What DSLR Should I Buy?

[Passion - Photography]

I currently have a Point-and-Shoot camera, have been shooting for a year, and think I'm ready to move on to a small DSLR. (Hoping to sell and get a little cash from my P&S) I want to have control...I want to set my shutter spead, aperature, etc. I'm sick of not having power!

Moving on. I want to have a small DSLR, I still consider myself new and don't want to have some giant extrememly proffesional camera that I don't know what to do with.
I want to spend about $400 - $500. If the camera is amazing, or I simply can't get the best quality at that price, I can consider $600.

What I Want

I want to be able to set my aperature, shutter speed, etc. I want more control!
Viewfinder (I guess that comes on all DSLRs....)
Maybe the possibility of TIF or RAW?
And then just of course the best picture quality, battery life, etc. possible!

Please give your suggestions, recomendations and thoughts!

Thanks.

[OsmosisStudios]

Unless you go used or previous generation, youre not likely to find much under $600. I'll let Inkista give you the "A DSLR is not an upgrade" talk.

[inkista]

[grin]. Ever ready for this one.

Originally Posted by Passion - Photography

I currently have a Point-and-Shoot camera, have been shooting for a year, and think I'm ready to move on to a small DSLR.

While it's entirely possible that you're ready for a dSLR, you're actually not saying anything that's convincing me you need one. The reasons to move to a dSLR are more along the lines of:

• I want more control over the settings.
• I want more control over the processing.
• I hate the shutter lag. I hate the power-on lag.
• I want to use a variety of lenses.
• I need better high iso performance.
• I want to shoot low light.
• I want to shoot fast action.

The only bullet point I'm reading in your list, really, is the first one.

And there are point and shoot cameras with the so-called PSAM modes (Programmable Auto, Shutter priority, Aperture priority, Manual).

I want to have a small DSLR, I still consider myself new and don't want to have some giant extrememly proffesional camera that I don't know what to do with.

Ok, just so's you know. A dSLR will never be as small, inconspicuous, or convenient to pocket as a P&S camera. Folks who own dSLRs own P&S pocketcams, too, for this very reason. You are not going to keep someone from noticing you're taking pictures, if you're slinging an SLR in front of your face. Just that simple.

And you're likely to be toting a camera bag with you when you shoot with an SLR. Bringing along other lenses,a flash, filters, and a tripod is something a lot of us do. The analogy I overuse is that a P&S camera is like a swiss army knife--a dSLR is like a big red toolbox. You'll have better tools, but it's gonna be bigger, heavier, and hecka more expensive. And you still have to buy the tools to put in the toolbox.

I want to spend about $400 - $500. If the camera is amazing, or I simply can't get the best quality at that price, I can consider $600.

From a dSLR user's point of view, you're probably not going to get an amazing camera for $600. But you can certainly get a good one. From a P&S user's point of view, the camera will probably be amazing. But the camera is not the only thing you have to buy. The camera body is only half of your camera. You also have to get a lens. And lenses? Sorry. They can cost as much or more than the body. So, your budget is on the low side. You can get an entry-level new dSLR, or a used one with an 18-55 kit lens lens, but you may not have enough money to get much more than that.

And an 18-55 kit lens is limited. It's not bad. It's made for vacation snapshot type photos: landscapes and people in front of landscapes. But low light capability it does not have. Nor macro capability. Or a lot of telephoto zoominess. You may actually end up, in some ways, with less function than your L100 has. Are you ok with that? And are you willing to get more money together to buy more lenses to shoot macro and telephoto and in low light? Not to mention a camera bag, a tripod, a flash, etc.

dSLRs are a lot more expensive than P&S cameras, because they're systems, not self-contained units. Most folks will end up spending two or three times what they did on the body on lenses and other gear. It can become a never-ending money pit.

I want to be able to set my aperature, shutter speed, etc. I want more control!
Viewfinder (I guess that comes on all DSLRs....)
Maybe the possibility of TIF or RAW?
And then just of course the best picture quality, battery life, etc. possible!

You know, you could probably get all that with a Canon Powershot G12.

It's just a thought.

[jml79]

Looking at Adorama, between $500-600 they have decent kits with memory cards and bags and accesories. Your options would be, in no particular order:

New Sony A390 w/18-55
New Sony A550 w/18-55
New Pentax K-x w/18-55
Refurbished Nikon 5000 w/18-55 VR
New Canon XS w/18-55
Refurbished Canon XSi w/18-55 IS

With the Sony's and the Pentax you get in body image stabilization and a new camera. Canon and Nikon you have to buy stabilized lenses and except for the XS you will get a refurbished camera. The Nikon 5000 will also not be able to use older, used Nikon lenses with autofocus.

Canon and Nikon are the industry leaders and you have a huge range of accesories and a larger choice of lenses (except the Nikon issue mentioned earlier). It is also easier to find places that carry them. The Sony and Pentax cameras are less expensive, you never have to buy a more expensive IS/VR lens and the camera's in your budget are newer designs than either the Canon or Nikon.

I would likely buy the Sony A550 kit for $599 because this camera should have the most features and room to grow of the cameras you can afford. It can also use any Minolta AF lenses from the mid 80's on. And I also happen to like them. Remember that you are not just buying a camera, you are buying into a system. What you buy today can affect your pocket book for years to come.

[jml79]

I like reading Inkista's posts.

You know, you could probably get all that with a Canon Powershot G12.

It's just a thought.

This is a great camera, I have used one often. I also love my SX20is. No Raw but extreme zoom, decent IQ and it is so convenient. It has full PASM modes and a viewfinder (electronic but it's decent) and a flash shoe as a bonus. I upgraded to a DSLR for speed and DOF control. My SX20is can only shoot at about 1 FPS and can only blur the background at near full zoom (around 500mm) so I have to be a mile away to get any bokeh.

Inkista is right. You will likely want to spend another $500+ to get a 70-300 zoom lens, a 50mm 1.8 and some sort of flash. Then a tripod and a sling bag and now you have a 25lb camera kit to carry everywhere. My SX20is fits in a small camera bag, always has the right lens and can be had for around $300. Then you still have money for a flash, tripod, memory card, batteries and a small bag.

[Passion - Photography]

Originally Posted by inkista

[grin]. Ever ready for this one.


While it's entirely possible that you're ready for a dSLR, you're actually not saying anything that's convincing me you need one. The reasons to move to a dSLR are more along the lines of:

• I want more control over the settings.
• I want more control over the processing.
• I hate the shutter lag. I hate the power-on lag.
• I want to use a variety of lenses.
• I need better high iso performance.
• I want to shoot low light.
• I want to shoot fast action.

The only bullet point I'm reading in your list, really, is the first one.

And there are point and shoot cameras with the so-called PSAM modes (Programmable Auto, Shutter priority, Aperture priority, Manual).


Ok, just so's you know. A dSLR will never be as small, inconspicuous, or convenient to pocket as a P&S camera. Folks who own dSLRs own P&S pocketcams, too, for this very reason. You are not going to keep someone from noticing you're taking pictures, if you're slinging an SLR in front of your face. Just that simple.

And you're likely to be toting a camera bag with you when you shoot with an SLR. Bringing along other lenses,a flash, filters, and a tripod is something a lot of us do. The analogy I overuse is that a P&S camera is like a swiss army knife--a dSLR is like a big red toolbox. You'll have better tools, but it's gonna be bigger, heavier, and hecka more expensive. And you still have to buy the tools to put in the toolbox.


From a dSLR user's point of view, you're probably not going to get an amazing camera for $600. But you can certainly get a good one. From a P&S user's point of view, the camera will probably be amazing. But the camera is not the only thing you have to buy. The camera body is only half of your camera. You also have to get a lens. And lenses? Sorry. They can cost as much or more than the body. So, your budget is on the low side. You can get an entry-level new dSLR, or a used one with an 18-55 kit lens lens, but you may not have enough money to get much more than that.

And an 18-55 kit lens is limited. It's not bad. It's made for vacation snapshot type photos: landscapes and people in front of landscapes. But low light capability it does not have. Nor macro capability. Or a lot of telephoto zoominess. You may actually end up, in some ways, with less function than your L100 has. Are you ok with that? And are you willing to get more money together to buy more lenses to shoot macro and telephoto and in low light? Not to mention a camera bag, a tripod, a flash, etc.

dSLRs are a lot more expensive than P&S cameras, because they're systems, not self-contained units. Most folks will end up spending two or three times what they did on the body on lenses and other gear. It can become a never-ending money pit.


You know, you could probably get all that with a Canon Powershot G12.

It's just a thought.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate you spending the time to type this up.

And by a small DSLR, I didn't mean like small-small. I meant like in my price range I'm going to be looking for a DSLR that resembles more of a P&S than some gigantic thing.

I realize everything about the extra costs of lenses, bags, tripods etc. I started with scratch with my P&S and know that I could save for others, I've found some kits with lenses that would work just fine for me for a while.


I do want to really up my go, and I feel limeted and that I can't do that with my L100.

Your thoughts are something I will definately consider. Thank you much again.

[inkista]

Hey, no worries. We love it when someone wants to go wholehog and grab a dSLR--makes us seem a little less looney. But you do need to know that you're not "upgrading" so much as switching courses. Right off the bat, you're likely to lose macro capability and telephoto reach, and your images can now be out of focus, and by default, are possibly going to look a little fuzzier and grayer than you're used to on a P&S camera, because the assumption is that you'll want to do the post-processing yourself on an image-by-image basis, rather than using one-sized-fits-all processing.

OTOH, you will be getting much faster responsiveness, the ability to throw the background out of focus, better high-iso performance, larger dynamic range, RAW capability, and more bells and whistles to play with, including the ability to light things with external flashes (you can do this with P&S cameras, but it's more of a pain without a hotshoe).

Right now, all the dSLR bodies are good. There's not a bad one in the bunch. The differences between brands (that we'll all squabble over), actually isn't that huge when you look at the entry-level bodies. It's bigger in terms of the rest of the system. Nikon and Canon are the largest systems with the most room for future expansion. But the only type of shooting that I think would limit you to Nikon or Canon is sports or other fast-action photography, just because of lens selections. Everybody can cover landscapes, portraits, and street shooting well with their body and lens offerings.

To me the only major gotchas to consider are that Pentax and Olympus don't make full-frame bodies, and that Nikon has a focus motor issue with their entry-level bodies (only AF-S lenses autofocus on the two lowest tiers of their bodies). Otherwise, it's all about the lenses.

A dSLR body is easily the most disposable part of the system. Most folks flip through them, upgrading and swapping out every 3-5 years, as with most other digital equipment like computers or cellphones. Your lenses are your permanent purchase, and are likely to be the biggest reason you're going to stay with a mount system.

So, yeah, while you're in information overload over different dSLR camera features, then you have to go and learn about lenses, too. And then you have to go and learn about post-processing. Sorry. And here's the worst part. You might still, even after spending all this money, and having all this cool gear and neat knowledge, still be doing nothing more than taking glorified snapshots. Because you also have to learn the Art of taking photos.

This is why, if a P&S camera can work for you, you might want to figure out some of this stuff before jumping ship. You can post-process images from a P&S camera just as well as from a dSLR. You can also practice the exposure triangle with a P&S camera that has a full Manual mode. A P&S actually makes it easier to learn the effects of iso, aperture, and shutter speed because it'll have liveview with exposure simulation, so you can see the effects the settings will have as you flip the settings around. And most importantly, you can always practice the art of photographic composition, no matter what camera you're using.

[Vernian]

Originally Posted by inkista

But you do need to know that you're not "upgrading" so much as switching courses. Right off the bat, you're likely to lose macro capability and telephoto reach, and your images can now be out of focus, and by default, are possibly going to look a little fuzzier and grayer than you're used to on a P&S camera, because the assumption is that you'll want to do the post-processing yourself on an image-by-image basis, rather than using one-sized-fits-all processing.

This is very useful info for others of us thinking about going down this route too. However I have one question - does going to a DSLR automatically mean that your images can be out of focus. I thought that many DSLR lense make use of auto-focus, or is this wrong?

[Michael_2010]

Originally Posted by Vernian

This is very useful info for others of us thinking about going down this route too. However I have one question - does going to a DSLR automatically mean that your images can be out of focus. I thought that many DSLR lense make use of auto-focus, or is this wrong?

AutoFocus is great in many situations, but will bounce around all over the place in complicated settings and can leave you with fuzzy pictures except for that one leaf at the back of the tree. Once you get comfortable with your dSLR, you will find yourself switching to manual focus more and more. It's about controlling the end result instead of letting a camera homogenize everything and spit out that Kodak moment we all have sitting around in a shoe box somewhere.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Vernian

... does going to a DSLR automatically mean that your images can be out of focus. I thought that many DSLR lense make use of auto-focus, or is this wrong?

No, this is correct, autofocus is the default way that most people will focus with a dSLR, and it works very well. "Can get out of focus" doesn't mean "will". And this is actually both a feature AND a bug. Being able to get things out of focus is how you get that blurred-background thin-DoF thing. A P&S has a much harder time doing this (aside from macro mode), because of the size of the sensor requiring equally small lenses. When you're shooting at 5mm, everything's in focus, and when you're at f/4, it's like shooting at f/16 with dSLR.

The thing with a dSLR is that you have to pay attention to focusing. And there are times when it can be critical, and you (and the autofocus system) can miss. You may only off by a hair, but it can make a difference. With a dSLR, you have to work at knowing how your autofocus system works--something a P&S pretty much didn't require you to do.

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

AutoFocus is great in many situations, but will bounce around all over the place in complicated settings and can leave you with fuzzy pictures except for that one leaf at the back of the tree. Once you get comfortable with your dSLR, you will find yourself switching to manual focus more and more. ...

I agree that manual focus is much easier to use and more useful on a dSLR than on a P&S camera. In particular situations, such as shooting through a fence or glass, or focusing on a subject below water and in critical focusing situations like macro shooting or with very thin depth of field, having manual focus is great. But I'm not certain I agree with the "switching to manual focus more and more."

Today's dSLRs and lenses are optimized for autofocus, and you actually have fewer features for manually focusing than back in the days of manual focus film SLRs. Lenses rarely have useful distance scales, most no longer have DoF scales, and the focus "throw" (i.e., the distance the MF ring travels from near focus to infinity) is typically shorter to help speed up autofocus. And in the camera bodies, focus screens tend to be matte screens without manual focusing aids like prism collars or split circles in order to optimize the amount of light coming into the viewfinder, since half of the light is now directed to the sensor for AE/AF purposes.