Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras

It's interesting, but not surprising, that so many of these recommendations are meant to steer you toward the purchase of either a Canon or Nikon DSLR, even if that recommendation would put you out of your stated price range. There have been few mentions of Pentax, and one of those was from a poster who somehow views Pentax's aborted merger with a lens filter manufacturer as a reason to avoid their products.

The fact is that Pentax provides a model which is specifically targeted for those of us in the market for an entry level DSLR: the 6 Megapixel K100D/K110D. I opted for the K110D which is identical to the K100D save the absence of the Petnax Shake Reduction technology. Price with the 15-55mm f4-5.6 kit lens was $400.00; $350.00 after Pentax rebate which has been extended to May 31. Buy another of Pentax's current model lenses and get another $50.00 rebate.

Why no one else has made this recommendation is a puzzle, but I suspect that most people just default to Canon and Nikon, or perhaps have a pointed anti-Pentax bias. Is the K100D any good? I'd say so, but don't take my word for it:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Pentax_K100D_body_with_18mm_55mm_lens_kit/4505-6501_7-31941974.html?tag=prod.txt.1

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/k100d.html

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/

Also, I recommend that you actually physically handle and evaluate it with specific attention to the build quality; something I suspect most buyers don't do. Compare the K100D to the already recommended, and considerably more expensive models from Nikon and Canon. You might be surprised by that comparison.

Good Luck.

O. Hunter

I started with the Fuji finepix S602zoom - a wonderful camera which I still use, but it does have shutter lag.

Then I got the Nikon D70s DSLR (A kit with 2 lenses: Nikkor 18-20mmf/3.5G IF-ED DX lens and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor lens)

At first I found the change very frustrating because I was used to seeing the image in the viewfinder immediately after I had taken it and now I had to take my eye from the viewfinder and put on my glasses to see the image on the screen! Also, it was much harder to cature the image I wanted as I had done in the past. With my Fugi, what I adjusted in my viewfinder was what I got, but with the Nikon everything was either too dark or too light.

I have at last mastered it to some extent but what I find wonderful about the DSLR is the amazing dynamic range within the images and far more photographs can be rescued in the editing stage than could be with the Fugi. I think that for images that are for the most part fine as they come out of the camera the "prosumer" cameras are best and if you are taking many images in a hurry and need to zoom in and out without changing lenses they are invaluable, but for portrait shots and landscapes, the DSLR is wonderful.

I also bought the Panasonic Lumix DMC - FZ30 because of it's extra zoom but I find it much more grainy than the Fugi and it hunts at full zoom which can be very frustrating. However with my three cameras I can capture totally different images of the same view all with a different "mood" and colour spectrum!

The Fugi is especially good at grabbing shots from a moving vehicle so I always travel with it on my lap, and my husband doesn't even have to stop the car!

In conclusion, it depends what sort of a photographer you are. DSLRs take a much longer learning curve and the images need a lot of editing to get them perfect and prosumers are great for fast work, producing images that don't need that much editing but which lack the dynamic range of the DSLRs.

For your budget, the Canon is excellent but for the same reasons already mentioned, the Nikon fits better in my larger hands. And if the camera doesn't fit in your hands, it's as good as worthless.

Regarding frames per second, there's not a chance you will get over 3 FPS for under $1000. And NOTHING will even do that unless you get good fast media to write to. Buy cheapo memory cards and you will be limited to a much slower write speed. I don't know where someone got 5 or 6 FPS but I researched it a lot and there's just nothing out there but the expensive professional cameras well out of your price range. But take heart: I'm capturing hummingbirds in flight (http://files.tagworld.com/7b014a6a9f3f40e7b0f8b915f23db09e.jpeg) and dragonflies buzzing by (http://files.tagworld.com/384b103af88d414b84284e7517354e82.jpeg) with 2.2 frames per second with my Nikon D80 and a slow memory card. Timing and practicing "aim and focus" on EVERYTHING that moves got me fast enough to catch anything I want to catch, including butterflies in flight.

I'd also like to suggest you buy from Ritz or one of their family of stores. One of the major selling points for me going there was the awesome service agreements and the FREE CLASSES. In just one class, you can learn a TON about photography and a good teacher will be able to answer your questions about your camera as well. I studied digital photography about a year before buy my D80 and learned more in two hours than two books combined. LOL! (No, I don't work for Ritz or any camera store; I shopped stores as well.)

My Nikon does have a major dust problem and I really take care of it. But just opening the body and changing lenses gets dust everywhere and cleaning it out is almost impossible. Canon has a huge advantage there. I've taken to just marking where the dust is and editing it out in the processing stage - a poor man's work-around and it sucks royally.

The one thing I didn't read (and I'm sorry but I didn't read all 100 comments/replies! DAMN!!!!) is that you'll be spending a ton more than the camera on lenses for macro (extreme close-up) photography using DSLR. This disturbed me greatly since I fell in love with macro using cheapo cameras and my "pocket rocket" Olympus IR-500. So whatever you do, KEEP YOUR CHEAPO CAMERAS! If not for that foresight, I'm be out another $300 for DSLR macro!! If you get a good intermediate zoom lens for your DSLR tho, you can reasonably hold it steady enough for what appears to be extreme close-ups and you can also hold it steady using a tripod. Once again, the Canon has the advantage there as they have less expensive lenses with anti-shake build-in. At 50 years old, anti-shake (or a firm tripod) is...uh, vital for me with telephoto lenses. LMAO!

Finally, whatever feels right for you is right for you. You want to take photos. If you hate your camera or even don't feel it's an extension of your eyes and hands, it's worthless at any price. I got Nikon, some get Canon, and some get at least 10 other good to great brands. If you're looking for a deal, SHOP. If you're looking for expandability in lenses, SHOP. If you're looking for fun, DSLR will rock your world - HARD!

Best of luck!

Having gone thru rebel, nikon 70, canon20(5 fps) and currently sony alpha1000(too slow in fps-good in image stab) and use zooms from 24-85 canon and 70-300(canon and sony) for sports. The new canon digital non-slr looks good. It is supposed to have hs video which is what I want for grandsons sports and image stabilization(which I need).
It may not be in the 10Mpixel range but with the hs video, you will be able to capture the moment.

Hi...

The short answer is: "If you have to ask about dSLR cameras, I would suggest you stay away from them and continue with the SLR-like (or point and shoot) digital cameras."

One additional thing...if you don't take 75-100 pics per week (every week) normally and 200-300 pics on special days, then stay away from dSLR cameras! Of course, most amateur photographers get these dSLR camera systems as a 'status symbol', as in "see what I can buy".

I suggest you expand your existing camera's accessories rather than getting a new dSLR!

Ciao...JJ

Dear Stefan,
you have already received lots of good advice, but there's one I haven't found among the many letters:
Choose a camera that's right for what you are going to photograph.
Sports & wildlife? In that case, you cannot tolerate a long shutter delay. Test cameras you like - and don't throw away the old film-SLR if milliseconds are the difference between success and failure. Also, check the delay between exposures & video.
Travel? A digital SLR is bulky and heavy, you'll hate it before you're back from your first big trip.
Portraits and nature? Check that it works nicely on a tripod. Shutter delay may not be a problem. Pluses for big screen and lots of bytes. No real reason to pick the dSLR.
Available light photography? Here the dSLR has an advantage - wide-opening lenses allow lower ISO, better image quality at low light.
Generally, there are many excellent cameras on the market. If you don't need long focal lengths, get a model that's compact but not so small that it's fiddly to use. If you're going to take it with you when biking, hiking, mountain climbing, etc, look for something that could have been designed for Army use - well sealed, no controls that can easily be broken, etc.
With a fixed wide-range "pretend-SLR" zoom camera, you get most of the advantages of an SLR and few of the disadvantages. Zooms now range to 400 mm and over, and some have accessories to increase wide-angle coverage.
Stefan, as so many people have told you already, you'll probably be happier with a non-SLR, and that will allow you to buy several useful things without exceeding your budget. Maybe a good tripod, a better printer, photo-related stuff for your computer. Again, it's a matter of the intended use...
Best of luck,
Lars

Many good Point-And-Shoot camera have Continuous (Burst) Shooting to enable you to take a big burst of pictures to cover the whole sequence of an interesting and important action event. For example in Canon PowerShot S2 IS camera and in Continuous (Burst) Shooting, it will take 1.5 shots per second or 2.4 shots per second and keep going this way until either (a) you release the shutter button, or (b) the entire memory card is filled up with the big burst of action photos. The camera has a button on the top for you to press to activate very quickly the Continuous (Burst) Shooting.

Sing

Hi Stefan:

Haven't time to read through all the posts but here's my response:

1) A digital camera is a computer with a lens attached. Lousy lens = lousy images, regardless of number of megapixels. An 8MP performance is fine.

2) No amount of money buys good images. A computer-with-a-lens-attached may be the most expensive and technologically best-specced model in the world but if the owner takes crap pictures, then crap pictures is all it will yield.


3) A computer-with-a-lens produces a digital output. Digital outputs are the start, not the end, of the imaging process. Digicam users who can't be bothered to invest in and learn about post-processing software like Photoshop are only using half of the tools available to maximise the joy and effectiveness of digital photography. Reliance on in-camera processing is plain silly.

4) High quality dSLRs are great for those who want to invest the equivalent of an expensive overseas holiday in their purchase and from that platform then spend more and more on further lenses. Slightly lesser quality pseudo-dSLRs are great for those who want to invest in an expensive overseas holiday and take the camera along with them to record it -- and still have enough money left over to buy a decent post-processing suite of software.

5) These slightly lesser quality pseudo-dSLRs are also great for those who realise there's no point in being able to shoot and post-process large images if they then can't be printed any bigger than A4.

6) These slightly lesser quality pseudo-dSLRs are also great for those who realise that the printed pictures they take will be framed and hung on walls to be viewed by family members, relatives and other visitors, none of whom will arrive with a magnifying glass in order to pore over every pixel.

I've had both Canon and Nikon dSLRs and they were fine. I started taking pictures with a Russian-made Zenit 35mm in 1967 so in the past 40 years have graduated from black-and-white prints for the family album to colour slides to digital images for use as magazine covers or magazine spreads in publications both in the UK and overseas.

I've since sold my dSLR kits because of the weight and inconvenience and for the past year have used a digital camera with a built-in image stabilisation system which at full retail cost less than a third of the price Canon charge for just one ancillary lens with image stabilisation.

The camera is the Konica-Minolta (as was) A200. It was purchased for $250 second hand on eBay. As was my $250 Epson A3 colour printer. I also paid $100 for the now obsolete Photoshop 7.

The results of this $600 combination are not as good as those from the Nikon and Canon dSLRs when I come to run a glass over side-by-side examples of dSLR and pseudo-dSLR images.

But as noted, I don't have family members, relatives or friends who microscopically inspect the framed images in our home. And I've been left with sufficient money to indulge in photography for the sheer joy of it, to go off on repeated overseas trips with my humble A200 (which also shoots perfectly watchable home video, too) and a tripod...

And return with images which have captured the moment.

Isn't that what photography is all about???

Good luck, Stefan.

...because a professional photographer said so.

A "professional photographer" wrote:

"There are two brands to consider: Nikon and Canon. Period. Try them out and choose the one that seems best to you. All the high-cost advertising in the world will not change the fact that either of those brands will take better images than their owners."

Declarative, unqualified statements followed by a rhetorical "period" often translate as: "I can provide no rational basis for why I believe this, but if I make myself seem hyper-confident, I'll discourage anyone from making me back-up the statement." These statements are often preceded by a claim that this person is an authority on the overarching topic.

Of all manufacturers of cameras, Canon is outdone in "high-cost advertising" only by Sony. Sony is currently running a campaign for a point-and-shoot model with "face detection" (You know the one: Dad is not a horse's rear end). There's a Canon television commercial that's been running consistently for months: something about "Why we love football." Nikon has an ongoing "Legends Behind the Lens" campaign which appears as a menu selection on Tivo DVRs. In contrast, I can't remember the last time I saw an Olympus or Pentax campaign. So if a "professional photographer" makes a claim that ONLY two manufacturers make worthy DSLR cameras, and those two happen to be among the three who do expensive, wide-reach marketing, I'd have reason to suspect that this "professional" is himself under the influence of said marketing.

It very well may be the case that Canon and Nikon make the best professional equipment: although I wonder what Sigma users would have to say about that; but Sigma doesn't do "high-cost advertising," so, amazingly enough, Sigma using professionals are a relative few. Because a company produces superior professional grade equipment, it does not necessarily follow that its consumer-level products are wholly superior to comparable products from other manufacturers.

Based upon the dozens of comprehensive reviews that I read written by knowledgeable "professional photographers," and the sample photography which accompanied those reviews, there are indeed worthy contenders on the market that do not bear Canon or Nikon branding.

Empty rhetoric, no matter how seemingly authoritative is its source, is still just empty rhetoric.

Personally, I love my Nikon, but to be fair, I was seriously considering the Canon 30D before I purchased. Both camera's are good camera's, both offer great image quality. For me, though, the Nikon had more of the controls within finger reach and the body of the camera felt more substantial to me. Much of your choice will come down to budget and personal preference.

There are many things to consider when moving to DSLR's. You have already done most of them. You have identified what you plan to use the camera for. Everything from lanscapes to macro to multi frames per second. That's a wide range of needs which can all be answered by a DSLR and a variety of lenses.

I agree with many of the others who have posted that you budget may be low. But that's the beauty of SLR's. You can add on as your budget permits. Start with what you will be shooting most - if that's lanscapes, focus on that will meet most of your needs. I caution against purchasing the cheaper lenses - you typically get what you pay for. (see my notes in the Sports Section below)

It's all in the Glass....
There is little difference between the camera bodies any more, the sensors in the Canon and Nikon lines are very good (Canon may be a little better - but I'll not admit that to my Canon friends!). So why is the glass so important? If the sensors are about the same, then what will make the difference in your photo's is the quality of the glass you use to feed the image to the sensor.

Portraits:
An overall good lens, in my opinion is an 18-70mm or 28-70mm or a fixes 85mm.

Lanscapes:
Same as above or even the 18-200mm (fits many needs).

Telephoto:
Depended on the need/use Canon make a great 100-400 and Nikon a 80-400mm. Great for wildlife.

Sports:
I shoot gymnastics (indoors poorly lit, no flash photography permitted), so a low F and fast accurate focus is a must. I use a Nikon 70-200 IF-ED VR f/2.8 lens. Also, the Tamaron 17-50 f/2.8 DXii. The Tamaron does well in full light but is "off slightly" in low light situations and does not have a manual/auto focus capability. With manual/auto focus, the camera's eye will do it's best to automatically focus, but you can adjust (manually) based on what you want to focus on.

DSLR's and Megapixles:
Unless you need to significantly crop photo's or print really large images, don't get hung up on megapixels.

Final Comments:
If you have a friend who already has a digital SLR ask them how they like it. See if they will let you "borrow" their's for a day/hour or something. Use the internet to research the various cameras - many site's provide side by side comaprisions of image quality, durability, features, etc.

You can get a Nikon with the 18-200 lens which handles most of the everyday stuff you mentioned. You can purchase "Tubes" to focus at macro levels if need be. For my Canon friends, the Rebel XT is also an awesome camera.

Hope this helps!
Terry

HI
MY RECCOMENDATION TO YOU WOULD BE THE NIKON D80 IT IS CAPABLE OF ALL YOU HAVE ASKED.NO SHUTTER LAG, 10 MEGAPIXAL FOR OUTSTANDING PHOTOGRAPHS.MULTIPLE SHOTS UP TO 5 FRAMES PER SECOND.......
I OWN THIS CAMERA PLUS MULTIPLE NIKON LENSES SO I KNOW FROM WHERE I SPEAK...........YOU CAN GO ON AMAZON AND PURCHASE THIS FINE CAMERA WITH A LENS PACKAGE TO GET YOU STARTED......AND FROM THERE ITS UP TO YOU.........ENJOY YOUR HOBBY......

I understand budgets - boy, do I understand budgets. So ... you might be able to find a Canon 20D somewhere and it is a wonderful camera! Yes, Canon has newer versions of the camera but the 20D is a great way to start in Digital SLR. And, since it's one of the "older" cameras, you might get a good deal!

I'm not going to repeat info in the previous responses, but you just can't go wrong with this camera. Fast, flexible, clear shots ... and you have so many lenses from which to choose that you can do anything you want with this camera.

Before everyone jumps on me ... yes, I know that there are newer Canon cameras ... but the 20D is still used by lots and lots of pros. Why spend more money if you don't have to?

congrats on going digital
there is an old book that will really help you learn photography
the info on it is:

PHOTOGRAPHY
By Barbara Upton and John Upton
Second Edition
Published by Little,Brown and Company

this a predigital book but it will help you learn about cameras
and photography like a pro
good luck

The Sony (read Minolta) A100. This camera is within the price range of the others mentioned, has some very nice features and works with Minolta lesnses.

The reason I put "read Minolta" is because Sony bought camera features from Knonica Minolta. This is a new camera to the dSLR matket, but all the inards are from an industry leader. We still have a Minolta SLR that dates back to the 1970's.

AF, Dust removal CCD, 2.5 LCD, up to ISO 1600, apature controls, and several others. The CNET review on the Sony Alpha 100 dSLR is very helpful.

The other cameras listed in the "approved" response are also reviewd in CNET's hardware section, all well done. They should help greatly when matching features and deciding on what you want.

Like you I have had several point and shoot digital cameras but earlier this year I bought a Nikon D40- a super camera with rechangeable lens- I can use my old SLR lens with it, It does close up, wide angle fast shutter speed and costs in the region of