Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: MR.FEESH on March 27, 2009, 04:07:15 pm

Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 27, 2009, 04:07:15 pm
Hi all!

I'm a senior in high school now who's starting to get interested in photography.  I have a Nikon basic p&s now, but I've been really feeling the allure of this hobby; I'm getting sucked in.  Because I'm only a student, my budget is extremely tight... I don't have any amount of cash saved up for a DSLR or accessories, but am starting a little fund for it ($0 as of today... 8) )

I've decided to strive towards a Nikon D80 (a good amount of performance, but not too advanced for a total DSLR virgin).  I was told from some one in the hobby, "invest in lenses, bodies come and go with time".  This being said, I was going to get the body only and aim for a very valued lens (meaning low cost but great performance)... a more bang for your buck sort of lens.  

This is where I'm requesting some advice-- I'm fairly certain the D80 body decision won't change, but I know next to nothing about lenses.  I was recommended the Sigma 24-70.. f2.8 Macro.  Could you prescribe an inexpensive lens with good performance?  I'd like one for under $500 if that narrows it down.  (A standard zoom lens, I'm not looking for anything specialized until I have by base lens figured out).


Thanks!
Elby
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 27, 2009, 04:18:43 pm
www.bythom.com
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 27, 2009, 04:36:25 pm
Quote from: DarkPenguin
www.bythom.com


Took me a while but I found some good news,
"However the 24-70mm f2.8 is a remarkably good lens in every respect."


That link is going in my favorites, thanks!!!

Elby
Title: Please Advise
Post by: situgrrl on March 27, 2009, 05:17:13 pm
That lens isn't the best idea imo - because on any DSLR in your price range uses a cropped sensor and that means that your wide angle isn't....better with an 18-50 ish lens.  I used a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 on my Canon 30D and thought it was a bottle top.  My brother had a more recent version and though it was better, not a lot.  He replaced it with a Tamron (I think) and isn't so impressed with that either.  

Given that all DSLRs at any given price point perform about the same, I suggest that you try them and find which one feels the best for you.  The biggest weakness in the imaging chain for you (like everyone else!) is lens quality.  Buying an Olympus might be worth it as to me, they are hands down the best lenses for the money.  Be aware that the sensor on Olympus's is smaller than Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax and that limits high ISO shooting.  Olympus, Pentax and Sony offer in-body image stabilization - something that to me would be a big deal - big enough to swing me away from the big two.  

One thing that I would seriously recommend - regardless of what you opt for - is to buy second hand from a reputable source.  I understand keh.com is a seriously good source if nothing shows up here.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 27, 2009, 11:40:39 pm
Quote from: situgrrl
That lens isn't the best idea imo - because on any DSLR in your price range uses a cropped sensor and that means that your wide angle isn't....better with an 18-50 ish lens.  I used a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 on my Canon 30D and thought it was a bottle top.  My brother had a more recent version and though it was better, not a lot.  He replaced it with a Tamron (I think) and isn't so impressed with that either.  

Given that all DSLRs at any given price point perform about the same, I suggest that you try them and find which one feels the best for you.  The biggest weakness in the imaging chain for you (like everyone else!) is lens quality.  Buying an Olympus might be worth it as to me, they are hands down the best lenses for the money.  Be aware that the sensor on Olympus's is smaller than Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax and that limits high ISO shooting.  Olympus, Pentax and Sony offer in-body image stabilization - something that to me would be a big deal - big enough to swing me away from the big two.  

One thing that I would seriously recommend - regardless of what you opt for - is to buy second hand from a reputable source.  I understand keh.com is a seriously good source if nothing shows up here.



Point taken, and noted.

I realize the bodies in my price range may not be the most pragmatic for this lens (24-70mm), but if I'm ever going to upgrade, it wouldn't hurt to have it around...?  I mean I'm totally new, but I think investing in lenses capable of use on more advanced bodies sounds like a good long term deal.

-------------------------

Any other lenses up for recommendation?

Elby  
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Craig Arnold on March 28, 2009, 04:32:54 am
Quote from: MR.FEESH
Point taken, and noted.

I realize the bodies in my price range may not be the most pragmatic for this lens (24-70mm), but if I'm ever going to upgrade, it wouldn't hurt to have it around...?  I mean I'm totally new, but I think investing in lenses capable of use on more advanced bodies sounds like a good long term deal.

-------------------------

Any other lenses up for recommendation?

Elby  

I don't think you really have understood the point. Why buy a lens that might possibly be useful to you at some point in the distant future, but not right now?

Upgrading to FF is usually an expensive business, and chances are you will want the very best lenses to go with what may well be a 30Mp+ body by that time.

When you do get a FF body you will either sell or keep the crop body. If you keep it you will still need an appropriate lens, so no harm in getting a crop lens. If you sell the body you can sell the lens at the same time.

A 24-70 is just not a very useful focal range for most people (especially beginners) on a crop body. You want the crop equivalent of 24-70. There are many lenses which are useful on both crop and FF bodies; 100mm macro, 50mm prime, 28mm prime, 100-400 zoom, etc. But the 24-70 is a very awkward range when cropped and not great for most people.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: situgrrl on March 28, 2009, 06:34:54 am
^^What they said!  24mm on a 1.6 body is 38.4mm and I defy you to ever do anything but swear that it's not wide enough.  There is somehow a very big difference between 35mm and 38 mm.  Added to which, from my experience with Sigma lenses (I've had a number of others through the years) it will not cut it on a full frame body.

Someone here is going to recommend you buy a Nikon and their new 30mm 1.8 or whatever it is.  There is good sense to this at the discipline of shooting with one focal length is good for your photography.  I just personally cannot use a 50mm (equiv)  lens for the life of me.  Someone will probably come along and tell you to get a Pentax because they have a fine range of prime lenses in useful focal lengths.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: harlemshooter on March 28, 2009, 08:42:27 am
elby,

for around the same price, you could just get a used medium format film rangefinder like the mamiya 7 and scan the negatives...

if you are set on digital, what about going with a used canon 5d?  they have dropped significantly in price and are decent bodies.  you might also consider simply buying a prime lens like the voigtlander 40mm (w/nikon to eos canon mount) - you can purchase direct through cameraquest.com for $375 new + $50-175 for adapter
 
this manual lens can be used with canon (with adapter) or nikon (w/o adapter).  it is important for young people to learn basics manually before delving into world of digital.  whether you go with a canon or nikon digital doesn't really matter (d80 isn't bad), but i highly suggest starting with a simple prime lens to develop your compositional skill set.  if you are shooting landscape, you won't need or want an aperture wider than f4.

cheers
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Mosccol on March 28, 2009, 09:09:36 am
I would concur with going the prime lens way:

- MUCH better quality for the money than any mainstream zoom
- A proper education in seeing images and choosing your focal length

If I were you I would go for the following:

- Body as you described. Anything above 8 Megapixels with decent metering is going to be fine
- A wide angle appropriate for a 1.6x crop factor body: anything under 20mm
- A general shooting lens: on this type of body I would go for a 35mm although a 50mm would also work (although not as well)
- A short tele: either a true portrait lens (e.g. 85mm) or something like a 100 or 135mm macro
- A proper tele lens, but that can be later. At that stage you will probably be aiming for a good quality 70-200 zoom

If your budget is super tight, pick up a dirt cheap plastic 50mm f1.8 with the body. Amazing value for money and absolutely decent quality. If you can stretch a bit more, forget the 50mm and pick up the <20mm and the 85mm: great landscapes and great portraits...

Good luck
Title: Please Advise
Post by: graeme on March 28, 2009, 10:17:20 am
Hi Elby

I've got the sigma 24 - 70 2.8 ( Canon mount ). I've tried two copies and I don't think it's anything special - it's no sharper than my efs 17-85 ( thankfully there's less distortion though ). It's useful for my particular needs but I wouldn't want it as my only lens on a crop frame camera.

A second hand camera might be a good idea if you're on a tight budget. I'm using a 4 year old 20D and it takes perfectly good pictures. You can pick them up for just over £200 in the UK ( about 280 dollars I think ). I'm not a pro photographer but photography is part of my work. I've had images taken with the 20D published in magazines and they look OK. ( I should mention that I'm not necessarily recommending that you buy a second hand canon 20D - the shutter on mine self destructed after two and a half years, a common fault with this model I believe ).

If I was buying a system from scratch today I'd be taking a very good look at a Sony DSLR and some used Minolta lenses.

I really wouldn't want to get into film scanning on a budget. I did this for four years before going fully digital and I reckon it's a serious waste of lifetime.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Graeme
Title: Please Advise
Post by: wolfnowl on March 28, 2009, 11:33:29 am
Quote from: situgrrl
Someone here is going to recommend you buy a Nikon and their new 30mm 1.8 or whatever it is.  There is good sense to this at the discipline of shooting with one focal length is good for your photography.

Okay, I'll be that person.  Or the second person anyway.  If you want to learn about photography and you want to teach yourself, buy one lens like the one recommended above and work with that one lens only.  Also get the best tripod you can afford.  If you want to zoom, get closer.  If you want wide angle, back up.  Learn how to 'see' through your viewfinder.  Pick up a copy of 'Photography and the Art of Seeing' and do some of the exercises in there.  Learn to understand how f/stops relate to depth of field, and how shutter speeds translate into freezing movement or allowing it, and how and when that can be a good thing.  Understand perspective in terms of mapping three-dimensional space onto a two-dimensional image.  Make lots of mistakes.  At least with digital you don't have to pay for film and processing of the images you throw out!  Be ruthless in your assessment of your work but be gentle with yourself.  Once you understand the fundamentals of photography and you're making good images with that one lens, you can add to it and discover new perspectives.

Mike.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 28, 2009, 11:46:41 am
Quote from: situgrrl
^^What they said!  24mm on a 1.6 body is 38.4mm and I defy you to ever do anything but swear that it's not wide enough.  There is somehow a very big difference between 35mm and 38 mm.  Added to which, from my experience with Sigma lenses (I've had a number of others through the years) it will not cut it on a full frame body.
*Chomp*

I quite like 40mm equivalent as a focal length.  I could be happy with a 24mm prime on a crop body.  But I'm also more inclined to want to go wider than longer when I shooting in that range so a 24-70 is just a lot of extra weight for a lot of focal lengths I'm not that interested in.  But I could be happy with a 24mm.

I think they should get a 16-whatever lens designed for a crop body.

Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 28, 2009, 03:36:26 pm
      X a million

Okay, well I probably should have mentioned that I like landscape and nature photography.  I'm not saying this is ALL I will be doing (which is why I would like a good all around lens), but for instance I know I hate taking pictures with people in them (such as portraits).  I really, really don't know anything about lenses, this is all a bit intimidating.  The similar...thrashing... seems to be that the 24-70mm won't give me a decently wide angle.  

So I might benefit from a lens with a lower number mm?
(I'd like f2.8 or bigger...or at least I think I do....)

It would also help me if your suggestions included manufacturer name and a specific model so I can actually compare things like prices and performance in reviews.

Sorry I'm not 'getting' this, but I'm learning, cut me a lil slack-- just being a little more specific would help.

Elby  
Title: Please Advise
Post by: marcmccalmont on March 28, 2009, 05:45:19 pm
One of the camera bodies that stands out from the crowd is the Nikon D90, you might consider a little more money for better IQ.
lenses, I would go for an 18-200 as a first general purpose lens, either the Nikkor VR or the Sigma OS
Just my 2 cents
Marc
Title: Please Advise
Post by: skippy50 on March 28, 2009, 05:47:11 pm
Today you are where I was two years ago.  Except I was a little older with a little more cash.

My photography interest is shooting my friends climbing and kayaking so I bought a Canon Xti and the 17-55 F2.8 IS lens.  The next year I picked up a 75-300 IS lens, Lightroom and Photoshop.  This year I have acquired a tripod (Gitzo 1541) and a ballhead (RSS BH40 w/panning clamp).  My next purchase will be the 24-105 F4 lens (I want a little more zoom for whitewater kayaking).

Here is my two cents...

If your interest is in landscape and nature photography the F2.8 lens is probably not good value for your money.   F2.8 is great value for my money because I need fast shutter speeds to freeze the action.  For landscape & nature shooting a good tripod & ballhead will probably be of more use than a F2.8 lens.  When I do shoot landscapes I am glad that I have the 17-24 range in my wide angle lens.  It is easier to crop & zoom photos than it is too stitch them.
If you were Canon shopping I would suggest your priorities be...

XS or XSI body
Canon EF-S 17-55 IS F4-5.6 or Canon 17-85 EF-S IS F4-5.6 lens
Clear filter to protect the lens
Lightroom
Good tripod & good ballhead

These lenses aren’t going to get great reviews but a cheap lens with a good tripod will probably be better for you than an expensive lens with no tripod.

Another tip...  Go into a camera store on a weekday morning when business is slow.  The staff will probably have more time and patience for you at that time than they would on a Saturday afternoon when the store is full of people spending money.  Learn a lot before you spend anything.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: situgrrl on March 28, 2009, 06:18:57 pm
If you are not shooting people, you have no real need for an f2.8 lens....I'm no climate change denier but it doesn't change that fast you need to freeze the action!  Get into animals and that might well change but I seriously recommend you stay away from them until you are earning some serious money....go check the price on a 500mm f4 and you'll see why!

Skippy has some good advice there, I would check for Benro and Feisol tripods - they are chinese rip offs of Gitzos and frankly I get the impression that you don't have the money to get caught up in the ethics of patents.  Besides, Gitzo legs are way over priced!  I would try to go for a carbon fibre one despite the price differential - the things are so heavy and offer precisely no additional stability when left at the back of a cupboard....where mine lives!

The only lens that I can categorically and thoroughly recommend that may be within your budget is the Olympus 14-54mm 2.8-3.5.  It's the BEST standard lens I've ever used on an SLR and excellent value for money - pin sharp and pretty rendering.  I was not impressed with the Canon system I used to shoot until I was using long lenses (85mm 1.8, 80-200 2.8).
Title: Please Advise
Post by: PeterAit on March 28, 2009, 09:53:03 pm
Quote from: MR.FEESH
Point taken, and noted.

I realize the bodies in my price range may not be the most pragmatic for this lens (24-70mm), but if I'm ever going to upgrade, it wouldn't hurt to have it around...?  I mean I'm totally new, but I think investing in lenses capable of use on more advanced bodies sounds like a good long term deal.

-------------------------

Any other lenses up for recommendation?

Elby  

I have been extremely impressed with the performance of the Nikkor  18-135mm DX zoom that came with my D80. While "kit lenses" sometimes get a bad rap, this one is surprisingly good.

Peter
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 29, 2009, 12:45:39 am
Quote from: PeterAit
I have been extremely impressed with the performance of the Nikkor  18-135mm DX zoom that came with my D80. While "kit lenses" sometimes get a bad rap, this one is surprisingly good.

Peter


A good kit lens would save me a whole world of trouble.  Problem is, you're the first person I've ever heard say that about the kit lens...not that I don't trust you...it just seems like you're vastly outnumbered.

Can you post any pics?

---------------------------------------
Okay so now I'm looking at a decent speed (maybe like 3.5 or so) with a lower range mm to compensate for the 1.6x crop... still no unanimous decision though...from you other posters I mean-- this is making it quite the challenge!


Elby

Title: Please Advise
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on March 29, 2009, 01:05:42 am
Quote
A good kit lens would save me a whole world of trouble. Problem is, you're the first person I've ever heard say that about the kit lens...not that I don't trust you...it just seems like you're vastly outnumbered.

I haven't used that particular Nikon kit lens, but I got the Nikon 18-70 DX  kit lens when I first went digital with a Nikon D70, some years back, and it was a darn fine lens for something so dirt cheap.  Heck, it was much better than any of the mid-price Canon lenses I was using with my Canon film camera previously.  Kit lenses tend to get a bad rap around here because the DSLR shooters here seem to be predominantly Canon, and Canon's kit lenses are said to be poor, but at least some of Nikon's are much better.

For Nikon lenses, Bjorn Rorslett's lens reviews are great.  Look for the "Lenses" link near the upper left on the following web page:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)

I just checked it, and unfortunately I can't find the 18-135 lens there among the ones he's reviewed.  You might find some other good inexpensive lenses there, though.  (I can personally vouch for the 18-70 DX, which BR liked a great deal too.)

Lisa
Title: Please Advise
Post by: wolfnowl on March 29, 2009, 02:36:27 am
Quote from: MR.FEESH
     X a million

It would also help me if your suggestions included manufacturer name and a specific model so I can actually compare things like prices and performance in reviews.

Sorry I'm not 'getting' this, but I'm learning, cut me a lil slack-- just being a little more specific would help.

Elby  

All of the major manufacturers - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax for example make good cameras and accessories.  Reviews and the like will take you so far, but the first thing you need to do is define a budget.  What kind of money do you have to spend?  You don't have to tell us, but you do need to know for yourself.

I've written this before for others, but here is my suggestion.  With budget in mind, find a local camera store that carries the major brands and go there.  Find a clerk and tell him/ her that you're looking for a DSLR and that you're new to photography.  If he or she takes one camera off the shelf and says, "This is the one for you!", leave.  Say thanks, have a nice day or whatever, but walk out.

Find a clerk who will be willing to invest as much time in you as you need.  Handle different cameras and see how they feel to you.  Since you're starting out you'll be building a system from the ground up and you don't have to buy X camera from Y manufacturer because you already have lenses and accessories for that line.  How do the different cameras fit in your hands?  Do the menus and features make sense?  Is the size right for you?  Are the controls in places that make sense to you?  By the end of the day, whether it takes you 1/2 hour or 2 hours, you'll have sorted it down to two or three cameras that you really like.  Now, take the clerk's business card and go home.  Run through your experience in your mind and see if one of those cameras stood out for you above the others.  This one has this but not that, etc. but THIS one is perfect for me.  Tomorrow go back to the store, find the clerk who served you before and make your purchase.

Mike.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Craig Arnold on March 29, 2009, 03:53:39 am
In general the kit lenses are excellent value.

The Nikon 18-135 that comes with the D90 is very good.

For comprehensive lens reviews start first with:

http://www.slrgear.com (http://www.slrgear.com)

Then look at:

http://www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de)

Then the more specialized sites.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Plekto on March 29, 2009, 06:41:14 am
I know it's not going to be in vogue or seen as correct by many, but my experience in learning to use a camera back in the 70s and 80s was something that I can't replicate with today's technology.  Now, that is to say, that it's not just about technology being different.  It is.  But it's also about the basics.  Light, optics, a box, media, and so on.  As such I can manage to shoot any sort of camera or video type device fairly well.

There are two approaches to photography, IMO. Professional and Artist.  One does it for a daily living and the other is looking for a life-long hobby.   Technology and tools differ greatly for both.  A DSLR might seem the way to go, but I'll recommend taking the "Prime lens - keep it simple" approach one step further and say that you should get a (manual) film camera.

These are everywhere and people are literally throwing them away.  But what you can learn on an old SLR, for instance, is something that DSLRs just don't do.  My first SLR was a Minolta with one 28mm lens.  And I made due with it for nearly two years, taking pictures of everything and anything that I could.    Digital cameras do so much for you now, which is nice, but they also rob you of tools like knowing and being able to see why things are the way that they are.  For instance, how to manually tweak the exposure - and to be able to tell when it's going to need it.  Sure, the DSLR does it for you to a point, but the skills are still necessary, IMO, or at the least, worth learning.  

It also is good to have to manually focus, because 90% of the time my DSLR was doing it slightly wrong - it would either focus where I didn't want it or the depth of field was all over the place because it thought it knew better.  If I didn't have experience doing it manually, I'd not have known, though, to nudge it a bit, and then probably have wondered why the shots were so-so, most likely.  It took me just as much time per shot, if not longer, with an auto-focus DSLR as it did with my manual focus camera.  It certainly wasn't "point and shoot" easy.  

*note - this doesn't mean a manual focus camera should be manual aperture or speed or not have a proper electronic viewfinder to aid you.   I'm not recommending a rangefinder camera, after all - heh)

It didn't enforce good habits, either.  It's too easy to shoot and shoot and shoot and then delete the junk ones instead of developing skills to get it right the first time.  Now, most of this is patience, but some it also is that with film, there's no second chance.  It ingrains a proper "get it right the first time" method of shooting that I see lacking lately.

And they are really complex.  Having a shutter speed, aperture, and a couple of program modes and that's it was more than enough for me as a beginner back then.  The 20+ buttons and menus on most of these new models kind of gives me a headache and I'm an actual gear-head who does computer work for a living.  Sure, I can understand it.  But why should I have to read a 200+ page manual to do so?  There's something to be said about simplicity as well.  (not even getting into computer software, either)  I can't imagine having the patience to learn it all if I was just starting out now.

Would I recommend it to someone who was doing it as a career?  Of *course* not.  But a DSLR plus software, printer, and lenses and all of that can easily run into 2-3K.   Learning to use a $50  35mm camera you get at an estate sale is a lot of shooting to reach that price range.  And for the person with a tight budget every week, it's about the only practical approach.

Get a cheap camera.  Stick some film in it.  Start shooting.

EDIT:
http://www.adorama.com/VVV3800.html (http://www.adorama.com/VVV3800.html)
They still make this type of camera new, in fact.  This comes with a 28-70mm lens as well.  With these prices new, there are tons of them for about half this price used that are like new or only a year or two old.  They are popular with photography classes at most colleges - cheap, simple, and often sold when the person graduates.

ebay item # 220386113650 is a good example of the low prices.   (looks like a 50mm lens though...)  Despite the low price, it's mechanically as solid as a rock.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5982..._Autofocus.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/598250-GREY/Nikon__N65_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html)
This is a good film camera just with auto focus(body only) - Again, easy to find used models all over the place.  IT has all the aperture, shutter, and other modes, though, so it might be a better option.  My original Minolta was similar - just without the auto focusing.  These also are popular with photography classes, so many models can be found like new for under $100.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 29, 2009, 09:04:16 am
Quote from: Plekto
I know it's not going to be in vogue or seen as correct by many, but my experience in learning to use a camera back in the 70s and 80s was something that I can't replicate with today's technology.  Now, that is to say, that it's not just about technology being different.  It is.  But it's also about the basics.  Light, optics, a box, media, and so on.  As such I can manage to shoot any sort of camera or video type device fairly well.

There are two approaches to photography, IMO. Professional and Artist.  One does it for a daily living and the other is looking for a life-long hobby.   Technology and tools differ greatly for both.  A DSLR might seem the way to go, but I'll recommend taking the "Prime lens - keep it simple" approach one step further and say that you should get a (manual) film camera.

These are everywhere and people are literally throwing them away.  But what you can learn on an old SLR, for instance, is something that DSLRs just don't do.  My first SLR was a Minolta with one 28mm lens.  And I made due with it for nearly two years, taking pictures of everything and anything that I could.    Digital cameras do so much for you now, which is nice, but they also rob you of tools like knowing and being able to see why things are the way that they are.  For instance, how to manually tweak the exposure - and to be able to tell when it's going to need it.  Sure, the DSLR does it for you to a point, but the skills are still necessary, IMO, or at the least, worth learning.  

It also is good to have to manually focus, because 90% of the time my DSLR was doing it slightly wrong - it would either focus where I didn't want it or the depth of field was all over the place because it thought it knew better.  If I didn't have experience doing it manually, I'd not have known, though, to nudge it a bit, and then probably have wondered why the shots were so-so, most likely.  It took me just as much time per shot, if not longer, with an auto-focus DSLR as it did with my manual focus camera.  It certainly wasn't "point and shoot" easy.  

*note - this doesn't mean a manual focus camera should be manual aperture or speed or not have a proper electronic viewfinder to aid you.   I'm not recommending a rangefinder camera, after all - heh)

It didn't enforce good habits, either.  It's too easy to shoot and shoot and shoot and then delete the junk ones instead of developing skills to get it right the first time.  Now, most of this is patience, but some it also is that with film, there's no second chance.  It ingrains a proper "get it right the first time" method of shooting that I see lacking lately.

And they are really complex.  Having a shutter speed, aperture, and a couple of program modes and that's it was more than enough for me as a beginner back then.  The 20+ buttons and menus on most of these new models kind of gives me a headache and I'm an actual gear-head who does computer work for a living.  Sure, I can understand it.  But why should I have to read a 200+ page manual to do so?  There's something to be said about simplicity as well.  (not even getting into computer software, either)  I can't imagine having the patience to learn it all if I was just starting out now.

Would I recommend it to someone who was doing it as a career?  Of *course* not.  But a DSLR plus software, printer, and lenses and all of that can easily run into 2-3K.   Learning to use a $50  35mm camera you get at an estate sale is a lot of shooting to reach that price range.  And for the person with a tight budget every week, it's about the only practical approach.

Get a cheap camera.  Stick some film in it.  Start shooting.

EDIT:
http://www.adorama.com/VVV3800.html (http://www.adorama.com/VVV3800.html)
They still make this type of camera new, in fact.  This comes with a 28-70mm lens as well.  With these prices new, there are tons of them for about half this price used that are like new or only a year or two old.  They are popular with photography classes at most colleges - cheap, simple, and often sold when the person graduates.

ebay item # 220386113650 is a good example of the low prices.   (looks like a 50mm lens though...)  Despite the low price, it's mechanically as solid as a rock.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5982..._Autofocus.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/598250-GREY/Nikon__N65_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html)
This is a good film camera just with auto focus(body only) - Again, easy to find used models all over the place.  IT has all the aperture, shutter, and other modes, though, so it might be a better option.  My original Minolta was similar - just without the auto focusing.  These also are popular with photography classes, so many models can be found like new for under $100.




To a very minimal extent, I have done this.  My mom has a film 35mm Minolta which I have explored thoroughly.  I just have to say (it's nothing personal), that the ability to not have film and the ability to delete when you mess up is SO MUCH more worth it to me because I'm on a budget.  I am just a beginner, and let's face it, my pictures are going to look like CRAP for a while-- I simply don't have the time (during college) to be running around developing film.  Witht his being said, I'm not just going to run ramped and leave everything on auto and shoot the crap out of stuff until I get luck with one good shot; my experience with my mom's old film camera leads me to agree with you about manual focus- I know what I am taking a picture of much more so than does the computer in the DSLR.  I probably will get in to film one day, but the allure and prospects of digital photography are too great for a youngster like myself.

Quote from: wolfnowl
All of the major manufacturers - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax for example make good cameras and accessories.  Reviews and the like will take you so far, but the first thing you need to do is define a budget.  What kind of money do you have to spend?  You don't have to tell us, but you do need to know for yourself.

I've written this before for others, but here is my suggestion.  With budget in mind, find a local camera store that carries the major brands and go there.  Find a clerk and tell him/ her that you're looking for a DSLR and that you're new to photography.  If he or she takes one camera off the shelf and says, "This is the one for you!", leave.  Say thanks, have a nice day or whatever, but walk out.

Find a clerk who will be willing to invest as much time in you as you need.  Handle different cameras and see how they feel to you.  Since you're starting out you'll be building a system from the ground up and you don't have to buy X camera from Y manufacturer because you already have lenses and accessories for that line.  How do the different cameras fit in your hands?  Do the menus and features make sense?  Is the size right for you?  Are the controls in places that make sense to you?  By the end of the day, whether it takes you 1/2 hour or 2 hours, you'll have sorted it down to two or three cameras that you really like.  Now, take the clerk's business card and go home.  Run through your experience in your mind and see if one of those cameras stood out for you above the others.  This one has this but not that, etc. but THIS one is perfect for me.  Tomorrow go back to the store, find the clerk who served you before and make your purchase.

Mike.


I would like my final result for one lens and one body to be around $1100  Like I said, I'm just a student, unless something big changes in my financial status, I just need a *good* beginner camera and lens that works.  I have already done the 'test them out to see how they feel', the D80 was the winner-- I like how it fit in my hands, I could fly around the menus with ease (hurray for youth/ neural plasticity), and it was in my price range assuming I get like a 300-450 dollar lens.  The first time I ever brought up my interest to any one, they told me to do exactly what you just did, I like the D80-- lenses are so much harder because I'm not going to know how to handle them until the lens is bought and I am shooting.  It's much easier to 'feel' a camera than to 'feel' a lens, which is why I'm having so much trouble and posting here.


Quote from: peripatetic
In general the kit lenses are excellent value.

The Nikon 18-135 that comes with the D90 is very good.

For comprehensive lens reviews start first with:

http://www.slrgear.com (http://www.slrgear.com)

Then look at:

http://www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de)

Then the more specialized sites.


That's some decently good news!  Thanks for the links!




-----------------------------------------------------

Elby
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 29, 2009, 01:09:35 pm
Quote from: MR.FEESH
I would like my final result for one lens and one body to be around $1100  Like I said, I'm just a student, unless something big changes in my financial status, I just need a *good* beginner camera and lens that works.

All current DSLR's are excellent cameras and the kit lenses are generally just fine.  If you can't get a good image out of them it is you and not the camera.  The biggest problem with most kit lenses is that they aren't particularly bright lenses.  (Which is why people tend to recommend the cheap 50 f1.8's as a lens even though it isn't great on a crop body.)  Other than that any kit off the shelf of best buy should work fine for your purposes.  I wouldn't waste too many brain cells on this.  Pick a combo and start learning it.

And it isn't like you're talking about a huge leap here.  A $300 lens is not a huge jump from a $100 kit lens.  You're going to eventually want to buy better glass even if you get the $300 lens.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 29, 2009, 01:30:37 pm
Quote from: DarkPenguin
All current DSLR's are excellent cameras and the kit lenses are generally just fine.  If you can't get a good image out of them it is you and not the camera.  The biggest problem with most kit lenses is that they aren't particularly bright lenses.  (Which is why people tend to recommend the cheap 50 f1.8's as a lens even though it isn't great on a crop body.)  Other than that any kit off the shelf of best buy should work fine for your purposes.  I wouldn't waste too many brain cells on this.  Pick a combo and start learning it.

And it isn't like you're talking about a huge leap here.  A $300 lens is not a huge jump from a $100 kit lens.  You're going to eventually want to buy better glass even if you get the $300 lens.


Ahh, so much of a relief.  Yeah I was thinking about how hard this process is-- I kinda figure maybe i SHOULD get a kit, just so I learn how to use a lens (what's good and bad, how the whole deal works), and THEN after I decide it's sub-par I'll know exactly what to look for that will give me the pictures I've been trying to get.  I kinda feel like I'm some one trying to pick between Porsche and Ferrari that's never even sat in a car before.  

There's one kit on Adorama that has the D80 with a "7X Zoom Kit with 18-135 f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens",  is this a better deal than the stock "18 - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom-Nikkor Lens"  that is is supposed to come with, yes?  I mean, they're both 'slow' (f/3.5-5.6), but one has a greater mm range, but they're the same price....  .  If I got the kit with the 18-135mm, then I would learn first hand and be able to select a semi-pro/ pro grade lens once I know what the f**k I'm doing.  Does this make sense or...?  

Elby
Title: Please Advise
Post by: marcmccalmont on March 29, 2009, 01:34:33 pm
The digital process is much more efficient with a steeper learning curve and much more to learn. Because all the steps are in front of you, you will learn quicker.
Let me explain;
1. Compose-shoot-verify with histogram-shoot again-zoom in verify focus
2. Download-screen-RAW covert-PS adjustments-review
3. Print-review print-reprint

There are 3 major steps that YOU are in command of and need to master
There are 6 feed back loops to consider if the image is not right, redoing any of the three steps, going back to the beginning from steps 2 or 3 and going back to a previous step from step 2 or 3  these steps are cheaper and quicker in digital. I never really learned photography in the film days with developing and printing being sent out ( I do however respect you masters that did have a darkroom, especially color, and mastered every step)

2 more cents
Marc

PS my first serious DSLR was a 5D / 24-105 and in hindsight I did myself a favor getting "too" good a camera for my needs. When you take a great shot as a beginner the motivation it gives you to press on cannot be measured. I have owned a D80/18-200VR, 450 Xsi 18-200 OS, 5D, 5DII, G9, G10, Mamiya/Phase and unless you cross the threshold with a 5D or D90 you will not cross that magic line. There is both absolute and relative quality one needs to cross the threshold on an absolute basis.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on March 29, 2009, 01:48:03 pm
Quote
There's one kit on Adorama that has the D80 with a "7X Zoom Kit with 18-135 f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens", is this a better deal than the stock "18 - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom-Nikkor Lens" that is is supposed to come with, yes? I mean, they're both 'slow' (f/3.5-5.6), but one has a greater mm range, but they're the same price....  . If I got the kit with the 18-135mm, then I would learn first hand and be able to select a semi-pro/ pro grade lens once I know what the f**k I'm doing. Does this make sense or...?

If you're trying to choose between the 18-135 lens and the 18-55 lens, I think you need to consider what you think your typical style of photography is likely to be.  If you are likely to often want a longer zoom reach, the 18-135 will give you that.  However, the 18-55 has vibration reduction, which can be very useful if you're often photographing without a tripod for whatever reason (tripods not allowed where you're photographing, awkward to carry a long way when you're hiking, you just aren't patient enough to set it up every time you want to snap a shot, etc. etc.).  The VR costs something to add to the lens.

Lisa

P.S.  I agree with the decision to get a DSLR instead of a film SLR when you're learning.  Because of the long delay between taking a photo and seeing the final print, it's much harder to learn what you're doing wrong with film.  I was technically really pretty awful with film, and only starting learning about proper exposure once I got instant histograms with my first DSLR.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: atassy on March 29, 2009, 02:05:04 pm
now that you're pretty much set on the D80, and from what you've said so far i'd think about these to options:
1. get one of the standard zooms mentioned
2. get a 28mm prime (which will be just a tad wider than a traditional standard lens on your body)

good reasons for the kit zoom have been stated. so why the 28mm prime? you can get a decent quality lens for a fairly low investment. the fixed focal lenght will teach you a lot, as described by others before. and you will be able to experiment and find out how you like to work, before spending more money on other lenses. imho it will teach you a lot more about consciously creating an image than the convenience of the zoom will.
then, make sure you set the D80 to fully manual. a lot of your shots may turn out crap but as you can check them immediately, you'll be learning fast. i believe limiting your options when learning photography actually increases your chances to understand both the technical and creative processes involved.

of course this is just the personal opinion of someone who went trough a rather long learning curve similar to what plekto describes
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 29, 2009, 02:12:00 pm
Quote from: atassy
imho it will teach you a lot more about consciously creating an image than the convenience of the zoom will.

Well, I wouldn't use a zoom as a continuous thing.  I tend to use them like they have click stops. ( 17, 24, 50, etc.)  Makes it much easier to learn a lens if you use it at a handful of very familiar focal lengths rather than an infinite number.

Edit: Added an 'm'.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 29, 2009, 02:16:43 pm
Quote from: MR.FEESH
Ahh, so much of a relief.  Yeah I was thinking about how hard this process is-- I kinda figure maybe i SHOULD get a kit, just so I learn how to use a lens (what's good and bad, how the whole deal works), and THEN after I decide it's sub-par I'll know exactly what to look for that will give me the pictures I've been trying to get.  I kinda feel like I'm some one trying to pick between Porsche and Ferrari that's never even sat in a car before.  

There's one kit on Adorama that has the D80 with a "7X Zoom Kit with 18-135 f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens",  is this a better deal than the stock "18 - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom-Nikkor Lens"  that is is supposed to come with, yes?  I mean, they're both 'slow' (f/3.5-5.6), but one has a greater mm range, but they're the same price....  .  If I got the kit with the 18-135mm, then I would learn first hand and be able to select a semi-pro/ pro grade lens once I know what the f**k I'm doing.  Does this make sense or...?  

Elby
Seems reasonable to me.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: marcmccalmont on March 29, 2009, 02:46:54 pm
Get the D90 you woun't be sorry
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5804...tal_Camera.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580422-REG/Nikon_25448_D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html)
$1150
Marc

The dust reduction alone is worth the xtra $$$$
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Jonathan Ratzlaff on March 29, 2009, 03:30:06 pm
I second the D90.  Good image quality with minimal loss of functions.  Manual focus/autofocus is a red hearing.  As long as you set up an autofocus camera so that you control the focus points and when the camera focuses, you will be far ahead.  Assign the AF function to the AF/AE lock button and you have a manual autofocus camera.  

Film has its drawbacks.  There is no instant feedback like digital, there is a delay in getting your images back.  If you don't shoot slide film, the print lab makes adjustments so you don't have a good idea what is happening.  Not only that but film and processing costs money.    

A kit lens is a good starting point as long as you don't buy the 18-55.  The image quality will be as good as you will need starting out.  Then if you want better quality look at purchasing a used 50mm 1.8 and other used lenses as your budget will allow.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Plekto on March 29, 2009, 05:46:19 pm
Quote
To a very minimal extent, I have done this.  My mom has a film 35mm Minolta which I have explored thoroughly.  I just have to say (it's nothing personal), that the ability to not have film and the ability to delete when you mess up is SO MUCH more worth it to me because I'm on a budget.  I am just a beginner, and let's face it, my pictures are going to look like CRAP for a while-- I simply don't have the time (during college) to be running around developing film.  With his being said, I'm not just going to run ramped and leave everything on auto and shoot the crap out of stuff until I get luck with one good shot; my experience with my mom's old film camera leads me to agree with you about manual focus- I know what I am taking a picture of much more so than does the computer in the DSLR.  I probably will get in to film one day, but the allure and prospects of digital photography are too great for a youngster like myself.

My first camera was an old Rollei 6x6 camera.  I shot black and white film.  It was cheap and easy to buy and develop myself.  It's what I still use medium format film(now 6x7) for.  It still looks better than digital.  Color is more of a wash between digital and film now, but black and white is still a little bit better - and who has $20K for a pro digital back B&W setup?

I'd recommend to just get some cheap film and toss that in your mom's old camera for now.  Printing is going to cost 10-30 cents a print at a lab or at home anyways.   Yes, there isn't the feedback you get with a DSLR, but then again, the "feedback" on a tiny screen isn't any good - you have to load the thing in and process the raw files to "see" the actual final result.  I'd call it a wash - it's not like a digital back that's hooked up directly to a computer.

In the meantime, sure, save up for a few months for a decent body while using your mom's camera as a "starter".  That's its role, really.  http://store.ultrafineonline.com/fupronpc1603.html (http://store.ultrafineonline.com/fupronpc1603.html) - $40 for 20 rolls.  That should suffice until you get the DSLR money saved up.  Just process it at Costco or whatever is cheapest.  Or just get a bulk pack for $30 or so at Coscto

Quote
I would like my final result for one lens and one body to be around $1100  Like I said, I'm just a student, unless something big changes in my financial status, I just need a *good* beginner camera and lens that works.

*The* deal for a good DSLR with all of the features and good output right now are the Sigmas.  They never really caught on, mostly because Sigma keeps delaying their next real full-frame model/didn't keep up with Nikon and Canon and it was pricey.   As a result, you can find new old stock bodies for very little money.   I had one and it was okay - but it was the lower resolution model, the SD10.  The SD14 is a 4.6MP camera, but they are real pixels(no Bayer pattern).

SD14 - 2640 x 1760 (high mode - the interpolated "super-high" mode looks odd to me)
Bayer pattern conversion is 1.5x real pixels(or 0.66 if converting down to screen/printed pixels): 3960 X 2640 = 10.4MP comparable to a typical DSLR.  It wasn't a great camera compared to its competition when it came out, but as a used value, it's a steal.

The real claim to fame is that while the resolution isn't great, and their low-light performance sucks, the color and clarity is fantastic.  There are no moires and defects in the picture, so it enlarges very well and has a very good "film" look to it.

Ebay Item number: 350184432892.  New, $350(!).  Lenses for it are also usually cheaper as well, since Sigma is the largest "third party" lens maker.    Use it, sell it in a couple of years.  Be out very little money on the trade.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on March 29, 2009, 06:41:33 pm
The sigma bodies are junk.  The sensor is their only selling point.

If one is going cheap find a place that has the Oly E-410 2 lens kit in stock.  Last I saw it was under $500.

Title: Please Advise
Post by: Plekto on March 30, 2009, 01:28:10 am
The consensus online is that the Sigma body, despite the claimed price is no better or worse built than the typical entry level DSLR.  No, it's not a $1500 camera like they tried to market it as, but it *IS* a steal at $350.  It certainly works as well as any of the budget $500-$600 range DSLRs and the output looks better, IMO.

It's kind of like someone asking about a first car - the obvious choice is something domestic because they depreciate and can be found cheaply.  Yes, it's not flashy, but a midsize GM or Ford sedan on closeout is still better than a Yaris.  If we're talking budget 10-12MP DSLRs, new old stock higher end models from a couple of years ago also have to be considered.  For $350, that's a jaw-dropping deal.

P.S. For the original poster's information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor)
If the picture looks a lot like how film works with its various layers, you'd be correct.

A Bayer pattern sensor looks like this, BTW:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=33337 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33337)
See post #5.

If this looks like a color image in a newspaper under a magnifying glass, you'd also be correct.  They market the "pixels" as real pixels, but real pixels are like in your monitor - full color locations.  A Bayer pattern sensor has to do a lot of software tweaking and blending to get a good image, so the best it can actually do is about 0.66% in each dimension, or about half the actual usable pixels compared to say, your monitor.  Still, with 15-25MP to play around with now, they do make for very good results.  But 15-25MP DLSRs tend to cost $1500+, even used.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ (http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/)
A review.  Keep in mind that it's being compared a bit unfairly to the 5D, which is 12.7MP.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: brivard on March 30, 2009, 02:33:14 am
My only advice when buying lenses is go for the fastest one you can afford. Some will argue with the "with todays high ISO" mumbo jumbo... High ISO is great nut you have to have a body that can handle it. The faster the aperture the easier your camera will be to use. That simple. The reason is that having a fast shutter speed at almost any given lightsource is invaluable. I suggest a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. They are fast and using it and not a zoom will get you to focus on composition not other things like turning your ISO up. A fast aperture will also give you the availability of shooting film (film uses low iso!)
Title: Please Advise
Post by: brivard on March 30, 2009, 02:51:21 am
Oh and with the money you saved by only spending 100 bucks on a nifty fifty get yourself a used 5d. Full frame is also an invaluable thing later in life, and I doubt there is a more solid camera (has everything you might need). A 5d II is quite an investment for anyone, so a 5d mark 1 is an excellent decision. I started on a crop frame and regret not going full frame. A decent price for a used 5d is about 1300, a little more than you wanted but again well worth the jump.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: marcmccalmont on March 30, 2009, 01:05:15 pm
Quote from: Plekto
The consensus online is that the Sigma body, despite the claimed price is no better or worse built than the typical entry level DSLR.  No, it's not a $1500 camera like they tried to market it as, but it *IS* a steal at $350.  It certainly works as well as any of the budget $500-$600 range DSLRs and the output looks better, IMO.

It's kind of like someone asking about a first car - the obvious choice is something domestic because they depreciate and can be found cheaply.  Yes, it's not flashy, but a midsize GM or Ford sedan on closeout is still better than a Yaris.  If we're talking budget 10-12MP DSLRs, new old stock higher end models from a couple of years ago also have to be considered.  For $350, that's a jaw-dropping deal.

P.S. For the original poster's information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor)
If the picture looks a lot like how film works with its various layers, you'd be correct.

A Bayer pattern sensor looks like this, BTW:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=33337 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33337)
See post #5.

If this looks like a color image in a newspaper under a magnifying glass, you'd also be correct.  They market the "pixels" as real pixels, but real pixels are like in your monitor - full color locations.  A Bayer pattern sensor has to do a lot of software tweaking and blending to get a good image, so the best it can actually do is about 0.66% in each dimension, or about half the actual usable pixels compared to say, your monitor.  Still, with 15-25MP to play around with now, they do make for very good results.  But 15-25MP DLSRs tend to cost $1500+, even used.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/ (http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/)
A review.  Keep in mind that it's being compared a bit unfairly to the 5D, which is 12.7MP.

Remember the human eye is  not layered but rather individual red, green, blue cones and 6 B&W rods mapped into one  nerve. One could argue that a bayer pattern is more like human sight than layered film or Foveon and thus more natural looking (more like you see, less like film see's, film was a compromise due to the chemical technology of the time, yes over a hundresd years to mature but not the ultimate way to record visual light)
Just another point of view
Marc
PS I know your in love with film, nothing wrong with that, it reminds me of when I was designing/building high end loudspeakers there were both camps vinyl was the best or digital was the best. I had both a very good analog front end and digital front end, with a good recording no one could tell them apart. The truth was from a technical point of view vinyl had better high frequecy performance (most significant bit) and digital had better low frequency performance (least significant bit) but in practice $4000 spent on either front end resulted in identically perceived playback.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Plekto on March 30, 2009, 02:57:48 pm
Quote
Remember the human eye is  not layered but rather individual red, green, blue cones and 6 B&W rods mapped into one  nerve. One could argue that a Bayer pattern is more like human sight than layered film or Foveon and thus more natural looking (more like you see, less like film sees, film was a compromise due to the chemical technology of the time, yes over a hundred years to mature but not the ultimate way to record visual light)
Just another point of view
But this is a problem, really.  Because moire and moire multiplies and causes us to be more preceptive of artifacts and problems in the image.  When part of an image is blurry and part is clean due to interpolation and noise reduction errors that vary for each primary color in the grid, I personally find that it bothers me.  The only way to deal with this is to either disable it/not have it (which is why digital backs look better to most people), or have different geometry(Fuji or Sigma) or make the dots so tiny that it exceeds our ability to notice(ie - a typical 20-25MP camera)

If it weren't so expensive, the Fuji S5Pro(Nikon mount) would be another good choice.  The results are very pleasing and life-like.  Not just the high DR but also way it handles moires and typical pattern sensor issues. But At $900+ new, though, it's just not the best deal for the money.  But I'd certainly chose the S5 over the D5.  I like to think of it like a Mercedes - if you have the cash, go for it.  If you don't just buy the nearly identical and much cheaper Lexus.

Quote
PS I know your in love with film, nothing wrong with that, it reminds me of when I was designing/building high end loudspeakers there were both camps vinyl was the best or digital was the best. I had both a very good analog front end and digital front end, with a good recording no one could tell them apart. The truth was from a technical point of view vinyl had better high frequency performance (most significant bit) and digital had better low frequency performance (least significant bit) but in practice $4000 spent on either front end resulted in identically perceived playback.

I find it to be not quite that simple, though, because vinyl always was a kludge compared to better analog recording methods - maybe more like comparing tubes and transistors.  For specific uses, each is better than the other.  Absolute quality of sound goes to a proper tube amplifier, but you have cost and work flow issues(heavy, hard to tweak to get the bias set up right, requires filtered or regulated power, is fragile, and can't go really loud with most speakers.    The transistor gives you 80-90% the quality and is a simple brick you plug in.  Beat on it, abuse it, and it still works.  Since most people's ears are like their eyes and degrade after age 20-30, that 10-20% difference blurs.

Film *is* better than digital.  But it's also tons more expensive if you do it in volume, slower, requires more fiddling and tweaking(or sending out to a specialized lab if you don't develop yourself), and also requires scanning and so on.  It's essentially unusable for anything you'd make a living doing other than maybe large format scenery or glamour shots and the like.  But like the guy with a tube amplifier, a person who is only interested in it as a hobby or as an artistic form can still be well served by film.

In any case, the original poster has used his mother's old film camera for a while and so has passed the initial "hurdle" somewhat.  If he wants to move to digital, sure - go ahead.  Just it's easy to spend a lot more than you have to.  Recommending a $1200 5D isn't necessarily the right thing to do when a $350-$500 basic DSLR will more than suffice.  He's not going to see the difference between 8, 10, or 12MP.  He's not going to spend $3K on lenses.  He's not going to use half of the modes or special features, either.  So there's no need to go overkill.  I'd have recommended a Digital Rebel in fact, normally.   Cheap, simple, and works.

I recommended the Sigma because it's a killer deal at $350.  That leaves a lot of money for a truly good lens and still be well under $600($250 for a good prime or compact zoom should suffice).
Title: Please Advise
Post by: marcmccalmont on March 30, 2009, 03:17:31 pm
Quote from: Plekto
But this is a problem, really.  Because moire and moire multiplies and causes us to be more preceptive of artifacts and problems in the image.  When part of an image is blurry and part is clean due to interpolation and noise reduction errors that vary for each primary color in the grid, I personally find that it bothers me.  The only way to deal with this is to either disable it/not have it (which is why digital backs look better to most people), or have different geometry(Fuji or Sigma) or make the dots so tiny that it exceeds our ability to notice(ie - a typical 20-25MP camera)

If it weren't so expensive, the Fuji S5Pro(Nikon mount) would be another good choice.  The results are very pleasing and life-like.  Not just the high DR but also way it handles moires and typical pattern sensor issues. But At $900+ new, though, it's just not the best deal for the money.  But I'd certainly chose the S5 over the D5.  I like to think of it like a Mercedes - if you have the cash, go for it.  If you don't just buy the nearly identical and much cheaper Lexus.



I find it to be not quite that simple, though, because vinyl always was a kludge compared to better analog recording methods - maybe more like comparing tubes and transistors.  For specific uses, each is better than the other.  Absolute quality of sound goes to a proper tube amplifier, but you have cost and work flow issues(heavy, hard to tweak to get the bias set up right, requires filtered or regulated power, is fragile, and can't go really loud with most speakers.    The transistor gives you 80-90% the quality and is a simple brick you plug in.  Beat on it, abuse it, and it still works.  Since most people's ears are like their eyes and degrade after age 20-30, that 10-20% difference blurs.

Film *is* better than digital.  But it's also tons more expensive if you do it in volume, slower, requires more fiddling and tweaking(or sending out to a specialized lab if you don't develop yourself), and also requires scanning and so on.  It's essentially unusable for anything you'd make a living doing other than maybe large format scenery or glamour shots and the like.  But like the guy with a tube amplifier, a person who is only interested in it as a hobby or as an artistic form can still be well served by film.

In any case, the original poster has used his mother's old film camera for a while and so has passed the initial "hurdle" somewhat.  If he wants to move to digital, sure - go ahead.  Just it's easy to spend a lot more than you have to.  Recommending a $1200 5D isn't necessarily the right thing to do when a $350-$500 basic DSLR will more than suffice.  He's not going to see the difference between 8, 10, or 12MP.  He's not going to spend $3K on lenses.  He's not going to use half of the modes or special features, either.  So there's no need to go overkill.  I'd have recommended a Digital Rebel in fact, normally.   Cheap, simple, and works.

I recommended the Sigma because it's a killer deal at $350.  That leaves a lot of money for a truly good lens and still be well under $600($250 for a good prime or compact zoom should suffice).

We should take this discussion off line it's too far off the original posters question but good transistors (like Boulder/ATC etc ) and good digital capture (like Phase/Nikon/Canon) *is* the best!
Marc
Marc
Title: Please Advise
Post by: situgrrl on March 30, 2009, 03:30:48 pm
I think this has got off topic.  This was never meant to be a film v's digital argument and arguing in favour of a dead system is not fair on a beginner.  I don't doubt that foveron sensors have some compelling advantages under some circumstances - but with a proprietary mount and scant 3rd party supplies, it cannot be recommended as a system camera for someone in Feesh's position, even at $50 I would question the value of the investment.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: Plekto on March 30, 2009, 04:01:23 pm
Quote from: marcmccalmont
We should take this discussion off line it's too far off the original posters question but good transistors (like Boulder/ATC etc ) and good digital capture (like Phase/Nikon/Canon) *is* the best!

There are many technical reasons why tubes work slightly better for music in terms of absolute quality, which aren't really relevant here - see A/V forums instead(plus it's a bit of a holy war among many people).  But as I said, it's impractical for 90%+ of even high end home users to even contemplate such equipment in any case.  I have a good high-end transistor setup myself because I like to listen to music that's loud at times.  And I like the turn it on, wait a few seconds, and go aspect as well.  20-50WPC tube amps just don't work for rock, reggae, club, or other modern music.  Or home theater.   I don't listen to it all the time, but when I do, I want to feel it.    

As to the SD-14 being "dead", Sigma bought out Foveon entirely and have recently announced a future SD15 model.  So it's not - it's just not one of the major names.  And Sigma makes an enormous amount of decent glass as well.  Decent enough for a new person's use in any case.   Why the SD14 is so cheap is probably because the SD15 will be so much better.  But at $1500+, most likely, I'd go with the older model since it has the same sensor.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092304sigma_sd15.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092304sigma_sd15.asp)
The smart money is on the SD14, IMO.    But only because it's so inexpensive for what it is.  I'd never spend $1500 on either of them, obviously.

I look at a first DSLR as a tool and not a long-term investment.  Use it, and then sell it when you are done for hopefully only a couple of hundred dollars less than you have into it.  Cheap as possible is a good rule. If you can find a good 8-10MP camera for $350 new, sure - consider that as well.  The best I've seen that's close to that price is the Rebel XS, which is about $400.  It also would be a good choice, IMO.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MR.FEESH on March 30, 2009, 04:56:08 pm


just in general...


I think I've managed to make some choices on my own, using all of your help of course.


Although I'm not sure saying what I've decided would do any good.  Probably just spawn more posts that confuse me ahha.

Thanks to all!!!

Elby
Title: Please Advise
Post by: marcmccalmont on March 30, 2009, 06:27:30 pm
Please consider the D90 I have owned the D80 and it is OK not great. the D90 has a better sensor, dust reduction and live view all worth the extra $$ the VR in the 18-105mm is worth the extra $$ also
Marc
Title: Please Advise
Post by: tetsuo77 on April 03, 2009, 04:39:19 am
Well, some thoughts about dSLR´s I think they are worth mentioning:

1-You´ll most probably have to upgrade your computing set up. In my experience, nobody has talked about this, but it is a very important factor. You won´t be taking jpeg´s any longer [else there isn´t THAT much sense in buying a dSLR for shooting jpeg´s as you´ll loose quite some editing power]. File sizes will increase dramatically from your point and shoot if you choose to shoot RAW. Handling them -not just storing them- can be a little bit of a nightmare.

2-Starting to understand a dSLR vs. a P&Shoot.
The speed factor is very important [as a behavioural aspect]. A DSLR has a very different speed of use compared to other cameras, as you won´t use live-view as much -or shouldn´t, depending on what you´ll be shooting-. Meaning that your own ergonomics are very important in that subject. How the camera handles, if the lens is easy to change -regardless it is a zoom or a prime-,

3-The lenses.
You are on a tight budget [though, 1100us $ for a get-go system is not exactly cheap or low. 500 US $ will be a "tight" budget, and still buy you a 10mp dSLR]. As for that, you will want to go for legacy lenses as much as you want [were they zooms or primes]. For that, there are only two brands that stand out:
Sony and Pentax. Sony still has the possibility of using Minolta lenses [or KM lenses], with both metering, aperture and autofocusing capabilities. An A700 could be a very good deal to start with, as prices will have come down -and it is a very good camera-.

As for Pentax, their bodies can take up to M42 lenses [those via an adapter], but still will give focus confirmation on them and have an easy metering with the green mode and button. And there are gazillions of old lenses [the range is the A, A*, A Special, F, F*, FA, FA*, FA Limited] that will allow the camera to do the metering with no problems, plus all the weird and cheap lenses with the K mount [adopted mainly by french and russian companies]. That alone will allow you to experiment with primes that, otherwise, are extremely expensive [such as the Helios 44 85 1.4, or the Jupiter 9 series, or the Petri and Chinon series].

In my opinion, the very best advice has been given: go to the store and try the systems. But bring along a card of yours, and review the results YOURSELF at home.




Title: Please Advise
Post by: MatthewCromer on April 17, 2009, 09:05:31 pm
Frankly I think the Sony system has it all over CaNikon.

Every lens stabilized, including the 50/1.4, etc.

For someone who likes landscapes on a tight budget, an Alpha 350 with a couple of good used Minolta lenses is tough to beat!
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on April 17, 2009, 11:52:01 pm
Bleagh.  Hard to believe the same company made the A700.
Title: Please Advise
Post by: MatthewCromer on April 18, 2009, 01:35:21 pm
Quote from: DarkPenguin
Bleagh.  Hard to believe the same company made the A700.

Penguin, what exactly do you have against the 350?  Sure, it's no high-ISO wizard, but at low ISO values the images are quite spectacular, sharp, detailed, with exquisite tonality.  I picked up one for $500 at Circuit City before they closed. . .
Title: Please Advise
Post by: DarkPenguin on April 18, 2009, 04:30:05 pm
Quote from: MatthewCromer
Penguin, what exactly do you have against the 350?  Sure, it's no high-ISO wizard, but at low ISO values the images are quite spectacular, sharp, detailed, with exquisite tonality.  I picked up one for $500 at Circuit City before they closed. . .
Probably the worst visceral reaction to picking up a camera I've ever had.  (I'm pretty sure any negative digital rebel reactions I would have had were made up for by the "Holy Crap!  A DSLR for how much!?!?")  The only other thing I remember about it was that the viewfinder was pretty crappy.