Camera ponderings
Sep. 7th, 2007 06:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nathanjwI'm thinking about buying myself a new camera. My current camera is OK (Canon S230), but I think I'd like to move into SLR territory. I know that some of you have done this or researched it, so I'd appreciate some thoughts on the various issues of kitting up.
The biggest question is brand and body. As a SLR newbie, I'm not even in a good position to lust after the more "professional" cameras, or really to have a good sense of the advantages they confer, so I'm definitely thinking of the more amateur/consumer/entry-level models. The Canon Digital Rebel line seems to be the most common among people I know, and I'm certainly familiar with and reasonably happy with their pocket cameras. The obvious thing to do, then, would be to pick up the XTi and be done with it. However, I know that there's the whole rest of the world out there. Are there particular reasons to look - or thoroughly ignore - the lines from Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Sony, or others? Recommendations for specific models or lines there would help, since I don't know as much about them (the Nikon D40X seems like the immediate competitor). I don't currently have any lenses, and I'm not aware of a secret stash of great old lenses I'm about to inherit or something.
Next is the lens question. DSLRs all seem to have the option of coming with a stock zoom lens (18-50mm or so) or without it, and I've seen arguments (like this one) that the zoom lens isn't great and a prime lens is better, both in terms of the pictures that result and developing photographic skill. At least in the Canon universe, there's a 50mm f/1.8 that is about the same cost as the stock zoom lens (though reportedly quite fragile), so that's an interesting possibility. Any thoughts on which way is good to go, or if they're cheap enough that one should have both a vanilla zoom and a cheap prime lens? (Also, I'm a bit on how the third-party lens ecosystem works these days - notes about how that affects brand would be helpful). Are there any other "seriously consider this for starting out" lenses, or should I just wait and see?
Flash - I know the least about this area, except that having a "real flash" is supposed to be a serious advantage, but I don't know what the spectrum is like, or what I should be looking for. Any advice here would be helpful. I assume the world has changed enough that the old Focal DA-2000 flash that goes with my old film camera isn't relevant to anything.
Other kit - any other critical accessories I don't know about or don't know the importance of? A spare battery seems key. Lens filters? Hoods? Tripod widgets? (I'm sure the limitations of my current crappy tripod will become quickly apparent if I actually have a reason to use it)
And finally, the reality check. Should I bother? Should I not get into another set of expensive toys of limited utility? This is really a question for the other DSLR owners - has it been worth it, particularly if you haven't set out to Do Photography?
The biggest question is brand and body. As a SLR newbie, I'm not even in a good position to lust after the more "professional" cameras, or really to have a good sense of the advantages they confer, so I'm definitely thinking of the more amateur/consumer/entry-level models. The Canon Digital Rebel line seems to be the most common among people I know, and I'm certainly familiar with and reasonably happy with their pocket cameras. The obvious thing to do, then, would be to pick up the XTi and be done with it. However, I know that there's the whole rest of the world out there. Are there particular reasons to look - or thoroughly ignore - the lines from Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Sony, or others? Recommendations for specific models or lines there would help, since I don't know as much about them (the Nikon D40X seems like the immediate competitor). I don't currently have any lenses, and I'm not aware of a secret stash of great old lenses I'm about to inherit or something.
Next is the lens question. DSLRs all seem to have the option of coming with a stock zoom lens (18-50mm or so) or without it, and I've seen arguments (like this one) that the zoom lens isn't great and a prime lens is better, both in terms of the pictures that result and developing photographic skill. At least in the Canon universe, there's a 50mm f/1.8 that is about the same cost as the stock zoom lens (though reportedly quite fragile), so that's an interesting possibility. Any thoughts on which way is good to go, or if they're cheap enough that one should have both a vanilla zoom and a cheap prime lens? (Also, I'm a bit on how the third-party lens ecosystem works these days - notes about how that affects brand would be helpful). Are there any other "seriously consider this for starting out" lenses, or should I just wait and see?
Flash - I know the least about this area, except that having a "real flash" is supposed to be a serious advantage, but I don't know what the spectrum is like, or what I should be looking for. Any advice here would be helpful. I assume the world has changed enough that the old Focal DA-2000 flash that goes with my old film camera isn't relevant to anything.
Other kit - any other critical accessories I don't know about or don't know the importance of? A spare battery seems key. Lens filters? Hoods? Tripod widgets? (I'm sure the limitations of my current crappy tripod will become quickly apparent if I actually have a reason to use it)
And finally, the reality check. Should I bother? Should I not get into another set of expensive toys of limited utility? This is really a question for the other DSLR owners - has it been worth it, particularly if you haven't set out to Do Photography?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 11:20 pm (UTC)I've used a couple of Sony's higher-end digital cameras, and have been pretty disappointed. Their first 8MP "prosumer" camera had a great laser-based focusing system that let it focus very quickly even in complete darkness, but the images it generated weren't impressive. A more recent one I used was disappointingly slow to focus, and not enough smaller than my Canon SLR to really justify ever carrying it. I haven't used their new SLR line, but my previous experience doesn't make me real inclined to try it out.
I've been pretty happy with the Canon DSLRs I've owned. Focus tends to be very fast, pictures are very good, wide range of lenses available. Speed is a big difference I've noticed between the DSLRs and other digital cameras. The DSLRs focus very fast and have enough internal memory to take several shots before they need to wait while data gets written out to the flash card. Depending on what you expect to be photographing, this can be either very important or totally irrelevant. I really like the speed, because I find it very frustrating to miss someone's expression or actions, but if you concentrate on still-lifes you won't care. I haven't used the Nikons, so have no comment there.
Lenses: This is something where opinions vary wildly. I have two of Canon's higher-end zooms, a 35-80 and a 80-300 if I remember the numbers right, and I find that the two of them do a pretty darn good job for the way I use the camera. OTOH, pretty much all of my pictures are taken while traveling, so getting the most flexibility out of the amount of baggage volume I can afford to dedicate to camera stuff is important. Also, I have a much higher tolerance for lugging heavy objects than many people, and big hands, which makes a difference. You can definitely get good lenses cheaper if you go for prime lenses, which may or may not be practical for you depending on where you take pictures. Phil Greenspun's rule of thumb that you should expect to spend several times more on lenses than you do on a camera body seems fairly valid, though.
Flash: IMO, you really want an external flash to get the flash far enough off-axis that you don't get red-eye. Flashes that let you change the angle of the flash are way useful, particularly ones that rotate in two dimensions if you tend to rotate the camera.
Lens filters: I haven't worked much with these, though I keep a simple UV filter on all of my lenses to protect against scratches.