Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 9, 2010, 12:49 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9
Default First time DSLR

Hi All...

It is so nice to see all the suggestion and advices around this forum.

I have been using P&S since a long time and now wants to do more than just shoot. I have read through the post and have checked the Panasonic FZ35 as these forum suggested. But i think it does not have audio input. I shoot mostly indoor pictures along with short video clips. I also require wide angle. I have also checked FZ45 which does have audio input but i see no recommendation of the same in this forum.

Finally, i thought i should give a try for DSLR. I would like to shoot Macro i.e. Flowers & Insects along with Indoors of my family with that blurry effect of background. I took some time and browsed and found about Canon EOS 550D, and also know that with these i would need some lenses ... Macro, Wide Angle & Zoom ...

So here it goes... what should i do... buy a DSLR (+ one lens for Macro) with one lens each year ... and will Canon EOS 550D be good for me.

Please suggest this first timer.. thanks for the time to read so much unnecessary details above..

Saif.
Saif S is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 9, 2010, 1:26 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

well the 550d is a very good camera, but if you are doing hand held close up shooting vs true macro on a tripod. Not having a IS lens may hinder slightly. As the only IS macro currently is 900 dollars the ef 100 2.8L. That is the best macro lens on the market form all account. But canon is suppose to be coming out with a IS verison of their 60mm 2.8 macro also.

But on the video side, it has pretty much the 7D's video option and full HD, with external mic port.

The kit lens is decently wide at about 28mm on a 35mm eq. But you can get much wider lenses, like the tokina 11-16 or the canon and sigma wide angles.

With the background blurring, canon do have the largest selection of fast primes to make it allot easier to get that nice blur of the background.

If you want a less expensive option with less HD ability, you can look at the pentax k-x, it uses IBIS instead of lens base IS. So no matter what lens you get it will have IS. So if you get any macro for a k-mount pentax. You will have IS. It will shoot just as well as the canon indoors. And the kit lens is slightly wider the the canon at about 26mm. But you give up all the bells and whistle of the HD options like external mic and stuff.

With the pentax you do not have as many lens option. But it is also allot less expensive.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2010, 5:08 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9
Default DSLR Camera

Thanks Shoturtle for the quick response..


Whoops... didnt knew the macro lens would cost so much... I will have to redo my homework...

i checked Pentax K x and found it quite impressive. However there are few questions about it... about the lens .... Are other lens like Sigma or Tamron or Other lens are compatible with Pentax K x?

I figured, i have to buy atleast 3 lenses to fully utilize the DSLR .. i.e. Macro Lens, Zoom Lens and Wide Angle Lens... which one will be cheap and best for Pentax K x....

Still unsure as to which DSLR to buy.... its too tough a decision... HOpe this forum helps me in getting the best..

thanks...
Saif S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2010, 6:55 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Yes, macro may be a problem. Canon only has one stabilized macro lens and it's expensive. Nikon only has two stabilized macro lenses, and similiarly, they're both expensive. Pentax and Sony use sensor shift image stabilization in the camera body, so all lenses are stabilized, including third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and others.

And, yes, there are third party lenses available for Pentax and Sony cameras, though not as many as are available for the more popular Canon and Nikon cameras. But remember that, since all lenses are stabilized on Pentax and Sony cameras, Pentax and Sony have a greater selection of stabilized lenses, including all the ~20 year old Pentax and Sony (Minolta) lenses available on the used market. Since you expressed concern about the cost of lenses, you might want to consider the used market to fill out your collection of lenses.

Since you also expressed an interest in video, you should skip the Sony cameras because they don't record video. But you should be aware that recording video with a dSLR is not nearly as easy as doing so with a P&S or a camcorder. While a dSLR is capable of recording superb video, it will require considerable effort on your part for you to obtain good results.

I'd recommend the Pentax K-x, and while the Pentax kit lens is good, because you want to shoot indoors a lot, I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 instead, as their larger maximum aperture will elt you use faster shutter speeds in low light without having to increase the ISO to the point where image noise becomes objectionable. While the Pentax does deal with noise quite agressively, it inadvertantly removes image detail as well, so it's best not to rely on noise reduction very much.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2010, 10:38 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9
Default

Dear TCav

Thanks for the useful input.... I will check more on Pentax K x and the lenses you mentioned above.

Hopefully I will be able to own a DSLR soon ....

THanks ...
Saif S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2010, 10:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

True macro and stabilized lenses are not needed. If you are after 1:1 you will want to shoot on a tripod and then you need to turn off the IS.

I shoot a none stabilize macro lens on my 500D, and it is bright enough not to need IS for close up work handheld.

IS is nice to have, but it really should not be a deal breaker. It is just nice to have at times.

I shoot the pentax k-x also, and it is a very good camera also.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2010, 3:05 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

True, 1:1 macro should typically be done from a tripod, obviating image stabilization. But for 1:2 macro, having image stabilization is certainly better than not having it. Plus the lenses I mentioned will also work well for indoor shooting, which would also benefit from image stabilization.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2010, 6:17 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
True, 1:1 macro should typically be done from a tripod, obviating image stabilization. But for 1:2 macro, having image stabilization is certainly better than not having it. Plus the lenses I mentioned will also work well for indoor shooting, which would also benefit from image stabilization.
In my humble opinion, flash is a better answer for both situations. Its rare for me to use a tripod for macro, and I go beyond 1:1 often. The only time i don't use flash is if I like the natural lighting and shadows, and that gets tough very quickly unless you can accept very shallow DOF.

Same for indoor pics. A little flash, even just the pop-up, goes much farther than stabilization for making a shot a keeper.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2010, 9:12 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

But Saif S is talking about shallow depths of field for indoor photography, not necessarily for macro work:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saif S View Post
... along with Indoors of my family with that blurry effect of background. ...
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2010, 9:20 AM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
But Saif S is talking about shallow depths of field for indoor photography, not necessarily for macro work:
Yes - and Greg's point is still valid for that - flash is more beneficial than image stabilization for indoor photos like that. If shutter speeds are slow enough that IS is necessary then you'll encounter a higher likelihood of motion blur from subject movements. Shallow DOF and flash are not mutually exclusive.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:18 PM.