# BUYING A DIGITAL SLR CAMERA



## Otohp (Oct 20, 2005)

I'm looking to begin photography, and with the insane prices of cameras, would like to begin with something decent.

A digital SLR, but one that has the most incorporation of all lenses & other things. I want a camera to be flexible, and be able to have the most different lenses to attach, to be useful for all things.

I'm not sure about how all different types of lenses work with all other different camera models etc.

I know sweet f a about photography & camera models etc. Need some pointing in the right direction. I'm in Australia, too, so i may not have access to as many resources as America or UK would (as in stores etc.)

Any help is appreciated!!!


----------



## Ant (Oct 21, 2005)

You'll get lots of good advice here, but basically for your needs you can't go wrong with the big two: Canon or Nikon.

There's three cameras I'd recommend you look at: The Canon EOS 300D, the Canon 350XT or the Nikon D50.

The Canon 300D is the cheapest but has a restricted feature set, although if you're totally new to photography it may not bother you because you'll be busy learning the features that it has got, and you should get good results with it.. The Canon 350XT has the most features but is also the more expensive of the three. In the middle is the Nikon D50. There's tons and tons of info on all three cameras on the internet and there's plenty of choice for lenses with either brand.


----------



## Meysha (Oct 21, 2005)

Where abouts in Australia are you? I might be able to tell you some good camera stores to go into and talk to them.

Ant has suggested the main 3 entry level DSLRs. You'll also find some others done by companies like Minolta, and Sigma. But I'd stay away from them... they're not as user friendly.

Canon lenses only fit canon cameras. Nikon lenses only fit nikon cameras.
You can however buy adaptors (or so I beleive) to interchange nikon and canon lenses with the other type of camera... although you lose some auto features. (verify this... I'm not sure about it)

Other lens brands to look at are: sigma and tamron. They make some nice lenses... but make sure you read reviews before you buy, coz similar lenses can have very different results.


----------



## Rob (Oct 21, 2005)

If you start out down the SLR road, it's worth mentioning that the standard zoom that comes with a kit camera isn't usually too great. Perhaps consider getting a 50mm f1.8 fixed lens as this will work better in lower lighting situations and give very sharp results - the cheapest bang for your Aussie buck.

Rob


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 21, 2005)

> Ant has suggested the main 3 entry level DSLRs. You'll also find some others done by companies like Minolta, and Sigma. But I'd stay away from them... they're not as user friendly.



I agree with the Sigma not being that user friendly but the Minolta is more friendly IMO because it acts a lot like the older manual 35mm cameras.  You have most of your custom controls on knobs instead of in the menus.  On top of that, with the realease of the Minolta 5D, the price of the 7D just dropped into a competitive price range.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 23, 2005)

Thanks for all that info guys!


----------



## Otohp (Oct 23, 2005)

For starting out photography (and i should've asked this before) is a digital SLR the best thing to use in the beginning?


----------



## Meysha (Oct 23, 2005)

Depends on what you mean by starting out. If you've never ever used a camera before... then no it's not a good place to start.

If you've got a little bit of a handle on, or would like to learn more about aperture, shutter speed, flash techniques etc then yes an SLR (digi or film) is the right way to go.

A DSLR may be a faster way to learn than a film version because you can see straight away what you've done wrong... and you may also be willing to experiment more.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 23, 2005)

I'm thinking of just going DSLR as, like you say, it's easier to see straight away without wasting film etc.

Now it just comes down to finding which one amongst the millions.. heh


----------



## Otohp (Oct 23, 2005)

Would anyone have a suggestion of where to look in metro QLD for good priced wide ranged camera stores?


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 23, 2005)

I am VERY old school when it comes to learning photography from scratch. I would recommend finding an experienced photographer with the tolerance of a saint. Then find an older manual control 35mm camera and a hand-held light meter. Buy a bulk film loader and 100' of B&W ISO 400 film and shoot, a lot. Learn the mechanics of light, its effect on film. The relationship of aperture/shutter/ISO. Then learn the effects of lens focal lengths. Learn the perspective of telephoto compression and its reciprocal effect of wide lenses. This is how I learned, and how I've taught my kids and now my 11 year old grandson. After you have a good foundation, then you can build and build large. 

As film and paper supplies are dwindling I may need to modify my approach. I think it would be with a DSLR and a 35mm (for a cropped chip, 50mm for full frame)  prime lens. Any only use manual controls until the basics are firmly within your grasp. This might give you instant feedback and has the potential of teaching faster. But this method lacks the effect of learning from the mistakes of whole rolls of black or clear film. This kind of mistake is something you remember forever.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 23, 2005)

Sounds like photography is something you want to do a LOT in the future, sinse you seem to want a complete "system"

I do not agree that you need film to learn the basics though. No way. You can get practice with digital SLRs too.

I would buy a DSLR and a cheapest 28mm lens from your brand, which would be about normal angle on a cropped camera. Then study light in all its forms and how it affects your pictures.

You body doesn't matter at this point either. Buy the cheapest model from either nikon or canon and with additional money buy a lightmeter.


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 23, 2005)

I'm curious Doc. How did you learn? Those I have tutored feel they have a better foundation than their friends and fellow photographers. They feel their friends missed a valuable part of the lesson.


----------



## geoffros (Oct 24, 2005)

couldnt recommend the pentax *ist range enough...good entry level DSLR's, compact and pretty cheap 2


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 24, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> I'm curious Doc. How did you learn?


I'm still learning, and have been at photography since august 2004. So I'm very green.

Still don't really have a mentor, even though I'm drop by to a photog I know from time to time. Don't know where it'll go though.

Started out with an advanced point and shoot, where I got the ISO/aperture/shutter speed relationship. Then I felt like I outgrew it, because I wanted the shallow DOF of a larger sensor.

A month after I got the Drebel with a kit lens and had some fun with it. Experimented with color photography... cold colors, warm... complimentary. Decided that I needed to get BW composition down first.

So after I read elements of design, I'd go out and take lots of pics that include incorporate particular element. Then analyse them...

The light... soft/hard/fill flash/off camera flash. Posing people...

I did find a big improvement when I actually started shooting film. Many reasons:
1) Primes - the 28mm forces me to get into people's face when shooting on the street.
2) Better viewfinder. I actually see better, because it lets in much more light than the AF SLRs...
3) Film, albeit inexpensive, does force me to reconsider the composition.
4) Printing with the filed film holder to prevent cropping gives me better technique.

But I eased myself into it gradually. I feel like if you throw too many variables at the beginner, it's bad. I've never taught photography, but I do tutor math. Students can learn, as long as they learn one thing at a time.

If I were to start out with film, I'd be overwhelmed. Proper metering/exposure/development/printing is not an easy combo to tackle. Too many variables that can go wrong.

If you let the lab process the negs, they are adjusted. If you shoot slide, it's $$$

What do you think of the way I'm learning?


----------



## jadin (Oct 24, 2005)

Based on what you said, almost definately go digital with either nikon or canon. Simply because you will have the widest lens choices in the long run. Find a cheap body and get it (I'd recommend ebay or similar, since you don't need new if you aren't going to keep it). Spend the money you save on buying high-quality lenses. Then when you are comfortable enough to move on, you're all set with your lenses, and haven't spent a lot on your body so you won't lose _too much_ when you go to resell it, and can afford to get the camera you will stick with for the long haul.

As far as learning goes, digital, digital, digital. I've shot maybe 10 rolls of film in my life, and I didn't learn a thing with them, save maybe how to use the light meter. With digital it records all your settings when you press the shutter right into the picture. You don't have to guess, or write anything down. Back on your computer you can see the data for each and every shot and can see where you went wrong quickly and easily. For a learning tool it's hard to beat. About the only exception to this would be if you had a darkroom at your beck and call.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 24, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Sounds like photography is something you want to do a LOT in the future, sinse you seem to want a complete "system"


 
Yes. It is something i'd like to persue. I'd love to get to the point to have enough income and assets in my life to persue photography full time. Or if i gather enough resources and skill, make that my _job_ full time.

Which is why i'd rather start with something full, instead of than getting a 'crapbox' and _practising_.

Cheers again everyone for your input. Learning more every day. 

Alls i need now is to find which camera i need. The idea of not spending so much on the body at first, and gathering lenses sounded smart.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 24, 2005)

Ant said:
			
		

> There's three cameras I'd recommend you look at: The Canon EOS 300D, the Canon 350XT or the Nikon D50.


 
This Canon 300D comes up an awful lot in my searches. And also its follower the 350D. Although i think the 300D would be the better choice, especially because a follower should make it cheaper.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 24, 2005)

I've talked to a few places.. The 300D has stopped being sold. Be lucky to find one somewhere abouts.. But the 350D costs about $1500.. *loosens collar*

Sheesh. I may open up a 'please help me get a camera' fund.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 24, 2005)

Don't mean to continually be talking to myself here.. 

I won't be purchasing the camera for at least another half a year or so, but i think i'll be looking at the Canon 350D.

Wise choice? Any recommendations? Anything else i should know? Cheers all.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 24, 2005)

Otohp said:
			
		

> But the 350D costs about $1500


Where do you live?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=371189&is=REG&addedTroughType=search


----------



## jadin (Oct 24, 2005)

Year and a half? I wouldn't even look at camera's right now (personally). Wait until you're a lot closer to the deadline, technology could change drastically in a year and a half.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 25, 2005)

I said half a year. Which really only comes down to a few months.

DocFrank, i live in Australia.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 25, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Where do you live?
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=371189&is=REG&addedTroughType=search


 
Where is that store? It doesn't say what currency it's being sold in..

_Edit: Ah, USA.. Makes sense now.._


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 25, 2005)

As a Nikon user, I am curious as to what helped you decide to buy Canon. Just for my own edification.


----------



## jadin (Oct 25, 2005)

Otohp said:
			
		

> I said half a year. Which really only comes down to a few months.



My bad. I misread.


----------



## skiboarder72 (Oct 25, 2005)

I just bought the D50, i was in your same situation. I got the D50 because the build quality and high ISO noise is better than both the rebels (according to DP review).  Also it takes SD cards and coming from P&S that was important to me.  I would have probably gotten the rebel xt except for that tiny grip on it and the cheap plastic all over it.  If im going to spend 800 on a camera I want it to feel solid.  Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Ant (Oct 25, 2005)

skiboarder72 said:
			
		

> I would have probably gotten the rebel xt except for that tiny grip on it and the cheap plastic all over it.  If im going to spend 800 on a camera I want it to feel solid.  Just my 2 cents...



I agree. I got to handle a 350XT a few months ago and it felt like a cheap plastic toy compared to my D70. Still, lots of people like the small size and light weight, so it's all personal preference really, and all those DSLRs produce great images anyway.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 25, 2005)

It's a shame canon can't make a decent cover. How much would a piece of magnesium cost them? 10 bucks?

That's one of the major reasons I see for going nikon.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 25, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> As a Nikon user, I am curious as to what helped you decide to buy Canon. Just for my own edification.


 
I'm not really sure. I more than likely won't end up with what i'd rather. Like i said at the beginning of the thread, i don't know much about this sort of thing, hence the thread.

I guess it was advertising and reputation that lead me toward Canon. Why, is Nikon better? 

Like i say, i'm not to educated on all this camera stuff, which is why i need you guys to help! Cheers for everything.

I think in the end i'll look at getting some sort of cheap dslr body, and a couple of good lenses.


----------



## Glen C (Oct 25, 2005)

Side by side the Nikon D70s and the Canon 350XT are fairly close in features and image quality. Picking them both up and handling them was what pushed me to the buy the Nikon. Not even close... Like Ant said, it felt like the Canon was a cheap plastic toy.


----------



## Glen C (Oct 25, 2005)

Pick up and handle them both and see how they feel Otohp. Or even the D50. You'll see what I mean.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 25, 2005)

Ya. I think i may just find some cheapo from the trading mag or something. Just to mess around with at first. I still want a dslr, just not a million dollar one. My eyes were bigger than my money pocket at first.. heh..


----------



## skiboarder72 (Oct 25, 2005)

Glen C said:
			
		

> Side by side the Nikon D70s and the Canon 350XT are fairly close in features and image quality. Picking them both up and handling them was what pushed me to the buy the Nikon. Not even close... Like Ant said, it felt like the Canon was a cheap plastic toy.



same exact reason i went with nikon too :mrgreen:


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 25, 2005)

> I guess it was advertising and reputation that lead me toward Canon. Why, is Nikon better?


 
Canon does have a lot more money for advertising, after all they sell printers, copiers, video and a host of other stuff. This generates a lot of cash flow for the ads. It also generates a lot of extra cash to discount whole systems for major news  and sports reporting organizations.  Reputation? I always thought Nikon had a better and longer rep with the pro's. I bought my first one after talking with my dad. I asked him what he would buy, Canon or Nikon? His reply was typical, he would find out what the reporters in Vietnam were using. I looked into it and found that they used the Nikon F. He felt that if a Nikon was good enough to go to Vietnam, it was good enough for me to take to high school. I still have that F model purchased in 1969. The 45mm f/2.8 GN lens I purchased with it I still use on my D1X from time to time. That camera/lens still shoots as good as the day I bought it and the only service its had is a good cleaning about 15 years ago. I looked into what the military is using in Iraq, Nikon. Most still photographers there do as well. You will find both pro's and armatures that are quite admit about what they shoot. I make no bones about my sticking with Nikon, they have served me extremely well without my ever having a second thought of doubt. Whatever you buy, I wish you well, and don't hesitate to ask questions here. Other than a good ribbing, you will find all the info you need here on TPF.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 25, 2005)

Ah. Maybe i shall move to Nikon.. I don't know. Once i have the money, i'll wander around to shops and check things out. As far as all that crap about Vietnam goes, i don't know. I'm guessing you're an american..

But otherwise. Thank you all for your help. I'm sure when it comes closer to getting this thing started, i'll be filled with questions again.

Take it easy chaps.


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 25, 2005)

Yes, I am an American. But that has nothing to do with what the war photographers from around the world were using in Nam. This was how my father related how he would have decided on a brand.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 26, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> Canon does have a lot more money for advertising, after all they sell printers, copiers, video and a host of other stuff. This generates a lot of cash flow for the ads. It also generates a lot of extra cash to discount whole systems for major news and sports reporting organizations.


You're conveniently forgetting R&D 


> I looked into what the military is using in Iraq, Nikon.


Where did you get that info? The issue camera from 1980 or so, has been Canon. I have the manual from advanced military photo course, and it describes operation of Canon F1n... no mention of Nikon


----------



## hobbes28 (Oct 26, 2005)

Otohp said:
			
		

> Ah. Maybe i shall move to Nikon.. I don't know. Once i have the money, i'll wander around to shops and check things out. As far as all that crap about Vietnam goes, i don't know. I'm guessing you're an american..
> 
> But otherwise. Thank you all for your help. I'm sure when it comes closer to getting this thing started, i'll be filled with questions again.
> 
> Take it easy chaps.



It's always free to look at them.  Holding both the D70 and 300D both made my decision pretty easy to make as well.

And for clarification, the military uses both Nikon and Canon bodies for different applications.  Much like we do in the civilian world.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 26, 2005)

robhesketh said:
			
		

> If you start out down the SLR road, it's worth mentioning that the standard zoom that comes with a kit camera isn't usually too great. Perhaps consider getting a 50mm f1.8 fixed lens as this will work better in lower lighting situations and give very sharp results - the cheapest bang for your Aussie buck.
> 
> Rob


 
Unless you buy the Nikon D70/D70s. The "kit" lens on these is quit good.
Ditto on the 50mm 1.8.

If I were going the Nikon route, which I've already done, I'd choose the D70.  The price is cheaper and with the software update you get the D70s (almost) minus the bigger screen and "wired" remote.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Oct 26, 2005)

I think the comment about the Canon being a cheap plastic toy are totally unfounded.  Even if you just mean how it feels.  Hold 350D then hold a disposable camera.  The Canon 350D is very sturdy i think, I've used a camera made of metal and in my opinion it's unnecesary.  The outer housing doesn't stop the stuff inside being dislodged like the prism or censor or whatever.  There isn't really any need for metal housing and if there is your camera will probably break quickly anyway.


----------



## Rob (Oct 26, 2005)

I didn't think we had Canon/Nikon rows any more. I thought the only row left was film vs digital!


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 26, 2005)

> I didn't think we had Canon/Nikon rows any more. I thought the only row left was film vs digital!


 
Gee, don't stop us now, we are having TOO much fun!


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 26, 2005)

> I think the comment about the Canon being a cheap plastic toy are totally unfounded. Even if you just mean how it feels. Hold 350D then hold a disposable camera.


 
I don't think a 300 or 350 feels like a cheap plastic toy. Maybe an expensive plastic one.  Just kidding. But I have always preferred the cast metal of my Nikons to the less durable IMHO feel of plastic. All this is not to say Canon don't make a good camera. If they made junk, the would go the way of the dinosaurs like so many other camera manufacturers. If you take a look subjective look at the time line of the digital SLR you will find the Nikon D1 was the first reasonable priced (5K) full featured DSLR with a usable resolution. It followed the Kodak line of modified piggy-back two-ton bricks that were more in the 20 to 30K price range. Canon scrambled to catch up with several models finely passing Nikon for a short time until the D1X was introduced and the leap frogging was in full bloom. For every model Nikon would come out with, Canon would bring out two, three or more until they equaled or passed Nikon. We now have the D50/D70 and 350D battle for the pro-summer models. And the D2X and 1Ds MKII battle as well as the battle between the "full frame" and DX formats. I shoot a lot of wildlife so I like the DX format, my 400 3.5 looks like a 600 f3.5 now. The DX format also can provide us with smaller lighter high performance lenses and truth be told both formats require special wide angle lenses for full performance. As a side note, I feel the D2X will be Nikons last pro DX DSLR. The pixel size is the smallest in the industry and pushes the limit of the best glass to resolve, so my bet is the D3X will be a 20+ MP full frame with the same size pixels. And I really look for that to be sold at the same time as the D2 series. I guess this is rambling so I should stop for a while and let the debate proceed. Fun isn't it?


----------



## Meysha (Oct 26, 2005)

If you're in Brisbane... which I have the feeling you're near there from the way you say metro qld hehehe... I'm just from country Cairns.

Go into Photo Continental. They are literally the best and biggest photo store in queensland. The staff are great in there and they'll help you out heaps. Everytime I'm in Brisbane I always go in there and just stand in wonder at the stuff they have. Some of the darkroom snobs in here would simply drool at their supplies!

Here are their details: 
www.photocontinental.com
1480 Logan Rd, MT Gravatt. Q. 4122.
Ph (07) 3849 4422
Fax (07) 3849 4424
E-mail enquiries@photocontinental.com.au

(As you come along Logan Rd, go a teeny bit past the shop and turn left down the street just past the shop and then you'll see another sign for its carpark.... much easier than trying to find a park in the street!)


----------



## 'Daniel' (Oct 26, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> I don't think a 300 or 350 feels like a cheap plastic toy. Maybe an expensive plastic one.  Just kidding. But I have always preferred the cast metal of my Nikons to the less durable IMHO feel of plastic. All this is not to say Canon don't make a good camera. If they made junk, the would go the way of the dinosaurs like so many other camera manufacturers. If you take a look subjective look at the time line of the digital SLR you will find the Nikon D1 was the first reasonable priced (5K) full featured DSLR with a usable resolution. It followed the Kodak line of modified piggy-back two-ton bricks that were more in the 20 to 30K price range. Canon scrambled to catch up with several models finely passing Nikon for a short time until the D1X was introduced and the leap frogging was in full bloom. For every model Nikon would come out with, Canon would bring out two, three or more until they equaled or passed Nikon. We now have the D50/D70 and 350D battle for the pro-summer models. And the D2X and 1Ds MKII battle as well as the battle between the "full frame" and DX formats. I shoot a lot of wildlife so I like the DX format, my 400 3.5 looks like a 600 f3.5 now. The DX format also can provide us with smaller lighter high performance lenses and truth be told both formats require special wide angle lenses for full performance. As a side note, I feel the D2X will be Nikons last pro DX DSLR. The pixel size is the smallest in the industry and pushes the limit of the best glass to resolve, so my bet is the D3X will be a 20+ MP full frame with the same size pixels. And I really look for that to be sold at the same time as the D2 series. I guess this is rambling so I should stop for a while and let the debate proceed. Fun isn't it?



Can you explain this DX format?  Is it like the medium format digital cameras I see?  like the Hasselblad H2


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 26, 2005)

DX is Nikons term for the sensor size in there cameras. It's about the same size as the "clipped chips" in the Canon 350. In the Nikon and Canon DSLR we have the smaller 1.5 to 1 (aprox.) sensor and full frame of the Canon MK2. Nikon has chosen for the moment to have all there DSLR's use the smaller or DX size chip and Canon uses both. Just something more to debate.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 26, 2005)

To hell with camera brands. My Drebel is too big, I wish I'd bought a Pentax *ist D and used all those SMC lenses with it.

jsuedle - tell me what you think about the way to study photography. You never replied to that post.


----------



## GerryDavid (Oct 26, 2005)

Ant said:
			
		

> There's three cameras I'd recommend you look at: The Canon EOS 300D, the Canon 350XT or the Nikon D50.



There are rebates for the Canon 350d and the 20d.  Another option is the Nikon D70 but its more expensive than the 3 listed above, and the Canon 20d is even more expensive I believe, not sure about after the rebate.

The way this rebate works is you save us$75 for every canon item you purchase, up to 3, for the Canon 350d.

example if you bought the Canon 350d and 2 other things, you save $225 on that camera.  If you bought it at B&H you end up paying $790-$225=$565, a sweet price.

Say you bought the Canon 50mm F1.4 for $320-$45=$275 *this rebate is 3x$15*

And for the 3rd qualifying item, say the Canon 70-300mm for $160 - $15 = $145 *3 x $5 rebate*

The total for all 3 items is us$985

Just a heads up.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 26, 2005)

And how many thousands is that in AUS dollar.. lol

*counts fingers* _ALOT_


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 26, 2005)

GerryDavid - he's down under. The rebates are for US only.


----------



## GerryDavid (Oct 26, 2005)

$985us = $1303 australian or so, before shipping and duty.

You could save some money and get something cheaper for the 2nd item there, but still have 3 items to triple all the rebates.

This isnt a bad deal cosidering your getting $1260us worth of stuff.  :0)

If you just get the body, thats say $725us = $960 australian.


----------



## GerryDavid (Oct 26, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> GerryDavid - he's down under. The rebates are for US only.



Good point.  :0)  So itll only work if he has an american friend.


----------



## Otohp (Oct 26, 2005)

Which i don't. I'd rather have something i go into a store and touch to buy. Like i said, might just get some crappy second hand dslr with a decent lense and see what happens.. meh


----------



## Otohp (Nov 13, 2005)

After a while of checking things out,  i've decided to head toward the Nikon trail..

Any suggestions for a *cheap* but decent Nikon dslr to start out with?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

The D50 or D70s are reasonable new DSLR's. If you are adventurous, a D1 or D1h can be had for $300 to $600 on ebay. They are only 2.7 MP, but don't let that fool you. Nice 8 X 10's can still be had and it will get you in the DSLR door.


----------

