DSLR camera for beginners

[Class A]

...you might be better off with one of the 2 mainstream brands due to their larger selection of lenses and accessories.

For birders or other photographers who need long focal length lenses, Pentax currently wouldn't be the best choice, but say a street photographer or a portrait shooter will find the K-7 (compact and weather-sealed) with a pancake (incredibly unobtrusive) or an FA-Ltd, such as the FA 77/1.8 (superb bokeh) hard to beat.

I agree that one should take a good look at everything a brand has to offer but would suggest that "wider choice" shouldn't be the only criterion.

The other thing to keep in mind that in-camera image stabilisation is - almost by definition - a compromise.

The camera knows the focal length of the lens attached (either automatically or by manual input for older manual lenses). Hence the stabilisation is optimal for every focal length. There are opinions that in-body stabilisation works better for wide-angles whereas lens-stabilisation works better for telephoto but to the best of my knowledge there aren't any reliable experiments and the differences aren't huge.

Advantages of in-body stabilisation are:

1. you don't pay for stabilisation with each lens you buy, only once with the body
2. even old (but sometimes great) manual lenses become stabilised
3. what isn't in the lens, cannot break
4. if image stabilisation is improved in a future body, all your lenses benefit from it
5. there are no lens-stabilised wide-angle lenses, are there? With in-body stabilisation you cover all lenses.
6. Many fast primes aren't available as lens-stabilised versions. Again with in-body stabilisation you don't care.

The Pentax in-body shake reduction system cannot only counter pitch and yaw shaking, but also roll shake (a motion that can be introduced by pressing the shutter release button). This is something a lens-based system will never be able to do. The sensor rotation can also be used to automatically level crooked horizons (within limits). The K-7 has an electronic spirit level and can use it to rotate the sensor accordingly for compensation. The moving sensor can furthermore be used to make fine-adjustments to the framing say if the camera is mounted on a tripod.

A potential disadvantage is that you don't see the image stabilised in the viewfinder. But maybe that's a feature rather than a bug as you can better see how you are shaking things about.

Certainly for some (e.g., sports photographers) Pentax or Sony wouldn't be the right choice. But for others their offerings may provide some unique options and more value for money than the "big two".

[Class A]

I will look into the lens options more.

If you look at the current collection of Pentax lenses, don't forget that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina also manufacture lenses that can be mounted on a Pentax camera. In particular Sigma has a lot to offer and some of the Sigma lenses are excellent.

If you are budget minded, you'll find that Pentax has one of the most backward-compatible lens mounts. All Pentax cameras work fine with old and very old lenses (no restrictions as in Nikon land where entry-level bodies don't AF with none but the most modern lenses and there are metering restrictions, AFAIK).

[George Hazelton]

As the owner of a Pentax K10d, let me put in an oar here. As far as in camera stabilization is concerned, on my K10 when I mount an older lens, the camera asks me what is the focal length. With this the camera, I presume, is able to select the degree of sensor movement required. While in lens stabilization "might" be the ultimate solution, how many of us can afford the - at this time - fairly considerable premium for such lenses?

My K10 gives me 2 or 3 stops hand held advantage over no stabilization. With care this means at least 4x6 prints with a 500mm. Obviously a proper tripod is far better for that bad boy, but when the subject is a hawk on my neighbor's roof ridge, I'll settle for a less than ideal image than nothing at all.

In the eternal Canon vs Nikon debate Pentax should not be ruled out. ANY 35 mm Pentax lens, including, with adapters 42 mm screw mount optics, can be mounted on and used with my K10. Please remember that Canon changed their mount a few years back, making many fine lenses unusable. I seem to recall that some Nikon lenses need some modifications to be usable on current cameras; Pentax lenses have no such limitations. (Please note that some iterations of the classic K mount - Ricoh comes to mind - will physically interfere with the K10 mount)

Sorry for what may be degenerating into a rant. As the proud owner of a K10d, and a K1000, MX, ME Super, and LX, plus a stable of lenses for them, I regret when the company which produced an instant mirror return 35mm SLR, the Asahiflex, several years before either Canon or Nikon did so, seems to be all too often ignored.

[Colin Southern]

I agree that one should take a good look at everything a brand has to offer but would suggest that "wider choice" shouldn't be the only criterion.

Of course.

The camera knows the focal length of the lens attached (either automatically or by manual input for older manual lenses). Hence the stabilisation is optimal for every focal length.

Canon disagree - http://web.canon.jp/imaging/lens/index.html

There are opinions that in-body stabilisation works better for wide-angles whereas lens-stabilisation works better for telephoto but to the best of my knowledge there aren't any reliable experiments and the differences aren't huge.

Personally, I've never had a need for IS in a WA or UWA lens.

Advantages of in-body stabilisation are:

1. you don't pay for stabilisation with each lens you buy, only once with the body
2. even old (but sometimes great) manual lenses become stabilised
3. what isn't in the lens, cannot break
4. if image stabilisation is improved in a future body, all your lenses benefit from it
5. there are no lens-stabilised wide-angle lenses, are there? With in-body stabilisation you cover all lenses.
6. Many fast primes aren't available as lens-stabilised versions. Again with in-body stabilisation you don't care.

And the disadvantages are:

1. In camera stabilisation can affect autofocus ability in low-light situation
2. In camera stabilisation doesn't stabilise the image in the view finder
3. In camera stabilisation can't be used in video modes (as far as I know), which is becoming increasingly more popular

So I think it's fair to say that each has both advantages and disagvantages.

[Colin Southern]

Please remember that Canon changed their mount a few years back, making many fine lenses unusable.

It was a great argument, but unfortunately it's an argument that's lost it's potency with each passing year (The EOS mount has been available since 1987(!) and great as some of the old lenses were, most of the newer ones are even better)

[Class A]

Canon disagree

You don't say.
Seriously, I looked at the website you quoted and found no technical argument as to why lens-based shake reduction has to be superior.

Personally, I've never had a need for IS in a WA or UWA lens.

I agree that long focal lengths need it more often but in low-light situations shake reduction is helpful for all focal lengths. And with an in-body solution even a nifty-fifty is stabilised.

In camera stabilisation can affect autofocus ability in low-light situation

I've heard the AF argument before but am not sure whether someone really went through the pain and verified it. Could be true or not, I don't know.

In camera stabilisation doesn't stabilise the image in the view finder

Yep, I've mentioned that (and sold it as a feature ).
A Live View image is stabilised though.

In camera stabilisation can't be used in video modes (as far as I know), which is becoming increasingly more popular

The Pentax system can be used in video modes and works remarkably well. It looks as if the camera is on a steady cam rig.

So I think it's fair to say that each has both advantages and disadvantages.

Sure, and its of course not just a matter of counting the score (don't do it lens-based fans ), but also putting more weight on what is important to oneself.

[Class A]

(The EOS mount has been available since 1987(!) and great as some of the old lenses were, most of the newer ones are even better)

The K-mount was introduced in 1975 and the M42 mount in 1949. M42 lenses can be mounted on a Pentax with a simple adapter which doesn't have any glass elements. I understand there is an M42 adapter for Canon as well, but I'm not sure what the limitations are, e.g., whether the camera provides focus confirmation as a Pentax does.

Some of the older lenses are really good and are available cheap as dirt. Of course, most of theses are manual focus but if this is not a detractor than having access to that market is nice.

Just things to bear in mind when making a decision. There is no right or wrong answer in general, it really depends on the values of an individual.

[Colin Southern]

Just things to bear in mind when making a decision. There is no right or wrong answer in general, it really depends on the values of an individual.

For sure, it's a personal choice. You could probably use an adaptor to put the wheels of an Ferrari F430 Spider onto a Ferrari FXX too, but for me it always begs the quesion "why would anyone want to". The only reason I can think of is, perhaps, to save a few dollars, but personally, I just prefer to stick with the newer technology, and all the benefits that it brings.

So I'm afraid you won't catch me trying to mount a Nikon 12-24mm lens on my 1Ds3 because someone found a few pixels around the edge to be slightly sharper when viewed at 400% magnification, or a Summicron M 35mm F2 "just because it was such an awesome lens"; in my mind anyway, the world has moved on to bigger and brighter things

[Inkanyezi]

Of course there are some valid arguments here, but choosing from only two brands on grounds that are largely irrelevant to you could be contra-productive. One of these brands still has a long way to go to be really user friendly in my opinion. I outruled Canon for their imho idiotic raindance to set a personal white balance. Why on Earth would one have to first take a picture, then choose that picture to set a personal balance, and on top of that choose that same white balance? It's contra-intuitive, and it is cumbersome; in short, it's not very helpful for a serious photographer.

So, I have an argument, that any Canon DSLR lacks an ergonomic feature available in most other cameras. For that reason, I do not use the Canon EOS 10D that I could have for free, and which has that much wanted top window to show the settings. It's a good camera, it takes sharp pictures, and its dynamic range is not bad, even if it is becoming outdated. But why would any DSLR camera produced by Canon in 2010 share the same defect?

Yes, it is a defect, because there is no direct way to use your own white balance, one of the most important features of a digital camera. Yes, I know that I can side-step it by shooting RAW, but the thing is that this cumbersome and ergonomically unsound misfeature is in fact the very reason why I would not choose a Canon DSLR. So; many things could be added in an argument over different cameras, and I think it is not fair to outrule a brand on the ground that a thousand million flies cannot be wrong.

[Shadowman]

Of course there are some valid arguments here, but choosing from only two brands on grounds that are largely irrelevant to you could be contra-productive. One of these brands still has a long way to go to be really user friendly in my opinion. I outruled Canon for their imho idiotic raindance to set a personal white balance. Why on Earth would one have to first take a picture, then choose that picture to set a personal balance, and on top of that choose that same white balance? It's contra-intuitive, and it is cumbersome; in short, it's not very helpful for a serious photographer.

So, I have an argument, that any Canon DSLR lacks an ergonomic feature available in most other cameras. For that reason, I do not use the Canon EOS 10D that I could have for free, and which has that much wanted top window to show the settings. It's a good camera, it takes sharp pictures, and its dynamic range is not bad, even if it is becoming outdated. But why would any DSLR camera produced by Canon in 2010 share the same defect?

Yes, it is a defect, because there is no direct way to use your own white balance, one of the most important features of a digital camera. Yes, I know that I can side-step it by shooting RAW, but the thing is that this cumbersome and ergonomically unsound misfeature is in fact the very reason why I would not choose a Canon DSLR. So; many things could be added in an argument over different cameras, and I think it is not fair to outrule a brand on the ground that a thousand million flies cannot be wrong.

Hello Inkanyezi,

I think everyone on this forum will agree that you can take some pretty good photos with any camera, including a point and shoot, but the real issues arise when you find that your current camera lacks that something special to give you DOF, low light ability, fast shutter, and additional focal ranges. The debate among members may have something to do with brand loyalty, but most times its about experience with specific equipment and research done on other models. I think you should ask each member what their experiences are with the models critiqued and judge your acceptance or dismissal of their opinion based on all available information. I could give you advice on various point and shoot models but have only had experience with one model of DSLR so I will excuse myself from this exercise.

[Inkanyezi]

Hello Inkanyezi,

/.../ the real issues arise when you find that your current camera lacks that something /.../

That is why I pointed out a real issue, which is not very special. I argue that one of the most important things to consider in a digital camera is its sensor, and particularly the dynamic range of that sensor. Other things to take into account are the ergonomy of the camera controls as well as the availability of system components that you will consider to acquire. On that latter ground I myself might rethink my strategy and consider getting a Canon camera in order to get for example the TS 24 mm lens, as it is not available for other cameras. Most people would neither consider that lens, nor know how to use it.

Most people are looking for a host of features, where one of them also is price. Price usually has a heavy weight in the decision to buy. When we look at the brands discussed here, we find that there are a few cameras with an extraordinarily good sensor: Canon 7D, 550D, Nikon D9, D5000 and Pentax K-x. The latter three have an edge over the Canons regarding dynamic range, while the Canons have marginally higher resolution. Weighing in price might outrule the two most expensive models, leaving the "instep models". Then of course, it is up to the person that will make the decision, to choose what is most important. The much fondled "system availability" issue is moot in most cases. Those few people that need those special lenses that are available only for particular cameras, would not hesitate to have an extra camera or changing the system to get that special feature, but most of us would not buy a £2000+ lens ever.

So there are real world issues, and the white balance issue can be more important than the availability of a 24 mm TS lens. After all, white balance is used for each and every shot you take, and whenever lighting is special, you need to set it manually. If it is cumbersome and prone to error, many people will not even learn how to do it.

So in the real world of taking pictures, I regard "system availability" as an issue that may be weighed against basic ergonomy and image quality. It should be considered, but I would look mainly for the items that I really might buy. BTW, I still can have that Canon 10D, it sits on a shelf ready for me to use anytime, but it is not my tool of preference, mainly for ergonomy reasons.

Buying a camera is not like getting married. It is not for life. If those special needs arise later in life, it is rather easy to get a new camera, if necessary.

[Colin Southern]

I argue that one of the most important things to consider in a digital camera is its sensor, and particularly the dynamic range of that sensor.

Most sensors are capable of capturing somewhere around 11 to 12 stops at base ISO, and yet we can (for the most part) print only around 4 stops, and display around 6 stops on a regular monitor, so unless someone needs to push their dynamic range to the max, I'd argue that the dynamic range of any modern sensor is more than adequate for most people.

Other things to take into account are the ergonomy of the camera controls as well as the availability of system components that you will consider to acquire.

I find it's simply a case of whatever one gets used to. I've initially hated the ergonomics of every rental car I've ever driven, and yet a couple of days later the ergonomics are just fine. Same goes for cameras; I can make any adjustment with my 1Ds3 simply by touch (which one HAS to learn to do for night shooting).

On that latter ground I myself might rethink my strategy and consider getting a Canon camera in order to get for example the TS 24 mm lens, as it is not available for other cameras.

Nikon have had their version for a couple of years now ...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...ikkorpce24.asp

Most people are looking for a host of features, where one of them also is price. Price usually has a heavy weight in the decision to buy.

Traditionally, price comes in at the forth most important factor.

So there are real world issues, and the white balance issue can be more important than the availability of a 24 mm TS lens. After all, white balance is used for each and every shot you take, and whenever lighting is special, you need to set it manually. If it is cumbersome and prone to error, many people will not even learn how to do it.

Sorry, but I've dealt with white balance on Canon cameras for many years and in my opinion their way of doing it is just fine - and I have no issues what-so-ever with it. Additionally, you'll more than likely get a better result simply using a grey card (or other spectrally neutral reference) and adjusting afterwards in PP.

Buying a camera is not like getting married. It is not for life. If those special needs arise later in life, it is rather easy to get a new camera, if necessary.

No - cameras are much cheaper

[Inkanyezi]

I fear we are leaving the initial subject far behind, but for a photographer raised with the zone system, dynamic range is paramount. The paper image might have a dynamic range of about thirty times, i.e. 6 stops, but we regularly compress the 8 stops of subject dynamic into that by altering the contrast curve. Manipulating the curve manually can include a few stops more, but it's balancing on an edge where the image may become too soft. Further techniques of tone mapping may give us even more room for playing with the image contrast vs subject dynamic range.

So on a regular basis, even in-camera processing spans 8 stops that can be handled in printing, and our fiddling with tone curves or mapping may cater for several stops more. The paper image will never have more than 6 stops of luminosity, but it may represent up to 13 stops of subject contrast in a photorealistic way when we apply post processing in various ways.

There is another consideration when we look at the dynamic range of a chip, its ISO capability. As dynamic range decreases one stop with each stop of raised ISO, a base ISO DR of 12 stops will let us raise ISO 4 stops without touching those 8 stops that we get out of the in-camera jpeg. So a base ISO of 200 with 12 stops DR will give us 8 stop DR at ISO 3200. It is easy to see, that a chip with only 10 stops DR at base ISO 200 will lose DR significantly when we raise ISO above 800. So dynamic range is important also for those photographers that might never use the zone system or care for higher dynamic range than the built-in processing will give them. High ISO will not only cause more noise, but less dynamic range as well, burning out the highlights and losing the shadows. Therefore, these chips that have 12+ DR will produce better results in low light conditions than chips with a DR of around ten stops at base ISO. I wouldn't quibble over a half stop more or less DR, but in this real world, the difference between chips is more than that. I do regard the excellent dynamic range of the cameras discussed here as an issue to take seriously, and that it might be the determining factor, if what you are seeking is ultimate image quality. Which one of them you prefer is a personal matter.

[Colin Southern]

The paper image might have a dynamic range of about thirty times, i.e. 6 stops, but we regularly compress the 8 stops of subject dynamic into that by altering the contrast curve.

And that's my point; in reality the vast majority of photographers have around 12 stops to play with (at base ISO) - they use - perhaps - around 8 - even at moderate ISOs shadow noise is difficult to detect visually in a real-world print - and for occasions when you need more than around 12 stops of DR you'll invariably get a better result (ie less noise) with an HDR composite or using GND filters to compress the scene. Or put another way, lack of DR in just any about any modern DSLR just isn't a real world issue; it's a bit like trying to argue that a 250MPH Bugatti Veyron makes for a better car to go grocery shopping when compared to a 200 MPH Lamborghini Murciélago, when both are more than adequate for the job. For a beginner, giving a lot of weight to DR in a purchasing decision would be - in my opinion - a big mistake.

[shobana29272]

wow ..so much of technical stuff and I am really drawing a blank here.I am even more confused .
I was and am still inclined towards the Pentax k-x on reading some of the replies to my question . I am really impressed by the quality of pictures esp. w.r.t saturation and crispness of the photographs . But the main discomforting factor is that there aren't any servicing centres here , to my knowledge .Hence my decision to go for a canon or Nikon .BUt again NIkon D90 is a bit beyond my budget , as of now .

Hence ,keeping in mind , the following factors ..that
1. I am a beginner and
2. my budget is 900-100 dollars
3. I travel a lot and do a lot of sight -seeing and obviously love taking pictures and would prefer a camera(+lenses) which is not too bulky ,
4.I love taking macros too

For the moment I have decided to go for a canon EOS rebel t1i + lenses .

As regards the lenses I would really appreciate if someone could suggest the most ideal lens , even if its just a single one , for the time being , that would take wide , telephoto as well as macro ??!! .. IS that asking for too much for too little ??!!

[shobana29272]

here are a couple of links to the pictures I have "attempted" to take so far

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...6&l=e77ae589f7
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...6&l=4311f0d19c

[Wirefox]

Hi Shobana

What camera did you use for your facebook album? There are a couple of interesting shots in there and I can see how you may develop as a photographer.

I do not think you will be disappointed with the T1i. It gets excellent reviews and if it is anything like the 450D that I used to own the image quality is excellent. I can understand why you might be confused with the responses on this thread. Any camera within its target group (consumer/semi-pro/pro) will be pretty near on image quality. That is why I did not go into all this when I bought my DSLR. I went to a local outlet picked the cameras up and picked the one that felt right for me within my price range. You are unlikely to make a mistake with whatever body you choose provided it feels right and the controls are placed to your liking.

The lens or lenses are a different matter however. What I would say is the canon kit lens 18-55 is as good as you will get for the money and unless you want ultra-wide angle it will give you your low end. You can get zooms that are budget all rounders but they will probably do everything tolerably well (as my Canon 28-200 USM does) but nothing really well.

If you want to try lenses on a budget it is great value to go for one of the older EF lenses. I have just bought a used (they all are) 70-210 f/4 for my daughter to play around with. It auto focuses on the modern DSLRs and is in mint condition. A snip at £115. It takes a little getting used to because the auto focus is quite clunky (no USM) but very positive. I actually like this as aspect but it would be no good for action sports. The other thing is that it is a push/pull zoom rather than a twist zoom. You either love it or hate it, either way you will get by. It also has a macro function on the lens itself. Remember though you will be getting closer to 350mm at the top end and that takes some holding steady in poor light.

Steve

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Shobana,

I agree with Steve, I can see (just from the thumbnail pages**) that you have an eye for a subject and some compositional skills already. ** I often think these things are far quicker and easier to see from thumbnails - if the picture is recognisable as a small pic at low resolution, it obviously isn't 'too busy', the subject is obvious and of course the composition is easy to see.

As to choosing a DSLR, as Steve says, you can't really go wrong on technical quality of any of them. I would say don't be swayed by things like "saturation and crispness" though because these things are sooo easily changed in PP and ANY camera can be made to look saturated and crisp in a few seconds of skilled PP - and it isn't difficult either.

How the pictures look out of the camera really only applies to the camera's jpgs anyway and you will, I hope, soon be shooting RAW and 'developing' the files into great images. You won't consistently reach the quality of what you see here at CiC without going the RAW route in my opinion.

A good lens is better than a cheap one though and will likely be with you longer than the camera body is. On the other hand, a cheap lens is liable to have to be replaced as you become disatisfied with its quality and this will waste money in the long run.

Do try handling the different cameras, one will likely 'feel' more natural to you than the others.

I just noticed your username; are you really a 29th of Feb, once in four years birthday girl?

Good luck,

[shobana29272]

Thank you Steve and Dave .. I have taken the pictures with a Canon A 590 IS ,Steve . Yes I would like to go for a good lens even if its just one for the time being .
I have uploaded some pictures here , amateurish though but definitely not "thumbnails "

And yes , my b'day does fall on the 29th of February

[Dave Humphries]

~
I have uploaded some pictures here , amateurish though but definitely not "thumbnails " ~

Hi Shobana,

This is what I meant by 'viewing the thumbnail pages':


It relates to this size I was viewing at, not their quality.
I appreciate that if I click an image I can see it bigger and step through them with Next and Previous, but I didn't want to go into that much detail with so many.

Therefore it's great you have put 5 in an album here at CiC, I'll have a look tonight and give a more detail opinion. So we won't call them 'amateurish' until after that, eh? (and somehow I doubt we will even then, because we're not like that here)

off to work now, catcha later

Cheers,