More Important Lens or Body- Beginner

[nicole.b]

I am researching my first DSLR. I am too new to say what I will be using it for but right now my two main interest are low light and nature. My only restrictions are to be able to hike / travel with whatever I decide on and I only have a little over a thousand saved. So I settled on the XSi so I can afford a decent lens in addition too the body + kit lens. Now I am second guessing my decision should I buy a better body and wait a year so I can buy a nice lens?

[i speak in math]

If you shoot a lot of low light, I would recommend the Pentax k-x. It was just rated "best buy" by consumer reports, the only dslr in the issue to recieve that rating. Additionally, the k-x topped the list for usable ISO at 6400. The camera can hit 12,800 but thats pretty noisy. This entry level camera meets or exceeds many full frame camera like the 5DMII in both dynamic range, and IQ at high ISO.

Check it out at amazon. The 2 kit lens will only put you back ~$600. Throw another $300 in to grab the 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2 and you are set.

[driftangel]

Buy a fancy body with a simple kitlens. You never owned a DSLR so how do you know your favorite styles?

I don't know what body I would suggest you. Over a 1000 bucks for an entry is alot imo.
Have you thought about buying a t1i maybe?

And don't buy a second lens. Lenses are (maybe just a bit) more important than bodies. You should experiment with photography first, and only then buy a second lens. Bodies come and go wile lenses will stay for a long time. =)

Hope it helped.

[inkista]

No. Save up for better lenses and get a cheap body would be my advice. You're on the right track.

dSLRs are not like film cameras--they don't last you decades. And the more you pay for one, the more features you get, but they last just about as long. Remember, we are talking about electronic digital devices. How long do you keep a computer? A cellphone? An iPod?

The chances are good you're going to want to upgrade the body every three to five years, because of things like improving ISO performance and better sensors an in-camera image processing. All the camera bodies out there are good, and picking a specific model based on a single performance point is shortsighted--the technology tends to even out over the long run. Right now, one model is the bee's knees, and in six months, another round of product announcements happens and someone else is king of the hill. Chasing features is a good way to go bananas and constantly selling/buying your gear. Just figure out what you need and go from there.

Pentax makes some great camera bodies, but their current lens selection is smaller than Canon or Nikon's, and they're never going full frame--all their current lenses and dSLR are APS-C crop. The rumors are the're going medium format digital, but they can't afford to play catch-up with digital 35mm full-frame like Sony has, since they don't make their own sensors.

Now, a lens can last you decades. The problem when you're a newbie, though, is the whole chicken-and-the-egg problem of how do you know what lens you want to get (or how much you want to spend) if you've never shot with a lens before. You can read about lenses all you want, but in the end, some practical experience is going to be required to make a firm decision. But glass depreciates far slower than a body, and holds value much better, so it's worth concentrating on that. Once you've got everything mastered and the glass you want, chances are good you'll be ready to upgrade anyway, and at that point you can look for a better body.

Given the hiking restrictions, I'd also say that "small and light" is probably on your list of like-to-haves, so may be an 18-55 / 55-200 or 55-250 dual kit or an 18-200 superzoom and a 50/1.8 might be the way to start off, and then from there, see what you might need or want to pay more for, image-quality wise.

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by inkista

Pentax makes some great camera bodies, but their current lens selection is smaller than Canon or Nikon's, and they're never going full frame--all their current lenses and dSLR are APS-C crop. The rumors are the're going medium format digital, but they can't afford to play catch-up with digital 35mm full-frame like Sony has, since they don't make their own sensors.

FF isn't the end-all be-all of dSLR cameras. Pentax is skipping the FF camera (for now, at least) and is entering the medium format/FF marketplace with a fury. A weather-sealed, medium format digital at $6500 is going to be amazing. Pros looking at $34,000 dMF but can't afford them end up buying expensive FF cameras. Pentax will be taking both markets.

Anyway, what is wrong with APS-C cameras and lenses? Just because a FF camera comes out doesn't render your APS-C camera inoperable. If you can find some limitation to APS-C, thats one thing, but if you think they aren't capable of taking fantastic, pro level images, then you are sadly mistaken. Here are some random
The DA Limited Club - PentaxForums.com

[sk66]

Originally Posted by nicole.b

I am researching my first DSLR. I am too new to say what I will be using it for but right now my two main interest are low light and nature. My only restrictions are to be able to hike / travel with whatever I decide on and I only have a little over a thousand saved. So I settled on the XSi so I can afford a decent lens in addition too the body + kit lens. Now I am second guessing my decision should I buy a better body and wait a year so I can buy a nice lens?

Well, low light and nature are two opposite ends of the spectrum. For low light and scenic (and other stationary objects) you will want maximum MP's, but that will sacrifice MP's.

For wildlife the smaller sensors have some definite benefits. ( a 500mm giving a 750mm captured image).

Better lenses will last you longer than any body, but then again you have to be able to get what you want from the body to start with. (i.e. high ISO noise is usually more problematic than lens resolution) But then again better lenses are also usually faster allowing you to get more from any body....

I wish I could recommend the Pentax...I like Pentax (from my film days), but they are in a big fight for 3rd place in the market, and supply/demand makes availability/cost considerations a significant detractor for me. (Sony has a "cheap" FF body now too, but I wouldn't recommend it).

If I were starting out I would have to seriously consider Canon, and the XSi seems popular. Offhand, I'd probably buy a D90 in your position. (I know Nikon much better than canon).

[inkista]

Originally Posted by i speak in math

FF isn't the end-all be-all of dSLR cameras.... If you can find some limitation to APS-C, thats one thing, but if you think they aren't capable of taking fantastic, pro level images, then you are sadly mistaken...

Gee. Defensive, much? Exactly where did I say APS-C sucks? You did notice I shoot with a crop body myself, right? But full-frame is a very nice option to have, especially if you're planning on shooting a lot of landscape or low-light.

[RichardTaylor]

@ Nicole.

What sort of low light shooting were you looking at?
For example; Gritty urban street scenes/indoors (possibly with a flash) / or cityscapes etc with a tripod.

With nature were you thinking flowers/landscapes/wildlife/birds in flight?

For hiking/travel pics in good light almost any "standard zoom" will be fine.

The XSI is a good camera and will probably meet most of your day to day needs. However If you find yourself moving towards more challenging areas of photography you may find the body a limiting factor (like focussing speed and accuracy, frames per second and low light performance) although better lenses may help sometimes.

When making your decision keep in mind that you are buying into a system and does that system have the lenses etc to meet your future needs?

Personally I did go the entry level route (for DSLR) both for cameras and bodies, however It would have been cheaper in the long run to go with the better bodies and good lenses right from the start, although I still use my first purchases as a back up or 2nd lens/body on some shoots.
.

[Raoul Isidro]

Since this is your first DSLR, I suggest get the kit lens and the body you want. Once you are at home with your DSLR, you would be able form your needs and wants regarding upgrading. Though they may be part of a camera kit and cheap to buy, kit zooms offer outstanding value in terms of image making. I find the Canon 18-55mm IS zoom and the Nikon 55-200mm VR as truly great lenses for their purchase price.

[sk66]

I personally think the bottom of the entry level DSLRs are not really any better than advanced P&S (G11) and transition cameras. I also think advanced P&S/ transitions have some advantages at times.

If you are into photography enough that an advanced P&S/ transition is not adequate, I would recommend going to the prosumer level if you can afford it.