Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with dslr and resolved

Help me choose a beginner DSLR?

kylej — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:26:13 -0800

What beginner's dslr should I buy? I'm looking to purchase a camera within the next couple weeks. I have around 600$ to spend, and I'm looking to buy a beginners dslr.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Canon Rebel XSi.

It seems like it has a lot of options for me to learn and Canon has a nice lens selection if I want to buy more.

I've seen other questions on here, as well as numerous online reviews, but I wanted to see if you guys can think of any other options that would be good for me.

Stuff I'm planning on using it for:
Snapshots of friends
Macro(ish) shots
Travel shots(for when I go to Spain this summer)
Probably some informal portraits too

Another camera I was considering was the Nikon D3000, which is geared towards beginners, but I feel like it might be limiting as I get better at photography.

Thanks for your input!

To The Moon Alice, and BEYOND!!!

snsranch — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:15:48 -0800

Any suggestions for a high powered telescope that is t-ring compatible (for DSLR) AND is tough and light enough for backpacking and camping? I'm thinking 40 lbs max. I've been searching around but the terminology is so varied it's tough to nail down. I'm looking here at Oceanside Photo and Telescope, but I don't even know where to start. Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes? Corrected Dall-Kirkham (CDK) Telescopes?

Please hope me, and thanks in advance!

Happy stargazing!

DSLR n00b

chrisinseoul — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:00:36 -0800

New to the DSLR world, and I need the hive mind's help with a couple questions. I recently picked up a used Nikon D70 body (decent older DSLR, decent enough for the purposes of picking things up anyway) and a couple lenses (a 28-70mm and a 70-210mm lens, both Nikon). Over the past couple days I've spent free time reading through a manual that seems almost incomprehensible in places. I come from a fairly advanced point-and-shoot type camera, so I'm familiar with most of the terms like white balance, shutter / aperture priority, and the like. The advice of 'just shoot stuff' is certainly good, but a few things are bugging me.

#1: The longer lens (70-210mm AF 1.4-5.6 D) has one area to turn for manual focus and an aperture ring closest to where the lens hooks up to the body. There's no way to zoom in / out though - am I missing something here?

#2: I know the D70 has a crop factor of 1.5x. When I take a picture, it looks nothing like what I saw through the viewfinder. It's a *much* tighter shot than expected. Is there a way to adjust this, or is it just a mental adjustment?

#3: Looking to buy one more lens, primarily used for landscapes or macro. Is it possible to get wide angle and macro in a single lens without the cost breaking the bank?

Thank you O hive mind :)

Whats an ideal everyday lens for an EOS 450D?

WinnipegDragon — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:49:35 -0800

I need advice on a 'walking-around' lens on a sub-frame Canon DSLR. This is a followup to my previous question that I received some wonderful advice on. I'm hoping for more, hivemind!

My Rebel XSi/EOS 450D is now about four weeks old, and I've probably shot about 1,100 frames on it. I'm happy with the camera, I'm learning quickly and I'm ready to branch out into my first 'real' lens. I admit that this is partially fueled by my weekend rental of an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM that I took to the zoo, and immediately fell in love with.

So, I'm looking for a 'walking around' lens to be my primary lens that will be on the camera as a default. Ideally it would be good for architecural, landscape and street photography but still have a decent amount of reach for the occasional shot that requires it. A good maximum magnification factor certainly wouldn't hurt.

The best of these sorts of lenses always seem to be more than 20mm focal length at the wide end, and on a 1.6x crop body, it's far too wide for anything architectural or landscape. The few that are good at the wide end tend not to have a lot of reach so you end up with the opposite issue. There are one or two contenders in the EF-S series of lenses, but I'm wary about them since an upgrade to a full frame camera is not out of the question in the future.

I have a nifty fifty and have used it as my primary lens, as well as the 18-55 kit lens, but there are situations where these are just not the right lenses.

So, the contenders that I am considering, and their major concerns, are:

- EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (expensive, not wide enough, slow)
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM (expensive, not wide enough, no IS)
- EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM (no IS, slow, practically no reach)
- EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (not wide enough, slow)
- EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (EF-S mount, slow, questionable optics)

Is there another option out there that I'm missing?

Help a DSLR Noob

Ziggy500 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:36:59 -0800

[DSLR Noob Filter] Do I need to invest in a VR (vibration reduction) lens? Hi, I'm buying an entry-level DSLR (Nikon D60) and have the choice of buying a Nikkor VR 18-55mm lens or a non-VR 18-55 lens. The non-VR option costs about £60 less.

I don't really want to throw pots of money at this camera, but I don't want to skimp unnecessarily either, as I'm very keen to improve.

Do the photographers among you find the vibration reduction feature useful? Thanks for your help! :)

Transition Lenses: SLR to DSLR

yamel — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:10:20 -0800

When is an old camera lens good enough to influence which DSLR body to purchase? I never had an expensive kit, but have one prime lens used on my Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 that I quite like. It's identifying marks include Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,7/50.

So, I went from really liking photography to moving to digital point and shoots and am now ready to move back to enjoying photography with a DSLR. Is this lens, along with a so-so telephoto, enough to influence what to buy? There's so much confusing information about adapters that I'm not quite sure if this is even possible with the lenses I already have.

By the way, I do understand that this would limit me to manual focus. I'm completely comfortable with this unless you can tell me there are other features other than autofocus I'd be missing out on.

Thanks!

Help me choose a DSLR.

biochemist — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:13:56 -0800

Can anyone recommend a good action, landscaping, and travel DSLR in the $~1000 range? I tend to travel around and take pictures of nature, which include landscape as well as fast-moving animals. (Low light would be nice too, but I won't hold my breath.) I have read this, but it's from '07. I'd like updated recommendations.

EASY secrets of taking great photos

JensR — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:31:34 -0800

What are your favourite photographer's tricks that an amateur could use to create stunning photos on a hobbyist budget? As a hobbyist DSLR photographer, I find that once in a while, I stumble across some simple little trick-of-the-trade that instantly makes my photos much better... and it is these little "Wow!" moments that keep me motivated to keep shooting and learning.

I am not talking about expensive studio rigs here, or vague lifelong lessons ("learn about composition and color theory", "know your camera"). I am specifically talking about the low-hanging fruit that a low-budget amateur photographer like me could apply and see an instant difference.

If there are any photographers out there who have experienced the same kind of "Wow!" moment after trying out some new technique or equipment, please share your best suggestions in this thread.

Which lens do I want for the Olympus EP-1?

yamel — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:35:08 -0800

I'm about to become an 'early adopter' for the first time. The Olympus EP-1 digital camera will be hitting the market in July just at the time when I'm ready to upgrade. Two lens options available: 17mm or 14-42mm. Which one do I want? I've been looking to upgrade from a Nikon S210 point-n-shoot to a DSLR for a while. I carry a camera with me always. I take pictures of everything: people, landscapes, architecture, events, flowers and bugs with the macro. I've been aching for the ability to control more of the variables but hesitant to move to a bulky DSLR that, because of the price and size, I'd be less likely to carry everywhere.

So, the Olympus EP-1 Pen digital is coming next month. The price and size should make it the right upgrade for me. For the portability, I'm tempted to go with the 17mm lens. What would I be missing out on if I passed on the 14-42 mm? Am I right that the 17mm would be the better general use lens? Anyone know the minimum distance I'll be able to get from a subject with the 17mm?

I think I understand the limitations of this camera; the micro 4/3, the live view, etc. What I haven't seen covered in any review are the lenses. Thanks!

Which DSLR would you pick?

ddaavviidd — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:59:43 -0800

I need to choose between buying a used Nikon D50 and a used Canon Rebel XT. I would like to hear about your experience with any of these fine cameras. Both cameras pretty much have the same specs, and I can get them at the same price ( about $400 CAD), both come with the 18-55 kit lense, the Nikon also have a dx nikor 55-200 F4,5-5,6 and the canon comes with a sigma 70-300 F4,0-5,6. I will use this camera both inside and outside, and I don't plan to print huge posters. I'm not doing sport photography, mostly landscape and people. I was also looking at new Nikon D60, but they are still over $500 and I can't afford that right now.

I'd like to hear about your experience with these cameras. I'm leaning towards the D50 for its larger lcd, but I heard the XT does a better job for inside shots. I don't own lenses, so I'm not sold to any brand. Anything I should be aware of to help my choice? I've done lots of photography before, using manual settings and all, but always with point-and-shoot cameras.

Video as photography

lattiboy — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:52:18 -0800

Help me choose a good camera (dSLR or camcorder) for "fine art" cinematography. Sorry for the pretentiousness of the question, but what I was trying to get across is that I'm not looking to shoot a soccer game or a wedding. I'm really intrigued with 24p, shallow DoF type footage I've seen on vimeo and youtube.

I'm pretty deep into the Sony Alpha system (I own an A900 and some higher-end glass), but I don't think Sony is going to be releasing any new video-capable bodies soon, and if they do, there's no way they'll let it effect their huge video market.

Having said all that:

Nikon D90 video looks great (and seems like a great camera), but you don't get manual control over alot and you get the jello effect from an array of subjects.

The Nikon D500 is just coming out, but it looks like a d40x with video at a D90 price. No go for me.

The Canon 5dMkII is about 2.5x as much as I'm willing to spend at the moment and seems to have QC issues of it's own.

The Canon T1 seems to be similar to the D90, but with NO manual control.

The Panasonic HDC-TM300 seems like an amazing camcorder, but it would seem impossible to get shallow DoF on a sensor that small.

I like the idea of a Canon HV20 or HF100 with an adapter, but it seems like it would be a pretty huge pain to do (upside down lcd, bad weight distribution).

So, does anybody here have any ideas for me?

Cheap DSRL for low-light?

Monday, stony Monday — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:20:21 -0800

What cheap kit should I get to take relatively low-light photos? So I found out that shooting hockey indoors is out of my price/skills range. Still looking for a camera. My subjects would be people in low-light situations, at close range (players on the bench, people in the crowd). Later, I'd use that setup to shoot family gatherings. Ideally, I'd like to spend less than $1000. I own no lenses, or body. It seems that a DSLR with an APS-sized sensor + a fixed lens would offer me the best compromise in terms of low-light performance vs. weight vs. cost.

This leads me to:

This Nikkor lens + a D40 (or D60 if I should) seems like the cheapest/lightest setup with a "normal" (like a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera) perspective. Amirite? Is there a good reason to avoid the D40?
Should I step up to a Sigma 30 mm/1.4? Here in Canada it's more than double the price.

Fast 50 mm lenses are relatively cheap. Would putting one on an APS body be an hindrance, given that I intend to shoot in close quarters (e.g.: people in a living room)?

Finally, am I overthinking this? Would whatever cheap kit zoom be enough for my purpose? For "shooting around a hockey game", a zoom would be nice since I could get relatively "close" to the players on the opposite bench.

Oh, and should I care about stabilisation, since I'm shooting people?

Upgrading from a 20d to ...

pbh — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:41:14 -0800

Digital SLRs: Canon 10-series or Digital Rebel in low light? I've been borrowing a Canon EOS-20D for the last few weeks, and I think I'm ready to finally buy a DSLR. I have a bunch of lenses for an old EOS Elan-IIe, so I'm more or less wedded to getting a Canon DSLR. Most of my photos are candids in low light. With the 20D, I've been shooting with a 50mm F/1.8 prime and I've been pretty happy.

It looks like I can get a new Digital Rebel Xsi and a used 40D for about the same price locally (no meaningful warranty on the 40D though).

I've looked at previous discussions on AskMeFi about low light, the 20d, and so on, but I can't figure out:

1. In what ways a recent digital rebel would be a downgrade from the 20d that I've been shooting with?
2. Is the light sensitivity any different? I've been reading some comparisons (e.g., this) and it doesn't seem to make a difference within the same format, but the rebel feels a little blurrier/slower so I'm not quite sure.
3. Should I be considering anything else, like robustness of the body, weight, or how configurable it is? I'm obviously not a pro, but I'm likely to be traveling a fair amount with it.

How do I get that Cobra Snake look in my photos?

geoff. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:50:18 -0800

I want to start taking party pictures with the Cobra Snake aesthetic. I don't own a dSLR so I will be buying into the body/lens system. It looks like Cobra Snake uses a Canon with a speed light with some sort of fisheye lens? Anything else unique about his setup or is it as simple as it looks? I do realize that Cobra Snake is somewhat derided among amateur and professional photographers, but there's a certain intimacy and lack of self-consciousness with his party photos that I find charming. A lot of this has to do with putting his subjects at ease, but from a technical perspective it does not seem very hard to replicate what he does.

What should I be looking for? I've been leaning toward a Canon XSi with a fisheyes lens plus a speedlight flash. A good start? Are the 400 bodies a better deal now? I've read through nearly all the "What should I buy?" thread, and realize it comes down to personal preferences for the most part, I've also meticulously gone through dashiv's suggestions for party photography. The choices seem limitless, but I'm looking for entry level Canon/Nikon. What specifically would you buy if you were me? What lens, what speed light?

I've also always admired Infrangible and definitely want to start exploring photography beyond my little, outdated point-and-shoot. I just know that if I don't have something specific I'd like to accomplish, I'd end up always finding an excuse not to take pictures, so I'm aiming at recreating a Cobra Snake party album when I go out with friends. I figure it is a somewhat easy, obtainable goal that will help me get comfortable with photography before I start sinking real money into this.

With that in mind, any further suggestions? Is this something I can accomplish for for under or around $1,000? Or, let's fudge and say $1,500? Thanks, always wanted to get into photography but was intimidated by the prices and complexity, trying to get my feet wet.

Too many cameras! So many features! Too much choice! Arrrgggrhhhh!

gergtreble — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:08 -0800

Calling all Mefi photographers. Help me choose my entry level DSLR. I just went to my local camera store to buy a Nikon D60 but I made the mistake of asking the guy in the store if there were any other similarly priced ones he recommended. He immediately recommended the Sony a350. This totally threw me I had made up my mind that I wanted a D60 no question! But the Sony A350 has a host of extra features I wasn't expecting to find with the budget I have. Here are the pros and cons of each model as I see them.

1) Glass - Nikon lenses are generally better than Sony right? But Sony bought Minolta so I can use old Minolta lenses if I want. I've also heard that Carl Zeiss makes all Sony lenses! Is that true?

2) Live view - The Nikon doesn't have it, but the Sony does. And the display is movable for shooting from the waist or from over the head! This is drawing me to the Sony.

3) Vibration reduction - The Nikon uses VR in the lens. But the Sony's VR is in the body. Technically I should be able to get vibration reduction with any lens I use in the Sony. But i would have to buy specific VR lenses from Nikon

4) Autofocus - I think the Nikon's AF isnt back compatible with old lenses. But I'm not sure about this.

Now to top it off I've started looking at the Cannon EOS 400D / XTi too! I'm a beginner photographer so I'm looking for a camera that will help me learn the nuances of photography. My budget is £500 ish give or take. I also plan to buy a longer lens before Christmas as I am hoping to spend new year in The Maasai Mara.

I'm torn and conflicted here! A decision that once was so easy has become unbelievably difficult! I would appreciate any advice or testimonies that you can provide.

Thanks in advance.

Strike a pose, please.

jadepearl — Mon, 05 May 2008 06:31:54 -0800

Getting a DSLR today. What lens options should make a good set to take the plunge? having read all the threads or at least the most recent ones on DSLRs and having handled the various body cameras at a store, I have settled on the Sony A200. Before all the hatin' starts I say that the reasons I decided on this system were:

it felt good in my hands
worked when chasing a VERY active 14 month old around the store;
photo lag was minimal to me;
photos looked good of said active child;
price point was reasonable for quality and features. Mr. Jadepearl is a Nikon man but he was disappointed in the performance of the D40 while the camera clerk told me that the introductory Canon in this range was not a good competitor on price performance at this level
Older Minolta lenses work with it

So, what lens do I need to make a complete kit? The immediate plans are to take photos of kids, plants, landscapes and scenes from a moving vehicle. Did I mention that I travel with two hand puppets that I pose in ludicrous poses at famous locations or break some rules on museum displays and proximity?

So what lens should I go for to cover the widest possible conditions for this photo newbie? I plan to have this camera for years and figure that Sony is seemingly committed to their camera line.

Will a Pentax lens fit a Canon camera?

Grither — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:56:30 -0800

I can't seem to find this online anywhere, and it might be such a stupid question that is should be obvious, but I thought I'd ask anyway: Will a new pentax lens (75-300mm) fit on a slightly older Canon Rebel SLR camera? I received two of the same lens for xmas, and am trying sell one on craig's list, but so far the only buyer is someone who has a Canon Rebel SLR (that's all the info I've got from him so far) and my lens is a Pentax FAJ75mm-300mm lens, as seen in this link from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009XVQR/ref=s9_asin_image_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1YVDVJ8EE2JVT99SZE3P&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240301&pf_rd_i=507846

Is there any chance this will fit his camera?

Is there such a thing as semi-pro insurance for photographers?

geeky — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:59:16 -0800

I suspect the answer is "No", but I thought I would ask anyway: Is there such a thing as a semi-pro level of insurance for digital cameras? I currently have about $3000 worth of digital camera equipment (dSLR, lenses, etc.) that I use for my photography hobby. The items are insured at-cost right now as a rider on our renter's insurance policy, which will cover loss, theft, etc.

That's all well and good, but my issue is this: I'd like to be able to sell prints of my photos, but the rider specifically excludes coverage on equipment for "business use". Business use, as I understand it, is defined as earning even 1 cent with the equipment. I know there are Inland-Marine policies and other business policies to cover camera equipment and professional photographers, but I don't really need all that they offer. Plus, they can be expensive. I never do paid photo shoots, nor do I intend to in the future. I don't intend to make this a full-time job or even a part-time job, and I don't want to sell that many prints.

I've scoured the web and the big photography forums, but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Is there some sort of photographers insurance that will cover the cost of the equipment if I were to earn up to a certain amount of money per year by selling prints, say under $500?