Buying my first DSLR

[Knavish]

I've been considering a DSLR for a while now, debating whether it was worth the cost to get a new toy... I'm hoping that i enjoy the camera enough to buy a couple lenses and then upgrade to a better camera body a couple yrs from now. Is there any advantage / disadvantage between the D60 and the Canon XS? It seems like the Canon is the price leader right now.

Should I consider used equipment, or is that a risky proposition?

BTW, I did read the Resource Thread. I've also read lots of reviews on dpreview. I guess it's pretty hard to decide Canon vs. Nikon. Does the lack of a lens motor in the D60 make the XS better option?

Sorry this is so vague. I'm sure this post is the equivalent of me posting: "I wanna build a fast gaming macine. Help me!" on the General Hardware forum. lol

Thanks for any advice.

 

[troytime]

my advice would be to hold them and see which one feels better. I was completely convinced to buy canon a couple years ago after reading the forums and reviews, but when i went and held the different bodies at the camera shop - the nikon was the only one that actually felt comfortable. I was actually disgusted with how the xti felt compared with the nikons. Hopefully the new canons don't grip like a chinese torture device.

also, really think about the things you want to shoot and what your budget will be. Look at the lens lineups and price out what you want to buy. I'm no canon expert, but from what interpret from most forum users is if you want quality glass (the white L lenses) you have to really spend some cash.

the lack of autofocus motor in the d60 is only a factor if you want to buy older nikon lenses (or so they say)
I have a d80, it has the focus motor. I have a few older lenses and only ONE will focus because of the motor (the 50mm)
The rest are full manual focus, they won't even meter.

I'm a big fan of the d90, but I don't have the budget to upgrade yet. The d80 is a great camera and can be picked up for <300 used.

 

[extra]

The very entry level canons imho blow away the lowest end models in Nikon's lineup.

However, that quickly changes once you get to the D5000 in Nikon's lineup. Once you're there the Nikon bodies are flat out excellent. And Canon right now doesn't have a good competitor to the D300, the D300 is just flat out awesome (I'm a Canon user and this competition is just great).

Here is my recommendation for a new user:

1. Go play with the various manufacturer's cameras. Hold them. At this point don't worry about image quality or features. Take the ones you like and separate them into their own category. If you don't like the feel or button layout now odds are you really won't like it in a year!

2. Don't discount Olympus or Pentax. Really! They have some pretty nice cameras. You owe it to yourself to play with the e620 especially. Great camera.

Now, if you've already done this and narrowed it down to the XS or D60 then get the XS it's a flat out more capable camera (yeah, yeah, go ahead and flame me I don't care). However if you haven't and/or you really love the Nikon I'd strongly recommend saving up a little extra cash and getting the D5000. Personally I can't stand the menu layout on Nikon cameras and they don't fit my hands nearly as well as the Canon lineup, but some people are exactly the opposite and that's great.

For Canon I'd recommend just the opposite honestly. No real reason to get the T1i unless you desire video. The XS and XSi both have amazing image quality--yes, they only support up to iso 1600 in camera but you can just shoot raw and work around that if needed.

Now, my personal recommendation:
1. Grab the rebel XS
2. Grab the kit lens (18-55mm IS, MAKE SURE YOU GET THE IS VERSION). The non IS version had horrible image quality. The IS version's image quality is amazing for the price, it won't let you down.
3. Grab the 55-250mm IS. This lens has amazing image quality. You won't ever want to part with it, even if you grab the 70-200 f2.8L is you'll keep the "nifty 250" around for those long hikes due to it's weight. The only downside is it focuses slowly and it's not the fastest lens around.
4. Pick up a 50mm F1.8 for $40-60 used from a friend/craigslist/e-bay, or the photography-on-the-net forums (it's a garbage lens but the image quality is great lol and it costs nothing). Or if you can spare the cash, get the 85mm f1.8, it's like a hidden "L" lens.
5. Pick up a 430exII flash. Yes, despite what anyone says, it's worth getting the exII model for usability and the MUCH better metal mount.

At that point you'll have a very capable setup.

One last thing I wish to reply to: "I'm hoping that i enjoy the camera enough to buy a couple lenses and then upgrade to a better camera body a couple yrs from now."

You're looking at this backwards. A Rebel xs/xsi or Nikon D60/D5000 (even a D40), Olympus e620, or w/e are very capable camera bodies. Don't start saving to upgrade the camera body unless you actually need a specific feature that is offered by the higher end ones. Start saving to buy more lenses.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Knavish
I've been considering a DSLR for a while now, debating whether it was worth the cost to get a new toy...

Yes it is. Unless you hate having to lug around a camera that will not fit into your pocket, a DSLR will make you look at point-and-shoots like there just toys.

Originally posted by: KnavishShould I consider used equipment, or is that a risky proposition?

Without a doubt I would suggest used. There are plenty of "pro" users out there that have backup bodies that just sit and collect dust and are in fine working order.

If your afraid to by used from another user, there are refurbished bodies available at several different e-tailers, just in case you want to return them.


My advice, what troytime said, . Go to a B&M and try them yourself.

Do not worry about the brand you choose, there are plenty of lenses by all brands that can fit your needs. Just remember, the brand you choose you must defend at all cost and bash the other brands, .

 

[Knavish]

Thanks for the advice people. With today's Bing cashback, a camera from Newegg is looking really tempting!!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Buy entry level first, I did; bought a Nikon D40 and I like it. I don't mind manually focusing. It takes better pics than my LX3. Good Luck!

 

[bludragon]

Just something to be aware of - rumor has it that canon will be announcing a replacement to the XS later this month. Of course, there will be a while before it is actually available and it'll likely only reach the price level of the XS just before its replacement is due to be announced!

Other than that, I agree with what was said above - D5000 is really where it starts with nikon. D90 with 18-105 would be a very nice package - flexible, with very good iq. Add a flash, and you have almost every situation covered. Personally I paid the extra for the xsi over the xs due to the better RAW buffer and focusing system, and wasn't willing to step up to the D90's price. Also canon provides DPP for free, alowing you to shoot RAW and fix lighting and lens distortions easily, and canon's 'pro' lenses are generally cheaper than nikon's. I still havn't managed to justify the purchase of any of them though. On the nikon side, canon doesn't (yet) have a good answer for the 16-85 or 18-105.

Regarding the XSi body, I feel like the focus and metering are areas that could be better, and am lusting after a yet to be announced canon D60 on the assumption that it will do both.

 

[jpeyton]

I would get a D5000 or a D90. I actually own a D90, and it's a fantastic camera; but any Nikon using their 12MP CMOS is first-class these days.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I would get a D5000 or a D90. I actually own a D90, and it's a fantastic camera; but any Nikon using their 12MP CMOS is first-class these days.

D90 seems like too much. Let the guy grow around DSLRs first and really learn his way around it. It can take years even with a entry level DSLR. Realistically it took me 2 years to be able to REALLY understand things (or so I think )

side note: Hows your dual D700s treating you? I'm suprised you also use a D90...are those "money making tools' only?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Knavish


Should I consider used equipment, or is that a risky proposition?

.

I've got a used Canon 5D and most of my lenses are used. Like buying anything... just know the seller as well as you can and you will be alright.

A lot of people buy kits and sell the included lens so a lot of time you can get some good deals. Before the 5D2 came out Canon had a 5D kit that included a 24-105L and people were selling them for $800 when they were $950 new.

 

[Blackjack200]

I've thought a lot about a DSLR purchase over the last few months, and I think that when you look at the market, there are two distinct classes of cameras: What Nikon calls "DX", or small format sensors, and "FX" which have almost exactly 24x35mm sensors.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but the format you choose will have a major impact on your lens purchases. I've decided that I prefer FX; but right now, you can't get a Nikon FX DSLR (I already have Nikon lenses) for less than $1,700

So, for me, I think it makes sense to get a very cheap DSLR (D40 or D3000) and a kit lens and wait for FX prices to fall a bit. I could see myself biting when the prices hit $800-$900.

BTW, I imagine all this would apply to Canon.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've thought a lot about a DSLR purchase over the last few months, and I think that when you look at the market, there are two distinct classes of cameras: What Nikon calls "DX", or small format sensors, and "FX" which have almost exactly 24x35mm sensors.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but the format you choose will have a major impact on your lens purchases. I've decided that I prefer FX; but right now, you can't get a Nikon FX DSLR (I already have Nikon lenses) for less than $1,700

So, for me, I think it makes sense to get a very cheap DSLR (D40 or D3000) and a kit lens and wait for FX prices to fall a bit. I could see myself biting when the prices hit $800-$900.

BTW, I imagine all this would apply to Canon.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

There is no reason why you need a semi-pro FX unless you need amazing high iso (D700) or huge images (5d Mark 2, a900). The DX cameras can handle almost all scenarios, with a bonus of having cheaper lenses and the extra free zoom. I say this owning a D700.

Also, if $900 is your price range, be prepared to wait some more. Even a used 5d (4 years old now) is still more than 1k.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Your thinking is fine. Waiting is a good strategy in this area of ever-improving technology and pricing, and spending a lot of money on a format you don't really want doesn't make sense.

 

[Munky]

Don't buy a whole bunch of stuff at once. Start off with just the body, the kit lens, and go around taking pictures, and learn all about the camera and photography techniques. I find that most of my best shots are made either with the kit lens, or the f/1.8 35mm prime. Also, note that a 50mm lens on a Nikon DX or typical Canon consumer body will offer the equivalent angle of view of a 75mm lens on film, which I find is a much less useful range. That's why I recommend a 35mm or 30mm prime, which is much closer to the natural 50mm field of view on a DX sensor.

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I would get a D5000 or a D90. I actually own a D90, and it's a fantastic camera; but any Nikon using their 12MP CMOS is first-class these days.

D90 seems like too much. Let the guy grow around DSLRs first and really learn his way around it. It can take years even with a entry level DSLR. Realistically it took me 2 years to be able to REALLY understand things (or so I think )

side note: Hows your dual D700s treating you? I'm suprised you also use a D90...are those "money making tools' only?

There's really no "too much" when using a DSLR. The D90 gets you two control wheels/dials, essential for shooting manual exposure (which is a good way to learn about exposure).

For a complete "newbie" I guess something like a D300, D3 or Canon 1D might be too much since they don't have a "A" mode or scene modes. But they all do have "P" mode which anyone can use.

Any of the current DSLRs will make great images. Pick the one that meets your needs spend the rest on at least one "good" lens and a flash.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: gar655

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I would get a D5000 or a D90. I actually own a D90, and it's a fantastic camera; but any Nikon using their 12MP CMOS is first-class these days.

D90 seems like too much. Let the guy grow around DSLRs first and really learn his way around it. It can take years even with a entry level DSLR. Realistically it took me 2 years to be able to REALLY understand things (or so I think )

side note: Hows your dual D700s treating you? I'm suprised you also use a D90...are those "money making tools' only?

There's really no "too much" when using a DSLR. The D90 gets you two control wheels/dials, essential for shooting manual exposure (which is a good way to learn about exposure).

For a complete "newbie" I guess something like a D300, D3 or Canon 1D might be too much since they don't have a "A" mode or scene modes. But they all do have "P" mode which anyone can use.

Any of the current DSLRs will make great images. Pick the one that meets your needs spend the rest on at least one "good" lens and a flash.

Anyone with a DSLR should be prepared to shoot in P-mode at the very minimum. The only time I flip to auto is to let my gf take some shots. Even then I give my camera to others in P-mode most of the time. There's not much you can mess up with p-mode. Sure there's ISO adjustment and some other fine tune stuff, but at least the exposure is metered properly.

I think the D90 is a lot to digest in the beginning and is a huge cost in terms of entry into the market. I personally don't like the D40 that much which is why I feel the XS is a good entry level camera. The D5000 and T1i are worth looking into certainly. I decided to go with Canon simply because I've shot Canon my whole life (XTI previously) and the fact that more of my friends shoot Canon (equipment trade-around?).

But if you're still a little unsure of where to start and a bit worried, I honestly think a D40 is a superb choice. I bought my G3 back when the EOS Rebel was expensive as hell. There was no entry DSLR (well no cheaper one). Now it makes almost no sense to grab a G-series or even the new S90. They need to be pushed into the sub 400 regime to be worth it. Get to learn about exposure settings and it'll help a lot. I learned on my G3 so when I switched to SLR it wasn't a tough transition.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: gar655

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I would get a D5000 or a D90. I actually own a D90, and it's a fantastic camera; but any Nikon using their 12MP CMOS is first-class these days.

D90 seems like too much. Let the guy grow around DSLRs first and really learn his way around it. It can take years even with a entry level DSLR. Realistically it took me 2 years to be able to REALLY understand things (or so I think )

side note: Hows your dual D700s treating you? I'm suprised you also use a D90...are those "money making tools' only?

There's really no "too much" when using a DSLR. The D90 gets you two control wheels/dials, essential for shooting manual exposure (which is a good way to learn about exposure).

For a complete "newbie" I guess something like a D300, D3 or Canon 1D might be too much since they don't have a "A" mode or scene modes. But they all do have "P" mode which anyone can use.

Any of the current DSLRs will make great images. Pick the one that meets your needs spend the rest on at least one "good" lens and a flash.

Anyone with a DSLR should be prepared to shoot in P-mode at the very minimum. The only time I flip to auto is to let my gf take some shots. Even then I give my camera to others in P-mode most of the time. There's not much you can mess up with p-mode. Sure there's ISO adjustment and some other fine tune stuff, but at least the exposure is metered properly.

I think the D90 is a lot to digest in the beginning and is a huge cost in terms of entry into the market. I personally don't like the D40 that much which is why I feel the XS is a good entry level camera. The D5000 and T1i are worth looking into certainly. I decided to go with Canon simply because I've shot Canon my whole life (XTI previously) and the fact that more of my friends shoot Canon (equipment trade-around?).

But if you're still a little unsure of where to start and a bit worried, I honestly think a D40 is a superb choice. I bought my G3 back when the EOS Rebel was expensive as hell. There was no entry DSLR (well no cheaper one). Now it makes almost no sense to grab a G-series or even the new S90. They need to be pushed into the sub 400 regime to be worth it. Get to learn about exposure settings and it'll help a lot. I learned on my G3 so when I switched to SLR it wasn't a tough transition.

Another reason I bought Canon was because I liked the lens options better. It's true that there are a lot of similarities, but Canon simply offered lenses that matched my "wants" better. I highly recommend anyone buying a camera look at the lenses and decide which "system" is better for them in that way too. A body is easily replaced, lenses typically are kept.

 

[jpeyton]

I went Nikon because I couldn't stand how Canon's entry level bodies felt.

For my use, the lens lineups are similar enough that it didn't really matter too much. I don't own any exotic professional glass.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I went Nikon because I couldn't stand how Canon's entry level bodies felt.

For my use, the lens lineups are similar enough that it didn't really matter too much. I don't own any exotic professional glass.

I definitely agree, the rebels do feel cheap and I enjoy the grip on the 40/50D MUCH better. It's contoured and fits my hand much better than the rebels and I have small hands. I can't imagine what it would feel like for someone with large hands.

When I was comparing the D90 to the 50D I went to BB and just picked them up to feel the grip of them. While its tough to get a good idea when you're attached to a giant harness at BB I definitely enjoyed the 40/50D grip better at that point. It was larger and the shutter release button was better contoured in my opinion.

OP should definitely go pick them up if he hasn't already.

When I bring up the lens lineup I liked that Canon's 17-55 F2.8 had IS and was cheaper. Nikon's build quality of their 17-55mm is top notch but for low light photography without movement the F2.8 AND IS is a fantastic combination that I really wanted.

 

[ivan2]

On the note of handling, I will suggest a grip for cameras on both side and especially for the XS/XSi D40-60 if you plan to use any good quality lens. I had sore pinky problem when I used my XT non-gripped and the Tamron 17-50mm. Now I got the grip (and a 40D), anything up to 70-200mm F4 non-IS has not been a problem.
It is one of the best thing that you can purchase for your entry level camera (besides a quality light like the 430EX).

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I went Nikon because I couldn't stand how Canon's entry level bodies felt.

For my use, the lens lineups are similar enough that it didn't really matter too much. I don't own any exotic professional glass.

Really? I prefer working with my T1i than the D40 at work. In terms of grip that is.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I went Nikon because I couldn't stand how Canon's entry level bodies felt.

For my use, the lens lineups are similar enough that it didn't really matter too much. I don't own any exotic professional glass.

Really? I prefer working with my T1i than the D40 at work. In terms of grip that is.

Yeah i'm with you there. Nikons just don't feel right. Then again I'm crazy and I absolutely love the one-dial + button use of the rebels and prefer it to the xxD lineup lol. Have you seen the Pentax K-7 though? Canon and Nikon can pick a few things up there for sure in terms of control layout--absolutely love the grip, feel, and layout on that thing. Man...if I hadn't started with Canon I would be very tempted!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I went Nikon because I couldn't stand how Canon's entry level bodies felt.

For my use, the lens lineups are similar enough that it didn't really matter too much. I don't own any exotic professional glass.

Really? I prefer working with my T1i than the D40 at work. In terms of grip that is.

I prefer a D90 (or any dual control-dial Nikon) to any single control-dial Canon (like the T1i). Having one dial for aperture and one for shutter speed is just common sense.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I went Nikon because I couldn't stand how Canon's entry level bodies felt.

For my use, the lens lineups are similar enough that it didn't really matter too much. I don't own any exotic professional glass.

Really? I prefer working with my T1i than the D40 at work. In terms of grip that is.

I prefer a D90 (or any dual control-dial Nikon) to any single control-dial Canon (like the T1i). Having one dial for aperture and one for shutter speed is just common sense.

I feel as if the entry level cameras cater too much to the "scared beginner" and they've left out the small, but still for serious hobbyists/pros, camera. I would like to see canon and nikon make their versions of the K7 dammit.