I need help! Im looking at buying a DSLR, which one though?

[GTL05T]

Supp guys??

Im looking at buying a DSLR and i wanna know wot brands are good. Are Sony ones n e good?? I dont really understand the whole thing with the lens n stuff, so if n e one can help me out, itll be much appreciated.

Cheers guys...

[Kenneth]

Canon fans will tell you to get a canon, Nikon fan will tell you to get a Nikon but at the end of the day its up to your budget and needs. If you are planning to do big things with it then get one of the Canon or Nikon as they have a bigger variety of lens available but otherwise Sony will do pretty well too with their own range of lens.

Most would agree with DSLR, the camera body isnt the most important thing you should worry. The lens should be your main focus. Take a read on this site if you want to go down the Nikon path. Plenty of good information and reviews on just about anything Nikon related.

Kenrockwell.com

Click on the Camera Recommendation and maybe it might help. As for Canon you'd have to ask someone else here for a webbie where you can read up on.

[danja]

A few comments.

1) Be aware DSLR photography is a fairly expensive hobby. Depending on how hard you want to go you are probably looking at anywhere from $700-1500 for the body alone, before lenses come even into it. Many lenses will cost more than the body did. Eg. http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category1_1.htm (I'm a Canon guy). Now this cost factor shouldn't necessarily put you off buying one, but you should consider why it is you want a DSLR or if you'd be better off with a high-end compact camera (for $6-700 you can get VERY good compact point-and-shoots).

2) All the big brands are good - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony - all will take great pictures. Try and play with a few before you buy if you can, because there are differences which are neither "good" nor "bad", but you may find you prefer one style over the other. For instance I use Nikon's at work, and really don't like the "feel" of the camera or how the controls are layed out - but that's just me, I know people who use Nikons and swear by them, the Canon just works for me.

3) As Kenneth mentioned, the lens is what makes the most difference. Take the time to research what glass you buy, different lenses do different jobs so knowing what you want to take pictures of and buying accordingly is a prudent thing to do. When you look at lenses there are two main aspects to consider:

Focal length, which is written in millimetres (eg 50mm) and this basically describes the "zoom" of the lens. If you look through a 200mm lens you'll see things closer up than through a 35mm lens (but you'll have a smaller field of view of course). Some lenses will have two numbers - eg 17-55mm, which means they can use any of the focal lengths between those numbers. Zooms are convenient because they cover a range of focal lengths, but the optical quality generally isn't as good as a fixed focal length (prime) lens. Zooms also usually have smaller apertures (see below)

Aperture, is written as an "f" number - eg. "f/2.8". This describes how much light the lens can let in, where a smaller f-number means more light. Changing the aperture has a number of effects, but the most immediate is having a wider aperture lets you use faster shutter speeds, because the shutter can open for a shorter time, but still let the same amount of light in. This means you can take sharper photos in lower light, because once you start using long shutter speeds, you get camera shake in your pictures. Some zooms will have a range of apertures expressed - eg. f/3.5-5.6, which means as you zoom, the maximum aperture decreases.

Other things to be aware of in lenses is that some will have image stabilisation (IS for Canon, or VC for Nikon, Pentax has this feature built into the body), some use higher quality glass for better pictures, some are better built. You really need to read other people's reviews and experiences, look at sample images etc. Lenses are a great research purchase because there is so much information available out there on the net.

Take your time, don't rush into a purchase until you know what you're getting and why - it'll make you happier in the long run. Photography can be a rewarding and satisfying hobby, if you take the time.

Some sites that may be of interest:

http://www.dpreview.com/ - they review all brands of DSLR and point and shoot

http://www.photozone.de/ - they review all brands of lenses, quite technical, but you'll learn the lingo quick enough

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ - quite good for Canon reviews

http://www.flickr.com/ - search for the camera/lens you're considering, you'll find pictures taken with it (also most review sites have samples)

There are heaps more, Google is your friend. Good luck!

[GTL05T]

Thanks alot guys, i just wanna take madd pics thats all, i dont wanna be a pro. Theres alot of info in these posts it sounds a bit crazy... Thanks again guys...

[Kenneth.]

You could go either way at the end of the day (Canon, Nikon or even Sony). That said, like the others have stated, the pictures snapped are a result of the lens you're using mainly. The body is not the most important thing to worry about. Adding to that, the end result is also highly dependant on the person holding the camera as well as their post-processing skills. Hope that helps! :)

[danja]

Thanks alot guys, i just wanna take madd pics thats all, i dont wanna be a pro. Theres alot of info in these posts it sounds a bit crazy... Thanks again guys...

Check out the Canon S90 and the Panasonic Lumix LX3, they are both high-end compact cameras in the $600-700 mark. They take pictures which can rival DSLR qualit, both have great lenses and good image sensors.

The big advantage to DSLR photography is you can switch the lenses depending on what you want to do, but if you just want a good all-rounder to take snaps with, a P&S (point'n'shoot) is probably a better option. If you later decide you want to get really serious about cameras, you will still get value out of your compact cam as they are often more practical to take travelling or just slip in your pocket.

Edit: Some snaps people have taken with the S90: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=767912 Google will show you LX3 shots too, they are both very popular, and for good reason.

Edited February 8, 2010 by danja

[GTL05T]

Damn!! I liked that photo of the city at night, it looked awesome!! so u can take mad pictures with this CANON S90 or LUMIX LX3? thanks for ur help kenneth n danja!! Its just so hard understanding all this lingo about the lens n stuff. i saw a sony dslr for 800 bucks with twin lens and a Nikon D5000 for 987 bucks twin lens. which one do u reckon is better? the sony one is a entry level dslr, so it says on the sony web site.

[danja]

Damn!! I liked that photo of the city at night, it looked awesome!! so u can take mad pictures with this CANON S90 or LUMIX LX3? thanks for ur help kenneth n danja!! Its just so hard understanding all this lingo about the lens n stuff. i saw a sony dslr for 800 bucks with twin lens and a Nikon D5000 for 987 bucks twin lens. which one do u reckon is better? the sony one is a entry level dslr, so it says on the sony web site.

You can definitely take great pics with them - your equipment is rarely the limiting factor in your ability to take good pictures, composition and understanding of exposure are far more important.

I'm not much of an expert on Nikon and Sony, but send through links of the twin lens kits you're talking about and I'll tell you what I can. Generally entry level twin-lens kits have one wide zoom (eg 18-55mm) which is a good all-round range from landscapes to portraits. Then they have one "super-zoom" which will be a 28-200 or 70-300 or something like that, they are quite versatile because they cover a large range of focal lengths, but there is always a compromise in optical quality, so generally pictures won't be quite as sharp and the lens won't perform as well in low light conditions. Lenses are all about compromises, and getting a good lens is all about knowing what your requirements are and finding the best fit for you.

[mrs.sportivo]

Canon and Nikon are really different when you've tried both - i prefer Canon lols thats what i use to use when i was doing photography at clubs. Nikons are cheap though i'd say Canon is better quality if your willing to splurge

[Kenneth]

Damn!! I liked that photo of the city at night, it looked awesome!! so u can take mad pictures with this CANON S90 or LUMIX LX3? thanks for ur help kenneth n danja!! Its just so hard understanding all this lingo about the lens n stuff. i saw a sony dslr for 800 bucks with twin lens and a Nikon D5000 for 987 bucks twin lens. which one do u reckon is better? the sony one is a entry level dslr, so it says on the sony web site.

Here is an indepth review of the d5000

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

Why not look into the Canon entry level dslr too? 1000D or something? Fairly affordable too..

[Jaaassseeee]

Personally I wouldn't bother buying a DSLR unless you're going professional with it.

Getting your lighting and exposure right is far more important than the type of camera or lens you have in most cases, unless of course you're going for that slight edge compared to the happy snaps. If you're serious in photography, then by all means get one...but if you're not you're just wasting money on functions that you'll never be using.

My missus is a professional photographer in Perth and has won numerous photography competition overseas, and her opinion of that is don't get into the trend of having a huge f-off camera and lens thinking you'll be a master over night.

If you're serious about it, take a look at the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. 21.1MP with embedded full frame CMOS sensor and various (many) other functions entry ones like 1000D or 450D don't offer.

Have a think ;)