Taking the step into the DSLR world.

[Csweetness]

I'm wanting to take the step to buy a DSLR camera and was wondering if the Canon 60D or Nikon D7000 would be too advanced to buy as a first? I want a camera I won't outgrow and I don't mind spending the extra money to get one that will last me a very long time. My goal is to practice and learn as a hobby and see where it takes me. I am a photo fanatic and have a camera everywhere I go. I figure photography is my passion, since I can't get enough of it. I just don't want to get in way over my head with a crazy camera I will not be able to learn very easily. Anyone have any suggestions or feedback?

[cyber3d]

Any DSLR at that level would be great for you. If you plan on doing video as well then consider the 60D a better choice. Check the web to see how much praise the 60D gets for its video.

IMHO, both Canon and Nikon make cameras that you'll have for many, many years. They are very much equal in performance.

Consider the cost of lenses
The quality of the lens glass
The cost of accessories

Go to a local store and handle both cameras. Is one more natural in your hands? Are the controls easier and more intuitive on the Canon or the Nikon?

Get two SD cards and shoot the same shots with both cameras (at their highest quality settings) and when you get home take a good look at both images. They will be very similar, but you will most likely "feel" better about one or the other. Shoot those pics both indoors and outdoors.

Good Luck!

.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Csweetness

I'm wanting to take the step to buy a DSLR camera and was wondering if the Canon 60D or Nikon D7000 would be too advanced to buy as a first?

Not if you can a) afford the glass to go with the camera as well, and b) you're either an experienced SLR shooter, c) or are pursuing photography education half-to-full time, or d) plan on mostly shooting fast-action subjects like sports or wildlife, where you need the higher-end autofocus system and framerate.

If you're a newbie, however, with a limited budget, you're not intent on being a sports shooter, and you're only shooting on the weekends around your day job, I'd suggest rethinking whether or not going with an entry level and blowing the cash on glass might not be a better route. dSLRs are digital electronics. Like computers and cellphones, they tend to last only so long before you want to upgrade. Going upscale generally doesn't mean you're going to keep it longer. It just means you'll have more features to enjoy while you do own it.

The lenses are going to be your permanent purchase, and they're probably going to end up costing you more than your camera bodies.

Just my opinion.

[Csweetness]

So you think I should start out with a more entry level camera body and purchase a nicer lense? I have 3 kids I want to capture, as well as families, events, etc. I want to have a fairly decent body that I can learn on, but also one I won't outgrow right away. I have been reading a lot about the different opinions photographers have about how to purchase your first SLR. I'm leaning towards buying a camera body and a nicer lense seperate, instead of the kit lense. I want a decent prime lens for portraits and a good zoom lense. What do you think the best set up would be?

[RichardTaylor]

What's your budget?

[Csweetness]

I would say I am looking at spending about $2,000.00.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Csweetness

So you think I should start out with a more entry level camera body and purchase a nicer lense?

Not so much that as go downscale to keep some cash in reserve for nice lenses. Given that your budget is $2000, you can easily go with a mid-tier body like the D60. Most people assume they can blow 90% of their budget on the body, and only 10% on lenses, and get away with a $1000 budget for the whole thing. It doesn't work that way.

I have 3 kids I want to capture, as well as families, events, etc. I want to have a fairly decent body that I can learn on, but also one I won't outgrow right away. I have been reading a lot about the different opinions photographers have about how to purchase your first SLR.

That's good. There's no one best way to do it, because everybody's needs are different. Knowing what your priorities are is the best guide to what and how to purchase your gear.

I'm leaning towards buying a camera body and a nicer lense seperate, instead of the kit lense. I want a decent prime lens for portraits and a good zoom lense. What do you think the best set up would be?

This is my opinion, and zillions disagree, but get a kit lens with the camera (as long as it's a Canon kit all in the box, and not a dealer "kit", where they upsell you without giving you much of a discount). Typically, the Canon kits are actually giving you a decent walkaround lens at a discount. In the case of the 60D, the EF-S 18-135 IS. On B&H, the kit is about $250 more than the body only. And that lens on its own is $450. So you're getting a $200 discount, and a good starter lens with a very versatile focal length range, stabilization, and decent image quality.

You could blow most of the rest of your budget on a better/faster lens, true. But until you have experience with lenses, it's hard to know what lenses you actually want. This way, you've got a cheap way to figure out focal lengths you favor and what stabilization can do for you. Using this lens, you can more easily figure out WHICH portrait prime lens you want, given that looking at the EXIF information will help you suss out if there are specific focal lengths you favor for taking portraits. Or maybe if getting an f/2.8 zoom will be more worth it to you. When this lens gets supplanted, you can still retain it as a cheap travel lens for those times you don't want to risk having your good lens broken/stolen/lost.

For a fast portrait prime, the 50/1.8 II is a good "training wheels" lens to start with, but since you have the budget, I'd suggest looking at the focal lengths you use with the 18-135, and then decide on either the 35/2, 50/1.4, or 85/1.8.

For a telephoto zoom, your two more likely choices are the EF 70-300 IS USM (if you want something small, compact, with extra reach), or the EF 70-200 f/4L USM (if you prefer better image quality). Or. You can save up for the substantially more expensive 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, if you were planning on using this long lens inside the house without a flash.

A Nikon shooter can tell you what all the Nikon equivalents would be in that list above.

You may also want to consider whether or not you want an external flash, both to use on-camera for events, and off-camera for portraits.

My last word of advice: add lenses and other gear one piece at a time. It's tough enough to learn how to shoot with a dSLR without throwing a ton of variables into the mix. Take the time to learn each lens/piece of gear thoroughly before getting another one. Different gear require mastering different technique, and each one takes a bit of time to suss out.

[Csweetness]

Thank you so much for all your help. I also see that B&H Photo bundles the 60D with a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lense. Would that be a better bundle than the 18-135mm?

[inkista]

In my opinion, no. The 18-200 is significantly more expensive, and the image quality isn't as good, because the larger zoom range creates more compromises in the lens. But. If you think the price difference and quality hit is worth the additional reach, then maybe it's the way to go.

Again, it depends on you and what you need.