Digital SLR

[Clix Pix]

Well, I'm also into web and graphic design, so I've already got Photoshop CS.

My machine is a 2 year old 1.25 Ghz 15 inch PowerBook. I've got 1.5 GB of RAM and am considering maxing out to the full 2 GB soon. I've also installed a 100 GB 7200 HD, and that has made a huge difference in speed when dealing with photographic work now that they load twice as fast off of my HD.

Well, sounds like you're already in good shape as far as software and your computer! I'd definitely recommend maxing out your RAM on your PB. That in combination with your 7200rpm hard drive should be very effective in working with the new images you'll be putting into your computer.

Also, advice on purchasing a used camera? I've seen used Rebels go for as low as $500, and I'm wondering if it's a good idea, or if I should buy new.

I would suggest that you buy new. That way, if there are any problems, the camera is under warranty and if need be you can get a free repair, replacement or whatever is necessary. These digital cameras are sensitive electronic equipment and it is all too easy for something not to be right, even straight out of the box.

If money is a consideration you might be able to pick up a new Nikon D70 for not much money, since that model was replaced by the D70s back in the spring. Ditto for the Digital Rebel, as Canon replaced its original DR with a newer version.

OTB

 

[slipper]

Perhaps you should check out this thread. I have personally compared the Olympus E-300 to the Canon 350D (aka Rebel XT) that my friend has.

A few of the things we noticed with the original lens on both cameras is that there was noticable chromatic abberations with the Canon 350D. The Olympus also had noticeably beter resolution when view at 100% on the computer screen or interpolated with photoshop.

On the other hand the higher ISO levels of the E-300 are not as good as the 350D. Some of the reviews pointed this out and since i do outdoor/scenic pics its not something i need to worry about.

Its a toss up, but definately do not rule out the Olympus. I need to sell mine cause im getting the 5D!!!!!

*edit* just needed to add dpreview stated resolution just as good as the Canon 20D

 

[Clix Pix]

I use the D2X for our aerial stuff and really like it.

That's my "dream machine...." but I am waiting to see what that long-rumored D200 has to offer, if it doesn't turn out to just be vaporware after all this. If it meets my needs then I'll go with it, but if it still seems lacking then I'll take the plunge and go right to the D2X. Been wanting one for a long time....

OTB

 

[atari1356]

I tried out a few different DSLR's and ultimately decided on the Canon Digital Rebel XT (body) along with a couple of decent lenses. The image quality is very nice, even at ISO 1600.

Also, Canon has some nice rebates going on right now if you're in the U.S.:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=PromotionsAct

 

[iGary]

That's my "dream machine...." but I am waiting to see what that long-rumored D200 has to offer, if it doesn't turn out to just be vaporware after all this. If it meets my needs then I'll go with it, but if it still seems lacking then I'll take the plunge and go right to the D2X. Been wanting one for a long time....

OTB

We would have bought Canon, but Canon was not offering a GPS interface, which we had to have.

Oh well. The D2X is a nice piece of equipment.

 

[Moxiemike]

2 grand is quite a savings....and yeah that is a hard decision.

I use the D2X for our aerial stuff and really like it.

wasn't even the money but rather the ISO 3200 look, which i could seriously make some use of. And FF for architectural stuff

 

[BrandonSi]

Only real pros and serious amateurs worry about white balance.

RAW is surely no cure all and color shifts still exist. So you're definitely off with your white balance theories. It also effect exposure, flash metering, etc.

Wrong White Balance can be fixed in RAW but it never looks as good as white balance done right.

Not to threadjack in this nice guy's post, but you may want to revisit the purpose of RAW! Setting your white balance before shooting with RAW vs correcting the white balance in post processing with RAW can yeild the same results.

From Luminous Landscapes

Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

And also from Adobe

Most of today's cameras that allow saving captures as raw files also enable you to set a white balance while shooting. However, when you're shooting raw, this white balance is saved only as an EXIF metadata tag. In fact, when you're shooting raw, the only camera setting that will have a significant impact on the raw capture is the camera's ISO setting.... Virtually all other camera settings that you set on the camera will result only in an informational tag that conversion software may or may not use when processing the raw conversion.

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

 

[madmaxmedia]

Wow! Thanks for the responses guys!

OK, I don't have any lenses, when it comes to photography, I'm a TOTAL n00b. I'll be taking a digital photography class soon, whenever I can get it scheduled, and the school rents out some 8MP camera or some such, but as I'm interested in photography, I'd like to go ahead and purchase a camera.

You should really, really rent out a couple of DSLR's if the school has them. A lot of people have given great advice. If you have no existing lenses and are just starting out, to be honest I think you will probably be happy with Nikon or Canon. I mean its hard to predict where the photo thing takes you, and where you'll be 3 years from now. Maybe you'll be a pro, maybe the camera will be gathering dust in your closet. Depending on which types(s) of photos you are more interested in, certain factors in selecting bodies and lenses will be more important than others.

If you're on a budget, I would consider perhaps a used budget DSLR to start with, which will give you plenty of freedom in controls (although as someone else said you don't get a warantee and should take that into account.) Then if you decide you are really serious and want to upgrade, you'll better know where to put your hard-earned cash. If you take care of the camera it will still have much better resale value than most consumer electronics gear. Canon Digital Rebels in particular have been discounted due to new models (I started with a used D30), but I'm sure equivalents are available from other companies.

DPreview has some great galleries with full-sized sample pics from different cameras. Different cameras have different 'looks', you may prefer the output from one over another. Of course, actually shooting with different cameras and seeing your own pics is better.

I like Canon, but whatever. There's great gear from many companies. Getting your hands on some models along with advice here and say dpreview.com, should give you sufficient info to make a good choice.

 

[Moxiemike]

Not to threadjack in this nice guy's post, but you may want to revisit the purpose of RAW! Setting your white balance before shooting with RAW vs correcting the white balance in post processing with RAW can yeild the same results.

From Luminous Landscapes


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

And also from Adobe



http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

Well, i stil don't think yoou're right and i have about 200 images on my desk that will NEVER look right because the intern shot 'em on a wrong WB.

Try fixing mixed light WB stuff. Maybe you can do it a lil' on landscapes wamr and cool and etc but if you fsck u a WB you're pretty much left with it.

Also, try correcting WB on night shots. Impossible.

maybe for generic shooting, sure, but anything more technical and the WB issue is KING..

 

[madmaxmedia]

Someone else pointed out the current Canon rebates- you can really make hay with them!!!

If you buy a Rebel XT and 2 lenses from that list, you will get almost $400 back! (that is not a typo.) When you buy 3 products, each rebate is tripled. Heck you could even sell 2 or 3 of the lenses on EBay (especially since they would be brand new and include warranty), and just pocket the significant savings on the body.

I bought my Rebel last year with this warranty, and ended up selling the 2 lenses (decided my 50mm 1.8 was good enough for my purposes.) After the rebates, I actually made money upgrading from my D30 to the Rebel...

 

[-hh]

Yes, the Nikkor kit lens IS good for a beginner, but it might not satisfy his needs right off the bat if he's into wide-angle, macro or tele. As for low lighting conditions he could always kick up the ISO to compensate....but that runs the risk of adding noise to the image.

Glass is always one of the hard questions, as it will suck as many dollars as you're willing to throw its way...and it doesn't take long at all until you're spending more for glass than you've spent on the camera body.

In my earlier posts I was trying to be very objective in outlining his choices for him, but yeah, I'm a Nikon girl and have been for many, many years...

I've been shooting Nikon for my Underwater photography for the past 1.5 decades, but for land photography, I upgraded my Pentax K during the 'dark days' of Nikon's product lines, which meant that I went with Canon. Overall, "competition is good", as it has resulted in more and better choices for the consumer.

I haven't gotten into the wide end of the spectrum yet but one of these days I will be adding a 12-24mm lens to my bag.

Wide Angle (WA) has been one of the things holding me back from moving from film to digital, since the typical ~1.5x multiplication factor from APS-sized digital sensors that help telephoto so much hurt WA: even an impressive-sounding 12mm is only going to be roughly a 20mm equivalent, and it will probably be based on the manufacturer's digital-only mount, which means its not compatible to a 35mm body from the same manufacturer...just one more thing to muddy the waters when trying to decide on what to buy.

My favorite lens is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. It really is a phenomenal lens and is worth every penny. Although I have the kit lens, I eventually went ahead and got the 17-55mm for its additional speed and quality. I also have the 50mm f/1.4, which is relatively inexpensive and it is great for low light conditions.

The 70-200 f.2.8 VR which you speak of is a $1600 lens (so too is the Canon equivalent), and it generally takes many, many years of serious amateur photography ... especially after you get married ... to be willing to drop this much for a single lens. As such, its an unlikely choice for a beginner, let alone one on a student's budget.

Overall, photography is very much like any other hobby: one of the most important question is always ... how much do you want to spend on it?


-hh

 

[madmaxmedia]

Well, i stil don't think yoou're right and i have about 200 images on my desk that will NEVER look right because the intern shot 'em on a wrong WB.

Try fixing mixed light WB stuff. Maybe you can do it a lil' on landscapes wamr and cool and etc but if you fsck u a WB you're pretty much left with it.

Also, try correcting WB on night shots. Impossible.

maybe for generic shooting, sure, but anything more technical and the WB issue is KING..

Well, I think setting WB correctly before you shoot is better.

But if you shoot RAW, then the whole issue is moot because RAW images don't have any white balance correction to them. A RAW image contains the data right off the camera sensors without any sort of processing or correction. A RAW image can't look worse than a image with proper WB, because you can always set it correctly in post, just as you can obviously set WB correctly before you take a shot. You're not fixing WB, you're actually just applying WB.

It's obviously more work to do it afterwards, but I don't see where the issue is here. Maybe I don't understand your point?

 

[Clix Pix]

Glass is always one of the hard questions, as it will suck as many dollars as you're willing to throw its way...and it doesn't take long at all until you're spending more for glass than you've spent on the camera body.

Boy, isn't THAT the truth?!! Whew...

Wide Angle (WA) has been one of the things holding me back from moving from film to digital, since the typical ~1.5x multiplication factor from APS-sized digital sensors that help telephoto so much hurt WA: even an impressive-sounding 12mm is only going to be roughly a 20mm equivalent, and it will probably be based on the manufacturer's digital-only mount, which means its not compatible to a 35mm body from the same manufacturer...just one more thing to muddy the waters when trying to decide on what to buy.

Yes, that is one reason I've held off on buying a WA lens. Also there is a fair amount of distortion when you get into extreme WA territory.

The 70-200 f.2.8 VR which you speak of is a $1600 lens (so too is the Canon equivalent), and it generally takes many, many years of serious amateur photography ... especially after you get married ... to be willing to drop this much for a single lens. As such, its an unlikely choice for a beginner, let alone one on a student's budget.

Oh, I quite agree and I hope that no one thought I was recommending that this young man buy the 70-200 VR right off the bat! LOL! Yes, it is a very expensive lens and one best left in the hands of a fairly experienced photographer. There certainly are less expensive zoom tele lenses that will also do a nice job. I was simply mentioning the 70-200 VR in the context of what lenses I own and use.... I'm way past my student days and was fortunate enough to be able to afford the 70-200 VR, but I realize that not everyone can put that kind of money into one lens.

Overall, photography is very much like any other hobby: one of the most important question is always ... how much do you want to spend on it?

Exactly! It can very quickly become an addiction. Sometimes people get caught up in the process of buying photographic equipment rather than actually just USING and enjoying their camera bodies and lenses. In fact, in the end it is not so much the actual camera or lens that produces an excellent image, it's the photographer. The camera and lens are the tools, but it's the photographer's creative vision and skills which utilize those tools to the best advantage.

OTB

 

[JW8725]

I just bought the Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT in USA). Thought I'd start with the kit lens and work my way up. Bought myself the Sandisk CF II Ultra to store my pics on. Now just wish it would hurry up and be delivered!

 

[-hh]

(on the ~1.5x magnification effect in consumer dSLR's)

Yes, that is one reason I've held off on buying a WA lens. Also there is a fair amount of distortion when you get into extreme WA territory.

My current approach to this is to be content with staying with film for now...landscapes (especially strong WA ones) are generally more purposeful compositionally, so its not like there would be hundreds of images that would need to be digitized, so my attitude is that I can afford to wait ~5 years for the full-frame dSLR camera bodies to come down in price.


And FWIW, I was very tempted to suggest to the OP that they consider buying a 35mm film SLR. I do realize that the inquiry was apparently in the context of a digital photography class, which had it not been for that it would IMO make a certain amount of sense: 35mm SLR's are really a very good bargain right now, with excellent, mature technologies at very good price points: under $200 for a full kit for a Rebel, etc. I'm actually considering buying another 35mm body before they start to become a more expensive commodity.

And while film is definitely less forgiving, if our purpose is to really "no-kidding" learn the craft, it can actually be a good thing to use a technology that is less forgiving of our mistakes, even if it does come with delayed gratification to see the results (and a need to develop the discipline to keep a notebook of exposures).

Besides, there's still something special about slides...


-hh

 

[Clix Pix]

And FWIW, I was very tempted to suggest to the OP that they consider buying a 35mm film SLR. I do realize that the inquiry was apparently in the context of a digital photography class, which had it not been for that it would IMO make a certain amount of sense: 35mm SLR's are really a very good bargain right now, with excellent, mature technologies at very good price points: under $200 for a full kit for a Rebel, etc. I'm actually considering buying another 35mm body before they start to become a more expensive commodity.

One can learn a lot with a digital camera because of the immediate feedback, but yes, for a beginner, it could also be a very valuable experience to take a photography class where one uses film, learns to develop film and works with enlargers and chemicals in the darkroom. There is something inherent in that whole experience which is missed when shooting with digital and processing images in the "digital darkroom." In progressing to working with color, shooting slides is an optimum way to learn, too.

Besides, there's still something special about slides...

Yep. One could learn a LOT from shooting slide film and then reviewing the processed images on a large projector. Definitely slide film is unforgiving and the student learns quickly from his/her exposure errors. Slides still have a certain "something" about them that is just not there in a digital image.

And, oh, yes, there is something truly mystical and magical about standing in a darkroom gently rocking a tray full of chemicals and watching the black-and-white image gradually developing right on the paper.....

Much as I enjoy working with my images in the computer, I do also have a special place in my heart for the old darkroom days.

OTB

 

[phonic pol]

You've probably been overwhelmed by the amount of info posted here. I won't add much, just a few points that might help.

I switched to a digital SLR in Jan of this year. I'd been using digital compacts for a number of years but always kept my SLR system to film. My film kit was Nikon and I was a real Nikon fan. I tried their digital cameras and was continuously frustrated by their complicated and user unfriendly interfaces. In my opinion, an SLR needs to be simple, you need to be able to get at the manual controls easily, without having to think about it, so you can concentrate on using your skill and knowledge of how photography works to create the best images you can.

When I switched my pro SLR system from film to digital I also switched from Nikon to Canon! I now use a Canon 20D with EFS and L series lenses. I was initially reluctant to loose Nikon but after trying the cameras and seeing how far ahead Canon is and has been for a long time in the digital game, I felt it was the only way to go.

I would also say; don't worry about keeping your old lenses. Once you start using a digital SLR you'll realise that your old lenses that were designed for 'full frame' film don't work as well for digital SLR's as dedicated digital lenses and you'll probably end up reinvesting anyway. Why let the past tie you to a decision for the future? That's the way I looked at it and I'm very glad I made the switch.

Almost a year on and no regrets. The 20d is a fantastic system and the new 350d, which is probably within your budget, is not far off the 20d.

If you're interested take a look at my website http://www.depictionimages.com a good proportion of these images have been taken with the 20d.

Good luck with your purchase.

 

[Clix Pix]

You've probably been overwhelmed by the amount of info posted here. I won't add much, just a few points that might help.

I switched to a digital SLR in Jan of this year. I'd been using digital compacts for a number of years but always kept my SLR system to film. My film kit was Nikon and I was a real Nikon fan. I tried their digital cameras and was continuously frustrated by their complicated and user unfriendly interfaces.

One reason I finally jumped into getting a DSLR was my frustration with the Nikon Coolpix line of cameras. The first few were fine, but then they stumbled along the way. The CP 8700 and CP 8800 are in particular very frustrating to use, one reason in particular being their slowness in response time when starting up, focusing and shooting, and their extreme slowness in sending the file to the memory card. In waiting for the camera to finish reading the data to the memory card one loses opportunities for other shots in that time. Unacceptable. One day I realized that I was not having fun with the 8800 and that is when I said, "enough. Time for a DSLR!" I tried out both the Canon and the Nikon and opted to stick with Nikon because the D70 felt right to me, felt familiar.... and I liked what I saw in other people's images, liked the feature set and the functionality of it better than I did the Canon. That said, I do think that Canon puts out a very good product, too, and I've seen some excellent images shot with Canon cameras and lenses.

Again, this decision in the end comes down to what feels "right" to an individual buyer and what may be the choice of one person may not be what another is looking for at all.

OTB

 

[phonic pol]

Again, this decision in the end comes down to what feels "right" to an individual buyer and what may be the choice of one person may not be what another is looking for at all.
OTB

You're absolutely right, it's a very personal decision and both Nikon and Canon have superb products. I think it just comes down to taking enough time over the decision to get it right for yourself. I must have spent the best part of a year just reading reviews and trying out kit before taking the plunge.

 

[joebells]

Well, i stil don't think yoou're right and i have about 200 images on my desk that will NEVER look right because the intern shot 'em on a wrong WB.

Try fixing mixed light WB stuff. Maybe you can do it a lil' on landscapes wamr and cool and etc but if you fsck u a WB you're pretty much left with it.

Also, try correcting WB on night shots. Impossible.

maybe for generic shooting, sure, but anything more technical and the WB issue is KING..

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by shooting raw. Raw is the untouched data from the cameras ccd censor. When you don't shoot Raw the camera takes that untouched data coming from the ccd and processes it according to what white balance paramaters and such that you have specified. There is a little processor in there, not the same exact kind as your computer, but it essentially runs a little software program that processes the data from the ccd and produces a jpeg. When you shoot RAW it just writes that info straight from the ccd onto a memory card for you to do the processing on your computer where you can then take time and adjust stuff how you want it. You can always at least match the quality that you would have gotten if you hadn't shot raw.


Oh and for the original poster I wouldn't go for the first generation digital rebel as the xt isn't much more money and its got a large number of improvements, one of the biggest being a nearly instantaneous startup time. The first digital rebel took a bit of time to turn on and initialize possibly resulting in a missed shot

 

[madmaxmedia]

Oh and for the original poster I wouldn't go for the first generation digital rebel as the xt isn't much more money and its got a large number of improvements, one of the biggest being a nearly instantaneous startup time. The first digital rebel took a bit of time to turn on and initialize possibly resulting in a missed shot

It's not a huge delay (about 2.5 seconds?) but still feel significant...when I see a photo opp coming, I always consciously think about flipping the switch on early. I actually thought about Ebaying my Rebel to get an XT mainly to eliminate the delay. Depending on your type of shooting, it may actually not matter.

Another signficant difference is the XT has a much better buffer. It also may have slightly less ISO noise, although this is an area all the Canon DSLRs excel at. I often shoot at 200 default, and 400 really is very good too. With a little post I would say that there's practically no noise with 400 either. This is great for me because I shoot natural light mostly. With my 50mm 1.8 and ISO 400 I can shoot in many situations!

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Ultimately, the lens that comes with the rebels is total rubbish, so if you go canon, get a body only and get another canon lens with more quality. Maybe like, their 24-135 IS lens. That comes to mind immediately.

m

A lens is only rubbish if you as the photographer can see the difference. Some can, some can not.

That being said, there are actually two different body/lens kits available for the Canon bodies. The entry level 18-55 and the mid range 17-85IS.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

FYI, my 5d and 28-70 is going on order in the next few days, Mr. Kool Aid. It's not an easy time. wasn't an easy decision either. I;m tense these days

Man, did the world end or what! You are coming over to the Canon camp?! What's next, we really do find WMD's in Iraq?

Congrats though. I am surprised though since you IIRC discounted the quality of FF sensors in other threads here.

 

[Moxiemike]

A lens is only rubbish if you as the photographer can see the difference. Some can, some can not.

That being said, there are actually two different body/lens kits available for the Canon bodies. The entry level 18-55 and the mid range 17-85IS.

oh, i think there's tons of ways a "layman" can spot a shoody lens. the canon kit lens has been proven to be inferior to their other lenses. That $100 can go towards, and make the price more bearable, for say, a 24-85 or the 28-135 IS which is around $400 and a much better buy IMHO.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Yes, that is one reason I've held off on buying a WA lens. Also there is a fair amount of distortion when you get into extreme WA territory.

Which distortion are you referring to? The natural extreme wide angle distortions that one gets in even 35mm photography, or the distortion that comes with going wider on the APSC sized sensors.

If it is the latter, two extreme wide zooms from Tamron and Tokina have very well corrected edges.