pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buying your very first DSLR?  (Read 10218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 12, 2008, 01:21 »
0
My suggestion is:

If you are serious about photography....DON"T buy an ENTRY LEVEL DSLR.
You will soon out grow it and you want to upgrade very soon after you start to get to know all the controls.
What I suggest is you wait and SAVE your money for an affordable used professional model.

Of course this suggestion is for only for those "Non Weenie Heads" who exercise control over the urge to "BUY NOW !".


« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2008, 02:32 »
0
Hey! I must be a "Canon 400D Weenie head", currently the most popular entry level DSLR  :o

How do you know how serious you are about something until you try it!  ???

Working in IT is see this everyday and I do love and laugh at these people, they need a push bike to get to work, off they go 2000+ on a top of the range bike, then another $1000 on accesories, then 6 months later it is on Ebay or in the garage, with the golf clubs, fitness kit, surfboards, ski's, scuba kit, motorbike.

You know who you are!  ;D

I am happy with my entry level camera, cheap studio lights etc:, and if in 6 months I change direction, no big thing I might lose a few dollars if I sell up, but if I was sitting with 12000 worth of kit I would likely lose at least 4000.

B.T.W. the 400D was an upgrade from the 300D, next will be a 40D, take little steps making bigger strides, instead of running before you walk, yes good kit would help but it is the photographer takes the photograph.

Like the O.P. just my views  ;) 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 02:34 by Adeptris »

« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2008, 02:42 »
0
I agree with Adeptris plus most of people are on a budget right ?High end DSLR do not come cheap.....

michealo

« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2008, 03:26 »
0
Some of the top selling stock photos were taken several years ago on equipment much less sophisticated than todays "entry level" dslrs.

One piece of equipment that gets over looked is that piece behind the camera ...

« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2008, 06:25 »
0
Silly advice.  You don't know if you are "serious" about photography until you start with an SLR.

« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2008, 08:06 »
0
My definition of serious: Willing to spend $900 or more for your first DSLR, means your serious.
Now how you became serious about investing that much money is a mystery  to me.

My ONLY point here is not why or how, but you WILL want to upgrade. This I can promise you.
So far I count only 1 "weenie head" and it ain't Adeptris.

Cranky MIZ

« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2008, 08:35 »
0
For 900dollar you got a Nikon40x with kitzoom 18-55, for about six months ago. This is in Sweden, (yes icecold north Europe) ;)

I prefeer the Nikons for how they captures sky and landscape, if you are into lot of portraits you might consider a Canon. They are better on skintones and the lenses in the standardkit are usually better than compareble Nikon.

I would recommend everyone to get a camera house with at least 10mpx. Entry or not, is up to your budget. But if you find that you get hooked, spend the rest of the money on a better lens.

I would like to have a new 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR, but things are so that here these lenses cost about 1200 + 800 dollar each, just the lens!

So ill stick to my old 50mm 1,8 and old telezoom (at least for a while), ok its manual, but the quality is ok.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 08:36 by windmill »

« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2008, 08:41 »
0
My definition of serious: Willing to spend $900 or more for your first DSLR, means your serious.
Now how you became serious about investing that much money is a mystery  to me.
So far I count only 1 "weenie head" and it ain't Adeptris.

Cranky MIZ

There are a large number of family and hobby snappers in the UK with expensive DSLR's and top end P&S camera's, and spending $1000++ for a family snaps camera, that looks like they know what they are doing ;D

I would say the 400D ($900-$1100) is good hobby & stock entry level camera, my first shots were from the 300D 6mp, and an Olympus P&S 8mp.

Semi - Serious Canon kit, I.M.H.O. starts at 40D which is about the $1800 mark, flash gun 580ex II another $500-$600, and a couple of cheap entry level lens, $1500 - $2500

My target is the top end Canon 1D III $5000-$7000 (Ebay), when I can justify the spend, then I would need new glass another $6000, that is serious dollars!  ;)

As an example I am off to Camera Club tonight, where some members have top range DSLR's (D3's 1D's) which are worth many times what I have, and they just use them for thier travel snaps, which they enter in the club competitions  :D  ::)

All values were roughly converted 1:2 from GBP () UK prices  

@ Windmill - My Canon 50mm - 1.8f, was a best buy for me, well used and a reccomended buy!  ;)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 08:44 by Adeptris »

« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2008, 21:51 »
0
let me introduce myself
Weenie Head
I want an upgrade!!!!

« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2008, 21:57 »
0
Then if an upgrade is what you want (Weenie Face), may I recommend the camera that I upgraded to 2 years ago:
Canon 1Ds Mark II

I upgraded from Canon 350D also known as the Rebel XT. I still own it.

Cranky MIZ
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 21:59 by rjmiz »

« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2008, 22:10 »
0
Thanks
 I have a Nikon D40 with a speedlight that I don't know how to use to its potential,
 I have decided to spend more time on the forums and less time using the camera
  or    Maybe its not the camera??
 I am a weenie face

« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2008, 22:13 »
0
" I am a weenie face"

No your not! I was only kidding. (Now I feel bad....I love you)

Cranky MIZ

« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2008, 22:19 »
0
I agree with you - I tossed up with the idea of an entry level or higher when I bought my camera last year.  Had never done photography before, so wasn't sure how I would enjoy it and if it was worth the extra for a better camera.  Chose entry level - only nine months later, already wishing for upgrade..............
love you too

« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2008, 23:35 »
0
"My definition of serious: Willing to spend $900 or more for your first DSLR, means your serious."

Alright then.  Consider this scenario which I recently faced.  I consider myself an experienced Landscape photographer with 2.5 years experience with DSLR's; sorry, "entry-level" DSLR's (Olympus E-500 and E-510.) 
Before that it was over 20 years of good old film SLR.  Anyway I sold my Olympus gear and combined with microstock money earnings I had $2000.00 to invest in a new body/ lens system.
What to do; buy a D300 and an 18-70 kit lens or spend less on the body and more on lenses?
In the end I got an "entry level" Sony A350, 3 half decent lenses (with some serious bargain hunting) and a couple high quality filters.  DSLR bodies come and go every couple of years but lenses can last a lifetime, so if one is indeed serious about photography where should the money really go?
Lenses!

« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2008, 06:07 »
0
Lenses are my single most expensive items, which I will treasure for a lifetime....after I selected the camera.

Cranky MIZ

« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2008, 06:36 »
0
If I hadn't asked for a D50 as a grad gift a couple of years ago I never would have figured out how much I love taking pictures.

Started with a sony P&S, then the D50 and cheap lenses for a year and a half, and now a D300 and a a few grand in lenses.

Starting with an uber SLR would probably frustrate most newbies and do more harm than good. The more expensive cameras give people more than enough rope to hang themselves. Buy what you can handle. And lenses/lights/support will do more for your photos than a nicer camera will imo, and last a helluva lot longer.


« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2008, 00:55 »
0
Opposite of my thinking - I chose the lenses then the camera. Camera bodies come and go - quality optics survive the upgrade and make a much bigger difference to IQ than an extra 1 or 2 MP. Its the sort of IQ difference that you'll actually notice when viewing web size images.

Lenses are my single most expensive items, which I will treasure for a lifetime....after I selected the camera.

Cranky MIZ

« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2008, 02:20 »
0
Cameras don't matter. Lenses do.

Unless I need to use high ISO or other advanced features, I can take as good photos with a D40 as with a D3. For stock photography, I mostly need ISO 100, aperture priority and a shutter release.

« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2008, 10:58 »
0
I am looking at buying a 40D but am concerned about it's small image size. In general, what filesize is your most popular download?

« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2008, 11:18 »
0
well it isn't that much less than a 5D.  I think it would be more than enough for stock, especially if you are just wanting to test the waters and see if it is for you.  You could also consider a 450D.

If you are ready for a commitment in a camera, I might wait for the new 5D if I were you... that is assuming you have some nice glass though... if you don't have any nice lenses i would get the 450D and use the $1000 you saved from not buying the 40D and put it towards a very nice lens.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 11:20 by leaf »

« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2008, 11:22 »
0
I am looking at buying a 40D but am concerned about it's small image size. In general, what filesize is your most popular download?
Sorry, meant Nikon D40

« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2008, 14:50 »
0
Cameras don't matter. Lenses do.

Unless I need to use high ISO or other advanced features, I can take as good photos with a D40 as with a D3. For stock photography, I mostly need ISO 100, aperture priority and a shutter release.

Agreed ... except for one other thing. The image size. The D3 has a full-frame sensor.

You can get a larger high-quality image from a D3 image than from a D40 one.

If you're looking to sell through the higher-end photo agencies you ain't got much chance with a D40 image.

« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2008, 14:57 »
0
I am using 400D for a year now, and I have no intention to change the camera. I plan to buy some new lenses, but camera is OK.

I have canon 28-105, which is great, I bought canon 70-300 IS, didnt like it, I sold it, then I bought canon 50mm f2.8, didint like it either, sold it.

Now I want to buy 2 lenses:

canon 70-200 f4 L
sigma 10-20mm


and that canon 28-105 I have, I will never sell, it is great lens.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 14:59 by Peter »

michealo

« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2008, 15:10 »
0
It's worth considering the image size required by the sites you submit to

eg 12 megapixel will get you to XL on IS which will add about 16% to your sales versus a 10 megapixel camera which will only work up to L

« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2008, 01:35 »
0
If you want to do serious photography I would go for Canon 40D or Fuji S5Pro (Nikon mount, nikon D200 body, powerfull Fuji sensor) or Pentax K20D. All metal bodies and all about $1300 here in Europe, so probably much cheaper in US. Buying entry level plastic crap for $999 isnt worth saving those $300. Entry level also drops in price extremely fast, try to sell 1000D next year and you would be lucky geting $200 for it, 40D will keep its value much longer.

Avoid buying second hand camera from professionals - heavy usage takes its toll! Dont get fooled with now-a-days FF babbling, its simply nonsense. FF itself isnt the solution and it has some huge disadvantages which are usually not mentioned. Go your own way, use your brain, think what you would like to shoot and MOST important - Canon and Nikon arent the only camera producers!

PS: Dont trust me, everyone knows the only good models are Mark3 and D3, all other is just crap;)
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 01:38 by basti »

« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2008, 02:34 »
0
how does metal body of camera improve image quality?

I dont care about camera material, it can be made out of paper if it produces large and good enough images.

« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2008, 18:11 »
0
I am looking at buying a 40D but am concerned about it's small image size. In general, what filesize is your most popular download?
Sorry, meant Nikon D40

what lenses do you have now?

I have $8000 in lenses (and $4000 on wishlist :)) with a $1000 camera.  Camera is a lot less important, good glass is forever :)

Personally if you do not have a dslr at the moment.
ignore brands, all have advantages and disadvantages.
work out what features are a must have to you ie. fps, mpixels, antishake etc.  (and every feature there is, someone will tell you it isn't important.  ie people shoot sport with less than 3fps, others will say need 8-10fps)

narrow down your list based on above (and dont rule out 2nd hand / discontinued, they still take good pics, my 5 highest earning photos were shot with a pentax ds (now worth $250? and one of two lenses I bought for AU$25 each from the pawn shop),

ignore the super analytical camera reviews (most them are based on default settings and have little value except to generate traffic).  IMO there isn't a "bad" dslr on the market.

go to a shop that has those cameras in stock, have a play with them.  find the camera that feels 'right' to you and makes you want to go take pics.  buy it (or look for a 2nd hand one) and dont look back :)

phil




« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2008, 18:18 »
0
Thanks all for your suggestions and comments!

« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2008, 18:33 »
0
I dont care about camera material, it can be made out of paper if it produces large and good enough images.

If you take your camera to outdoor harsh conditions, a paper camera would not be a good choice...

There may be differences in life between plastic x metal.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2008, 18:42 »
0
I dont care about camera material, it can be made out of paper if it produces large and good enough images.

If you take your camera to outdoor harsh conditions, a paper camera would not be a good choice...

There may be differences in life between plastic x metal.

Regards,
Adelaide

for mentally stable fotogs camera body would not matter much. People with more inquisitive minds could hit it against a wall after a rejection.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2008, 21:08 »
0
I am looking at buying a 40D but am concerned about it's small image size. In general, what filesize is your most popular download?
I guess it depends on what site(s) you are most concerned with but more MP = $$$. I sell all sizes pretty well. Smaller sizes get higher download volume but keep in mind that one XL can be 15x the money of an XS. And some search engines give preference to larger images.

I started off with a Nikon D50, went to a D80 and now have a D300. If I had to do it all over again I would have started with the D300. The D300 image quality is way higher which means less post processing time and higher acceptance rates.

Site's XL sizes range from 8MP to 12MP and XXL is 14MP - 16MP. If you have the funds I'd recommend at least 12MP and there are options from Nikon (12MP D300, D700, D3) Canon (12MP XSi, 5D) Sony (14MP) and Pentax (14MP). If you like Nikon, the D90 should be out pretty soon and will most likely have the 12MP D300 sensor.

« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2008, 00:52 »
0
I would buy an entry level DSLR as a beginner anytime and put the cash saved towards some decent glass. Cameras are throw away things these days, but a purchase of a prime lens is something for a lifetime.

« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2008, 03:57 »
0
I am looking at buying a 40D but am concerned about it's small image size. In general, what filesize is your most popular download?
I guess it depends on what site(s) you are most concerned with but more MP = $$$. I sell all sizes pretty well. Smaller sizes get higher download volume but keep in mind that one XL can be 15x the money of an XS. And some search engines give preference to larger images.

I started off with a Nikon D50, went to a D80 and now have a D300. If I had to do it all over again I would have started with the D300. The D300 image quality is way higher which means less post processing time and higher acceptance rates.

Site's XL sizes range from 8MP to 12MP and XXL is 14MP - 16MP. If you have the funds I'd recommend at least 12MP and there are options from Nikon (12MP D300, D700, D3) Canon (12MP XSi, 5D) Sony (14MP) and Pentax (14MP). If you like Nikon, the D90 should be out pretty soon and will most likely have the 12MP D300 sensor.

the pentax k20d can be had for $1000, pretty good for 14.5mp, glass is comparatively cheap and low iso performance is excellent (but not a good choice if you want long lenses, or high fps)



 

« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2008, 05:24 »
0
I dont care about camera material, it can be made out of paper if it produces large and good enough images.

If you take your camera to outdoor harsh conditions, a paper camera would not be a good choice...

There may be differences in life between plastic x metal.

Regards,
Adelaide

95% I do studio shots, so I dont need tough camera.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2008, 06:09 »
0
I would buy an entry level DSLR as a beginner anytime and put the cash saved towards some decent glass. Cameras are throw away things these days, but a purchase of a prime lens is something for a lifetime.
My D50 took quite a bit of post processing to fix its issues and gave me about a 60% acceptance rate. My D300 needs minimal post processing and currently has a 100% acceptance rate. This makes a huge difference in the speed you can build a portfolio. So while good glass is very important a good body is too.

« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2008, 12:14 »
0
How is metal body related to image quality? At first - body isnt defined by image quality only. Why do the pros NOT buy Canon 1000D instead of 5D or Mark3? Do you think its only because of image quality? At second - most semipro or pro models have metal body and usually also better image quality then entry level. So in fact it is related, however its only side effect.

Would you put your $2.500 lens weighting 1kg on feather-light and soft plastic body? When you invest $8.000 into lenses, it is saving $300-$500 on body really worth drastic reduce in built-quality, durability and ergonomics?

I dont say "buy cheap lens", I say "Im not so rich to buy cheap junk". Just my opinion, buy what you like ;D


« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2008, 13:11 »
0

Would you put your $2.500 lens weighting 1kg on feather-light and soft plastic body? When you invest $8.000 into lenses, it is saving $300-$500 on body really worth drastic reduce in built-quality, durability and ergonomics?


I've seen this happen back in the days of film when somebody put a nice lens on a Canon Rebel they'd picked up at Walmart (the back story involves the untimely death of an EOS 1n).  Pulled the mounting bracket right off the camera.  On the other hand back in the day we had a fair range of intermediate cameras between the top and bottom of the range (there were at least two maybe three or more bodies between the Rebel and the 1n).  That range is more abbreviated with digital, mounting brackets and such may have been strengthened as a result.

Personally the Elan II(E) is on my list of favorite camera's ever. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4856 Views
Last post December 19, 2006, 23:19
by yingyang0
6 Replies
3483 Views
Last post July 24, 2007, 22:36
by litifeta
9 Replies
4881 Views
Last post March 14, 2008, 18:16
by sharply_done
3 Replies
2954 Views
Last post May 03, 2011, 20:13
by gwhitton
0 Replies
956 Views
Last post June 14, 2011, 06:52
by Microbius

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results