cameras, lenses, opinions... oh my!

I've gathered that some on here shun the question of "which one" when it comes to a particular brand of SLR camera, however when a penny-pincher is spending a good chunk of money, she wants to know for sure it was money well spent. Nothing worse than buyer's remorse.

So with that said... I am looking to get into the DSLR world. I was 99.9% sold on the Canon XSi until I spent a couple hours reading opinions on these forums. The Nikon D90 has now entered the ring. Any thoughts? Listen, I hear you all on "the camera doesn't matter." It's the photographer, not the equipment, etc, etc. I get that... but things like camera features and lenses do enter into the overall experience of the user and potential for the future.

Which brings me to my next point which leaves my head spinning every time... lenses! I'll admit, I know basically nothing. What exactly are people talking about when they say a lens is "fast" or "slow" and how does one find this kind of info out? By testing it out themselves? From reviews?

What I want is a good all purpose lens. Okay, I know this may not exist, but I'm hoping someone will have a good recommendation. It seems the standard kit lens 18-55mm will be very limiting as far as being artistic with portraiture and achieving that ever-so-beautiful blurred background. Am I right? If so, what would be a good lens to get? I've seen 18-105. I've seen 18-200. I am trying my hardest to study up on this, but it's a lot to take in and like I said... my head's spinning!

Please don't judge me... yes I am a total beginner. And I know I don't need top of the line, crazy amounts of equipment... I don't want that. That's precisely why I am asking for advice on a camera body and one good lens that will be versatile enough to create captivating portraits, random snaps of my family, yet is not too cumbersome and just well, ridiculous for someone like me! I don't want to make a mistake going into this and it seems that could be easy to do with the sheer number of options available out there.

Thank you so much for helping me begin this exciting new journey!
-Julie

Well, you did read up well. The 18-55 is a good lens, but I would go for the more versatile 18-105VR, almost standard with the D90.

If you are after the "nice blurr" you will have to shop for 2.8 lenses or better.
The lower the F-stop, the more (possible) blurr in the background.

35mm 1.8 afs, Tamron 28-75 2.8, 70-200 2.8. The 35mm is great for kids and pets (lol) and not expensive.
As for the camera's, you have to handle and try them.
--
------------------------------------------------
http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/alex_837/
Just trying to get better.....

Hi,

Its OK to be a beginner.

On the fast lens question. this refers to the smallest apature number. It will give you the ability to let more light into the camera and therefore use a faster shutter speed. This will give you the ability to shoot in more situations especially low light.

On which lens. Well I have a whole range of Nikon lenses and without a doubt I use the 50mm 1.4 lens the most. It is sharp and clear. I hate zoom lenses, if you need to get closer use your feet!

Any of the Nikon DSLRs are good to start with. On the whole go with a brand name. Nikon, Canon. This will mean you put a great lens on the front. This makes the most amount of difference.

Dont buy a cheap lens, a good one will last for ever. Th body will be out of date before you have purchased it. Spend the money on the Lens.

Great time to buy as the summer is nearly here. Well I hope so!

JULi3ANN said:

So with that said... I am looking to get into the DSLR world. I was
99.9% sold on the Canon XSi until I spent a couple hours reading
opinions on these forums. The Nikon D90 has now entered the ring.
Any thoughts? Listen, I hear you all on "the camera doesn't matter."
It's the photographer, not the equipment, etc, etc. I get that...
but things like camera features and lenses do enter into the overall
experience of the user and potential for the future.

Click to expand...

While Canon XSi is an entry level camera packed with features Nikon D90 is a mid range level so a different class. I would go for Nikon because you have more lenses that are at affordable price for normal ranges (16-135 mm so 24-200 mm equivalent).

JULi3ANN said:

Which brings me to my next point which leaves my head spinning every
time... lenses! I'll admit, I know basically nothing. What exactly
are people talking about when they say a lens is "fast" or "slow" and
how does one find this kind of info out? By testing it out
themselves? From reviews?

Click to expand...

A fast lens is one that has a larger maximum aperture (f1.4, f/2 or even f/2.8) while slow lenses have a smaller naximum aperture (most of the start at f/3.5 and go up to f/6.3 at tele end).

So Nikkor 18-105 mm VR f/3.5-5.6 is a slow lens while Nikkor 17-55 mm f/2.8 is a fast lens. Faster than f/2.8 are prime lens (the ones with only one focal length) that go usually to f/1.4 that means an aperture four times larger than f/2.8.

JULi3ANN said:

What I want is a good all purpose lens. Okay, I know this may not
exist, but I'm hoping someone will have a good recommendation. It
seems the standard kit lens 18-55mm will be very limiting as far as
being artistic with portraiture and achieving that ever-so-beautiful
blurred background. Am I right? If so, what would be a good lens to
get? I've seen 18-105. I've seen 18-200. I am trying my hardest to
study up on this, but it's a lot to take in and like I said... my
head's spinning!

Click to expand...

A very good all purpose lens is Nikkor 16-85 mm VR with the cheaper version being Nikkor 18-105 mm VR (that has just the 20 mm at tele end as advantage and of course the price). Nikkor 18-200 mm VR is the best superzoom on the market but still is quite far away from the ideal (corners have to be cut in order to reduce the price to be affordable for the target people).

JULi3ANN said:

Please don't judge me... yes I am a total beginner. And I know I
don't need top of the line, crazy amounts of equipment... I don't
want that. That's precisely why I am asking for advice on a camera
body and one good lens that will be versatile enough to create
captivating portraits, random snaps of my family, yet is not too
cumbersome and just well, ridiculous for someone like me! I don't
want to make a mistake going into this and it seems that could be
easy to do with the sheer number of options available out there.

Click to expand...

It's better to ask first than spend a lot of money without knowing what you are doing.

JULi3ANN said:

Thank you so much for helping me begin this exciting new journey!
-Julie

Click to expand...

You're welcome.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v_petcu/

Hi Julie,

JULi3ANN said:

I've gathered that some on here shun the question of "which one" when
it comes to a particular brand of SLR camera, however when a
penny-pincher is spending a good chunk of money, she wants to know
for sure it was money well spent. Nothing worse than buyer's remorse.

Click to expand...

That's not just you. Most beginners and quite a few veterans are like that.

JULi3ANN said:

So with that said... I am looking to get into the DSLR world. I was
99.9% sold on the Canon XSi until I spent a couple hours reading
opinions on these forums. The Nikon D90 has now entered the ring.

Click to expand...

I think shopping is part of the journey. Don't be in a rush to finish this part of the journey - take your time to window shop. And I really mean going to shops, asking to hold the cameras with batterys inside and switched on. Take a media card and shoot a few. Take the card out and see pics on your computer

JULi3ANN said:

Any thoughts? Listen, I hear you all on "the camera doesn't matter."
It's the photographer, not the equipment, etc, etc. I get that...
but things like camera features and lenses do enter into the overall
experience of the user and potential for the future.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that usually the non photographer or the typical stereotyped newbie is so unskilled or have an attitude that whatever equipment they buy, they shoot, ahem, uh, you know, bland results.

When you start getting serious, then the first month, the first 6 months, the first year should yield very different pics. Then, it will be the equipment that needs to be discussed.

JULi3ANN said:

Which brings me to my next point which leaves my head spinning every
time... lenses! I'll admit, I know basically nothing. What exactly
are people talking about when they say a lens is "fast" or "slow" and
how does one find this kind of info out? By testing it out
themselves? From reviews?

Click to expand...

Fast and slow are descriptors or how much light the lens lets through to hit the camera's sensor. You could say dark or bright. Or large aperture vs small aperture. Or small f/no vs big f/no.

http://www.photonhead.com/beginners/shutterandaperture.php

JULi3ANN said:

What I want is a good all purpose lens. Okay, I know this may not
exist, but I'm hoping someone will have a good recommendation. It
seems the standard kit lens 18-55mm will be very limiting as far as
being artistic with portraiture and achieving that ever-so-beautiful
blurred background. Am I right? If so, what would be a good lens to

Click to expand...

A general purpose lens is one that takes general shots successfully. That would be a kit lens. Artistic portraiture with blurred background is a SPECIFIC type of shot, not a general type of shot. A general purpose vehicle is like for example a town car. it takes you around. It is not the fastest car on the highway nor is it the toughest 4WD to go off road. Same with a general purpose lens. Doesn't mean you can't take your town car on the highway or off road a little. But a general purpose car won't do best when you ask it to do best in one specific task.

The 18-55mm set fo 55mm with the smallest f/no you have and pointed 4 ft away at a head and shoulders with the background very much further away, can give you a nice shot with blur background. If you do this on a subject 4 ft away with the background at 6ft away, yes, the background won't be blurry.

JULi3ANN said:

get? I've seen 18-105. I've seen 18-200. I am trying my hardest to
study up on this, but it's a lot to take in and like I said... my
head's spinning!

Click to expand...

There you go. You are now looking for a super car that can go super fast on the highway and also climb rugged terrain off road at the same time. The kind of vehicle will be big, expensive and may not suit the city and may not be tough enough for the country.

Take it easy, one day at a time. One object at a time.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://onepicperpost.blogspot.com/

Hi,

You say "get into" and so I am guessing that you have some experience of photography already? If so, then I'd say look at what you take (especially your favourites) and then come back and tell us.

Here's a few pointers to get on with:

There's no such thing as a general purpose lens as they usually compromise on a lot of things. With a dSLR it's best to get specialised lenses and that can be expensive for some and dirt cheap for others.

The honest answer is a very vague "it all depends" for the question of what is "best".

If you mostly take landscapes then look at 28mm or 35mm (in 35mm film terms) as a suitable lens. Speed isn't important for landscapes and an f/2 28 or 35mm lens would be a waste of money most of the time.

If you mostly take candids or portraits then a standard lens for portraits won't work but will be great for candids and a 85 or 90mm lens for portraits will be great and good for candids. Here f/2 or better pays off.

The above suggest a lens of (say) 30 to 90 mm and with f/2 available at the tele end. I don't think it exists but a few good to excellent ones cover that range if not the aperture. If you mostly wanted the portrait lens then I'd suggest a prime (dear to very dear) and a middle of the road x3 zoom. Although you could look at cameras that take lenses from film cameras and buy secondhand stuff. There's a lot of excellent film lenses about and they are giving them away on ebay.

Beyond people, pets and places we get into specialised stuff like sports, wildlife etc. Abandon all hope of economy if you want the best (although the middle and top of the range Olympus lenses punch well above their weight).

Macro these days means butterflies and primroses etc. This is best done with a specialised lens and they are dear.

But - here's a great big "but" btw - careful choice based on knowing what you mostly want can find some excellent lenses. You don't even need a dSLR for some lenses are excellent on the in-between cameras. Also, technique can make up for a lack of cash a lot of the time.

The problem is knowing what you want. And only you know that...

Anyway, this is just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

Hi Julie

Very reasonable questions you have !

I appriciate your ambitions being a DSLR-girl. But since you are a girl, why not buy a ladies-camera, which I would call the socalled four-third group of cameras. Nikon don't produce such. But Olympus and Panasonic does. I would recommend the G1.

These small, light cameras have the noiseless IQ performance you want, and there is not much reason to go the double sensor size of the D90 and similar.

I would just recommend buying the kit lens at first. Then after a year tuning in, you can answer yourself the question, what you need more: the tele end or the ultrawide end. For me it is quite clear: the ultrawide end. Here the Olympus 9-18 ultrawide zoom is perfect for the G1. Yes, it will fit also on the Panasonic camera.

For myself I started with Nikon about 1970. I have carried many heavy cameras and bags.

Just wanted to respond to a few things that were brought up. Yes, I do have prior experience with photography. I already own a Canon Rebel 2000 film camera with a 28-80 lens. When I purchased this camera (2002) I never really got out of the fully-automatic mode, due to lack of desire and time to really learn. I then went digital with a p&s and have stuck with Canon for those as well. Digital is what I lean towards just because of the instant results and I feel it affords me a quicker ability to learn because I can instantly see what different settings will produce.

The reason I want to make the leap into DSLR is because I have reached the limitations of my p&s which has become frustrating and I know I can make better images than what is allowed for me to make on the p&s. My ability for composition and creativity is there, the equipment I currently have to produce it does not have the ability to take me further. While I appreciate someone suggesting the "in-between" cameras as an alternative to DSLR... this again will be too limiting for me as I would never have the option of using a different lens.

As I said in my original post, asking for a good "all purpose lens" was almost kind of a joke. I know it doesn't really exist. A good lens for portraits will not be the same as a good lens for landscapes, etc. What I am mostly interested in, as I said before, is portraiture and then general snapshot (well-composed snapshots, haha!) kind of photography. I have already been asked (and paid) by several people to photograph their children and have done so using both my p&s and a borrowed Nikon DSLR with the 18-55mm lens (which did not quite produce the results I was after... came close, but not quite there yet). My main concern is cost and not wanting to be too fussy with too many lenses as I am just starting out.

Thank you for answering my question re: fast/slow lenses. It makes perfect sense now.

I was admittedly a bit appalled by the comment about purchasing a "ladies camera." I have no idea what that person was even talking about, but come on now... seriously? And why discourage someone who is truly interested in getting better at something they love to do? Here's to lightening up and rising to the challenge of actually helping people who are asking for help instead of posting discouraging analogies and euphemisms which will only instill more confusion and hesitation into the beginner.

Please continue to make comments and/or recommendations for that "perfect" lens for me. Oh and if anyone knows what a "ladies camera" might possibly be... please fill me in so I can stay far away from it.

Julie,

The internet is a strange place. We can't see you and vice versa. We can't feel your background or you our facial expressions. All we can do is to try and be a little more detailed so we can illustrate out intent.

In the attempt to provide details and analogies, one or more of us may have come over as patronising or heavy handed. I don't think that was our intention at all. Sometimes when you can't see a person's face, all you can do is read the words and not between the lines.

JULi3ANN said:

I was admittedly a bit appalled by the comment about purchasing a
"ladies camera." I have no idea what that person was even talking
about, but come on now... seriously? And why discourage someone who

Click to expand...

I don't think he was patronising if you are taking it like that. I use Olympus DSLRs - they are smaller and lighter - some people might call them "ladies" cameras. The term is not so accurately descriptive - he probably meant, not knowing more beforehand of your intent because you did not detail your intent, that such a camera would have advantages in size, bulk and yet perform with good results. As opposed to say a Nikon D3 which is quite a big camera - but then again I saw a 10+ year old shoot with it last weekend.

JULi3ANN said:

Here's to lightening up and rising to the challenge of actually
helping people who are asking for help instead of posting

Click to expand...

A lot of the replies were already "light". You should see us when we're heavy.

JULi3ANN said:

discouraging analogies and euphemisms which will only instill more
confusion and hesitation into the beginner.

Click to expand...

Some people respond to analogies. Some people hate analogies. It's a personal thing. Analogies illustrate a point as long as all parties agree to the limit of the analogy.

JULi3ANN said:

Please continue to make comments and/or recommendations for that
"perfect" lens for me. Oh and if anyone knows what a "ladies camera"
might possibly be... please fill me in so I can stay far away from it.

Click to expand...

Well, bow out and let the others help you at this stage, I'm not a Nikon / Canon owner.

Have a Happy Journey.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://onepicperpost.blogspot.com/

JULi3ANN said:

So with that said... I am looking to get into the DSLR world. I was
99.9% sold on the Canon XSi until I spent a couple hours reading
opinions on these forums. The Nikon D90 has now entered the ring.
Any thoughts? Listen, I hear you all on "the camera doesn't matter."

Click to expand...

Both are fine cameras that will do more than anybody needs 99% of the time, unless the user develops a very specific area of concentration. The user comfort level is usually a product of the learning curve and the 'hand comfort' (ability to easily and comfortably find the specific control you are reaching for). Ease of access and ease of understanding the menus is more important for most people than the max shutter speed or ISO difference, for example.

JULi3ANN said:

It's the photographer, not the equipment, etc, etc. I get that...
but things like camera features and lenses do enter into the overall
experience of the user and potential for the future.

Click to expand...

Only time will tell if you need something more specialized. But it is far more likely that you will be able to get great photos for years from either with the correct lens additions (and maybe correct flash, too).

JULi3ANN said:

Which brings me to my next point which leaves my head spinning every
time... lenses! I'll admit, I know basically nothing. What exactly
are people talking about when they say a lens is "fast" or "slow" and
how does one find this kind of info out?

Click to expand...

A fast lens simply means that with all other things being equal (ISO & shutter speeds) one lens will allow photography at lower light levels because it can let in more light and is therefore said to be "faster".

JULi3ANN said:

By testing it out themselves? From reviews?

Click to expand...

Personal testing without real understanding of proper test procedures is almost worthless, except for the 'feel' and hand comfort. Other posters often have no solid craftsmanship on which to base their conclusions. So, look for good testing labs and concentrate on the optical facts (The authors' personal viewpoint of the size of a grip ring may not be relevant to you). I like POP Photos test, as I think they are more understandable to most people. DPR and SLR Gear also do excellent reviews, but are more arcane reading.

JULi3ANN said:

What I want is a good all purpose lens. Okay, I know this may not
exist, but I'm hoping someone will have a good recommendation. It
seems the standard kit lens 18-55mm will be very limiting as far as
being artistic with portraiture and achieving that ever-so-beautiful
blurred background. Am I right? If so, what would be a good lens to
get? I've seen 18-105. I've seen 18-200. I am trying my hardest to
study up on this, but it's a lot to take in and like I said... my
head's spinning!

Click to expand...

Of course good all around lenses exist. Today, you can get excellent 15X zooms for reasonable money. Most people do fine with something less too. Probably the best value is the 11X range, available for about $300. These same lenses sold for about $100 more last year coming down as more feature laden models have become available. Generally, the arguments and opinions around sites like DPR are focused on minutia, not practical general photo issues. And they are full of personal opinion which is often based on limited craftsmanship skills.

The 'kit' lenses are fine for around the house snap shots. It is when you want to bring far away objects close, or you don't want to use a flash, or you want to photograph something really small that you need to consider other lenses.

Today, it is almost impossible to get a 'bad' optical quality lens, particularly if your prints are going to be smaller than 11x14". The likelihood of a 'bad' mechanical lens is about 1-2 in every 100 and is fixed by warranty, so that is a small issue. Therefore, it really comes down to the range of uses (flexibility) that your personal photography interests takes on as you grow, as to which lens is 'best'.

JULi3ANN said:

Please don't judge me... yes I am a total beginner.

Click to expand...

Welcome, we all start there.

JULi3ANN said:

And I know I don't need top of the line, crazy amounts of equipment... I don't
want that. That's precisely why I am asking for advice on a camera
body and one good lens that will be versatile enough to create
captivating portraits, random snaps of my family, yet is not too
cumbersome and just well, ridiculous for someone like me!
I don't want to make a mistake going into this and it seems that could be
easy to do with the sheer number of options available out there.

Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to consider either of the choices you are looking at as a mistake, at all. All of the esoteric arguments all boil down to design approach, not output value, which is excellent from both and from virtually all popular lens makers.

JULi3ANN said:

Thank you so much for helping me begin this exciting new journey!
-Julie

Click to expand...

Good luck. Don't worry. Be happy! (take pictures)
--
Van

JULi3ANN wrote:

• • • Snip! Snip! - - -

JULi3ANN said:

Please continue to make comments and/or recommendations for that
"perfect" lens for me. Oh and if anyone knows what a "ladies camera"
might possibly be... please fill me in so I can stay far away from it.

Click to expand...

Well, um, I've seen some silly pink cameras and wonder if that's what they were thinking of...

As for portraits, well, you've my 2d worth on that but I'll add that pictures of kids are mostly technique and a lot of luck and not equipment.

Regards, David

JULi3ANN said:

I've gathered that some on here shun the question of "which one" when
it comes to a particular brand of SLR camera, however when a
penny-pincher is spending a good chunk of money, she wants to know
for sure it was money well spent.

Click to expand...

All of them are darned good; if not, there'd be no discussion/argument about it.

Choice of lenses is particularly important. Mega zoom lenses are ok for a lot of circumstances, WHEN THE LIGHT IS BRIGHT.

But many of us want to take people photos with natural light in the home, in Bistros, the theater, at dusk, etc. For this you need an (not-very-expensive) fast lens like a 50:1.4, 50:1.7, etc.... This lens also helps when subject isolation is important.

Daytime sports and long distance objects are easy with the long zooms, but fail when the light is dim, like public school gyms; in this case (more expensive) fast long lenses are needed.

I use Pentax because (inexpensive) used lenses work well & the camera has in-body stabilization. I did almost as well with a canon digital rebel, but needed more stabilization for interiors & wildlife.

I recommend spending your money on a fast 50mm lens, a stabilized 18-250+ zoom, and a modest (maybe used) camera. Accessories might include an achromatic close-up attachment (around 4 diopter) for the zoom.

Iowa Dave

PS if low-light stuff isn't important, mega-zoom bridge cameras do well, except subjects will be harder to isolate.

..I started this website for this purpose:

http://www.photography-camera.com

for this purpose. There is a section on the DSLR you may wish to decide on.

JULi3ANN said:

I was admittedly a bit appalled by the comment about purchasing a
"ladies camera." I have no idea what that person was even talking
about, but come on now... seriously? And why discourage someone who
is truly interested in getting better at something they love to do?
Here's to lightening up and rising to the challenge of actually
helping people who are asking for help instead of posting
discouraging analogies and euphemisms which will only instill more
confusion and hesitation into the beginner.

Please continue to make comments and/or recommendations for that
"perfect" lens for me. Oh and if anyone knows what a "ladies camera"
might possibly be... please fill me in so I can stay far away from it.

Click to expand...

Hi again

I didn't like to read this comment from you. I thought patriotism was something buried a long time ago. English is not my native language, so I don't express very accurately what I mean. Sorry for the inconvenience. I mean that Panasonic G1 is a new trend being a DSLR without a mirror. That is the future, if you ask me. I actually don't like seing a girl carrying around an enormeous Canon or Nikon. I think that is patriotism from their side. What I recommended was a top technologic thing, light and small. Just like a mobile phone should not be a telephone box.

Hey,

Very interesting reading all your comments. Julie I really don't think the girl camera thing was meant to be patronizing.

I love to shoot images of kids, they are fast fun and very satisfying. However I have a tendency to have to work really fast and need a really fast camera to do this, kids get bored very fast and you really only have the chance to take 3 or 4 images at a time.

I would therefore encourage you to try a fixed focal length fast lens for portraits. The 105 is really nice. As I have said before I am a believer of the 50mm, it is a pleasure to work with.

If you know the Canon stay with it, but don't be tempted with getting a non brand lens especially if people are paying you for the job.

Hope this is helpful.

Chris

If you like that nice blurred background, the kit lenses tend not to do very well. They tend to be a bit harsh and odd with their contrast compared to a better lens. Better zooms will do better. For the ultimate, creamy out of focus areas and 3D effect, go with the Pentax primes from about 35mm on up. The DA70 looks particularly good.

I am currently using the FA35/2 and F50/1.7 with incredible results on my little K2000. The body stabilizes all lenses.

--
Variance is Evil!

I don't want to start a canon vs nikon war. I just want to talk about canon because is what I know. I have the XSI. Great camera (Nikon cameras are great too). The kit lens, 18-55is is a very good lens with great optics. It is not a fast lens (aperture is 3.5-5.6) so you will not achieve that blurred, melting, creamy background in some situations. But that blurred background is determined by the depth of field which also is affected by the distance to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background. If you are close to someone, get him in focus and the foreground is distant you will get the blurred background. (I recommend you take a look at "Understanding exposure" a great book for beginners.)

For portraits with that characteristics you want a fast lens like the 50mm 1.8. It is very cheap (less than 100 USD) the lightest lens made by canon and has excellent optics.

Bottom line: Canon XSI + 18-55is + 50 1.8 will give you exactly what you are looking for: a light, "cheap", excellent quality combo!
--
Juan P
http://juanpics.zenfolio.com

I realize now that you did not mean to be patronizing. I apologize for my immediate reaction!

John Knuhtsen said:

JULi3ANN said:

I was admittedly a bit appalled by the comment about purchasing a
"ladies camera." I have no idea what that person was even talking
about, but come on now... seriously? And why discourage someone who
is truly interested in getting better at something they love to do?
Here's to lightening up and rising to the challenge of actually
helping people who are asking for help instead of posting
discouraging analogies and euphemisms which will only instill more
confusion and hesitation into the beginner.

Please continue to make comments and/or recommendations for that
"perfect" lens for me. Oh and if anyone knows what a "ladies camera"
might possibly be... please fill me in so I can stay far away from it.

Click to expand...

Hi again
I didn't like to read this comment from you. I thought patriotism was
something buried a long time ago. English is not my native language,
so I don't express very accurately what I mean. Sorry for the
inconvenience. I mean that Panasonic G1 is a new trend being a DSLR
without a mirror. That is the future, if you ask me. I actually don't
like seing a girl carrying around an enormeous Canon or Nikon. I
think that is patriotism from their side. What I recommended was a
top technologic thing, light and small. Just like a mobile phone
should not be a telephone box.

Click to expand...

Thank you Juan. I think this is good advice. A good starter lens (the 18-55) and one that I can "play" with. I NEED that ability to be creative, that's why I had inquired about different lenses.

I handled both the Canons and Nikons at the store. I liked the layout of buttons and the menu setup of the Nikons, but I don't feel Nikon offers anything comparable to the Canon XSi at the moment. The closest thing is the D60 which has fewer MP and a smaller LCD. Of course, these are minor issues in the overall picture. It's still a tough call, but since I know Canon and already have a 35mm Canon SLR from which I can use the lens, I'm pretty sure I'm sticking with my original decision.

Thank you to all for your information. I will try in the future not to react so quickly to anyone's comments. I certainly don't want to make enemies!

JuanP said:

Bottom line: Canon XSI + 18-55is + 50 1.8 will give you exactly what
you are looking for: a light, "cheap", excellent quality combo!
--
Juan P
http://juanpics.zenfolio.com

Click to expand...

I see 2 or 3 posts a week from folks looking for their first DSLR and want to know should I get a Canon xxx or a Nikon xxx or an Olympus xxx or a Sony xxx. So in an attempt to be proactive I decided I'd put this post up for you to read before you post the question. Now I own an Oly and say that for clarity up front. Also I have put up almost the same statements for many posts so here's to being proactive.

Ok everyone likes their camera. So if you post a "I'm choosing between the Nikon XXX and the Sony XXX", you will generally get more comments that say get the Nikon because there are more Nikon owners. However, I generally don't make MY decisions based on a vote by people I don't know.

The least important thing overall in the system, (e.g. photographer, camera body, lens) is the camera body. ALL the DSLRs available today will take excellent images. All of them! One more time. ALL OF THEM. So you have one variable which is basically a wash unless you want to count pixels, take pictures in very dark rooms without a flash, or whatever.

So we are left with the photographer and lenses. All the manufacturers make good lenses. Canon and Nikon make the most and there are more 3rd party lenses. And you will often see a posting about the "wide variety" of lenses from Nikon and Canon. But honestly how many lenses do you need? There are over 38 lenses available for a 4/3 mount (oly/Panisonic) at my last count. I think that will cover all of my requirements with about 32 lenses left over. So lets look at quality. All of the manufacturers make good quality lenses. ALL OF THEM! However based on what I have read and experienced in the kit lens area Oly and Pentax have the best kit lens quality. There are so many other lenses that it really comes down to value. Can you get equiv quality lenses at the same prices? Generally the answer again is yes. I'm not talking pro lenses here but what 99% of us use. So in my opinion Oly/Pentax come out slightly ahead here for the kit lenses . Please note I said slightly. For everything else its a wash.

That leaves us with the most important part of the system...the photographer. YOU have to decide what is the most comfortable system for you. Generally the Oly/Panasonic will have a lighter body and much lighter lenses. Pentax bodies are weather sealed so if you are going outdoors a good deal you may want to consider that. So many people use Canikons that you could be able to borrow lenses etc. Sony, Oly, and Pentax have built in image stabilization. Canon and Nikon have the best low light performance. Does any of this matter to YOU? I don't know and nobody on these forums can make that decision. Many will tell you how important low light performance is or image stabilization or ... The fact is it may be important to them but they haven't generally got clue 1 if it is or should be important to YOU! I seldom shoot in low light without a flash. Will you? I don't know. IS is good and I have it on my camera BUT its not going to do anything for a moving object as some silly folks seem to believe. Some people like a heavier system. I don't but I don't like a really feather weight either. Are the controls where YOU want them? Does the menu make sense to YOU? Can YOU quickly change settings? How's the view finder? Is the camera comfortable for YOU to hold and control. If your 6'10 and have hands like Shak then you most likely will not be comfortable with a small camera. On the other hand if you plan on taking your camera backpacking an ounce in the morning feels like a pound that afternoon.

The MOST important aspect in taking pictures is the PHOTOGRAPHER and his/her knowledge of his/her tools and his/her comfort in using that tool. DON'T put too much thought into the tool. Painters don't stand around admiring each others brushes. They talk technique. I've seen shots with Point and Shoots that are better then anything I can take with my fancy DSLR because the guy/gal that took them has more understanding of composition and has a better eye for what is interesting and they get the most from their tools.

Jim

--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.