Beginners DSLR

[AJLee]

I'm in the same boat. Want to take pictures of the kids. Hence, I'm researching right now and am about to pull the trigger. It looks like the Canon 450D is the camera to beat. I thought the Nikon D40 would be a good start, too, but I could just feel the urge to upgrade by looking at the paucity of features compared to the 450D (and any other current-gen budget DSLR for that matter). If you're a pro who can do DOF and exposure calculations in your head, then the D40 is sufficient. Me, I need all the hand-holding and convenience I can buy. I will grow into the advanced stuff, no doubt though it would take some time and effort.

When it comes to cameras, I think it would be best just to get the newest and most feature-packed camera one can afford at the time because life is too short and the kids grow up too fast to go through the hassle of upgrading and obsessing over camera choices again. I think the word "overkill" is used too much around here, as if a person new to photography could never grow into a pro-level camera in a short period of time. Just smacks of elitism to me.

 

[CarloCN]

Don't forget that the glass is at least as important as the body.

If you want to stay with the kit lens, IMO the Canon 450D with 18-55 IS kit lens is roughly equivalent to the Olympus E-510 with the 14-42 kit lens. The Canon kt has a slight edge with the body (12MP and a few extra features) while the Olympus kit has a slight edge with the lens (smaller, sharper, better contrast, less flare). However, the Canon kit costs $900 wile the Olympus kit costs $550. You do the math.

On th eother hand, if you follow my advice, for slight less than $900 you can get the Olympus E-510 body with the 14-54 lens. Now we are speaking high quality glass. First of all at f2.8-3.5 it is signiicantly faster than both kit lenses above, and in low light shots of moving targets maximum aperture is even more important than IS. In addition it is sharper and has a much more useful 28-108 equiv zoom range. The disadvantage is that it is larger and heavyer.

Another thingh to consider is that the Olympus E-510 came out a year ago and they are speaking of a E-520 to be launched in the fall, so the price has dropped considerably, while the Canon 450D just came out so you are paying full price. Since new camera bodies are coming out each year, the body you buy now will be obsolete in 3 to 4 years. A good lens will instead last forever. If you get a good lens now, assuming you master all the features the E-510 has to offer, you can always upgrade to a better body in a couple of years. I would save money on the body and use the money you save to get a good lens.
Cheers

 

[AJLee]

I've read many posts similar to the one above, advocating an initial purchase of a cheap body and spending most of your current resources on better lens(es), with anticipated body upgrades in 3-4 years. It's a sound position for the photography hobbyist focused on the present enjoyment of his/her pictures, while conserving resources. Generally, I agree with it.

But, when it comes to documenting my kids, I think the quality trade-off is too great to justify not spending the extra dough on the latest body. Sensor quality is rapidly progressing with each body iteration. And, your kids are not staying still, they're growing. Fast. People say don't get the latest and greatest because megapixels and features only provide marginal benefits over the previous generation. That may be true in the purely aesthetic sense under present viewing conditions. But, remember, these are pictures of your kids that you will be viewing DECADES later. It's not some artistic picture of a bird or landscape that can be replicated later with newer equipment. It's your family.

In my opinion, get the best technology in your hands that will help the most with getting the right shot with as much detail and clarity because this fleeting moment will never, ever return. I look at it this way, when it comes to family, no matter how much money you save over time, you will never be able to buy back a lost moment. I wish I could afford a Canon 5D or Nikon D3 to take pictures of just my kids with full-frame sensors. I might even take out a loan for this, it would be well worth it.

In the end it'll be about pixel-level image quality. In 15-20 years, we'll have organic LED technology to display huge images on our living room walls. We'll all be "pixel-peepers" then. Things like resolution, dynamic range, and noise matter greatly in the long run. You'll regret having shot your kids with a 6 or 10 mp resolution when you could have captured them at 12 or 14mp. And guess what, for all its budgetary advantages, the Oly E-510 is poorer than its competitors in resolution, dynamic range, and noise. (I'm not a Canon/Nikon fanboy bashing Oly. Just pointing out that it's limited by relatively older technology. Heck, I'm an uncommitted non-owner at the moment).

As for lenses. You'll probably be getting at least one other lens. There's no avoiding it if you want to shoot kids indoors, whether you go for a cheap body or not. You absolutely need f-stops of f/2.8 or faster. But at least, that decision can be put off because lens technology doesn't change as rapidly. Lenses are durable goods that can be found used on auction sites with little wear or tear..

IMHO, get the best body you can afford. Worry about lenses later. And get those pictures of your precious family onto your hard-drive ASAP (remember to backup!). Thanks for reading.

 

[Chris Elliott104343]

If you want to use live view for action shots , not macro work, look
at Sony's A350. It's focuses faster.
You also get built in image stabilisation, but that's not much use
for action shots .

Take a look at this review:

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Sony-Alpha-A350-Compared-to-Nikon-D80-pg1.shtml

The review is quite critical of the A350 comparing it, unfavourably, to the aging (albeit gracefully) Nikon D80. On paper you would expect therere to be a hands down victory for Sony.

There are two downsides to live view that I have previously failed to mention the first of which is highlighted by this review.
a) live view eats batteries

b) live view means a very warm sensor (because it stays live) that can lead to more noise particularly at higher ISOs. But that is not a problem for the A350 which has a separate sensor.

--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile

http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/

 

[Terry Horton]

To freealfas

I think my mind has been made up that I will probably go for the
e510. We don't have many camera shops around here but we are
travelling to Melbourne next week adn will check out some of teh big
shops tha have many brands to see what feels right in my hand.

After 6 months with the E510, using it daily, comparing it to some excellent recent introductions such as Canon's XSi, I would buy into the Four-Thirds system all over again.

And, size matters. I sometimes carry the 40-150mm in a shorts pocket, inside a baggie with a packet with a packet of desiccant (moisture + dust protection). Not many pocketable 80-300mm equivalent lenses around.

 

[sfnikon]

Takes great images and the kit lens it comes with is very sharp. It is also the best selling entry level camera in Japan. Later when you want to add lenses Nikon has great choices for amateurs like the 18-200VR and 70-300VR.

I would also go into a camera store and hold the different cameras to see which ones you like holding. I'm sure Canon, sony, olympus all make competitive cameras.
--
Jake

 

[Dennis Phillips]

I have been looking at the Olympus e510 and have just realised that
not all DSLR have live view. Is this really the case as I am coming
from P&S area and just thought that this would carry on. What DSLR's
have live view and Image Stabilisers too? Joanne

There are only two cameras that have both live view and in-body image stabilization.

One is the Olympus. I see that you've already explored this within the Olympus forum.

The other is the Sony A300/A350. Have a look at this Imaging Resource video to explore the features of this camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh35ygusezM&feature=related

All cameras are compromises. For instance, if you want live view, then you'll have to accept fewer frames per second than a camera without live view. So be prepared to give up on some features in order to get the features that are important to you.

Both the Sony and the Olympus would be great solutions. Both offer a similar experience to the P&S, but with larger sensors to give you better image quality, and with faster response times for such things as autofocus and shutter lag.

Although both are good solutions, you should be aware that the Olympus has a smaller sized sensor than the Sony.

Here is Camera Labs verdict on the Sony A300 and A350.
http://wwwDOTcameralabsDOTcom/reviews/Sony_Alpha_DSLR_A300/verdict.shtml

(Note: This competitive site is blocked by DPreview, so replace the DOTs with dots.)

"With built-in stabilisation, Live View and a flip-out screen, it ticks the boxes of most new DSLR buyers. Sony’s fuss-free Live View is also arguably the best implementation yet for general consumers. It’s quick, quiet and offers uncompromised auto-focusing performance."

 

[Terry Horton]

I wish I could afford a Canon 5D or Nikon D3 to take pictures of
just my kids with full-frame sensors. I might even take out a loan
for this, it would be well worth it.

In the end it'll be about pixel-level image quality. In 15-20 years,
we'll have organic LED technology to display huge images on our
living room walls. We'll all be "pixel-peepers" then. Things like
resolution, dynamic range, and noise matter greatly in the long run.
You'll regret having shot your kids with a 6 or 10 mp resolution when
you could have captured them at 12 or 14mp. And guess what, for all
its budgetary advantages, the Oly E-510 is poorer than its
competitors in resolution, dynamic range, and noise.

Issues easily addressed with exposure bracketing and RAW post-processing (which anyone contemplating pixel-peeping use). When I was buying last Dec, comparably priced 10mp camera kits all lacked a far more critical IQ component, image stabilization. No Live View or effective dust control either.

Comparing $ for $ the Xsi and 18-55mm IS kit lens, to the E-510 w/ a used Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro (possibly the best IQ of any SLR lens). There's no doubt in my mind the E-510 would produce better kid images. Another pro quality Zuiko is the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, which can also be had for about $350.

Size efficiency is the most significant and misunderstood advantage of the Four-Thirds system (doubt I'd have many kid pics if I had to lug a 3 lb. DSLR everywhere). With the most prominent name in rangefinder cameras embracing 4/3rds -- Leica -- I predict we'll be seeing very small, interchangeable lens, non-DSLR 4/3rds cameras in the near future. Even today, one of the most exciiting and capablle camera systems available is the Olympus E-420 with the Leica 14-150 and Zuiko 25mm. The 25mm gives you a pocketable carry-anywhere camera; the 14-150 gives you an image-stabilized do-anything camera that still fits in a purse or small fannypack. It's systems like this that keep me firmly in the Four-Thirds camp.

Best regards....

 

[Edvinas]

I didn't mean to start an all out war. Butyou are correct in that I
am at entry level. I am very used to the live view with P&S and
therefore would find it very strange to go back to viewfinder. I
also will be taking alot of action shots of my kids and spur of the
moment shots so looking thru a viewfinder is not what I am after as I
would miss many shots.

Action shots through LiveView? Huh, you're very very wrong here. Optical viewfinder is much better choice for action shots. For many reasons:

• much easier to follow your object;
• I can't imagine how you hold steady DSLR with telelens on stretched hands looking through LiveView;
• AF works slower in LiveView (except Sony a300, a350)
• LiveView displays image with some delay;
• no LCD display has come close to quality of a view you get compared to optical viewfinder.

LiveView is useful for macro work -- you can focus and control DOF very precisely. Also it can be used shooting landscapes, portraits from tripod. In all other cases optical viewfinder is better choice.

--
Edvinas

 

[neil holmes]

There are only two cameras that have both live view and in-body image
stabilization.

Well, no, there are others... Pentax K20d and the Samsung verison.

And then if someone REALLY wants live view and wants a camera that does not have it, they can always buy a zigview to give them the features of other cameras with the tilt swivel live view that a zigview provides.

Live view is not something I have needed..there are a couple of situations when it would have been nice, but I am not slashing my wrists with out it...and most versions of live view worsen the noise ...so in that respect it is not for me.
I am happy to have a preview (with histogram if I want it).

Live view is something I would take, but only as a bonus...good high iso performance, metering and stabilization with a wide choice of decent fast primes and zooms are much more important to me..hence a lowly k100d is just about perfect for ME...others needs will vary.

neil

 

[freealfas]

can also add and thank the Oly E330 to the list for a very effective LV implementation with a articulated screen giving up only the high ISO response to the rest.

at their present prices they represent a screaming deal for another very capable camera

 

[photoeng]

other current-gen budget DSLR for that matter). If you're a pro who
can do DOF and exposure calculations in your head, then the D40 is
sufficient. Me, I need all the hand-holding and convenience I can
buy. I will grow into the advanced stuff, no doubt though it would
take some time and effort.

I honestly feel that the D40 does plenty of hand holding.

I own a D40, am a newbie and can get reasonable results in manual mode - without any calculations.

The D40 (as with any DSLR, I imagine) will tell you if the exposure is too much/little. It's called the "Electronic Analog Exposure Display". I then adjust shutter speed or aperture, depending on my liking. When the meter reads in the middle, I know the exposure is dialed in.

I throw the histogram on in image review. As I go from one picture to the next, it lets me see, real time, how I'm affecting the pixel distribution with my shutterspeed/aperture settings. I can even set it to blink on the 'highlight' regions where detail is washed out.

To top it all off... it gives you a graphical representation (if you so choose) of the aperture growing and getting smaller as you change the F-stop. In A, S and P mode, you see how both the shutter speed and aperture change in lockstep so that exposure is held constant.

I can't say off the top of my head what sort of handholding the Canon rebels do. DOF preview would be really nice. If it does that, then than might be money well spent. I mainly factored into the equation that the kit lens is more reputable in the Nikon. Based on all the opinions I've heard, if you go with Canon - don't get the kit lens with the Canon slr.

 

[Joseph T Lewis III]

A couple of points about Live View and IS that you guys may not have thought of...

Some people may NEED IS. I for one have always been "blessed" with somewhat shaky hands, even when I was young (I am 61 now). IS is a Godsend to me. Be it in the camera body or in a lens.

I am coming off an S2 IS and A720 IS. I bought the Sony A350 because of its live view with the tiltable LCD, similar to what the S2 IS had. This was a key differentiator for me. I truly don't think I'd do well with a camera with the optical viewfinder only, for the reasons stated below.

Like I did with the S2 IS, I hang the Sony from the neck strap down against my stomach, and look down at the LCD that is parallel to the ground, with the camera held gently against my body. I can keep the camera steadier that way, steadier than using the optical viewfinder against my face. (I wear trifocal glasses, so it's catch-22 to use the viewfinder. I can get it adjusted so that I don't need my glasses, but then if I need to look at the camera buttons and settings on the LCD, I can't see them clearly with my glasses off. Holding the camera back just a skosh so I can see the viewfinder thru my glasses introduces hand shake.)

So, the live view with IS works very well for me, and it might work for the original poster as well.

Another good thing about the live view at waist level, is that it isn't so obvious you are taking photos of other folks.

I won't get into the IS in the body / vs the lens discussion. The Sony had both IS and a tiltable LCD live view together in one package, so that is why I bought it.

And, I'll freely admit that although I was a pretty good point and shoot photographer, there is enough of a learning curve coming over to the SLR side, so that a tiltable live view LCD similar to my previous camera helps make the transition a little easier.
--
TLIII

 

[ShawnCo]

Joanne, we didn't hear back if you ended up getting the Oly or not? kind of curious how it turned out.

It is a shame here that it seems many people here are trying to get you to purchase what they own and often not telling you all the sides of the story in an objective manner...which I think would have been more productive.

If you did get the Olympus, great, I am sure you will enjoy it. You can take comfort in knowing that there really aren't any "bad" DSLR cameras produced today, just different ones.

If you didn't I think you should be aware of a couple of things, image stabilization isn't a cure for blurry photos. It help reduce the effects of camera shake most noticably at slower shutter speeds or longer focal lengths. It doesn't matter if it is a sensor-shift design (built into the body where the sensor moves around to reduce the effects) or an in-lens design (generally additional elements to the lense design). Both are effective within reason. The most obvious difference is that in-lens stabilization also stabilizes the image in the viewfinder (or LCD in the case of live view) whereas in-body does not. In the end, there really isn't a substitute for a fast shutter though...just my opinion. Oh yeah, one more thing, someone said "stabilized lens cost 30-40% more than their non-stabilized counterparts...since you are looking for a one or two lens solution at this time, I don't think this is a big worry. most consumer grade lens from companies that use in-lens stabilization are competitively priced to their competition that uses in-body stabilization.

One final thought...I know you think you will use your DSLR like a point and shoot by holding it in front of you with live view turned on...try that out in a store first. I think you will find that the balance of a DSLR makes it not as easy as a point and shoot to do that with. The lenses have more glass and are heavier. I thought it would be a big adjustment for me to start using a viewfinder when I purchased my first DSLR coming from a point and shoot but I was wrong. I have a camera with live view right now and I can tell you that I very rarely use the live view, not because it won't do the job but because I find holding the camera to your eye adds a more natural stablity, especially if you get any heavier lenses. The proper method of holding the lense and camera to me means that it makes more sense to use the viewfinder. That said, there have been a couple of times where i have used live view for some awkward angles...oh yeah, and i have never used it for sports or fast moving kids, I don't think i could.

Hope your DSLR journey is going well.

To freealfas

I didn't mean to start an all out war. Butyou are correct in that I
am at entry level. I am very used to the live view with P&S and
therefore would find it very strange to go back to viewfinder. I
also will be taking alot of action shots of my kids and spur of the
moment shots so looking thru a viewfinder is not what I am after as I
would miss many shots.

I think my mind has been made up that I will probably go for the
e510. We don't have many camera shops around here but we are
travelling to Melbourne next week adn will check out some of teh big
shops tha have many brands to see what feels right in my hand.