Beginer new to slr help

This is a forum on equipments. You get lots of good advices on what lens to buy.

You stated that you are not satisfied with your P&S. Look at the P&S photos and ask yourself, how can they be better? Are they too dark, too bright, off color, too grainy, off focus, missed opportunity, or just boring? Modern cameras, even cheap P&S can usually get the exposure and color balance right. DSLRs let you override them in special situations, but you have to know what is so special about any particular situations. Otherwise, the result will be worst. Shooting raw and post processing afterward can give you better result. But you have to learn how to PP.

As for focus and timing (shutter lag), DSLRs are much better than P&S. DSLRs are also much better in keeping noise (grain) low.

Now comes the most important part. Are your photos boring? If so, a new camera would not help. You have to learn how to see the beauty in a scene. There are lots of good books on composition. Follow their examples and practice, practice, … With digital, there is no film cost.

I am sorry if I appear too condescending. Since you did not post any photo, I just assume you are a beginner. Please accept my apology if I offended you.

--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok

Personaly... I'd buy a 400D with Kit lens... use it and decide later on if and what other lenses you need/want.

I would not buy the 350D for basicly one reason... It won't shoot more then 4 or 5 RAW images in quick sucssesion... The 400D will shoot twice as many before having to pause to write the data to flash memory. I have a 300D which also has a 4 image RAW buffer... and I fairly frequently bump into this limit and it is ANOYING.

But then maybe you'll never shoot more then 4 RAW images in a few seconds and won't feel the same way I do...

I do however really hate to buy yesterdays technology when todays is already here... Ok, so you could save $150 by buying a 350D... for me that wouldn't be worth it...

caharp said:

I have the Canon A80 and am moving up to SLR. I have been told a
good camera to start with is the Canon EOS 350D. I have been
viewing other peoples comments on different lenses. It appears that
the 75-300 usm lens at $249.00 can is not well received. The camera
comes with the w/18-55. I do understand there are numerous
variables to consider but lets just say for disscusion purposes
that I was not unhappy with the quality of my Canon p&s pictures
but I am looking for more control and a much better zoom. Is this
not a good entry level SLR camera and lens set up to learn on. I
would think my pictures would be of better quality even though
these lenses are in the low quality range. I can't see spending
$500.00 to $1500.00 on a lens to start out with. Can you tell me if
I am thinking in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Well... if you can't afford the lenses that are not 'cheap'... then maybe you'd be better off finding out that cheap lenses are not much better then P&S...

Honestly the kit lens is NOT that bad... it's certianly worth the $50-100 it typicaly costs...

Yes the 50mm f1.8 is sharper then the kit lens... but then 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera is NOT really that great for many photos...

The original post seemed quite concerned about the cost of moving to DSLR... and well I honestly beleive that maybe DSLR is not for everyone... because good lenses are NOT cheap lenses... and well, if you're not happy with DSLR on a budget... then maybe your better off not doing it at all... If you find you can be happy on a budget, then that's great... If you can't be happy with a kit lens for a year or so... and you've got a tight budget, then I'd say maybe DSLR isn't the right move.

felixreichardt said:

DigitalEOS said:

Startas cheap as you can and build from there as you get better. SLR
photography is a different world. I would recommend getting
another lens to start with too...as someone else mentioned, the
50mm 1.8 lens. It is cheap, and it will be great for those low
light moments.

Click to expand...

These cheap lenses almost made me stop using DSLR. I found both of
them not sharp and very disappointing. Not much better than P&S in
the result.

Click to expand...

It seems like you have a hard time doing anything BUT recommending against anything that bears the Canon brand or costs more than $1.79...

Nathan Yan said:

Sigma, Tamron make some good lenses too, don't discount them,
especially the following:

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 17-70mm
Sigma 70-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm

For the "budget" set listed by riversen, I'd recommend against the
Canon 75-300mm - just not nearly as good as higher-end telephoto
lenses or even budget telephotos from other companies.

Click to expand...

Glenn W. said:

Well... if you can't afford the lenses that are not 'cheap'... then
maybe you'd be better off finding out that cheap lenses are not
much better then P&S...

Click to expand...

Absolutely true.

Glenn W. said:

Honestly the kit lens is NOT that bad... it's certianly worth the
$50-100 it typicaly costs...

Click to expand...

I honestly found it to be no really good (but I did not know before having a really sharp lens like the 85 f/1.8 lens).

Glenn W. said:

Yes the 50mm f1.8 is sharper then the kit lens... but then 50mm on
a 1.6 crop camera is NOT really that great for many photos...

Click to expand...

It's sharper but not really sharp IMHO.

Glenn W. said:

The original post seemed quite concerned about the cost of moving
to DSLR... and well I honestly beleive that maybe DSLR is not for
everyone... because good lenses are NOT cheap lenses... and well,
if you're not happy with DSLR on a budget... then maybe your better
off not doing it at all... If you find you can be happy on a
budget, then that's great... If you can't be happy with a kit lens
for a year or so... and you've got a tight budget, then I'd say
maybe DSLR isn't the right move.

Click to expand...

That's the thing. No point buying a DSLR if you don't have budget for decent lens. That's what I learned the hard way with my 300D kit and 50 f/1.8 and a cheap tamron zoom. I would even prefer to get a 85 f/1.8 (and maybe another wider prime) instead of getting the kit zoom lens or 50 f/1.8. Ok you are limited to that focal range then but you have a real lens that makes you smile every time you see the results. And that's more worth to me. It's only around 300 USD.

Glenn W. said:

felixreichardt said:

DigitalEOS said:

Startas cheap as you can and build from there as you get better. SLR
photography is a different world. I would recommend getting
another lens to start with too...as someone else mentioned, the
50mm 1.8 lens. It is cheap, and it will be great for those low
light moments.

Click to expand...

These cheap lenses almost made me stop using DSLR. I found both of
them not sharp and very disappointing. Not much better than P&S in
the result.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

How ignorant. Are you saying the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is bad? There are a lot of Tamron and Sigma lenses that completely blow Canon out of the water.

I named some Sigma and Tamron lenses to add them in addition to the list of all Canon lenses - I'd certainly recommend some of those too.

To the OP, honestly you'll find with camera forums (especially this one), that they are packed and packed with people that will tell you that you're not doing real photography or you're wasting your SLR if you don't buy expensive lenses. Ignore it. To you and me, without zooming into the pictures at 200% or blowing them up to poster size, there's very little difference between most lenses. Look for features - focal lengths, aperture range, image stabilization, as these will help you the most to learn as a photographer.

My advice: Go with whichever camera body (Rebel XT still works very well, and it's not a bad choice for $200 less than the Rebel XTi) and the kit lens, and shoot around with that for awhile. You don't need to buy better equipment until you've outgrown the capabilities of your old ones.

Elan Remford said:

Nathan Yan said:

Sigma, Tamron make some good lenses too, don't discount them,
especially the following:

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 17-70mm
Sigma 70-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm

For the "budget" set listed by riversen, I'd recommend against the
Canon 75-300mm - just not nearly as good as higher-end telephoto
lenses or even budget telephotos from other companies.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have to agree. If you got the money, then go for it. If you are like me, then do it in phases. I started off a bit nicer than most, but I had had the Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens for a few months (when it first came out a while back). Also, my wife was very nice and bought me a wonderful anniversary present of the 17-85mm EF-S f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. And now, she is letting me upgrade to the 17-40mm EF f/4L USM lens. I think she expects more as far as family photography goes though...

Nathan Yan said:

My advice: Go with whichever camera body (Rebel XT still works very
well, and it's not a bad choice for $200 less than the Rebel XTi)
and the kit lens, and shoot around with that for awhile. You don't
need to buy better equipment until you've outgrown the capabilities
of your old ones.

Click to expand...

--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ)
DSC-S70 --> DSC-V1 --> DSC-H1 --> Canon Digital Rebel XT.