits, that could be your preferred setup (with the option of upgrading the 50mm to a 85mm 1.8, or a 50mm 1.4/1.2.)

[JerseyGirl]

Rajpradhan:
How does the speed of your 550D compare with the Nikon D90? Also, why the switch from Nikon to Canon system?

[rajpradhan]

JerseyGirl,

When I saw 550D specs I immediately wanted it. I waited for reviews and sample pics. Its ISO performance seemed good from what I saw in samples. So I bought from the the very first lot arriving in stores. Now I can confirm that ISO 1600 is perfectly usable on the Canon and ISO 3200 too if reduced to 12 megapixels. Even ISO 6400 seems quite okay if one wants to reduce the size for web purpose. Helps me a lot in getting better bird shots at dawn or dusk.

The extra 6 megapixels helps a lot in cropping, plus I can get away with higher ISO by reducing the pic to 12 megapixels (D90 resolution). I have found that ISO3200 picture from Canon 550D when reduced to 12 megapixels is much better than ISO1600 picture from Nikon D90.

Video on D90 was crippled. With Canon 550D I get full HD and more importantly, it is quite usable with phase detection AF. Saved the cost of HD camcorder.

Lastly, I had not built up substantial lens collection for the Nikon. I had kit lens 18-105 & Nikkor 70-300. Got good price in exchange. Nikon D90 had cost me INR 75K and 550D cost me just INR 42K.

[ocorrea]

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl

Rajpradhan:
How does the speed of your 550D compare with the Nikon D90? Also, why the switch from Nikon to Canon system?

After testing some Nikon and Canon cameras, I opted for the Canon, a 7D to be especific. The speed of the Canon seemed t be faster and like with most things, preference in feel, handling, etc, played a major role.