DSLR or not DSLR?

[tfinch2]

Another option you can look at is this.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Olympus-Evolt-E-300...99QQcategoryZ43457QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The 14-45mm is not that sharp, but the 40-150mm is quite the kit lens.

Example: http://www.tfinch.org/pics/index.php?ID=11&auto=0

<puts flamesuit on>

EDIT: Or you can look at this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Olympus-E-1-Digital...7QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

That's is a pro-level body that is weatherproof, as is the lens.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile
You don't need to.

I'm 16 years old and my parents (all 4 of them) got me a 350D for my birthday. As of right now I have the kit lens and the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX, which is a suberb lens (cost me 750 dollars). My parents make me put about half of my money in a bank account before I buy anything, and it still only took me about 6 months to save up for the Sigma lens (total of about 1400 dollars). If you're really dedicated to it, money won't be too much of a problem. Just don't go overboard

I plan to get a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro as my next lens and will have to eventually replace the kit lens with something a little better.

Either camera is going to be the gift for getting a 100% scholarship, I can save up for lenses, but do I want to spend all my money on them ?

Exaclty. Like I said, it depends on how dedicated you are. Right now I'm spending (well, saving) 95% of my earned money for camera stuff, and I'm lovin it :heart:

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile
You don't need to.

I'm 16 years old and my parents (all 4 of them) got me a 350D for my birthday. As of right now I have the kit lens and the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX, which is a suberb lens (cost me 750 dollars). My parents make me put about half of my money in a bank account before I buy anything, and it still only took me about 6 months to save up for the Sigma lens (total of about 1400 dollars). If you're really dedicated to it, money won't be too much of a problem. Just don't go overboard

I plan to get a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro as my next lens and will have to eventually replace the kit lens with something a little better.

Either camera is going to be the gift for getting a 100% scholarship, I can save up for lenses, but do I want to spend all my money on them ?

Exaclty. Like I said, it depends on how dedicated you are. Right now I'm spending (well, saving) 95% of my earned money for camera stuff, and I'm lovin it :heart:

Right now, 95% of any cash I get my hands on gets thrown into a stash I can use when my computer is either not up to snuff for the newest games, or when I want some new games that my computer probably won't be up to snuff for. If I get an SLR, its definitely going to be when I'm sure I can buy all the lenses I know I'll be yearning for.

 

[iamtrout]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile
You don't need to.

I'm 16 years old and my parents (all 4 of them) got me a 350D for my birthday. As of right now I have the kit lens and the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX, which is a suberb lens (cost me 750 dollars). My parents make me put about half of my money in a bank account before I buy anything, and it still only took me about 6 months to save up for the Sigma lens (total of about 1400 dollars). If you're really dedicated to it, money won't be too much of a problem. Just don't go overboard

I plan to get a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro as my next lens and will have to eventually replace the kit lens with something a little better.

Either camera is going to be the gift for getting a 100% scholarship, I can save up for lenses, but do I want to spend all my money on them ?

Exaclty. Like I said, it depends on how dedicated you are. Right now I'm spending (well, saving) 95% of my earned money for camera stuff, and I'm lovin it :heart:

Right now, 95% of any cash I get my hands on gets thrown into a stash I can use when my computer is either not up to snuff for the newest games, or when I want some new games that my computer probably won't be up to snuff for. If I get an SLR, its definitely going to be when I'm sure I can buy all the lenses I know I'll be yearning for.

In this case I believe you've definitely answered your own question. Get a Prosumer DSLR. Right off the bat it will be able to do more things (and well) than an entry level DSLR with a financially limited pool of lenses. Prints will look extremely good as well.

*A P&S will be more robust in the middle east. Sand and dust can get on the sensor in a DSLR during lens changes, which will require frequent cleaning. Also, with a P&S you can buy a single sized UV filter to protect your lens from the elements. With a DSLR, you'd have to buy UV filters in different diameters for all the lenses that you own... or buy one big one and get step-down rings for the other lenses.

A P&S is also easier to lug around. A DSLR with three lenses and a tripod can be annoying, but if you love photography like me, it's doesn't matter in the least. For someone like you, the mental zeal may not be great enough to make the load feel lighter

Get a prosumer P&S. Let your interest in photography grow or wane. If it grows and you're ready to go onto the next level, save money for a DSLR SYSTEM and do it right the first time.

EDIT: I would not recommend getting a DSLR ($700) and two great lenses ($300). With this combo you won't even be able to get a lot of the shots that you want. Macro, Tele, Wide, Portrait... these require at least three lenses already...

 

[Czar]

if you are willing to spend more money on lenses in the future then go with the 350d and the 50mm f1.8 prime lense, cheapest and best combo you can get, could lao save some more money by getting the 300d instead

 

[Huma]

I'm personally kind of surprised how much grief people give kit lenses. I bought a d50 and the kit lens has served me pretty well so far. I did order an 18-70mm to swap in for a little more versatility, but I didn't really feel I was missing photos or getting unsatisfactory results with the kit lens. No one has looked at my pictures and said "wow, that's crap. You need a better lens" so far.

I know ken rockwell has some doubters, but he had an article that talked about the shooter being more important than the gear and I strongly agree. I've seen some great photographers that use plastic cameras and some people using $3000 cameras that took useless photos.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: iamtrout

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile
You don't need to.

I'm 16 years old and my parents (all 4 of them) got me a 350D for my birthday. As of right now I have the kit lens and the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX, which is a suberb lens (cost me 750 dollars). My parents make me put about half of my money in a bank account before I buy anything, and it still only took me about 6 months to save up for the Sigma lens (total of about 1400 dollars). If you're really dedicated to it, money won't be too much of a problem. Just don't go overboard

I plan to get a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro as my next lens and will have to eventually replace the kit lens with something a little better.

Either camera is going to be the gift for getting a 100% scholarship, I can save up for lenses, but do I want to spend all my money on them ?

Exaclty. Like I said, it depends on how dedicated you are. Right now I'm spending (well, saving) 95% of my earned money for camera stuff, and I'm lovin it :heart:

Right now, 95% of any cash I get my hands on gets thrown into a stash I can use when my computer is either not up to snuff for the newest games, or when I want some new games that my computer probably won't be up to snuff for. If I get an SLR, its definitely going to be when I'm sure I can buy all the lenses I know I'll be yearning for.

In this case I believe you've definitely answered your own question. Get a Prosumer DSLR. Right off the bat it will be able to do more things (and well) than an entry level DSLR with a financially limited pool of lenses. Prints will look extremely good as well.

*A P&S will be more robust in the middle east. Sand and dust can get on the sensor in a DSLR during lens changes, which will require frequent cleaning. Also, with a P&S you can buy a single sized UV filter to protect your lens from the elements. With a DSLR, you'd have to buy UV filters in different diameters for all the lenses that you own... or buy one big one and get step-down rings for the other lenses.

A P&S is also easier to lug around. A DSLR with three lenses and a tripod can be annoying, but if you love photography like me, it's doesn't matter in the least. For someone like you, the mental zeal may not be great enough to make the load feel lighter

Get a prosumer P&S. Let your interest in photography grow or wane. If it grows and you're ready to go onto the next level, save money for a DSLR SYSTEM and do it right the first time.

EDIT: I would not recommend getting a DSLR ($700) and two great lenses ($300). With this combo you won't even be able to get a lot of the shots that you want. Macro, Tele, Wide, Portrait... these require at least three lenses already...

Last part of your post made me sure I'd need $1500+ to get the shots I want from a DSLR. I'll go with the R1 now, and get a Canon EOS 450D or whatever they'll have around in a year or two, when I have my own money to blow on lenses. Thanks all.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: iamtrout

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Mrvile
You don't need to.

I'm 16 years old and my parents (all 4 of them) got me a 350D for my birthday. As of right now I have the kit lens and the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX, which is a suberb lens (cost me 750 dollars). My parents make me put about half of my money in a bank account before I buy anything, and it still only took me about 6 months to save up for the Sigma lens (total of about 1400 dollars). If you're really dedicated to it, money won't be too much of a problem. Just don't go overboard

I plan to get a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro as my next lens and will have to eventually replace the kit lens with something a little better.

Either camera is going to be the gift for getting a 100% scholarship, I can save up for lenses, but do I want to spend all my money on them ?

Exaclty. Like I said, it depends on how dedicated you are. Right now I'm spending (well, saving) 95% of my earned money for camera stuff, and I'm lovin it :heart:

Right now, 95% of any cash I get my hands on gets thrown into a stash I can use when my computer is either not up to snuff for the newest games, or when I want some new games that my computer probably won't be up to snuff for. If I get an SLR, its definitely going to be when I'm sure I can buy all the lenses I know I'll be yearning for.

In this case I believe you've definitely answered your own question. Get a Prosumer DSLR. Right off the bat it will be able to do more things (and well) than an entry level DSLR with a financially limited pool of lenses. Prints will look extremely good as well.

*A P&S will be more robust in the middle east. Sand and dust can get on the sensor in a DSLR during lens changes, which will require frequent cleaning. Also, with a P&S you can buy a single sized UV filter to protect your lens from the elements. With a DSLR, you'd have to buy UV filters in different diameters for all the lenses that you own... or buy one big one and get step-down rings for the other lenses.

A P&S is also easier to lug around. A DSLR with three lenses and a tripod can be annoying, but if you love photography like me, it's doesn't matter in the least. For someone like you, the mental zeal may not be great enough to make the load feel lighter

Get a prosumer P&S. Let your interest in photography grow or wane. If it grows and you're ready to go onto the next level, save money for a DSLR SYSTEM and do it right the first time.

EDIT: I would not recommend getting a DSLR ($700) and two great lenses ($300). With this combo you won't even be able to get a lot of the shots that you want. Macro, Tele, Wide, Portrait... these require at least three lenses already...

Last part of your post made me sure I'd need $1500+ to get the shots I want from a DSLR. I'll go with the R1 now, and get a Canon EOS 450D or whatever they'll have around in a year or two, when I have my own money to blow on lenses. Thanks all.

A P&S for $1000 makes baby jesus cry.

Get either a similar Panasonic or Canon S2 IS. You seem like your short on cash, and spending a $1000 on a P&S that will have terrible resale when you decide to move up to DSLR is not a good idea.

EDIT: Okay, not terrible resale, but it sure won't be anywhere near that 1000 you paid for it.

 

[spidey07]

Well I will tell you that you may reach a point where you HAVE to have a DLSR.

I went with the sony DSC-V1 years ago. It is a great camera. One thing I really like about it is the size, I didn't want to lug around a big camera.

But I've reached the limits with my skills that I have outgrown it.

Just thing about that...do you see yourself getting into photography? If so it is probably a wise choice to just get the DLSR now.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Well I will tell you that you may reach a point where you HAVE to have a DLSR.

I went with the sony DSC-V1 years ago. It is a great camera. One thing I really like about it is the size, I didn't want to lug around a big camera.

But I've reached the limits with my skills that I have outgrown it.

Just thing about that...do you see yourself getting into photography? If so it is probably a wise choice to just get the DLSR now.

Defniitely not, I just want nicer pictures. Side by side with pictures from a Rebel XT, the R1 looked pretty damn good. Also, the R1 is more like $800, not $1000. And I plan on keeping it till it dies; my DSC-V1's lasted me 3 years, and its still kicking.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: spidey07
Well I will tell you that you may reach a point where you HAVE to have a DLSR.

I went with the sony DSC-V1 years ago. It is a great camera. One thing I really like about it is the size, I didn't want to lug around a big camera.

But I've reached the limits with my skills that I have outgrown it.

Just thing about that...do you see yourself getting into photography? If so it is probably a wise choice to just get the DLSR now.

Defniitely not, I just want nicer pictures. Side by side with pictures from a Rebel XT, the R1 looked pretty damn good. Also, the R1 is more like $800, not $1000. And I plan on keeping it till it dies; my DSC-V1's lasted me 3 years, and its still kicking.

If you just want nicer pics, get the Olympus E-300 2 lens kit I linked to. Those two lenses provide a 28-300mm FOV in 35mm terms for less than the Sony.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Olympus-Evolt-E-300...99QQcategoryZ43457QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Plus it comes with a 1 gig card.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: hytek369
unless you are a pro, its not worth it

 

[blurredvision]

Without reading anything other than the first couple of posts, I can say with certainty that if you're shopping based on megapixels, then go with the cheapest you can get, and do not get a DSLR. Honestly, megapixels should be the last thing you look at when choosing from the varied DSLR's, and if you plan on printing your work for sale and do need more megapixels, then you wouldn't be asking this question because you should already know what you need. Simple as that.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Without reading anything other than the first couple of posts, I can say with certainty that if you're shopping based on megapixels, then go with the cheapest you can get, and do not get a DSLR. Honestly, megapixels should be the last thing you look at when choosing from the varied DSLR's, and if you plan on printing your work for sale and do need more megapixels, then you wouldn't be asking this question because you should already know what you need. Simple as that.

Again:

1. I'm not pursuing photography
2. I'm not after megapixels, MP mean nothing to me when the camera takes crappy pictures, then you just have a bigger crappy picture

 

[spidey07]

Well I'd like to point out that the V1 can take some very good pictures.

What I'm trying to say is don't expect a better camera to produce better pictures.

One of my favorites from a few years ago...
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/spidey07/Vegas3.jpg

 

[tfinch2]

YGPM sheik124

 

[ultimatebob]

Actually, the lens that comes with the 350D isn't all that bad. Sure, it's not "L" glass or anything, but it's certainly better than the lenses on most point and shoot cameras under $500. If you're on a budget, the wide angle to ~2X zoom range on the kit lens will tide you over until you have money for some better glass.

It sounds like you've already talked yourself in the a "prosumer" point and shoot camera, though, and that's OK. Not every one out there wants or needs to be a photographer.

 

[czech09]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Actually, the lens that comes with the 350D isn't all that bad. Sure, it's not "L" glass or anything, but it's certainly better than the lenses on most point and shoot cameras under $500. If you're on a budget, the wide angle to ~2X zoom range on the kit lens will tide you over until you have money for some better glass.

It sounds like you've already talked yourself in the a "prosumer" point and shoot camera, though, and that's OK. Not every one out there wants or needs to be a photographer.

Yeah the 18-55mm Kit lens is great actually...couple it with a telephoto lens and you're set for your trip or pretty much anything in terms of general photography - I have the same setup coupled with my 300D. I'm most likely going to pickup a D50 or D70 soon and then just probably get a macro lens and a telephoto one. Good luck, I'd say get a D50 they're much cheaper and will provide you with almost the same quality as the 350D.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

I'm still not fully decided. What worries me most is that I know I don't know enough about photography yet (just learned what the hell a histogram is for) to be able to use the DSLR to its full capabilities. And, just wondering, asides from interchangable lenses, isn't the R1 just as good a camera as an EOS 350D or a D50, it has an APS CMOS sensor, a damn good lens....

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: sheik124
I'm still not fully decided. What worries me most is that I know I don't know enough about photography yet (just learned what the hell a histogram is for) to be able to use the DSLR to its full capabilities. And, just wondering, asides from interchangable lenses, isn't the R1 just as good a camera as an EOS 350D or a D50, it has an APS CMOS sensor, a damn good lens....

The biggest thing is that you are stuck with single lens. No upgrades. Nothing. The beauty of an SLR is that there are so many different lenses out there, you can adopt one that fits your shooting style or types of photography that you do.

When you spend $1000 on that Sony camera, you are absolutely stuck with what it provides. You can't get a wider lens, you can't get a longer lens, you can't get a faster lens, you can't get a better macro lens.

IMHO when you buy into an DSLR, you aren't buying a camera, you are buying an upgrade path. With a Canon/Nikon/Pentax DSLR you are buying into the lenses and accessories that those companies offer. When you something like Sony, you simply get what comes in the box. Nothing more. No upgrade path, no future use of accessories.

I've got a Rebel 300D. My lenses that I bought(short of the speciality EFS kit lens) will work on just about any Canon D/SLR camera past, present or future. That's where the beauty lies.

You spend $1000 (or less) on the camera, but the lenses last you a lifetime (assuming proper care).

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Without reading anything other than the first couple of posts, I can say with certainty that if you're shopping based on megapixels, then go with the cheapest you can get, and do not get a DSLR. Honestly, megapixels should be the last thing you look at when choosing from the varied DSLR's, and if you plan on printing your work for sale and do need more megapixels, then you wouldn't be asking this question because you should already know what you need. Simple as that.

Again:

1. I'm not pursuing photography
2. I'm not after megapixels, MP mean nothing to me when the camera takes crappy pictures, then you just have a bigger crappy picture

Considering your answers to these questions and the other seven earlier, I urge you to reconsider and look at the S2 IS. I bought an S2 IS and my friend bought an Canon Rebel (generation before the Rebel XT). I wanted a camera that was more advanced that a normal P&S with flexibility similar to a DSLR, but still with a P&S simplicity if I wanted.

The S2 IS gives me wonderful outdoor shots, has almost a 0 cm macro, a 12X image stabilized optical zoom, and a bunch of other features that I do actually use a lot. I know perfectly well it will never take as good of a shot as a DSLR, but I love the flexibility in a camera that I spent a little over $400 on. I'm not a professional photographer who needs an extreme macro lens, or a nice telephoto lens, but I love having more "consumer grade" versions built in.

My friend is happy with his DSLR, but often times he says he's jealous of my camera's movie mode (which is actually nice at 640X480 at 30 fps) and the range in focal length. We're both still in college, so we mainly take people snapshots, and my camera is perfect for that.

I can see why people recommend getting an entry level DSLR over a nicer P&S. With my camera, I can buy a few accessories, but it's not even close to buying new lenses. I'm pretty much stuck with what I have. Maybe I'll crave a nice DSLR in a few years when I'm mainly taking nature pictures, but I have no desire to have one now. I'm not even really jealous of the new S3 IS that's coming out because they seem like minor upgrades.

 

[ultimatebob]

Personally, I wouldn't spend $1,000 on a point and shoot camera. Like most point and shoot digital cameras, that Sony will be obsolete in 4 or 5 years when they stop releasing updated drivers for it. When that happens, you'll end up having to get a whole new camera, and the old one will be pretty much useless. Because of that and that alone, I would never spend more than $500 on a point and shoot model.

If you spend $1,000 on a DSLR and lenses, however, you'll probably be able to reuse any flashes and lenses that you got on your NEW camera body if you stick with the same camera brand. For example, there are 30 year old manual focus Pentax lenses that still work just fine on the *ist D series DSLR cameras.

My Digital Rebel XT isn't THAT backward compatible, though, and can "only" use EF lenses that started to come on the market around 1987. Not that I'm complaining about that

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: blustori
Don't do it...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
If you catch "L" lens fever, then be prepared to spend multiple thousands for the best glass.

Try catching Zeiss fever...

ZV

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
If you catch "L" lens fever, then be prepared to spend multiple thousands for the best glass.

Try catching Zeiss fever...

ZV

Or high-end Digital Zuiko fever...