Cheaper camera with better lens, or good camera kit?

[Tranquility]

I am serious hobbyist buying my first DSLR and need some help deciding which plan is better....

Plan A. To buy a DSLR with 14mp or more, somewhere in the $800-$1200 range, with a kit lens.

Plan B. Go with a cheaper 10mp DSLR then use the extra cash for a better lens. (or two, if that is possible...)


Considerations...

Plan A appeals to me simply due to the megapixels, for I do a lot of art type work with my photography (and photoshop) and there is a chance that - yes, I may actually want poster size prints.

Plan B appeals to me because I keep hearing that it is all about the glass.

I had narrowed it down to about 3 Canons that I liked, but am not set on that.
I really have no need at all for video, so that isnt an issue, though the live view LCD does appeal to me.

I have done so much research the past few weeks... my brain hurts.
I could really use some input on the pro's and cons of both plans.
Thanks!

[jdgonzalez]

You can get some great poster size prints with a 10MP sensor. I'd go for the less expensive model and buy good lenses. To me, they make all the difference. Lenses will last you multiple bodies.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by Tranquility

I am serious hobbyist buying my first DSLR and need some help deciding which plan is better....

Plan A. To buy a DSLR with 14mp or more, somewhere in the $800-$1200 range, with a kit lens.

Plan B. Go with a cheaper 10mp DSLR then use the extra cash for a better lens. (or two, if that is possible...)

Plan C: 12mpix Pentax K-x at $500, with kit lens. Then, with the remaining money, pick up a couple of the unique and beautiful Limited primes. And/or perhaps the Lensbaby Muse or Composer. Possibly sell the kit lens on ebay. What do you with your photographic art? I can make some more specific suggetions.

[scootermcq]

I don't think anyone can answer that with the information provided. I have a 6mp body that I have no problem making 16x20 images from and I use it outdoors because it syncs at 1/1000 with flash, really allowing me to knock down sun. Now, if I move indoors even with a f1.8 lens it will not do well in higher ISO and produce garbage. Every body & lens has pros and cons and you need to look at what you will be focusing on with your photography.

Forget MP... they are numbers to help sell cameras to those who don't know. Any modern body has enough pixels to produce amazing images. The rest just take up hard drive & memory card space. (although I imagine I am gonna get flamed for that statement)

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Tranquility

Considerations...

Plan A appeals to me simply due to the megapixels, for I do a lot of art type work with my photography (and photoshop) and there is a chance that - yes, I may actually want poster size prints.

I did the experiment the other day: the difference in image size between 12mp and 14mp is 320pixels on the long side and 240 pixels on the short. In other words, unnoticeable. What you're likely to see is that 14mp sensors are NEWER so they're attached to more powerful processors, and that's the important part. If the camera doesnt show noise as much, or is nominally sharper, then there's a difference.

That being said, if your budget is in the $800-$1200 range, then I'd wait a few weeks if you can and see what happens at Photokina and see if there are any reviews that come out quickly.

megapixels, especially at this point in the game, arent the big thing they once were

[Tranquility]

I thank you all for the replies and advice!

I had heard that 10mp is more than enough, but wasn't sure.

As for my art, I do many different things, a lot of photoshop.. one thing in particular I like to do is turn portraits into art, I do a lot of drawing in PS, a lot of "pop art" type stuff. Always ready to try something new with it. So these lenses - Lensbaby Muse / Composer, what do they do?

More powerful processor? Ok, so now that I am past the mexapixel issue, what are some main specs I should be looking for?

Any suggestions on good lenses to start with?

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by Tranquility

As for my art, I do many different things, a lot of photoshop.. one thing in particular I like to do is turn portraits into art, I do a lot of drawing in PS, a lot of "pop art" type stuff. Always ready to try something new with it. So these lenses - Lensbaby Muse / Composer, what do they do?

They do this: Lensbaby - Photo Gallery

Originally Posted by Tranquility

More powerful processor? Ok, so now that I am past the mexapixel issue, what are some main specs I should be looking for?

Clean, low-noise high-ISO is nice. Image stabilization is also nice. But basically, all recent dSLRs are really, really good.

Originally Posted by Tranquility

Any suggestions on good lenses to start with?

I like to encourage people with an interest in learning photography to read this: The Online Photographer: The Case Against Zooms

[Tranquility]

Great! Thanks for the links!

[inkista]

I went the low-end body/high-end glass route before upgrading to a midrange body. But one thing to consider is that going for a better lens right off the bat really only works out well if you already know what lens you want.

dSLR lenses are special purpose tools, and which ones you're going to want/need/afford depend a lot on your personal style, choice of subject matter, camera body, and budget. You don't want to be asking, "what's the best lens to get?" What you want to be asking is "what lens is the best fit for me and what I shoot?"

My general recommendation if you're a hobby shooter who's not going to be pursuing photography full time, is to get the kit lens that comes with camera, an entry level lens to cover telephoto lengths, and a single low-cost fast prime. Typically, a 18-55, a 55-200ish, and a 35/2ish or 50/1.8. Others will disagree. Violently. And rightly so. This is a personal-taste/budget thing. But these three basic lenses will give you a taste of wide vs. telephoto, fast vs. slow, prime vs. zoom, and (usually) stabilized vs. unstabilized. You can also typically get this kind of three lens combo for $400-$500, which is around the price of one good mid-level lens. And if you're only shooting on weekends and vacations around your day job, then the chances are good you'll be satisfied with these lenses for long enough to make the purchase price worth it.

Others will advocate going straight for the $1000+ pro glass, or a $600-ish 18-200ish superzoom instead of the two lens kit, but (obviously) these are more expensive propositions on what may turn out to be a "training wheels" lens. The advantages of going with the $1000+ pro lenses are that you aren't going to lose much if you end up flipping the glass, and with the 18-200 that you can avoid lens changing and still have a travel lens when you move on.

I'd also recommend taking a cruise through this basic guide to lenses, so at least you'll have a grasp on what most of the features on lenses means in practical shooting terms. I'd also recommend, since you mention portraits, that you pay special attention to the section on maximum aperture.

[Tranquility]

Thanks for the detailed reply. You have a very good point indeed.

I am just now reading up and learning all I can about lenses.
One problem I keep running into again and again is that silly question - yes, the one you mentioned - which lens would be best for me and what I shoot?

What is it that I intend to take pictures of?
EVERYTHING. lol

Perhaps as I learn and grow I will come to have more of a set style, preference or needs. Right now I only have ideas on what those things might be.

I think I will go with your advice. Thanks!