Student Photographer looking for first D-SLR

[marclapierre13]

Not to say that Pentax and the others can't take good pics. They can take just as good of pics as the Canon Digital Rebel. But if you are looking to ever take pics as more than a hobby, you will need to be in the Nikon and Canon world. The lens, accessory, and pro options for the other brands just aren't there.

My friend, stop right there. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Its OK to say you prefer Canon over other brands, but do not sit there and type and say they are clearly the best over all. I prefer Pentax because of function, and I have older pentax lenses from my K1000, and also I find the Pentax image quality to be great. I don't care if you are a pro or not (judging by your comments, you don't sound like a pro), but just because you prefer one, doesn't make it the best on the market. I also prefer Nikon over Canon for ease of use, and their interface, as well as other features.
So quit being so ignorant just because you are a Canon fan-boy

 

[Sir Pancakes]

My friend, stop right there. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Its OK to say you prefer Canon over other brands, but do not sit there and type and say they are clearly the best over all. I prefer Pentax because of function, and I have older pentax lenses from my K1000, and also I find the Pentax image quality to be great. I don't care if you are a pro or not (judging by your comments, you don't sound like a pro), but just because you prefer one, doesn't make it the best on the market. I also prefer Nikon over Canon for ease of use, and their interface, as well as other features.
So quit being so ignorant just because you are a Canon fan-boy

Dont get defiant because I don't use or recommend Pentax. I couldn't make my living with their line of cameras. They just dont have the lenses and options to do so. Thats not to say you can't take AMAZING pictures with a Pentax, but you do not have the same options and flexibility as with the Canon and Nikon.

Call me a liar because your feelings are hurt, but the fact still remains that I dont know a single photog that makes his living with a Pentax. And I am not talking about rinky dink photogs. I am talking about guys who charge $5,000 to $10,000 a day.

I dont know why that makes you get so bent out of shape. I am just sharing life experience. I am not saying that you are an idiot for having a Pentax, or that you dont take good pics. They are great cameras, but your flexibility and ability to upgrade as time goes on is just not as great with that camera line.

Peace.

 

[miloblithe]

Not to say that Pentax and the others can't take good pics. They can take just as good of pics as the Canon Digital Rebel. But if you are looking to ever take pics as more than a hobby, you will need to be in the Nikon and Canon world. The lens, accessory, and pro options for the other brands just aren't there.

What's a pro? There are plenty of people who make a living or get paid significant amounts using non Canon or Nikon equipment. One of the photography/photoshop books I've read was written by an Olympus guy. He was clearly a pro. I don't see why a wedding photographer couldn't use a Pentax K20D or K10D for their work. I certainly don't see why the Sony cameras with their Minolta heritage couldn't be used for professional work.

People photographing on the sidelines of NFL, MLB, and NBA games seem like they are probably invariably Canon and Nikon shooters, but they are hardly the only pros in the world.

 

[marclapierre13]

Dont get defiant because I don't use or recommend Pentax. I couldn't make my living with their line of cameras. They just dont have the lenses and options to do so. Thats not to say you can't take AMAZING pictures with a Pentax, but you do not have the same options and flexibility as with the Canon and Nikon.

Call me a liar because your feelings are hurt, but the fact still remains that I dont know a single photog that makes his living with a Pentax. And I am not talking about rinky dink photogs. I am talking about guys who charge $5,000 to $10,000 a day.

I dont know why that makes you get so bent out of shape. I am just sharing life experience. I am not saying that you are an idiot for having a Pentax, or that you dont take good pics. They are great cameras, but your flexibility and ability to upgrade as time goes on is just not as great with that camera line.

Peace.

You are now saying Nikon as well. I like nikon as well, they are my 2nd favorite. But earlier you were basically saying Canon is the only camera for pros, and that they are the best cameras available. Im just saying this is clearly not so, and as miloblithe said, there are plenty of pros that dont use Canon.

 

[Sir Pancakes]

You are now saying Nikon as well. I like nikon as well, they are my 2nd favorite. But earlier you were basically saying Canon is the only camera for pros, and that they are the best cameras available.

If you would have actually read my posts you would have read this "I make my living taking pictures, and of the 100+ other pro photographers I know, NONE of them use anything other than a Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad."



By the way, I love the images you took on your Flikr page. They look AWESOME! Proof that Pentax doesn't suck.

 

[matperk]

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi that I got for christmas. I love it, but sadly i haven't been able to use it as much as I would like to!

I also read on gizmodo that Canon announced the new version of the XTi, the XSi. Set for March release.
http://gizmodo.com/348332/canon-expands-rebel-alliance-with-live-view-12+megapixel-eos-xsi

 

[marclapierre13]

If you would have actually read my posts you would have read this "I make my living taking pictures, and of the 100+ other pro photographers I know, NONE of them use anything other than a Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad."

Yes, sorry, you are right, you did say canon and nikon and hasselblad.
But you are still wrong, there are other pro photographers that use other cameras than those.

 

[srf4real]

So quit being so ignorant just because you are a Canon fan-boy

Thank you so much for that belly laugh! ha ha ha haha!



To the original poster: the best advice my uncle gave me who is a true professional, and uses Canon, is this: buy the camera that feels right in your hands, that you can afford, and that you can upgrade without changing to another brand thus losing your lens investment.

I bought a Panasonic dSLR body, buy Olympus digital lenses, and have a wide open future as long as other 'pro' photographers can keep an open mind. If any photographer is looking with their eyes open, Olympus may actually be the superior glass to covet. Even kit lenses are usually spectacular so I recommend an e510 kit as right now they are going through a price drop due to new coming releases.

 

[thinkband]

Wow, thanks so much for the great advice guyz. I read each and every post, gathering information.

I always have been thinking about Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, but primarily Canon and Nikon. My teacher is a professional photographer and he owns a couple Canon's, though not the Rebel brand obviously. His main recomendation was the Rebel Xti.

So lets say I am only looking at Nikon and Canon now. Should I just buy the base camera in the kit to start and get a lens later when I can afford a $400-500 lens OR should I buy the base of the camera and buy a $200 18-100 lens or something?

I got a recomendation from a friend to buy the cheapest base, ie Canon XT, and to buy a realy nice lens, http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-135m...3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201302740&sr=1-3 in particular.

A question came up as to what kind of pictures I will take. Well, since I am still taking a photo class, now 'advanced digital photography,' I would like a versatile lens to take a good picture of pretty much anything. I really enjoy taking pictures of landscapes and architecture though.

I plan to buy off of Amazon, so my choices dwindle down to the Nikon d40x base for $540 or with kit lens for $660. Canon Xti base $530 or wit kit lens $580. Since these prices are so similar, either one would probably do for me, I just would like to know if I should just start off with a kit lens and buy a ~$400 lens when I get the money, or buy a ~$200 lens now and just buy the base model.

Thanks so much!

 

[Abstract]

My friend, stop right there....

The camera world is changing fast, and some people aren't changing as quickly.....

 

[macro]

As a pro photographer who shoots up to 5000 images a week, I would recommend without hesitation the Canon Digital Rebel. The kit lens is actually decent, and I had to use it a time or two after dropping my L-series lens on the pavement.

I would totally stay away from Sony, Pentax, or Panasonic. They dont have good lens options, and really aren't taken that seriously by most full time photogs.

With Canon you can continue to upgrade lenses and bodies as your needs arise. I have a rebel I use for family stuff and it is a great camera.

My opinion at least.

p.s. You will find that your pics have 80% to do with you as the photog, and 20% to do with the camera you are shooting with (once you have arrived at the level of a camera like the rebel). Good equipment is important, but soooo much of it has to do with your ability to shoot and edit great pics. Start with the Rebel, and move up when your budget allows.

5000 images a week? Wow, you must be shooting outside the car window with 100 cameras at 50 mph. Do you ever meter an image?

 

[beatzfreak]

Wow, thanks so much for the great advice guyz. I read each and every post, gathering information.

I always have been thinking about Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, but primarily Canon and Nikon. My teacher is a professional photographer and he owns a couple Canon's, though not the Rebel brand obviously. His main recomendation was the Rebel Xti.

So lets say I am only looking at Nikon and Canon now. Should I just buy the base camera in the kit to start and get a lens later when I can afford a $400-500 lens OR should I buy the base of the camera and buy a $200 18-100 lens or something?

I got a recomendation from a friend to buy the cheapest base, ie Canon XT, and to buy a realy nice lens, http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-135m...3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201302740&sr=1-3 in particular.

A question came up as to what kind of pictures I will take. Well, since I am still taking a photo class, now 'advanced digital photography,' I would like a versatile lens to take a good picture of pretty much anything. I really enjoy taking pictures of landscapes and architecture though.

I plan to buy off of Amazon, so my choices dwindle down to the Nikon d40x base for $540 or with kit lens for $660. Canon Xti base $530 or wit kit lens $580. Since these prices are so similar, either one would probably do for me, I just would like to know if I should just start off with a kit lens and buy a ~$400 lens when I get the money, or buy a ~$200 lens now and just buy the base model.

Thanks so much!

Just my experience. I'm no expert.

I just went through a some classes with a Canon XT and it was fine, but what really made a difference was the $80. 50mm 1.8 lens. It's a prime, so not particularly versatile, but it's fast and my instructor loved the DOF I got out of it. I also had the kit lens, but didn't use it much.
There is a fairly new decent Canon lens for under $200. I don't have it, but it's gotten great reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG

The Nikon D40x is a great camera, but it lacked a few features that I like.
Also, there aren't as many lens that can auto focus with the D40x, particularly fast primes, which I like, so it didn't work for me. That may have changed since I was looking to purchase, though.

Again, this is just MY experience, but if I would have bought the D40, I would have upgraded the body in six months. I still love my XT and have lenses I can AF with it and the next body I buy. Oh, and at my first show, I sold a few prints.

If you can, you really should go to a camera store and hold a few bodies. I have small hands so the XT was fine for me, but I can see how some would find it a little uncomfortable.

Have fun with your new camera.

 

[srf4real]

5000 images a week? Wow, you must be shooting outside the car window with 100 cameras at 50 mph. Do you ever meter an image?

I'll do 500 to 1000 in a day of sports shooting... then it takes me a month to post process!

 

[macro]

Thank goodness rocks stand still! If I shot that many photos of a rock in one day I would have a lot of photos of rocks. No customers.

Where do you sell your photos?

 

[blackstone]

I plan to buy off of Amazon, so my choices dwindle down to the Nikon d40x base for $540 or with kit lens for $660. Canon Xti base $530 or wit kit lens $580. Since these prices are so similar, either one would probably do for me, I just would like to know if I should just start off with a kit lens and buy a ~$400 lens when I get the money, or buy a ~$200 lens now and just buy the base model.

I'd recommend you follow the advice of beatzfreak, sr4real, and others, and go to a camera store to actually see how the body feels in your hands. The two cameras you've named handle very differently. Nikon D40 is a very small camera (almost too small for even my hands, which are not huge), but has a nice dense and balanced feel to it. The Canon Rebel can accommodate somewhat larger hands, but feels light and a little flimsy.

As for which lens to get, you're probably best off buying the kit lens (and/or maybe a 50/1.8). Then, wait for a good long while before buying anything else. A year or so down the road, once you've figured out your shooting style more, you can think about buying a more expensive lens that more closely fits your needs.

The conventional wisdom from the film world was always to get the best lens you can afford, so that you don't end up having to trade up later. But now that the kit lenses on most DSLRs hit a decent middle ground in terms of zoom range, speed, and sharpness (at least when not wide open), I think it's more sensible to get the cheaper kit lens now rather than get the wrong expensive lens. Just don't start accumulating other gear (and especially not other lenses!) too early.

 

[macro]

Wither Nikon or Canon are great cameras. Cameras are light tight boxes. The lens is what aids the photograher. We're talking kit lenses here. Pro lenses are very expensive. Worth it when a photo has to be made for income, but, not necessary when you are starting out.

I disagree as which body feels right in your hands. It is what you get used to, not the brand. I have used Nikon since 1969. I also use the Mamiya RB67 Pro SD. Not something you'd want to hand hold.

Just get either one. Use price as your objective and then learn to use it and take great photos. If you want to spend $1600.00 for a pro lens then do so. Otherwise, tend to your checkbook and get a great camera no matter the brand.

 

[Sir Pancakes]

5000 images a week? Wow, you must be shooting outside the car window with 100 cameras at 50 mph. Do you ever meter an image?

I shoot a ton. For instance, I took a bunch of product photos for a company that makes journals and photo albums. Came in at about 2100 images for the day. Did a shoot for a music artist the next day-400 images. Shot a wedding Saturday, 1400 images. They add up fast.

This week I plan to get a bunch of cameras and just shoot out the car windows at 50 mph. We'll see how it goes.

 

[SolracSelbor]

I would totally stay away from Sony, Pentax, or Panasonic. They dont have good lens options, and really aren't taken that seriously by most full time photogs.

gimmie a break...

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

"I make my living taking pictures, and of the 100+ other pro photographers I know, NONE of them use anything other than a Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad."

I make a living (albeit a small one) shooting weddings with a Pentax K10D. I tried the Canon 30D (hated it) tried the Nikon D200 and D2XS (good but not what I was looking for). Then I got my hands on the K10D and haven't looked back since. I had some old Pentax primes but didn't realize that they would still work with the Pentax. Just because you don't know anyone who makes their living with a Pentax or a Sony or and Olympus doesn't mean there aren't thousands out there.

And all this talk about not being able to upgrade through the future with Pentax or Sony or Olympus is garbage. Pentax is the only brand out there that makes it possible to mount every single lens they've ever produced to even the newest DSLR's they make. I have an old 28-200 macro lens from 1970 something that still uses the same K-mount that my 50 mm prime uses, and the same mount as the brand new 200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 and every other Pentax lens made since the screwmount days. If that doesn't represent upgradeability without having to lose your lens collection then I don't know what does. Can you honestly tell me that Canon stands by their customers like that? They've changed their mount before, rendering all their older lenses obsolete, if someone had a few grand in lenses invested they were out of luck when they needed a new body.

Look you use Canon for your job, good for you! Try googling Benjamin Kanarek, he's probably the most high profile photographer using Pentax professionally today, and he was up until 2006 sponsored by Canon, but he left them for Pentax because he felt their lineup was more suitable for what he does. Trust me, he makes much more in one shooting assignment than you probably do in 20 so don't try and pass your ignorance about anything other than Canon and Nikon (and Hasselblad) as authoritative truth. Pentax and Sony and Olympus all have bodies and glass available that is every bit as good as Canon or Nikon. They just don't have the market share and associated high profile with new consumers. That is changing everyday though as all 3 of the brands you are saying to definitely stay away from are taking market share from the big two at a surprisingly fast pace.

Ben Kanareks home page: http://www.pressbook.com/homebook.asp?langue_id=2&owner_id=5144

SLC

 

[Digital Skunk]

Amazing thread here. Very surprised to see someone saying anything negative about one camera company and praising the other.

All of them have their issues, although the new models seem to be alleviating those for future generations. I wish i came in on the D300 band wagon like a lot of the non-pros are doing... the ones that come up to me and ask me what i shoot with... like it matters... then trail away into the distance thinking they have one-uped me on my camera model. When the action starts, they are usually the ones chimping or lying around without their camera missing shots.

Main point... the camera matters not, and if someone is a student photog the company matters even less. A pro will get what they want to use when they want to use it how they want to use it whether it be Canon, Nikon, Sony or Hasselblad. Trust me, by that time it really won't matter how much money you invested in your hobby/student system, you will blow twice as much money away just getting the main body and backup body of whatever system you will be signing your life away to...

Then you will blow another 3x as much buying the accessories for it. And if you are lucky, you will change with the industry and keep your job. If not, you will be doing what a lot of real professionals are doing, selling their gear and struggling to make ends meat.

My real advice to you my OP friend is to get a camera, and camera and learn to shot well. Separate yourself from the rest and be a good photog to everyone you can. Gain clients and build a name for yourself. Find your "IN" at a newspaper or agency and work the business.

This "which camera is good for me crap" is frivolous talk that keeps you from shooting and sticks you in a category or photographers that me and my colleagues call "Gloss" photographers, the ones that shoot average photos for average customers at average prices and have to have average jobs to back up their small income.

Get a camera
Start shooting
AND NEVER STOP!

 

[Sir Pancakes]

Uncle.

 

[compuwar]

If you would have actually read my posts you would have read this "I make my living taking pictures, and of the 100+ other pro photographers I know, NONE of them use anything other than a Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad."

I find it incredible that out of 100+ professional photographers you don't know anyone who shoots Mamiya, Bronica, Sinar, Toyo, Fuji, Arca-Swiss, Linhoff, or Pentax.

 

[OreoCookie]

I always have been thinking about Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, but primarily Canon and Nikon. My teacher is a professional photographer and he owns a couple Canon's, though not the Rebel brand obviously. His main recomendation was the Rebel Xti.

So lets say I am only looking at Nikon and Canon now. Should I just buy the base camera in the kit to start and get a lens later when I can afford a $400-500 lens OR should I buy the base of the camera and buy a $200 18-100 lens or something?

You should not get a superzoom (18-200) lens, nor is the lens you've linked to suitable for your camera. On film, it would be fine, but with the 1.5x/1.6x crop factor, it's not very suitable to dslrs.

If you are on a low budget, I suggest you get a 1.8/50 mm (a lens which all companies offer for about $100). With the budget you have, there is not much you can do. Perhaps you can find a used Nikon D70 with 18-70 kit lens (which is better than the kit lenses sold today) or a used Canon 20D. If you can find one, an Olympus E-1 with its superb kit lens (2.8/14-54 zoom, corresponds to 28-108 on film) would be great, too.

First of all, don't pay attention to megapixels: you're a beginner and a 10-12 megapixel D80/D40x/Rebel XSi/XTi won't be twice as good as a 6 megapixel D70/D40/Rebel XT. Practically, there will be little difference when you print 10x15 pics (that use about 2-3 megapixel).
Don't buy a brand, because famous person A or teacher B has it. Buy what you can use best. At this stage, you don't invest anything into a particular system. Once you have decided that photography is for you, you basically have to replace your whole gear anyway (except for possibly the 50 mm lens (which is dirt-cheap anyway) and the flash).

So my suggestion is the following (1-4 are indispensible!):
(1) Get body + kit lens (typically 18-55 mm, roughly corresponds to 28-80 mm on film).
(2) Get a 50 mm lens for ~$100.
(3) Get enough memory cards. You can get GB memory cards for next to nothing these days. (I've seen 1 GB Kingston SD cards for 7 € the other day.)
(4) Get a good bag! Loewe, Samsonite, Crumpler, etc. Don't get a brand that's sold at Walmart
(5) If you can afford it, get a flash. This makes worlds of difference, trust me. Nikon, for instance, makes a $100 flash, the SB-400: it's small, it tilts and you can take it anywhere. AFAIK Canon doesn't make a flash similar to that one, but there are third-party flash guns for $100.

 

[OreoCookie]

I would totally stay away from Sony, Pentax, or Panasonic. They dont have good lens options, and really aren't taken that seriously by most full time photogs.

Pentax makes professional cameras, their medium format cameras are a testament to that. Anyone that makes medium format cameras, makes them for professionals. AFAIK Pentax was the first to include AF in medium format cameras. You won't see them at sports events, but that's true for all medium format cameras.
Panasonic makes cameras in collaboration with Leica (basically, of every digital Leica, with the exception of the M9 and the R9 digiback, there is an equivalent Panasonic), and Leicas are taken seriously (well, by a small group, but anyway).

 

[Digital Skunk]

We can leave Sir Pancakes alone now, he said uncle.

I do understand what he is talking about, but for a student, like I said, it won't matter until you are either making money off of your system or you have $10,000+ to buy a new one.