What camera should I get?

[ltb845]

I want to get a new camera. Right now I have a canon point and shoot and a film canon Rebel. I love taking pictures and would love to one day be able to sell my pictures. My problem is I have done too much reading. I would like to buy the Canon 50D, but have been told that is too much camera for me, that I should learn on something else. My problem is I do not want to buy a $700 -$900 camera and a year later have to buy another one because I am ready for another one. My thinking is, would it be better to just start out with something nicer and not have to trade up and spend more money later? Also, I want the camera for more of portaits, maybe a little outside of nature, and a small amount of indoor sports. Which lens do I get? Should I start out with the cheaper L series EF 70-200mm lens and maybe a 17-85mm lens? I don't live near any camera stores so I can not go in and play around with them. I just would like some help in which direction I should go so I don't make a costly mistake.

[listenthenspeak]

Hi. Well, I haven't used a lot of different DSLR's, but I like my Rebel Xsi for now. It was affordable for me, and I plan to grow within Canon. Once it's time (and I have $) to upgrade, I'll still be able to use the Xsi for a backup body, and whatever lenses I've acquired can be used for both. It's not going to make your first DSLR totally obsolete if you outgrow it--having a backup is important, especially if you'll be doing portraits.

So far for lenses, I've been stuck on my Nifty Fifty prime lens. For $90, why not go for it? I have a couple of zooms, but I think the prime is teaching me a lot about composition--it makes me really think before composing.

Those are my thoughts. I'm sure some more experienced folk can give more advice.

-Naomi

[OsmosisStudios]

If you already have a film rebel, the EF lens(es) you have will fit onto any canon dSLR. So youre in luck there.

A 50D is the end of the "amateur" range. It's a semi-pro camera. If you think youre up to it, and have the budget, then go for it. Even if it is "too much camera", you'll be learning and be able to expand quickly. When I got into the dSLR game, I went for a D80, which was sort of the equivalent of the time. I never once regretted it going any lower.

As for lenses: once you decide on a body, then choose the lenses you think you'll need. If you already have some, then that might limit your requirements.

[ltb845]

Thanks! I appreciate the help.

What camera should I get?

I'd suggest getting a good one. That should solve all your issues.

*nods*

[FoG]

Will be watching this thread closely I reckon if someone said it is too much camera for you step back and ask how many shots do I take a week can I justify the extra expenxe will I slip into the just a camera trap or stick to taking more pictures after the novelty factor of a new toy wears off. as for sense check if your lenses from the ols fil m one are compatible with the newer one to save money Sorry in the UK we have the EOS 450D and so on so Rebel Xsi etc makes no sense to me as I never remember which is which.


Personally if you are serious then get the best you can afford comfortably or get the step down and a couple of extra lenses.... then grow with it I am sure if next year you need a new camera you could in fact save and just get new lenses ... as Asomeone above mentions a Back-up camera is always going to be handy and if yer new one now becomes that so be it...

FoG

[zarquon]

I think whatever camera you get you will be very happy with. I had the Digital Rebel XT for 3 years before I upgraded. The camera worked great. Unless you NEED some of the pro features on the 50D, I'd get a cheaper body and spend money on lenes. Those will stay with you for a long long time and be used on body after body.

You could get last year's model of the Rebel, it's under $500 I think, then use that until you are ready to upgrade, let someone else take the price hit

[heathcliffe54]

Speaking to a wedding photographer I was told invest in good lenses that you can keep and can be used on your next new camera. As technology progresses as long as your new cameras have the same mounts you can use the lenses that you have over and over.

Good luck

Heathcliffe54

[candleman]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

I'd suggest getting a good one. That should solve all your issues.

*nods*

*nods in agreement*
good suggestion there

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

If you already have a film rebel, the EF lens(es) you have will fit onto any canon dSLR. So youre in luck there.

A 50D is the end of the "amateur" range. It's a semi-pro camera. If you think youre up to it, and have the budget, then go for it. Even if it is "too much camera", you'll be learning and be able to expand quickly. When I got into the dSLR game, I went for a D80, which was sort of the equivalent of the time. I never once regretted it going any lower.

As for lenses: once you decide on a body, then choose the lenses you think you'll need. If you already have some, then that might limit your requirements.

exactly the right advise.
the 50D isn too much,
if you can handle a film camerain manual mode..anything less then a 50D will be a dissapointment.

i went straight from an semi-bridge/p&s to a D80 and also.. never regretted it.

the 50D is a good camera.. i'd recomend it as a near minimum for anyone thats serious..

[inkista]

The mid-tier cameras are probably the sweet spot in terms of features/price, but this assumes one basic thing--that you have the lenses you need. If you don't have the lenses you need, chances are good that going with a lower end body to save money to spend on glass is going to get you more bang for your buck.

Bodies are far more disposable than your lenses. Your camera is unlikely to last you much past 5 years (most folks upgrade long before then). This isn't like the film days, when the improvements were mechanical. Digital SLRs are computer peripherals now. Your lenses can last you decades. The idea of spending more on a body so it will last you longer is a fallacy. Think about your computers and your iPods. With computers, does the more you pay actually mean you keep a computer longer? Or do you just have a more powerful box to play with for the same amount of time? Same thing with camera bodies.

If you aren't going to be depending heavily on the extras a 50D nets you over a lower-end body, it may be worth it at the beginning to start with an entry level body: the sensor is the same; the image quality will be the same. The 50D is about better usability, not image quality. You sure you want to pay a premium for those features? You may be paying for stuff you don't need and won't be using, because you're just going to upgrade every 3-5 years, anyway, as with all electronic toys. And the money you save can go towards better glass. The 500D is just as capable of high iso, just as capable of full Manual bells and whistles, and has the added kick of HD video. Do you really need the heavier metal body, faster frame rate, more cross-point AF sensors, interchangeable focus screens, "silent" shooting mode, ability to use a wi-fi grip, and dual control wheels? Does what you shoot depend on those features?

Candleman, with all due respect, the D80/D90 vs. the D40/D60 on the Nikon side is a different matter than the 500D/50D decision on the Canon side. Autofocus with all lenses works fine on both tiers on our side of the fence. The D80/D90 upgrade is just a bit more of a no-brainer because of the focus motor issue.

As for lenses, the 17-85 and 70-200 f/4L USM (non-IS) are both good solid lenses and good value for the money. But you may want to consider what and how you want to shoot. Both lenses are too slow for indoors available light shooting. The 70-200 might be a little short for wildlife and/or sports, depending.