Camera ponderings

[nathanjw]

I'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?

Comments

[avacon.livejournal.com]

It really depends on what you're taking pictures for and what you enjoy futzing with. The little Canon SDxxx cameras (and Panasonic, etc equivalents) are quite adequate for most purposes of recording memories and can take some impressive photos while being extremely portable. They also have wide zoom ranges that make them useful for 80% of the photos you want to take. Going too high in resolution may not be worth it as the optics won't keep up, however.

If you like gadgets and like futzing with photos and want to take creative pictures or the other 20% of pictures, an SLR has serious advantages (although I'd still keep a P&S around for its portability and sometimes
only bring the P&S for some types of travel).

For SLRs it tends to be fairly religious. The UIs tend to be fairly different such that the Nikon UI makes no sense to Canon people and vice-versa. There seem to be conflicting opinions on which is pulling ahead. More people we know seem to have Canons which can make loaning equipment easier. I have the original Digital Rebel and I'm planning to get the Canon 40D body soon, most likely.

Lens-wise, the 1.6 multiplier on lenses for APS-C is quite annoying for getting something wide enough. The 50mm prime lens just isn't wide enough for most indoor shooting on an APS-C camera. Similarly, even my 28-135mm lens isn't wide enough for some photos (and it makes me sad when a point-and-shoot can get wider photos that I can't get). I still haven't found an affordable walk-around lens that's wide and good enough. Nikon has an 18-200mm lens which would be very nice (but apparently usually out of stock). Right now I use a 70-300mm IS (the Image Stabilizer is really nice/necessary for 300mm), the kit lens (18--55mm), and a 28-135mm IS (my normal walk-around lens). I also have the disposable 50mm prime lens
but don't use it much. I'm thinking of selling by 28-135mm and replacing it with something more like a 18-70mm, however, but there's none that is compelling in terms of quality, price, and range. (Especially since I want a good, sharp, IS, USM, f/2.8 lens with minimal CA/flaring that is around $500. Yeah right. ;)

For accessories, you'll want a UV filter to protect all of your lenses and some will require hoods depending on flare-resistance. For flash, I'd get it after you've played some with the camera. The canon 420EX and 580EX are both nice depending on what you want. You'll also need a camera case. I'm using the Velocity7 which I like for my uses.

One nice thing in the Olympus (and some others) SLRs is that they build the image stabilizer into the body. I believe Sony recently bought (Minolta?) hence there better recent SLRs. I think Panasonic has some too now.

I'm planning to upgrade my camera body soon (original Canon Digital Rebel which is a perfectly decent camera and which I like better in some ways than the newer Rebels). When that happens, I can probably loan it to you with a lens for a few weeks for you to play with to see what you think of SLRs.