Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with dslr

First-time DSLR buyer looking for advice

kampken — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:46:36 -0800

What camera and lens combinations would you suggest for a DSLR for macro/indoor photography (without flash) for a newbie? Price range around 1200 USD. I'm looking to buy a good DSLR camera (not exactly pro but not too cheap either) but I'm fairly confused as to what to choose. Mostly because i don't know exactly what values i should look for and also lens incompatibilities (really don't wanna be stuck with a model where i can't get any proper lenses) - A fairly easy to use and light camera would be preferred, but i am willing to study the user manual or other instructions for as long as it takes.

I am planning to do macro-photography with it, so i guess i need something with live-view, so i can check the focus before taking the photo. I can't find anything about macro-specific cameras as such, so i guess it's just about finding a good lens?
Also i plan to do much indoor photography without using a flash, so i will need a good light-strong lens of a sort, however these are quite expensive so a wrong buy would be costly.

And what about the new 4/3 cameras? I like their size and design, but would they be any good for my purposes?

So in short, what camera and lens combinations would you suggest for a DSLR for macro/indoor photo for a newbie? Price range around 1200 USD.

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!

Canon -> Nikon

aeighty — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:33:55 -0800

Switching dSLR systems, going from Canon to Nikon? I'm curious if anyone has done this. I've been photographing with a Canon Digital Rebel 350D for about 4 years now. I'd like to get a little more resolution for larger prints and better nighttime sensitivity. Recently, my father bought himself a Nikon D90, so I figure if I upgrade in the near future, I might as well upgrade to a compatible system so that we may share accessories (flashes, expensive lenses). I'm not heavily invested in Canon. I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Canon f/1.8 50mm prime and the crappy kit lense. Oh and a flash. Over the years I've gotten used to Canon's menus and ergonomics, so I'm never fiddling with settings; equipment almost never interferes with the process.

I'm concerned that I may hate "the Nikon experience", although truth be told my initial Canon decision was somewhat arbitrary. At some point in the near future, I will borrow my dad's D90 to play with, but I'd appreciate hearing about your experiences.

Thanks

My camera and me: one of us sucks, but which?

Bardolph — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:15:31 -0800

Photography-satisficing-filter: I would like to take family snapshots approximately as nice as this. Can it be done with my higher-end point-and-shoot (currently taking shots like this)? And if not, what's the minimum I'd need to spend on equipment to get there? For all my other very modest photography needs (sunsets, flowers, vacations, the usual), my two-year-old Olympus SP-550 UZ does me just fine. But I would really like to be able to take slightly better medium-to-close-range shots of people. What I especially like about her shot vs. mine:

1. Sharpness/clarity/crispness. No matter what the lighting's like, I feel as though my Olympus consistently produces pictures that are slightly "soft" or foggy. My messing around with the shutter priority mode has succeeded only in replacing blurriness with graininess.

2. Lack of distortion. Somehow, anyone I've photographed close up with my current camera ends up looking vaguely fishbowly and unlike themselves-- what's up with that?

3. Shallow depth of field. This is less critical, since I know it's hard to get in a point-and-click. Still, it'd be nice.

I know there's a school of thought that says you should just learn to work the camera you have-- and my Olympus has tons of complicated modes, including aperture priority, shutter priority, full-manual, and Scene, so it's entirely possible that I'm just not using it to best effect. (I also have Photoshop, so I'm fine with learning to fake stuff in post-production). On the other hand, I don't want to spend a ton of time trying to optimize my technique with this camera if in the end it's simply incapable of producing the shots I'd like.

So... do I need to buy a DSLR? If not, what should I work on, technique-wise? And if so, what's the (approximate) minimum I'd need to spend for something that would suit this particular, very specific purpose?

I need a 102, 103 class in photography. Suggestions?

GilloD — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:35:23 -0800

Where do I go for my 102 on photography? I took a couple of photo classes in high school and know my way around an SLR/DSLR pretty well. I'm at about 102- I understand an Shutter Speed and an Aperture and I understand the trade-off between the two, but I'm not always sure what I'm looking at when I see my photos, i.e. this photo looks great, but how'd I get there?

Now that I've gotten a bit more serious, I'm interested in how lenses interact with that process. I understand what's different about an 18-55mm lens and and 28-200mm, but I'm not 100% sure what those terms mean, in terms of being useful for me, and how they change the photos I take beyond "Well, this one can zoom farther than that one". I'm also looking for clarification on things like AE, and the various forms of AF and why one matters more than the other and... phew!

I got myself a copy of Understanding Exposure, but that's much more about picture taking than the complicated technical world of equipment. I'm really looking for a 102-103 class: "Okay, you're comfortable with the camera and you understand what the aperture and shutter speed are. Let's go farther.".

Suggestions? Books are fine, but I have limited access to English language books. Web tutorials are better and I don't mind shelling out for something I can DL. FWIW, I'm shooting on a shiny new Nikon D90 with 28-200mm Nikon lens.

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!

same ccd, 4k cheaper, but wheres the lens ?

sgt.serenity — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:39:50 -0800

whats the selection of wide angle lenses for the sony alpha 900 ? I'm fairly baffled by this - but the possibility of getting a full frame 24mp dslr for 4k less than the nikon d3x is a source of great interest to me - but i'm noticing a real lack of lenses - i know theyre zeiss/minolta compatible - should i just hunt down minolta lenses on ebay ? are there any definitive answers about lenses for the new(ish) full frame sony ?

I'm not really worried about getting a f2.8 lens or anything - its more for outdoorsy landscape types of stuff.

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.

What software should I organize my pictures with, when I need seperation into 3 topics?

jakobmunster — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:45:41 -0800

Can anyone recommend me software for a mac, that can help improving my workflow and organization of images, while I keep the images separated into 3 topics? It's possible to categorize my photography this way: 50% hobby photography (or you could call it experimenting and improving my skills), 40% pro photography for costumers while the last 10% goes to "niche photography".

I'd like a piece (or pieces) of software for a mac, that would help me keep my images organized. I've tried programs like Lightroom and Aperture, but it ends up beeing a mess, as I'd like to keep the 3 topics of my photography seperated.

My workflow:
- Import RAW images
- Convert to DNG
- Sort the pictures in keepers and delete the rest
- Rate the pictures. I prefer to use a star rating
- Process the pictures with photo-editing software
- Archive all the pictures and export the ones I would like to display immediately

Suggestions to improving my workflow, is also very welcome.

Can anyone recommend me a combination of software, that will let me do my workflow and still keep my images organized and seperated into the 3 main topics?

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!

Film like digital pictures...

ashaw — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:30:11 -0800

Photography-filter: As a total beginner to photography, I've been learning all about the basic techniques with my new DLSR. However I've been recently getting very inspired by film photography shot on 35mm film like Lomos, Yashica T4s. How can I emulate this style on a Digital SLR? [More inside] I've done my homework which has amounted to "Use film to look like film". But if I absolutely have to use a DSLR how would I achieve effects similar to the following photos:

I like the hues in the back of this one and this one (NSFW).
I like the lo-fi 'fogginess' (is that the right word?) of this one and this one.
I like the washed out bluish hues of this one and this one.

I love little things like light leaks, vingnetting and accidental quirks which I'm willing to accept is near impossible to achieve.

Post production techniques? What kind of camera settings should I use?

I try to shoot film when possible, but as a student it's prohibitively expensive.

Cheese! Wanted a Sigma DP2 but having doubts, recommendations?

doctor.dan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:54:12 -0800

I've been thinking of buying a new point-and-shoot camera for a while. I've had some lame experiences with previous point-and-shoots (blurry photos, bad colour balance, etc), so I'm asking the green for some advice. I initially had big hopes for the Sigma DP2 because of its SLR sized sensor, but have been reading some very mixed reviews.

Any recommendations for a small-factor camera that shoots gorgeous pictures, as the DP2 does, but without the supposed downsides?

I've had a read through a similar previous question, but don't really know what I'm looking for.

In the works Canon DSLR features?

albernathy0 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:23:33 -0800

Does anyone know if Canon has plans for releasing a consumer DSLR that will have Multi-Aspect Ratio Shooting, as Olympus has done? Thank you!

Pentax DSLR vs Nikon vs Canon

mikepop — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:21:07 -0800

Digital SLR - does anyone have experience with the Pentax K2000 (comparing with the Nikon D40) This recent DSLR question was timely, as I'm looking to buy one as a gift soon and I was looking at entry-level Canons and Nikons.

However, the giftee has a Pentax film SLR and along with it a couple of lenses - a basic lens and a telephoto/zoom lens (sorry, I don't know what they are exactly). From what I'm reading in the other thread, it makes sense to buy the camera you already have lenses for, so I'm taking a look at the Pentax K2000.

A lot of people I know have a Nikon or Canon, but I don't know anyone with a Pentax DSLR. Is it just as good, generally speaking, as an entry-level DSLR? Any warnings?

And if I do decide to go with the Pentax, would it make sense to buy just the camera body (vs a kit) and save some money, since she already has a couple of lenses?

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.

camera recommendation for graphic designer?

MaddyRex — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:13:52 -0800

What's the best camera for a cash-poor graphic designer? I'm making my big camera purchase & I realize I'll have to compromise on something. I don't know too much about cameras but I know a lot about graphic design & I'm looking for something that will basically help someone with currently minimal photo skills (I promise I'll work on them) generate clean, high resolution images. My price range is around $400. Ideally I'd want something that's at least semi-portable.

How important is it to have a dSLR? One photographer I know recommended the Canon Powershot g10 for a graphic designer. Another told me this was a total waste of money & that I should go straight to a dSLR. Thoughts? Help! Thanks!

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?

Help me spend somebody else's money on a new camera!

synecdoche — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:49:32 -0800

Shopping for somebody else and looking for a digital SLR camera that can handle a handful of specific requirements. I know nothing about these things. I work for somebody who is in the market for a new digital SLR camera. I've been tasked with the job, being the go-to person who knows more about tech than the other employee, but I confess to knowing little about digital cameras. I am hoping the hivemind might point me in the right direction.

What I am after is a very user-friendly camera, a digital SLR if at all possible, that does really well with indoor light. The camera's most important function will be to take picture of things in museums, including presentations of text. The text will need to be legible on the image (This can involve the descriptions of displays, as well as text that is itself the display--treaties and whatnot that are, presumably, legible enough to read when one is not using the camera.) There is a possibility that some of these images will be reproduced in a (non-glossy) book in the future but for the most part it is for capturing material for a research project, for future reference.

The price range for this is between $300-$600 CDN.

Thanks!

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?

What DSLR + lens to shoot hockey (indoors)?

Monday, stony Monday — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:48:50 -0800

I want to shoot indoor hockey with a DSLR. What should I get for ~$1000-1500? I'm looking at Canon and Nikon. I have some extra money, and my brothers are playing in a hockey tournament in a few weeks. I'd like to buy a DSLR and a lens so I can get OK-quality pictures. I've used P&S digitals to shoot hockey before, but there really isn't much lighting in an arena, and hockey players move fast, so the photos tend to come out blurry and/or noisy beyond repair.

I'd like to get a DSLR with a lens. I'm willing to pay extra if that means I can get much better results, but my funds aren't unlimited. Given my $1000-1500 ($2000 max) budget, it seems that a DSLR with an APS-sized sensor + the best zoom I can get (low aperture + fast AF, not necessarilly a huge focal range -- the rink isn't that large) would be my best bet. Am I aiming in the right direction? Alternatively, could I realistically shoot hockey with a fixed lens (and a single body)?

The camera would be used for general photography thereafter (which is why I'm looking mostly at Canon and Nikon), but hockey is likely to remain an important subject.

Also, if you have any tips or links to articles on shooting hockey, feel free to share.