Help required for my first DSLR

[scarycamper]

Hi all
I'm new to the forum and would like a little advice!!! I thought I'd decided on the Canon 600d/Rebel T3i but after reading a couple of articles am now considering the Sony alpha a55.
I have been told to stick with either a Nikon or a Canon but the Sony seems to be on the same playing field at a lower cost... Any advice would be really helpful.. Thanks

[OsmosisStudios]

Why are you considering a Sony? Why did you buy the Canon? There are reasons for and against each.

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by scarycamper

...I have been told to stick with either a Nikon or a Canon but the Sony seems to be on the same playing field at a lower cost...

In what regard? Camera body? Lenses? Flash?

Keep in mind when you buy a DSLR you're not really just buying a camera. You're buying a system. The camera itself is just your starting piece, it's like an empty toolbox. Which camera brand you select and what lens mount and other accessories it supports pretty much dictates what equipment you'll buy in the future. So the smart thing to do is to look at things like the selection of lenses available for your particular choice of mount system and make sure you'd be happy with your choices. Remember that the smart money is to invest more in your lenses than your camera body. Glass tends to hold its value, cameras depreciate as new models are released in the cycle.

[scarycamper]

okay I haven't bought the camera yet I'm getting it for Christmas. I'm a complete novice at photography at least with a dslr I really enjoyed using a compact but haven't been able to get the shots I want close ups and so forth. I am planning to go on a beginners course, I have spoken to the only person I know that uses a dslr how it should be used and that's who recommended either canon or nikon. the camera choice was mine I have a budget which ruled out the nikon D5100. I was looking at the sony compared to the canon and the main difference seems to be fps the canon is running at 3.7 the sony however says it runs at 10. Now looking at the two I don't know what I really need to look for.

[scarycamper]

Thanks Ceremus I have tried to take into consideration that I will not be able to upgrade the camera in the near future so thought it would be better to get a slightly better entry level and then build up my lens collection I'm starting off with the basic set 18-55ml lens but am looking at buying another lens as well. Advice on that would be appreciated, my main shots to begin with will be my family portraits & landscapes/scenery shots, as well as anything else that I can practice on.

[scarycamper]

Thanks Ceremus, I have tried to take into consideration that I won't be able to upgrade in the near future so thought that a slightly better entry level would be a good option and then I can build up my lens collection, help on that would also be appreciated, my main shots will family portraits my own family, and scenery shots thanks

[RichardTaylor]

Almost any DSLR will be fine for family/portraits (depending on the lighting) with a kit lens (and maybe a 50mm F1.8) and even a good P&S will be fine for landscapes/scenery in a lot of cases.

For the family stuff have a look at SusanH1970's Flickr photostream. Her camera/lens is entry level (She does have good external lighting gear) .

Flickr: Susan Harrington Photography's Photostream

It's only when you really start to push things that the differences become apparent.

In line with ceremus's post.

Do the $$$ numbers for an "whole" basic system (this will take care of a lot of shooting situations, some you may not encounter when you first start out.
Do not be supprised at how much it all costs.

(1) Basic body + kit lens .
(2) Ultrawide zoom (10-24mm range)
(3) long zoom (70-300 or even out to 400mm)
(4) Fast primes 35mm F2, 50mm F2 & 100mm F2.
(5) One or two external flashguns, and a remote for them.

I do all my shooting with similar lenses to the above

After that you get into the 70-200 F2.8's (great for events) and tilt/shift lenses - great for architecture and landscapes. (I don't own any of the these lenses, but sometimes wish I did have a 70-200 F2.8).

Also do not get hung up on individual specs.
Go into a camera store and pick up a camera and see how it feels and looks to you. You may not like an electronic viewfinder or you may feel a flip out screen would be handy.

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by scarycamper

...
I was looking at the sony compared to the canon and the main difference seems to be fps the canon is running at 3.7 the sony however says it runs at 10. Now looking at the two I don't know what I really need to look for.

While there is a difference in fps between those two cameras, that's actually one of the lesser differences. The foremost distinction between those two that you'd notice right off the bat is the a55 has an electronic viewfinder somewhat similar to a traditional camcorder, while the T3i's viewfinder is optical, you see straight through the camera exactly what the lens sees. There are pluses and minuses to either an optical or electronic viewfinder, but for sure they're distinctly different from one another.

Also starkly different are the implementations of stabilization between Sony and Canon. Canon, like Nikon, builds its stabilizer into its lenses. This can be a very effective method of stabilization, especially since you can see the stabilized view through an optical viewfinder in real time, but it also means that some lenses won't have a stabilizer, and some that do will be more expensive. Sony, like Pentax and (I believe) Olympus, build the stabilizer into the sensor.

[inkista]

Along with Richard, I'd like to caution you that jumping from a P&S camera to a dSLR may be a whole lot more expensive than you think. The cost of the camera body is maybe about a third of what most folks eventually shell out on a system. Lenses aren't accessories, so much as the other half of the camera, and as Ceremus points out, they're the half that are more likely to stay with you longer.

dSLR bodies are like any other digital electronics: they break down, they go out of date, and are continually upgraded with new features. Chances are good you aren't likely to keep a dSLR for much longer than you've kept a P&S camera for these reasons.

I'd also caution you against assuming that a dSLR is going to take better closeups out of the box than a P&S camera. Optics/physics work a certain way, and the sensor size difference between the two types of cameras actually means that a P&S can usually do better at macro out of the box than an 18-55 kitted dSLR. The bigger sensor size means larger focal lengths, which in term translate into thinner DoF [how much you can hold in focus all at the same time]. Close focusing on a dSLR generally will require a macro lens, or "poor man's" macro techniques, which can severely limit your capability to frame a shot. I generally recommend that if you're into macro shooting, that you hold onto your P&S for a while until you can afford a macro lens.

A dSLR is not (strictly) a P&S upgrade. You're going from a swiss army knife to a big red tool box. And you're still going to have to buy the tools, and you're probably not going to find nail scissors or tweezers in a big red toolbox. You'll be dropping some features, as well as gaining some. Just so's you know.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by scarycamper

Thanks Ceremus, I have tried to take into consideration that I won't be able to upgrade in the near future so thought that a slightly better entry level would be a good option and then I can build up my lens collection

ALl the cameras you've listed (T3, a55, D5100) are entry-level. They're the base.