OT: Any camera heads out there? Looking for a [first] DSLR...

[velotrack]

Hoping some of you out here have some experience! As a point of reference, i don't know much at all.

Learning how to take some nicer photos. Don't plan on doing any sort of fancy photography - but would totally like to learn how to use one of those things and not stay on point-and-shoots my whole life. Have used others' before. Will be using it for all kinds of things. Won't be too hard on it, though - I can take care of it.

Also wouldn't like to go too deep into my pockets for one.

I'm OK with used, refurbished, as long as it'll last me - is $300 anywhere close to a fair budget?

[ergott]

You could get a used Canon Rebel or Nikon equivalent for that price. There's a forum you can find some great used camera gear being sold by people that take care of their gear. It's www.fredmiranda.com. Also a great place to ask questions.

I recommend the book Understanding Exposure or the books by Scott Kelby. They are good reads.

I a nutshell, the correct exposure is based on a triangle of factors, shutter speed, ISO (the sensor sensitivity), and the amount of light getting through the lens (f stop or aperture).

The shutter speed can either freeze action with a higher setting or give you some motion blur with a slower speed.

The aperture gives you control over how much of your scene is in focus. A larger aperture (smaller number) will allow more light, but less is in focus. It's great for isolating your subject and blurring the back and foreground. Smaller apertures bring more of the scene in focus usually preferred for landscapes.

ISO sensitivity is set as a result of how much of the available light you let through the lens. If you are in a dark scene or limit the light with either a fast shutter or small aperture you have to increase the ISO. The drawback is the sensor of the camera loses its quality of detail as you increase the ISO, but the latest cameras are getting much better handling that.

Most people begin the learning process by controlling the aperture in Av mode or the shutter in Tv mode on the camera. These settings take care of the rest of the camera settings to give you the correct exposure (not all cameras have auto ISO). Its important to experiment for yourself and the beauty of digital is you don't have film to worry about! Just be sure to review the settings after you take the pictures to see what works best and what doesn't. Any program you use on a computer will save those settings in the file for later review.

I've taken days where I pick a scene and adjust one setting at a time to see the results. It can be a lot of fun to do. It's best to do in a nice sunny day just so you have lot's of light to control.

Hope that helps. Have fun with it!

[Ti Designs]

My father was a photographer, my introduction to photography was with a very simple camera and a normal (50mm in full frame SLR, 25mm in micro four thirds format) lens, or one that was very close to your normal field of view. He told me to learn how to make images with that, then add to it with wide angles and zooms and different program modes... I'm finding myself returning to that advice, it's damn hard to beat a fast normal lens of capturing what you see.

That said, there are some up sides and some down sides to a rapidly changing world of photography. The up side is that everyone wants the new stuff, so there's a really strong used market. The other up side is that people have a lot invested in lenses, so the standards aren't going to change like bottom brackets. The combination of those two things means you can probably get a normal 1.8 lens cheap, 'cause people replace them with the faster 1.4s.

In terms of what you need to know, first you should pick a platform. Back in the days of film Nikon was the name, Cannon has cut into their market share a bit. There are also other formats on the rise. I've come to like the micro four thirds format (Panasonic/Olympus) because you can find anything from the pro GH4 to the tiny G3 and you're talking about the same sensor, and the lenses are interchangeable. The bottom line when it comes to image making is lens quality. There are review sites which both explain this as well as test different lenses. If you don't mind shooting in full manual, there are lots of older lenses out there going cheap, and adaptors that allow you to use them on newer cameras.

The real secret to great photography is F8 and be there. That second part is tricky...

[douglas]

You might want to look at KEH.com too. They buy and sell used camera equipment and have an excellent on-line reputation. I recently bought a p&s, a dslr body and a lens from them. I would say that their rankings are conservative and I'm very happy with each item.
When you buy a dslr you buy into a system. Each manufacturer has a different mount so Nikon mounts fit Nikons, etc. For $300 you can get an older dslr body and a kit lens from KEH.

[tiretrax]

This is a great explanation, Ergott. I gave each daughter a DSLR box set in the past few years. I gave them a similar explanation, but not as succinctly.

I highly suggest you save another $200 and get a box set Rebel T3i or Nikon 3200 so you get two lenses, which you'll need. I think they go on sale this month or soon when the new models are introduced. I also like to buy those items at Sam's because they warrant for a year, and I learned that lesson years ago when my first flat screen (when they cost a bout 3x more) went out in the 11th month.

You could get a used Canon Rebel or Nikon equivalent for that price. There's a forum you can find some great used camera gear being sold by people that take care of their gear. It's www.fredmiranda.com. Also a great place to ask questions.

I recommend the book Understanding Exposure or the books by Scott Kelby. They are good reads.

I a nutshell, the correct exposure is based on a triangle of factors, shutter speed, ISO (the sensor sensitivity), and the amount of light getting through the lens (f stop or aperture).

The shutter speed can either freeze action with a higher setting or give you some motion blur with a slower speed.

The aperture gives you control over how much of your scene is in focus. A larger aperture (smaller number) will allow more light, but less is in focus. It's great for isolating your subject and blurring the back and foreground. Smaller apertures bring more of the scene in focus usually preferred for landscapes.

ISO sensitivity is set as a result of how much of the available light you let through the lens. If you are in a dark scene or limit the light with either a fast shutter or small aperture you have to increase the ISO. The drawback is the sensor of the camera loses its quality of detail as you increase the ISO, but the latest cameras are getting much better handling that.

Most people begin the learning process by controlling the aperture in Av mode or the shutter in Tv mode on the camera. These settings take care of the rest of the camera settings to give you the correct exposure (not all cameras have auto ISO). Its important to experiment for yourself and the beauty of digital is you don't have film to worry about! Just be sure to review the settings after you take the pictures to see what works best and what doesn't. Any program you use on a computer will save those settings in the file for later review.

I've taken days where I pick a scene and adjust one setting at a time to see the results. It can be a lot of fun to do. It's best to do in a nice sunny day just so you have lot's of light to control.

Hope that helps. Have fun with it!

[malcolm]

My daughter has just started getting into photography. She has a Nikon D3300 you won't find it for $300 but you may find a good deal on the D3200, one generation removed essentially the same. It's a great basic DSLR and the good thing about it is it has the users instructions or tips built into the camera.
I like Nikon or canon because glass is readily available used and the prices are good because they are so popular a lot of it tends to be for sale.

I also have an Olympus like Ti mentioned. I used to be into film photography back in the day and moved from Nikon to Olympus because they were more compact and the film 35 SLRs had the shutter speed on the lens barrel. The DSLR Olympus that I now have is a great camera, don't use it that much but it's not the cameras fault. It isn't as easy to use or maybe I just never got familiar with it. I may be interested in selling it if you want to pm me. I'm not sure what it's worth.

One final thought, most folks with fancy DSLRs still use them like a point and shoot. They never really learn to use them and just keep them in full auto and push the button. In that case you are better off with a really nice point and shoot. It's smaller so you'll be more likely to carry it with you. Olympus TG series are very nice with fast lenses for point and shoots. If you do go the DSLR route I would encourage you to get one that does full manual mode and lean to use it that way first. Experiment with shutter speeds and apertures till you understand what differences they make. You'll enjoy it more and really open up the power of your camera.

One final thing if you decide to do mail order I've always had good luck with B&H photo. There are cheaper places but they have always been reliable.

[ceolwulf]

The control layouts and ergonomic philosophies of the various makers tend to be fairly different. One that one person finds completely intuitive can be an awkward mess to the next person. For me for example I never got on with Canon controls but Pentax had everything where I expected it. So I would say the best option is to go to a good store that has stock of what you are potentially interested in and try them out and see which fits your hand and makes sense to you.

The other major consideration is to make sure the maker you choose has lens options you want. For most things most makers will have you covered but you will find sometimes they go deeper in one area than others. For example Pentax really likes making jewel-like prime lenses in sometimes odd focal lengths that a lot of street photographers appreciate. Or if you think you might need really long fast telephotos for bird or wildlife shooting you will likely want Canon. That sort of thing.

Training your eye at the beginning with a single prime lens is a good idea. You need to learn to see how the lens sees. A zoom can be more confusing than useful. A lot of people find about a 40mm focal length for 35mm film/full-frame is a great all around length. On an APS-C size sensor (probably what you'll have in a reasonably priced DSLR) you can get about the same field of view with a 28mm lens.

[bcroslin]

$300 is a little low for a dslr with a lens but for $450 you can pick up a Canon Rebel with an 18-55 lens to get started:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030209-REG/canon_9126b003_eos_a_rebel_t5_dslr.html

Canon Rebels are definitely your best bang for your buck.

(I'm a professional button pusher so you can PM me if you have any specific questions)

[carpediemracing]

Hoping some of you out here have some experience! As a point of reference, i don't know much at all.

Learning how to take some nicer photos. Don't plan on doing any sort of fancy photography - but would totally like to learn how to use one of those things and not stay on point-and-shoots my whole life. Have used others' before. Will be using it for all kinds of things. Won't be too hard on it, though - I can take care of it.

Also wouldn't like to go too deep into my pockets for one.

I'm OK with used, refurbished, as long as it'll last me - is $300 anywhere close to a fair budget?

I'm about as novice a DSLR camera person possible. I understand some theory - my gf in college did a bunch of photography classes with a Pentax K100 (K1000?) manual and I ended up taking a lot of the pictures, learning stuff on the way since I wanted to take better pictures.

The huge, huge thing that I found after having my camera for a few months was that I needed to get a zoomier lens. The stock 18-55 that came with my basic Nikon D3100 was fine for taking pictures of Junior (we got the camera specifically because we were a few months away from having him). However the first time I took shots at a race or outside I found the 55mm max zoom to be really limiting. I've since gotten a 55-200 and it's my primary lens, I leave it on the body most of the time. Only for family stuff do I change the lens, i.e. if I'm trying to take a picture of Junior with Missus doing some stuff in the kitchen or a family portrait trying to squeeze 16-17 people into a picture where I can't back up more than about 15 feet.

But for the most part the 55-200 is what I want when, for example, a fox trots through our backyard (max range 100 yards, we live in a condo complex), pictures at a race (almost always at full zoom except when I'm standing a few feet from the racers), etc.

Ironically I paused typing here to help clean up a bit and the Sunday paper had a few ads for Nikon D3200s with both the 18-55 and 55-200 lens for $500. It must be a current promotion for Nikon.

The other theory, which my brother follows, is a max wide angle lens ("fisheye"). My brother, who focuses primarily on family shots (3 kids, 3 generation house, doesn't ride, has a photographer friend that takes shots of my brother on the skateboard), uses one of those. The photographer friend told him that one of the photographer tricks is to use a wide angle lens for candid shots. You can point the camera in the general direction of the scene, take a picture, and you'll capture the main components of said scene. With a zoom type lens you might capture the wall or the floor or the lamp behind the person, with the fisheye lens you always capture the moment albeit maybe off center.

As far as manipulating the picture I have yet to explore the D3100's manual settings. I use the default, adjust the "type" of picture (normal, action - probably higher shutter speed, landscape - higher f-stop?, close up - lower f-stop?, etc), and if the auto-focus is a bit wacky then I do manual focus.

I have software to manipulate the pictures but I haven't bothered.

[zzy]

Honestly, if you want to get into dSLRs and are already a Paceline member, I would warn you that N+1 applies to camera lenses too.

However, you are very fortunate. The newest mirrorless cameras (The Sony RX-100 chief among them) are really excellent and match the image quality of a SLR with all but the best of lenses. The limit for all dSLRs is the lens you use, and the plastic kit lenses that come with low-end bodies will not produce significantly better images than some high end point n shoots. If you really want to get into dSLRs, just be fully aware that it quickly gets expensive and cumbersome.

Like someone said above, the used market is flush with great cameras for far less, with minimal downside. The incremental progress these days is minimal now that the megapixel war is over and 1080p video is standard. Honestly, a solid mirrorless camera with manual control, a copy of Lightroom, and a solid tripod is all you need to really get into the hobby. Just go out and take pics and learn how to develop your workflow. Once you've done that, you'll know if dSLRs are worth the plunge, and you'll have a good idea of what you really need.

e - I suppose Canon has reignited the megapixel war with the 5DS, but still, pixels don't correlate to quality.

[bjf]

Nikon rather than Canon, because the lenses are better. Once you get started, and then want to upgrade, you'll likely keep the lenses, and they are not interchangeable from one brand to the other. D3300 + one or two lenses if you can manage it. Or, D3200 or even D3100 to save some $$ (they are the older versions of the same model). And I'd definitely look on fredmiranda.com, because the prices are the best anywhere for used and nearly new. KEH is good and reliable, but they charge premium prices.

[Hardlyrob]

I recommend going to a store and figuring out whether Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Brand X feel better in your hands - ergonomics are important. As you will shortly find out Canon / Nikon wars put Campy / Shimano wars to shame.

Once you settle on a brand, you will likely stay there for a long time - lenses cost money - way more in total than the camera body. Good lenses don't really age - so buying used from the 1990's that have the same mount is most viable. A used DSLR body to start also makes sense - anything over 12MP is good to go - after that point pixels really don't matter unless you are printing 5 feet by 7 feet. Go to kenrockwell.com for a lot of gear reviews and
recommendations.

Search the archives here - there is a lot of good information on this topic on The Paceline.

Cheers!
Rob

[teleguy57]

Lots of great info here. I concur with the idea of putting you hands on a camera because each feels different.

Also check to see if there are any local photo clubs, or if a local tech college or community college has courses on photography that might let you try out different cameras and help you think through what's important to you.

This thread may be just the nudge to either pull out my Nikon film bodies and lenses and either use them or sell them:)

[Hardlyrob]

Teleguy - Use them! I've been shooting film as well as digital for a number of years - there are still things that look better on film - Tri-X, and Fuji Velvia 50 etc. You can also use the film cameras as digital - have the film processed at a lab that also scans - don't bother printing if print film. You get perfect negs, and a DVD with high res scans to drop into Photoshop, or print on line. I use North Coast Photographic Services in San Diego, and they are great!

[ergott]

Nikon rather than Canon, because the lenses are better.

Let's not start down this road, particularly since it isn't true. Let's just agree that there are pros that take amazing pics with both systems.

[ceolwulf]

^ if the lenses that you want to use are better, that's a good basis for a choice of systems.

[teleguy57]

Teleguy - Use them! I've been shooting film as well as digital for a number of years - there are still things that look better on film - Tri-X, and Fuji Velvia 50 etc. You can also use the film cameras as digital - have the film processed at a lab that also scans - don't bother printing if print film. You get perfect negs, and a DVD with high res scans to drop into Photoshop, or print on line. I use North Coast Photographic Services in San Diego, and they are great!

mmm... Velvia 50. Brings back lots of memories. Now you've gone and done it and got me thinking about pulling out my FM with my all-time favorite 105mmf/2.5 Nikkor.

Took a peek at the North Coast site, and they have a link to a Ken Rockwell article. Haven't been to his site for a while so I will have to check that out.

And here I thought I'd be able to downsize the film stuff and just play with my D40....

[bcroslin]

Nikon rather than Canon, because the lenses are better. Once you get started, and then want to upgrade, you'll likely keep the lenses, and they are not interchangeable from one brand to the other. D3300 + one or two lenses if you can manage it. Or, D3200 or even D3100 to save some $$ (they are the older versions of the same model). And I'd definitely look on fredmiranda.com, because the prices are the best anywhere for used and nearly new. KEH is good and reliable, but they charge premium prices.

There is no discernible difference between the lenses from either system. I say this as someone who owns both and currently shoots Nikon.

[velotrack]

Thanks all, for the great advice. I think I have a few good places to start. It'll be a side hobby, mostly good for trips and things like that. Hopefully n will stay at n and not turn into n+1, or n+3, or anything close to what bikes have turned out to be..

[giverdada]

i started photography in the 90s with a camera from the 60s and everything was metal and glass and heavy and good. things are now mostly microchips and plastic and processing speed, like cars and bikes and so many things. as it stands, there are some things of note when starting into the wonderful world of photography now.

1 - canon vs. nikon is more about intuition of controls than anything else, as you don't have an existing lens/mount system. pick which one makes sense to you and do it.

2 - older pro bodies and body-lens bundles can be had for pittances these days, and many are 'nicer' than newer things in the same price point because their chips are old or not full-size or they don't shoot video. i started into digital with a nikon d100 because it was in my budget, could shoot every lens i already had, and was built like a goddam pickup truck. if you don't need the latest 'features', and are comfortable with shooting with learned skill over paid-for pre-programmed filters, modes, etc., then used things are a gem.

3 - pick your features wisely. i got my current body when the d100 started to burn out on the shutter and was no longer dependable to fire every single shot. at weddings or sporting events, this is unacceptable. now i shoot a d7000 for all the reasons i shot the d100. it uses all of my lenses, it has very fast frames per second, and intuitive controls (to me). i opted for it over other things because i can shoot crazy nice video on it, use external mics, and it has astounding resolution. not the fanciest thing out there, but a great body with the features important to me at this point in my shooting. there are features on it i'll never use, but the ones i need are definitely there.

good luck. and post some images when you can!

[velotrack]

i started photography in the 90s with a camera from the 60s and everything was metal and glass and heavy and good. things are now mostly microchips and plastic and processing speed, like cars and bikes and so many things. as it stands, there are some things of note when starting into the wonderful world of photography now.

1 - canon vs. nikon is more about intuition of controls than anything else, as you don't have an existing lens/mount system. pick which one makes sense to you and do it.

2 - older pro bodies and body-lens bundles can be had for pittances these days, and many are 'nicer' than newer things in the same price point because their chips are old or not full-size or they don't shoot video. i started into digital with a nikon d100 because it was in my budget, could shoot every lens i already had, and was built like a goddam pickup truck. if you don't need the latest 'features', and are comfortable with shooting with learned skill over paid-for pre-programmed filters, modes, etc., then used things are a gem.

3 - pick your features wisely. i got my current body when the d100 started to burn out on the shutter and was no longer dependable to fire every single shot. at weddings or sporting events, this is unacceptable. now i shoot a d7000 for all the reasons i shot the d100. it uses all of my lenses, it has very fast frames per second, and intuitive controls (to me). i opted for it over other things because i can shoot crazy nice video on it, use external mics, and it has astounding resolution. not the fanciest thing out there, but a great body with the features important to me at this point in my shooting. there are features on it i'll never use, but the ones i need are definitely there.

good luck. and post some images when you can!

Thanks, will do.
I'm sure you can believe it, but the used market is filled with options. It's quite frightening to start.

For new options, I'm looking at the D3200, but I'm definitely going in-store to check out how each one feels in my hand.

Before I do that.. any good, used, practical options would you say? No video or funky stuff needed, just a learning device that is beginner-friendly. KEH looks like it has a good system of rating and some warranty for used cameras, so if it's used, I'd prefer that over craigslist.

I appreciate the help everyone.

[ceolwulf]

I've bought a fair bit from KEH and have always been happy with it. Their condition rating is very conservative.

[giverdada]

i'm partial to the d90 and the d300 for good, used stuff. as mentioned before, this is for the body construction and feel of the things in-hand, along with the lens compatibility for non-CPU lenses made before i was born and when glass was effin sharp and no one called their 50mm a 'prime'. the 3200 looks like it does everything fandancily, and i think it is either the same or smaller in size than my d7000, which, to me, is surprisingly small. i often plan to get a battery grip just to give myself more to hold on to. i shot a bunch of higher end canons, mark v's or whatever they were called, and they were crisp and solid in action as well; i just never got used to the interface. ymmv.

[malcolm]

One other thing to mention there are numerous books specific to various models of nikon and canon. I don't know which ones are particularly good or not but many exist and once you decide on the model they may be worth looking at.

[veloduffer]

+1 on KEH - conservative grading and easy returns. I have bought many 'Bargain' graded stuff and it often looks hardly used.

The D3200 or Canon Rebel are good cameras. To learn, I would strongly suggest a fixed focal length like the 35mm f1.8 lens, which is equivalent to a 50mm film/full frame. Great lightweight lens that shots well in low light and very sharp. Also, it is very inexpensive new or used.

Zooms make photographers lazy. A fixed focal length makes you move your feet. Good photography is about perspective and light, the key elements in composing a photo. For example, look around the room you are in. Now, stand on a chair and look around. The change in perspective gives a different view. Similarly, if you wanted to take an interesting photo of the Eiffel Tower, you wouldn't take a picture of it head on in the middle of the frame. You can get a postcard that does that and looks better. Rather, a different view from underneath or inside the Eiffel would be more intriguing.

If you want a great pocketable camera, look at the Nikon Coolpix A.. It has a full DX sensor, same as Nikon D7000, and a fixed 28mm lens perceptive. Nikon is discontinuing the camera and will bring a replacement soon. It was $1200 camera this winter and is under $400 now. Many top photographers grabbed this as their take it everywhere camera. It's like having a DX. DSLR. Here is a recent photo using the Coolpix A
http://johnz.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v108/p1221478-4.jpg

[shamsixnine]

Well maybe...You may want to seriously consider a mirror less camera. Much smaller than dslrs, generally packed with features. Mirror less cameras also have some very distinct advantages. Just saying to definitely research the mirror less option. BTW, many pros have been ditching the dslrs for these. Not all pros mind you. DSLR still have their place. It might be tough to reach your price point, but there might be some options. You may want to check this out at $298.00:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001000-REG/sony_ilce3000k_b_alpha_a3000_dslr_camera.html

[oldpotatoe]

You could get a used Canon Rebel or Nikon equivalent for that price.

I know a wee bit, a very little bit about cameras. I have owned several film cameras, Leica CL, Nikon F1, Minolta SRT-101, Canon AE-1...but those have all been gone for a while. Digital has obvious advantages but my question is, as a guy that likes DT friction shifters, are film cameras dead? Is film dead? Does it make no sense to buy a film camera and muck around with it?

I don't intend on building a dark room, BTW.

I have a Canon G12, nifty but too many electronic modes and such..

[cdn_bacon]

I had a Nikon D100 and now a Nikon D200. One of the reasons I'msticking with the d200 is the covering of the body has let me use it in some pretty extreme temps and conditions and used they fetch around $250 and are rated for 120,000 shutter clicks. I have yet to bring mine in for servicing after 7 years of owning it.

I've changed lenses plenty of times, but the bodies remain the same. The glass is a HUGE factor in the quality and colour of your photos.

If I can offer anything. Get either a 35mm 1.8 or a 50mm 1.8 lens. they are both under $200 and tack sharp. My 10.2mp camera has taken some beauty photos but both of those lenses are fast enough for low light. and offer a nice bokeh.( the out of focus blurry parts in the background that you can use to control depth of field)

I currently have a 85mm 1.8 and its a lens that is not quite so "in your face" if you're trying to fill up the subject field with a object/person.

Cannon or nikon doesn't matter. I learned on film and asked questions. it's easier to see the results digitally. But I will say, pay for a good memory card with a high write speed( not the 90mb/s READ speed) its how fast your camera can process the shot.I've lost some potentially good pics using a slow card.

not saying that I'm the be all and end all. I'm a hobbyist. that enjoys photography and learning.

[veloduffer]

I know a wee bit, a very little bit about cameras. I have owned several film cameras, Leica CL, Nikon F1, Minolta SRT-101, Canon AE-1...but those have all been gone for a while. Digital has obvious advantages but my question is, as a guy that likes DT friction shifters, are film cameras dead? Is film dead? Does it make no sense to buy a film camera and muck around with it?

I don't intend on building a dark room, BTW.

I have a Canon G12, nifty but too many electronic modes and such..

Film isn't dead but it has been relegated to a niche product.

The advantage of digital is that you control the "darkroom" - development process, not some lab or CVS drugstore. Want to change to Black & White - easy to do. Enhance color or reduce highlights/shadow? Crop to change the perspective? These are all in the photographers control through Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop or other software.

You can even mirror the looks of the various classic films - Fuji Velvia, Kodachrome, Ektachrome, etc.

Ansel Adams probably spent more time developing his photos than being in the wild to get the look he wanted.

Also, digital is easier to archive - hard disk, cloud, photo websites.

[veloduffer]

Well maybe...You may want to seriously consider a mirror less camera. Much smaller than dslrs, generally packed with features. Mirror less cameras also have some very distinct advantages. Just saying to definitely research the mirror less option. BTW, many pros have been ditching the dslrs for these. Not all pros mind you. DSLR still have their place. It might be tough to reach your price point, but there might be some options. You may want to check this out at $298.00:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001000-REG/sony_ilce3000k_b_alpha_a3000_dslr_camera.html

Mirror-less definitely has advantages in its smaller design, but for action/sports photos its autofocus is too slow and for low light photography, the autofocus and sensor is not up to high end DSLRs.

With the improvements in low end DSLRs like the D3200 and D5300, they are not much bigger than mirrorless and have some advantages over mirrorless. Plus, there is a bigger selection of lenses, particularly used lenses.

I tried mirrorless but it is not small enough that you can put it in a pocket - you still need a bag or case. As such, I would prefer to carry a DSLR and small fixed lens.

I currently use the Nikon Df, which is similar to the old film cameras and decidedly smaller than the large DSLRs but has a top-of-the line D4 sensor. The best part of the Df is that I can use almost every Nikon lens ever made back to the 1950s, including the old manual lenses that had some terrific glass.

[oldpotatoe]

Film isn't dead but it has been relegated to a niche product.

The advantage of digital is that you control the "darkroom" - development process, not some lab or CVS drugstore. Want to change to Black & White - easy to do. Enhance color or reduce highlights/shadow? Crop to change the perspective? These are all in the photographers control through Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop or other software.

You can even mirror the looks of the various classic films - Fuji Velvia, Kodachrome, Ektachrome, etc.

Ansel Adams probably spent more time developing his photos than being in the wild to get the look he wanted.

Also, digital is easier to archive - hard disk, cloud, photo websites.

Yup, I suspected. I really liked the Leica..should have never sold it. A true Leica, not the Minolta/Leica altho both made in Portugal in Minolta factory, I think. Lens European. Sweat little camera, bought it in the military exchange in Naples, IT for $350 in about 1976 or so, I think. Long time ago.

[veloduffer]

Yup, I suspected. I really liked the Leica..should have never sold it. A true Leica, not the Minolta/Leica altho both made in Portugal in Minolta factory, I think. Lens European. Sweat little camera, bought it in the military exchange in Naples, IT for $350 in about 1976 or so, I think. Long time ago.

Leica is still the standard which many camera mfrs try to achieve. Too bad you don't have it. It's funny how the style of the new mirrorless tries to mimic the Leica and rangefinder look and design. It just worked.

[ergott]

I know a wee bit, a very little bit about cameras. I have owned several film cameras, Leica CL, Nikon F1, Minolta SRT-101, Canon AE-1...but those have all been gone for a while. Digital has obvious advantages but my question is, as a guy that likes DT friction shifters, are film cameras dead? Is film dead? Does it make no sense to buy a film camera and muck around with it?

I don't intend on building a dark room, BTW.

I have a Canon G12, nifty but too many electronic modes and such..

I guess the answer to your question would depend on whether you can get the film developed reliably and conveniently.

The beauty of film is the added discipline involved. You don't just spray and pray you have to treat each capture with care. I have an old Yashica D that I've been meaning to break out and mess around with. My idea is to bring my digital with me and take some test shots first to dial in exposure settings.

Go for it!

[veloduffer]

I guess the answer to your question would depend on whether you can get the film developed reliably and conveniently.

The beauty of film is the added discipline involved. You don't just spray and pray you have to treat each capture with care. I have an old Yashica D that I've been meaning to break out and mess around with. My idea is to bring my digital with me and take some test shots first to dial in exposure settings.

Go for it!

You can do that with a DSLR too - just set everything to manual! Then you have to start remembering the Sunny 16 rule.:)

[ergott]

You can do that with a DSLR too - just set everything to manual! Then you have to start remembering the Sunny 16 rule.:)

Yes, but much easier to cheat.

[veloduffer]

Yes, but much easier to cheat.


The pros use Program mode more than most you think. For them it is capturing the moment.

[bcroslin]

I know a wee bit, a very little bit about cameras. I have owned several film cameras, Leica CL, Nikon F1, Minolta SRT-101, Canon AE-1...but those have all been gone for a while. Digital has obvious advantages but my question is, as a guy that likes DT friction shifters, are film cameras dead? Is film dead? Does it make no sense to buy a film camera and muck around with it?

I don't intend on building a dark room, BTW.

I have a Canon G12, nifty but too many electronic modes and such..

The Leica CL is one of the coolest camera's ever made IMO. I've owned M3's, M4's and M6's and don't miss them but I still occasionally find myself trolling ebay for CL's.

[bcroslin]

The pros use Program mode more than most you think. For them it is capturing the moment.

One of my best friends is a regular contributor to Nat Geo and she uses aperture priority at least 50% of the time. It makes me crazy.

[SoCalSteve]

I guess the answer to your question would depend on whether you can get the film developed reliably and conveniently.

The beauty of film is the added discipline involved. You don't just spray and pray you have to treat each capture with care. I have an old Yashica D that I've been meaning to break out and mess around with. My idea is to bring my digital with me and take some test shots first to dial in exposure settings.

Go for it!

Funny term!

I went to S. Africa on a safari with a 5D MK III and a 100-400 L lense. I took well over 2500 shots in the 7 days we were there. Distilled it down to about 100 of the best. And yeah, some of them are pretty amazing shots! You couldnt do that ( well, I guess you could, but it would be impractical) with film.

I am NOT a good photographer (I have no patience for it) so I bought a very expensive camera- lense...definetly makes me look like a good photographer. And yeah, I do " spray and pray"....:eek:

[giordana93]

Late to the party but I would still advise going to the store, and above all deciding if the bulk of the dslr outweighs (literally) the other systems like advanced point n shoots or the mirrorless systems offerd by fuji, sony, and panasonic/olympus. Or I suppose the nikon j1 v1 system. They all will offer total control, and similar to the "it's not the bike" that makes a difference idea, it is not just the camera. And there is a lot to be said for being able to grab a lightweight stealthy camera that takes up less space and weight than a single lens, much less a Well-equipped bag. Dslrs do have the advantage of the used market, but the micro four thirds and other mirrorless, or really nice all in ones, have some advantages too. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, and at times a bulky conspicuous dslr will be out of place or just left at home

[merlinmurph]

You say you want a DSLR - but do you really?

There is a ton of options out there, and given your budget, maybe you should consider something else. The nice thing about a DSLR is the lens options, filters, etc., but that means $$$$.

Let me throw something out there. Maybe something like a Canon G16 would be a good option. I'm sure Nikon and others have an equivalent. The G12 has a very good sensor, a 28-140mm zoom lens, you can go as manual as you want, and basically almost all the features you get in an entry-level DSLR. And it's an easy camera to carry.

I guess you need to figure out what you want a camera for and see if you need a DSLR.

Sorry if I have totally confused you. I honestly don't think you can make a bad decision.

Good luck!

[ergott]

I regularly use Av and Tv along with M. I have resorted to P and full auto when I hand the camera over to someone so I can be included in the shot.

I could easily see a pro using P for documentary type work. Nothing worse than being 1 frame too late!

With time I see my shot count for a given scenario go way down. What used to be several hundred shots for a vacation has come down to under a hundred. It's taken years of reviewing my work and learning what shots matter. I find myself leaving the camera at my side more and enjoying the moment when I know any picture I could take won't do the scene justice. Having video has helped a lot as well. There are some memories that are much better saved with a short video.

I think it was Scott Kelby that recommended getting a postcard rather than a crappy shot. The postcard was taken in perfect lighting, perfect weather, perfect time of year, no crowds etc. Unless I think I can equal or better their efforts I look for something else to shoot.

Google image searches are also excellent for creative ideas. You can study a location before you get there by looking at other people's pictures.

I have a 24" X 36" print of this in my son's room. Taken the last season at the old stadium. Amazes me how good that size print came out from a camera from 2005 (Canon 5D).

http://ergottwheels.smugmug.com/Events/Yankee-Stadium/i-V3KWxM8/0/L/_MG_2047-L.jpg

[SoCalSteve]

Lousy photographer, great lens and camera...;)

[xjahx]

Pay for shipping, and I will send you my old Nikon D50 body. It is only 6.1 megapixels, but for photos at or less than 8x12", it can do amazing work, and will be a great starting point. You will learn the controls and post processing.

I agree with the above in regard to a used 50mm 1.8 lens. I have an 85mm 1.8 lens that I would include for a small amount, which is great for portraits or low light indoor shots. I started by and continue to only shoot prime lenses. You learn to frame your shots by moving not by zooming, and once you get to 1.4 lenses the results are pretty amazing.

Read about DX and FX sensors, the DX crop factor, prime vs zoom lenses...

I am now using a D800 and a D810 with only 3 lenses: 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.4. N+1 exists.

Of note, I have 2 D50 bodies, if someone else also wants a free starter dslr. Both are in great condition. Shoot me a PM.

[xjoex]

I currently use an Olympus OMD-EM5. I post my pics here if you want to see how it looks: http://robonza.tumblr.com . I went with the OMD because the M4/3 bodies and lenses are a bit smaller. And the best camera in the world is the one you have with you! I carry it with me mountain biking, mountaineering, hiking and everywhere else.

I had a Leica M6 in the early 2000s. Like many things in life it is more hype than reality. I heard about a million stories about how war photogs used it and it was super tough, etc , etc. After about 1 month of mountain biking with it I had to get the rangefinder adjusted because they are not meant for that kind of abuse. I sold it shortly thereafter.

Really, all of the new DSLRs and mirrorless cameras a very good these days. Stop by a camera store and check them out. It's hard to go wrong.

Cheers,
-Joe

[merlinmurph]

Pay for shipping, and I will send you my old Nikon D50 body.

Sounds like a deal to me.
This forum is great.
Enjoy your camera,
Murph

[xjahx]

Both d50 bodies are spoken for, one to the original poster. I hope you enjoy the body. With the 50mm 1.8 nikon prime lens, which can be had for just over $100, you will have amazing results. Post up some images...

[parris]

^ Cool of you to do this !

[tuxbailey]

Not sure if it is appropriate to post it here. I can delete this post if anyone objects.

I have a Canon Rebel XT (350D) and an EF 28-105mm USM f3.5-4.5. sitting at home. If anyone wants to get into DSLR photography it could be a good starter kit. Adding a 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.0 will make this a very versatile camera over a point and shoot. It is an 8 MP camera and usable up ISO 800 (1600 if you don't mind grains in low light.)

I can sell it for $100 shipped, including extra battery as well as couple of 2GB CF cards.

Update: SOLD to OP.

[victoryfactory]

A true DSLR is great, but for a new or casual user what often happens
is the size of the thing becomes a limiting factor.

If you look over at the camera and say to yourself "Uh I'm not gonna drag that thing along" What good is that?

Cameras have come a long way over the last few years and you can get a very small one with a bunch of pro settings and great quality that you will be happy to carry.

For full functions, the Panasonic micro 4/3 stuff is nice,
Also systems from Sony are cool.
If you have 15K go for the Leica M system.

The one thing that makes photography rewarding is learning the rules.
You can buy a 10K bike but you will get a lot more joy if you really learn how to ride.

VF

[giordana93]

even though I'm a micro 4/3 user, and will look like a shill, this refurb from canon is a good starter:

t3i for $336

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-rebel-t3i-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-refurbished?WT.mc_id=C126149