What kinda Digital SLR should I get?

hey everybody. ive been wanting to get a digital SLR camera for awhile now, and am ready to take the leap. i was curious what you guys think i should be going for? im thinknig about spending 400-700ish, am ok with buying used on ebay or whatever, and would like something i can eventually add lenses on and stuff. what mega-pixel should i be going for? at least 6 or something?

any and all help is much appreciated. thanks guys.

Nikon D50.

Yes, 6 or more is a good place to start however used D1H's would work well if you want fast frame per second.

It really depends on what you will use it for, some features may be what your looking for will be found in some models and not others. When shopping for that price range I would think picking up a used body may help you get more for your money.

www.keh.com has a good supply of used bodies, check them out and their pricing on models it may help you narrow your decision.

I would suggest either canon or nikon simply due to the availability of accessories. Persons who go with Sony, Pentax, or Minolta generally complain later about a lack of availability of lenses and other accessories.

Will this be a new hobby, or do you currently own equipment? If you currently own some gear, it may be beneficial to stay with that companies product.

I'm planning on getting a Pentax K100d by the end of the year, it has some good features, full compatibility with previous lenses and shake reduction system.
Photo.net is a great resource for advices and resources, in short...

- If you have lenses from other camera, buy the camera that is compatible (same brand)
- If you want a cheap body get a Nikon, if you can afford more get a Canon. Once you pass the cheaper models there is little difference and both brands have plenty of accesories.
- If you want lighter equipment choose Olympus, because of the size of the sensor (3/4) the lenses can be smaller.

ok, got a canon rebel.. how about lenses and settings?

thanks for the help everyone... i ended up going with a Canon Rebel. it comes with a 18-55mm Canon Zoom lense. What is this lens good for? Should i think about getting another lens? what isnt this lens good for?

what will i be shooting? i am in the air force, and am a loadmaster on a C-130. i do alot of airdrops (people and equipment) and do alot of traveling around the country/world, and want something that i can take scenery shots as well as the airdrop/plane related stuff.

this is the problem with the airdrops... ive shot some stuff before with a cheapy digital best buy point and shoot type. the back of the plane is open. i take a picture of some dude jumping out... i can see him, but outside of the plane is whited out. so the next guy jumps out, and i move the camera to a different angle... now i can see outside well, but its much darker in the plane. is there something i can do about this? i setting on this canon rebel? sorry for the noob questions. settings? best lens for this sort of thing, or will the 18-55mm work? how about scenery type pictures? thanks in advance.

To keep the outside form going white (blowing out) you need to bring your exposure on the inside of the airplane closer to it, The answer is to use a flash.

regards
Ray

AnatomyOfARyan said:

thanks for the help everyone... i ended up going with a Canon Rebel. it comes with a 18-55mm Canon Zoom lense. What is this lens good for? Should i think about getting another lens? what isnt this lens good for?

what will i be shooting? i am in the air force, and am a loadmaster on a C-130. i do alot of airdrops (people and equipment) and do alot of traveling around the country/world, and want something that i can take scenery shots as well as the airdrop/plane related stuff.

this is the problem with the airdrops... ive shot some stuff before with a cheapy digital best buy point and shoot type. the back of the plane is open. i take a picture of some dude jumping out... i can see him, but outside of the plane is whited out. so the next guy jumps out, and i move the camera to a different angle... now i can see outside well, but its much darker in the plane. is there something i can do about this? i setting on this canon rebel? sorry for the noob questions. settings? best lens for this sort of thing, or will the 18-55mm work? how about scenery type pictures? thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

You have to learn to use the P mode so you can change the exposure. The situation you describe gives the idea of low light inside the plane, lots of light outside, it gives you too much contrast. More than the right lens or the right camera is knowing how to do the right trick. Try to simulate the light conditions at home, shoting from inside a building looking at the door, change the exposure (in P mode) until you get the result you are looking for. Practice RayLee's trick to compensate the contrast too.
Again, check Photo.net, they have tons of information that will help you a lot.

What altitude are you flying when doing the drops, are these high velocity or troops? For high elevations this is the time when a UV filter will actually help photo quality, I cannot remember the exact altitudes this really begins to help.

In some situations the background is going to have to be blown out in order to get the items in the plane to show at all without the use of a flash (as Ray mentioned). It will really depend on the dynamic range of the scene, this is the difference in the amount of light in the darkest and lightest area of what your taking a photograph of.

altitudes depend... when we drop army rangers, airborne, special forces etc, we are usually doing static line drops at about 800-1100 feet above ground level. i doubt those are the altitudes you are talking about... however, when we are dropping the seals, its usually HALO (high altitude low opening) drops. they are dropping out between 12999-18000 feet above ground level, and thats where the altitude might come into play. when we are doing those drops, obviously it is unpressurized, and im wearing an oxygen mask. high velocity equipment drops are usually 1000-3500 ft. any idea how the altitudes will effect the camera? why does the UV filter help?

No, the HALO drops would need the UV filter the others are not high enough. The magic number is somewhere near 10000 feet.

The amount of UV is interference is stronger the higher you go, less atmosphere. I am not a meteorologist, just my understanding of it. UV filters are useless unless you are in high altitudes.

UV filters do have another purpose, for protection. To keep fingerprints off of the lens, if some knuckle head tocus your camera and if you happen to drop the camera.

Yes, some people use them for that.

A good UV filter (72mm) will run you about $100.00, I love seeing someone with a $200.00 kit lens and a UV filter to protect it. Just one of the things I find funny in life. If you buy a cheap UV filter you are even making a consumer lens even less quality by putting the inferior glass in front of it.

Now, a friend has a canon film camera..dont know the model but the kit lens is in place and never moves. I am not sure if she still has the lens cap, as I have never seen it...She asked me to take a photo with the camera one day and I looked at the lens and was disgusted at the amount of crap on the front of the lens. She could have used a UV filter, finger prints from her or her children, dust and items that were too large to be considered dust all over this thing. I cleaned it, but am sure that it was back to that state within a week. Sure, this stuff would have been on the filter, but the lens would still hold some value if she tried to sell it. Now if she replaced the lenscap when not shooting and kept the camera in a camera bag, this would not be such a problem.

If you insist on using a filter, I would buy a circular polarizing filter it will at least provide some results when shooting outdoors and used properly. They are a little more expensive, but will add color to your sky and take some glare off the water in shots.

thanks so much for the very helpful advice. the camera will be here in a day or two, and i cant wait to start working with it.

AnatomyOfARyan said:

thanks for the help everyone... i ended up going with a Canon Rebel. it comes with a 18-55mm Canon Zoom lense. What is this lens good for? Should i think about getting another lens? what isnt this lens good for?

what will i be shooting? i am in the air force, and am a loadmaster on a C-130. i do alot of airdrops (people and equipment) and do alot of traveling around the country/world, and want something that i can take scenery shots as well as the airdrop/plane related stuff.

this is the problem with the airdrops... ive shot some stuff before with a cheapy digital best buy point and shoot type. the back of the plane is open. i take a picture of some dude jumping out... i can see him, but outside of the plane is whited out. so the next guy jumps out, and i move the camera to a different angle... now i can see outside well, but its much darker in the plane. is there something i can do about this? i setting on this canon rebel? sorry for the noob questions. settings? best lens for this sort of thing, or will the 18-55mm work? how about scenery type pictures? thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

For lenses, remember you always get what you pay for. And your lens choice should go towards what your interests in photography are. For instance, someone liking doing portraits won't need the same lenses as one that likes shooting wildlife.

I have a Rebel XT and I love shooting wildlife. Unfortunately, wildlife is one of the most expensive types of photography because you need very strong zoom lens and you need to take close-up shots as well: I don't know too many birds or deer coming towards the photographer to make a better close-up shot! And if you want to shoot a bee in a flower, for example, you need a good close-up lens. :girl:

When I bought my first digital camera it was a Rebel just like yours, the EOS 300D. I made the mistake of buying a cheap lens, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM and man did I ever regret it! It was too soft, colour (or chromatic) aberration (sometimes called purple fringing) was so bad... I had to get rid of it and bought the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM about 18 months later. This lens is much better than the first one: it isn't an "L" series lens but it's much better than the 75-300mm I had previously. Of course, the 70-300mm IS costs a bit more too. But you get what you pay for.

So my point is this: always buy the best lens you can afford, it will make you happy. If you can't spend too much on a lens, always keep in mind that the one you are buying is a temporary lens and that as soon as you have more cash, you'll upgrade.

Now for the type of photography you want to shoot, if wide angle shots are your main interest, the kit lens will do ok for a while. If you want to upgrade one day and keep the same focal length, you might want to consider this Canon lens which got some very good reviews, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. You can see sample shots on this page. IS (or Image Stabilization) would be a very big plus in your case as it will help you take action shots and prevent a lot of the shaking. Other great places to check for unbiased lens reviews are:

• Bob Atkins Photography: Canon EOS Lens Reviews
• Fred Miranda reviews
• Frary Photography

You'll find a couple of lens reviewed here:

• Canon 17-85 EF-S vs 18-55 EF-S vs. 24-85 EF
• The Luminous Landscape reviews

You can also join good photography forums and ask other members that have a hands on opinions on various lenses that might interest you.

As for the exposure problems you point out, it might help if you shoot in RAW. It won't do miracles with over-exposed or under-exposed shots, but at least you'll have more control over your pictures when you process them afterwards.

If you should ever need links to photography tutorials or tips, just gimme a holler and I'll post some links I have.

Hope this helps! :mac:

Yes, I would rather buy a used good lens than a new consumer lens.

There are some inexpensive lenses that work great, most are like the 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8 (not an expert on canon gear) but there will be some good glass in the consumer market. You just have to shop around to see which ones are the good lenses.

The EF-S 17-55mm is a great lens. However I would steer clear of EF-S lenses if I were you. The only reason being that they are only compatible with certain Canon cameras. If you ever wanted to upgrade to a more professional camera body suh as the 1D then the EF-S lenses are not compatible. You would have to buy a whole new set of lenes. You can however buy just standard EF lenses and these will be compatible across the whole range.

The best lens that I have ever purchased has to be the 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM L series. This blows everything else out of the water.

Anyway enjoy the camera and don't forget to put some images up so we can have a look.

Didn't think of posting this last night but you could also get some Fred Miranda software that would help recover some lost detail in either (or both) the highlights or shadows.

If you're not Photoshop or Elements-savvy enough there is Fred Miranda's SR Professional plugin (for shadow recovery, works with Elements 1, 2 and 3 - Photoshop 6, 7, CS and CS2) and you can also get Fred Miranda's Canon HR (for highlight recovery, works with Photoshop 6, 7, CS and CS2).

I bought their Canon 350D CSpro Plugin to sharpen efficiently my photos (because of my old bad lens) without having to mess around with Photoshop's curves and stuff (I simply don't have the time nor the knowledge yet) and it works pretty well. I also got the Velvia Vison plugin which makes your photos come even livelier in colours, when needed.

There are some plugins designed for use with Rebel EOS 300D photos, btw.

I meant to add that another great site for Photography and advice is DP Review

The forums are really friendly and I can recommend the site.

The Nikon D40 just came out.

I appears that you're probably on a budget. For a lens that has a very wide capability look to the Sigma, Tokina, or Tamron 18-200mm. For the money they can't be beat as the telephoto will reach way out there and the wide end isn't too bad either. They are under $400. Now had you bought a Nikon you could have gotten their 18-200 with vibration reduction built in, that is if you could find one LOL. I used a Sigma for some professional outdoor stuff and it compared favorably with some of my pro lens.