Lost my P&S - DSLR camera and lens help needed

Well, I lost a new camera. Although I hate the fact that I just threw away $300 dollars, I can say I was not happy with the results of this camera. I tried to take low light photos with the Canon SD850IS and while the LCD screen made me think it was doing the job, the printed pictures were awful.

I've been reading about DSLR's over the weekend. I realize I need a good beginner camera. I am so technically challenged that I'm afraid I'll make a mistake getting a camera that is too complicated. I am more than willing to learn the features of the camera but want to know that it can also be used like a P&S until I get the hang of it.

From my reading and viewing sample photos I like the Canon EOS40d which is too expensive and probably not the best choice for a beginner.

I must say I do lean towards the Canons over most brands. I compared the Canon EOS450D, Pentax K200D, and the Olympus E520.

So, I was hoping someone could help me make a choice based on my experience and lens requirements.

I want a camera that does well in low light for indoors. I also need a telephoto lens for sports photography of football and lacrosse. Is there such a thing as an affordable telephoto lens for DSLR's? I start to get confused when the talk ventures into the f-stops. I know it's the amount of light allowed in but I have no clue what to look for when trying to select a telephoto lens for my purposes.

I welcome any suggestions.

If you want to go with Canon, I would suggest either the XS (1000D) or the XSi (450D) with the 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm IS lenses. There should be packages offered with these two lenses. It is important that you get the IS version of the 18-55 rather than the much inferior non-IS version. This will cover just about all of your needs, although you might want to add the excellent and cheap 50mm f1.8 for low light portraits.

Don't expect to be able to photograph night time or indoor sports - that requires very expensive lenses unless you can get very close.

Most other manufacturers have equivalent body+ 2 lenses packages and I am sure that you will get more recommendations on this thread.
--
Chris R

Understand this is based solely on opinion. I think the 450d from Canon is the best choice for beginners only from the standpoint that from my experience, beginners seem to be able to wrap their heads around the features and controls easier. All of the entry level camera produce equally compelling images in the hands of someone with a little bit of experience. So I think there is not difference in regards to that. I just think beginners find the rebel line up easier to master in a shorter time.

Again this is opinion only.

You can also have a look at the link below. I have a few tutorials there that I think you will find easy to understand. And good luck with your decision. I will pray you do not lose this purchase like you did the other. Because that stinks. Bad. I know exactly how you feel.

--
Free stuff for the beginners. No charge. Really. Of
course donations are accepted... KIDDING!

http://freephotographytutorials.blogspot.com/

Chris R:

What do you mean about night time shots? I would most likely be taking shots of buildings or amusement parks at night. Only rarely would I need to take action at night.

Let's say we're at a restaurant with low light, then the 55mm with f1.8 would work well in that low light situation, correct?

What if I'm in a city at night? Or at Disney World at night?

The lens of choice for a daytime lacrosse game would be the t55-250IS telephoto.
If I'm real serious a tripod?

As you can see I am really, really, new at this. For now I'm just trying to know what I need to succeed out of the box.

MrsT said:

Chris R:

What do you mean about night time shots?

Click to expand...

I was referring to night time sports only. Fast moving subjects + poor light = very big, very expensive lens!

MrsT said:

I would most likely be
taking shots of buildings or amusement parks at night. Only rarely
would I need to take action at night.

Let's say we're at a restaurant with low light, then the 55mm with
f1.8 would work well in that low light situation, correct?

Click to expand...

Yes. You could also use flash.

MrsT said:

What if I'm in a city at night? Or at Disney World at night?

Click to expand...

You would use the 18-55 IS, preferably on a tripod of some type. You will certainly be able to take hand held shots at night with practice but you may have a low hit rate and would have to use a high ISO setting. You can brace yourself against a wall or rest the camera on top of something to reduce shake.

MrsT said:

The lens of choice for a daytime lacrosse game would be the t55-250IS
telephoto.

Click to expand...

Yes

MrsT said:

If I'm real serious a tripod?

Click to expand...

Yes, for very low light shots. You could start off with a cheap table top tripod and see how it goes.

You could also get a more expensive lens, e.g. the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.

MrsT said:

As you can see I am really, really, new at this. For now I'm just
trying to know what I need to succeed out of the box.

Click to expand...

--
Chris R

The following was shot with a cheap zoom kit lens hand held 1/20 sec, f5, 30mm, iso800 on a very snowy night. Any DSLR can accomplish this.



--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Hi:

My Daughter and Wife had similar objectives as yours. They too wanted something that responded better than a P&S with shutter lag. Most P&S cameras, because of their small sensor size do not do well in low light. There will be too much noise.

My recomendation is to get either the Canon 450D with kit lenses, or the Nikon D60 with the kit lenses. The Nikon kit with 2 lenses can be had for about $700 where the Canon 450D with 2 kit lenses will cost almost $900. They both can work as a P&S by setting it to Automatic mode. The drawback to the Nikon D60 is that only certain lenses can autofocus with this camera, but if you don't plan on going further into photography it will do o.k.

What 55mm f/1.8?

The new kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) doesn't come close to 1.8.

If you mean the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II, that should work though a lot of people post it has issues with build quality, AF speed, etc.

I would recommend the XSi - I think it is a beginner's SLR that can grow further with you than most.

MrsT wrote:
...

MrsT said:

Let's say we're at a restaurant with low light, then the 55mm with
f1.8 would work well in that low light situation, correct?

Click to expand...

--
EOS 50D, 20D, 10D, 630, A-1, SD1000
-- Please remove the Quote option!
-- Why can't you edit more than once???
-- How about switching to real forum software?

Good of you to throw an image out there for discussion. Many newbies and helpers from diverse expectations and backgrounds go into long spirals about what cost, what brand, what ISO to achieve shots without actually seeing the same shot. In their mind, they are proposing a shot that your mind or someone else's is not the same shot, the same expectation of quality, subject size, subject movement, lighting.

At least with one or more sample shots people can focus on the same shot.

tbcass said:

The following was shot with a cheap zoom kit lens hand held 1/20 sec,
f5, 30mm, iso800 on a very snowy night. Any DSLR can accomplish this.

Click to expand...

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

MrsT said:

I want to know that it can also be used like a P&S until I get the hang of it.

Click to expand...

You could shoot a D3X like a p&s, besides how the camera focuses. (half press and hold shutter to focus). Besides that, you set everything on auto/default/program mode, and go at it. So basically ANY slr will work. Pick a budget, pick a system (canon, nikon), then pick a camera and lens and go for it.

--

Try out the cameras for one thing. The menu systems of Nikon I think are ridiculous. Every other brand is pretty easy. The price difference with the D60 and Xs reflect in the auto focusing systems. The Nikon has three points of autofocus, the Xs has 7 and the Xsi has 9. The canons are much better for tracking moving objects hence the price difference as well as the addition of the utterly useless Live view modes

AnandaSim said:

Good of you to throw an image out there for discussion. Many newbies
and helpers from diverse expectations and backgrounds go into long
spirals about what cost, what brand, what ISO to achieve shots
without actually seeing the same shot. In their mind, they are
proposing a shot that your mind or someone else's is not the same
shot, the same expectation of quality, subject size, subject
movement, lighting.

At least with one or more sample shots people can focus on the same
shot.

Click to expand...

Thank you and that was shot in a snow storm under far less than ideal conditions. I just wanted to show the OP that what they want to do is possible with a kit lens.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

First let me say thanks for the input to my question.

I am so reluctant to post questions because the more I read the harder it gets to decipher all the differences in the brands. I'm going in all different directions but would like to see if I'm heading in the right direction.

I think right now I am leaning seriously toward the Canon Xsi but I am trying to compare it to other brands. Right or wrong, I lean towards the brand that seems to provide better shots at higher ISO.

I started to think seriously about the SonyA350 because of the in-body stabilization but then I read that if you use a telephoto lens that in-lens IS is better. Now I know it's a simplified explanation but if I'm going to be using a telephoto for outdoor sports than I would hopefully have better results using the IS-lens to fully zoom in. I would also have the benefit of better ISO performance with the Canon. Perhaps it's my inexperience with DSLR but won't better performing ISO help a beginner like me until I learn to use the features?

I think the Sony A350 live view works better than the Canon. However, I'm not really sure of the benefits of live view. I could use some help with this feature.

Remembering that low light and sports will be my goals does it make sense to consider the older Canon Xti? I read that if I get the body only I could get lenses with IS.

Are there any other camera features I should be considering to persuade my decision? For example should I be concerned with dust reduction?

Sorry, so many questions.

--

The Sony a350 I think didn't do as well in high ISO's. I don't know this from experience just what I've read

Live view on the other hand does work pretty well on the sony but I don't think that's a feature to look for. You'll have better luck composing your shots thru the eyepiece.

The sony is also a bit slower at 2 fps compared to 3.5 or 4 (can't remember right now) of the canon Xsi

But like everyone said you gotta try these out before you buy. That'll give you a better idea of what you need and want.

If you were planning on doing indoor sports ISO performance and your lens' f-stop is gonna be what to look for as well as maybe needing a better flash down the road.

I need a camera by Saturday.

I decided that if I were to go SLR it would be the Canon 450d xsi.

However I'm worried about it being too expensive and also worried whether I will be able to take it out of the box and use it this weekend at my daughter's engagement party.

I have to have a camera and leaning toward getting a super zoom point and shoot which may not be the best way to spend my dollars.

Here is what I'm considering:

Canson SX10i

Cannon XSi with 2 lenses

I'll be taking a lot of low light pictures. Should I just take the plunge and invest in the DSLR since I'll probably be happier in the long run?

Otherwise I can wait for the XSi and maybe get the Panasonic DMC -LX3 since it would be a decent pocket camera to have.

It seems like such a dilemma.

Mrs T

For what you want and asked for in your original message, stay away from p&s.
The cheapest entry-level dslr will do lots better.

A nikon D40 with 35 1.8 afs would do well. You set your mind on Canon Xsi, no problem, but it is the lens that will do the trick. The right lens for the job at hand.

Try not to use the on-camera flash indoors, it gives ugly effects, or at least bounce the light (piece of styrofoam in front of the flash for example). Outdoors on sunny days you SHOULD use the flash, to balance out the well-lit background.

For night-shots, shutterspeed can go low to very low, so you need a tripod, no question. For action in low light, you need expensive 2.8 zooms, like already mentioned. You shouldn't be afraid to buy a cheaper model Canon though.
Upgrading a camera is nothing special, think lenses first!!!
Dust-removal is a nice gimmick, but we did well without it for decades.

IS or VR is nice to have and both work well, but doesn't replace a good tripod, nor does it stop subject-movement, only fast lenses (1.4/1.8/2.8) do.

You can also use higher iso to obtain a higher shutterspeed.(400-800iso) with much better results than a p&s.
The real very good high iso-dslr's are a "tad" more expensive(D700, 1DsIII).

May the light be with you ;-)

--
------------------------------------------------
http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/alex_837/
Just trying to get better.....

MrsT said:

I need a camera by Saturday.

I decided that if I were to go SLR it would be the Canon 450d xsi.

However I'm worried about it being too expensive and also worried
whether I will be able to take it out of the box and use it this
weekend at my daughter's engagement party.

I have to have a camera and leaning toward getting a super zoom point
and shoot which may not be the best way to spend my dollars.

Here is what I'm considering:

Canson SX10i

Cannon XSi with 2 lenses

I'll be taking a lot of low light pictures. Should I just take the
plunge and invest in the DSLR since I'll probably be happier in the
long run?

Otherwise I can wait for the XSi and maybe get the Panasonic DMC -LX3
since it would be a decent pocket camera to have.

It seems like such a dilemma.

Mrs T

Click to expand...

There are going to be some problems with using it this weekend. The XSI is very complex compared to a point and shoot. Since you're a complete noob at this, then you can expect the first 200 shots to be throw aways until you get somewhat comfortable with it. There has to be a caveat when using a DSLR, the camera can perform only as well as the photographer can perform.

I've seen many posts here of people that bought a DSLR and find that their shots with their p&s are better than their DSLR. Once the forum community tries to help them out by telling them about books, taking photography classes, practicing themes in photography do we usually find out that they do not want to learn and that they feel that, for the money they spent, that it should perform great out of the box in auto modes. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way and you will need to learn about photography, study, and practice, practice, practice.

You should get a D40 with 18-55 and 55-200. You can get this for like $600 at Ritz I believe

MrsT said:

I need a camera by Saturday.

I decided that if I were to go SLR it would be the Canon 450d xsi.

However I'm worried about it being too expensive and also worried
whether I will be able to take it out of the box and use it this
weekend at my daughter's engagement party.

I have to have a camera and leaning toward getting a super zoom point
and shoot which may not be the best way to spend my dollars.

Here is what I'm considering:

Canson SX10i

Cannon XSi with 2 lenses

I'll be taking a lot of low light pictures. Should I just take the
plunge and invest in the DSLR since I'll probably be happier in the
long run?

Otherwise I can wait for the XSi and maybe get the Panasonic DMC -LX3
since it would be a decent pocket camera to have.

It seems like such a dilemma.

Mrs T

Click to expand...

--
'87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot'

ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

MrsT said:

Remembering that low light and sports will be my goals does it make
sense to consider the older Canon Xti? I read that if I get the body
only I could get lenses with IS.

Click to expand...

IS only helps with your hand shake. It does nothing to freeze subject motion. If you are going to take sports action shots in dim light (e.g., an indoors gymnasium where you are not allowed to use flash), you'll need fast glass, and perhaps also a body that is good at high ISO.

I guess I'll be moving to the Canon forum.

I just bought the Xsi. I think I'm going back to the store to return the lens because the salesman didn't tell me the facts about the IS lenses. He told me they were very expensive and sold me the kit lens without IS!

There is no problem returning it.

Can someone advise which lens I should be getting?

Thanks for the input. I find it hard to believe that my shots will be poor right out of the box. I'm willing to be patient until I learn but hopefully I will get some decent photos this weekend.