What kind of camera should I get?

[Ilmater]

First, what I want this for. I'm heading to Scotland and Germany for my honeymoon in September. I'm visiting a few cities, several castles, and lots of beautiful scenery. I will be taking pictures of the outsides of the castles, the insides of them, a lot of general nature pictures (mostly hills, sea shores, lochs, etc.), and then pictures of me and my wife in these places.

Second, my experience with photography is limited. I went to England and Scotland for two weeks back in college. I brought a 2.2MP camera (I liked that little thing) and broke it about 4 days in. I LOVED the pictures I got from it - composition-wise - but didn't like the quality, especially blown up larger. I bought a bottom-of-the-line Pentax SLR over there that I still own, used it for the remainder of the trip, and I hated it. I didn't hate USING it, but the pictures turned out awful with respect to light. Couldn't ever get enough light inside whenever I took pictures, and I frequently got too much light outside. That being said, I do plan to take a class on nature photography at a local college, and I'll be taking an online class on digital photography as well. I also have read a lot of the guides in the Digital Photography Resource Thread, so I understand all of the terms and what they mean... or at least enough to understand what someone is saying.

Third, we just got married (obviously, as we're going on a honeymoon) and I have wedding money, so my budget isn't a HUGE concern. I won't spend over $800 for the whole package (camera + lens). I would like to be able to take pictures of the places I mentioned before. If an SLR is best for me, then I'm wondering if I'll need more than one lens (one for inside, one for outside). I would like it to be pretty easy to use. I want at least a 10MP camera.

I don't need a specific camera recommendation... I can get that from Consumer Reports or different review sites. I need to know which specific things might be best for me to look for. Certain sensor sizes produce the best pictures? What lens is best? Which apertures are best for my needs? Should I be getting a simple point-and-shoot? If I do get an SLR (I was looking at the Canon Rebel EOS XSi), will the lens that comes with it be good enough for most uses, or will I really NEED to get another?

I really wish I could figure this out on my own, but I'm hoping that someone here can help me out. I just don't have time to keep reading 1,000 articles trying to sift through what's relevant and what isn't to figure out what's best for me. Thank you very much for any help anyone can give.

 

[996GT2]

The XSi is a fine starter camera. The 18-55mm IS lens that comes with the XSi in a kit is a good lens, especially for beginners. The 55-250mm IS that costs around $250 is a good second lens to get, since it will give you a full wide-telephoto range of 18-250mm when combined with the 18-55mm IS lens (and that entire range will be image stabilized).

If you don't think you'll be shooting telephoto very much, then I would recommend getting the XSi, 18-55mm IS kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8 prime for shooting in low light. The fast f/1.8 aperture means you will often be able to shoot in the dark without flash, and also gives you the ability to play around with shallow depth of field.

 

[jpeyton]

Remember that on a APS-C camera, the true field-of-view provided equals the focal length multiplied by 1.5 (Nikon) or 1.6 (Canon). A 35mm wide-angle lens turns into a ~50mm standard lens, while a 50mm standard lens turns into an ~80mm short telephoto lens. I find a 35mm prime much more useful on an APS-C camera.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Remember that on a APS-C camera, the true field-of-view provided equals the focal length multiplied by 1.5 (Nikon) or 1.6 (Canon). A 35mm wide-angle lens turns into a ~50mm standard lens, while a 50mm standard lens turns into an ~80mm short telephoto lens. I find a 35mm prime much more useful on an APS-C camera.

OK, all that reading and I don't know what APS-C is. But more importantly, does this observation change the kind of lens I should be considering?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Remember that on a APS-C camera, the true field-of-view provided equals the focal length multiplied by 1.5 (Nikon) or 1.6 (Canon). A 35mm wide-angle lens turns into a ~50mm standard lens, while a 50mm standard lens turns into an ~80mm short telephoto lens. I find a 35mm prime much more useful on an APS-C camera.

OK, all that reading and I don't know what APS-C is. But more importantly, does this observation change the kind of lens I should be considering?

http://www.bobatkins.com/photo...ameras_and_lenses.html

 

[virtuamike]

On your budget, I'd go with an entry level DSLR (or a used DSLR) and a kit lens, as long as you don't mind carrying it around.

 

[oogabooga]

I just bought the XSi Kit (Xsi Body + 18-55 kit lens) + 50-250mm telephoto with the current rebate deal. I think with amazon you can get filters too for free. It cost me.. 750ish which is within your budget. Slap on a 8gb mem card for 20ish or so and you have a pretty nice entry level setup. I have been having a blast with this camera and it'll take me awhile to outgrow it.

Your budget range definitely is in the SLR range. You could buy the nicest fixed lens P&S and still have several hundred left over. I think if you're going to consider pursuing photography as a hobby you should definitely go with the SLR. If you aren't a nice P&S might be enough, especially something like the Lumix LX3 which basically gives you dslr like functions with a fixed lens.

Some Factors or things I learned in my search : (I'm a newbie, correct me if I'm wrong) All this is specific for Canon. (though can apply to other companies)
- Len's are measured by focal length and aperture. Focal Length is how far it sees. On a full frame or 35mm film camera a 50mm lens would be roughly human eyesight. Anything lower than 50 is a wider view, whereas anything higher (50+) is telephoto or zoom. With the Canon rebate deal, I can go from 18 (wider view) to 250 (zoomed in).
- The XSi is a crop body with a 1.6 focal multiplier. What this means is that the sensor is smaller than 35mm film would be. It essentially magnifies the focal length of whatever lens you're using as a result (and all non full frame cameras do this). 50mm on the XSi is actually 80mm (which is slightly zoomed in). Some lenses will only work on a crop body (APS-C) whereas others work on any modern camera body (like full frame higher end dslrs)
- Aperture also determines depth of field (how large the area of focus is) and how "fast" the lens is. these are fractions and measured in F-stops and are fractions. F2 is 1/2, F5.6 is 1/5.6, etc. The bigger the aperture (ie F1.8 vs F5.6) the more light can come in.
- The MP's of the camera aren't likely to matter past 6 or 8mp. If you do go the DSLR route, the MP shouldn't be a deciding factor alone.
- You probably should get a bag of some sort and I'd factor it into your costs depending on your bag.

I have no regrets with my XSi and have been very very happy.

Whatever you do end up deciding, check it out in stores to make sure it's a camera (and in the case of DSLR hopefully plus the Lens) you would carry around with you. The XSi is pretty small to me (I'm a pretty big guy) so I can literally lug it everyone, even in my cargo pockets if I really wanted/had too (I don't, I just tested to see if I could - I carry it around in a crumpler bag).

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I have lots of friends who have been in your shoes and they all have two things in common:
1) They bought DSLR cameras, assuming this would get them the best pictures
2) They were sorely disappointed

Here's what will happen: You'll buy a DSLR. You'll take it along on your trip without plenty of practice. You'll take it out with you the first few days and get photographs that wouldn't even rival a decent P&S because you don't really know what you're doing. You'll eventually stop taking the DSLR because it's too big and clunky and you'll wish you had bought a small pocket camera instead.

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I have seen several friends go through exactly this process. An SLR camera will not magically make your photographs look amazing, and unless you have a SPECIFIC need for the SLR camera and that need is stronger than the need for a portable, compact camera then it's simply not wise to get one. DSLR cameras are (or should be) the domain of people who have a genuine interest in photography and who really do know the limits of a P&S and why they need the big camera. I urge you to think this through carefully because a DSLR is not for everyone and it could end up ruining your holiday pictures, not improving them.

Edit - I'd also like to add that it's nothing short of ridiculous that you stipulate a minimum of 10mp. Unless you're making 20"+ enlargements this is just wank-factor.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I do plan to take a class on nature photography at a local college, and I'll be taking an online class on digital photography as well. I also have read a lot of the guides in the Digital Photography Resource Thread, so I understand all of the terms and what they mean... or at least enough to understand what someone is saying.

Theory is one thing, practice is another. I'd say that it's generally easier to take decently exposed and focused outdoor pictures than indoor, and that while your nature photography course will teach you something, there's a good chance it will not concentrate enough on the specific sorts of problems you'll encounter in indoor photography.

A DSLR is the better choice for low-light photography, but if you don't get enough knowledge and practice in in time, then considering the additional cost and carry, you might be better off with a P&S. So: Are you willing to get the camera early, as in now, and practice with it -- shoot, check the results, and try to see the flaws and improve them, enough so that when you go on the big trip you'll have a good idea of the challenges and techniques? Are you willing to even consider a portable tripod for the more challenging lighting circumstances? Or do these ideas seem over the top to you, so that reducing your expectations and commitment to a P&S might be the better choice?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I have lots of friends who have been in your shoes and they all have two things in common:
1) They bought DSLR cameras, assuming this would get them the best pictures
2) They were sorely disappointed

Here's what will happen: You'll buy a DSLR. You'll take it along on your trip without plenty of practice. You'll take it out with you the first few days and get photographs that wouldn't even rival a decent P&S because you don't really know what you're doing. You'll eventually stop taking the DSLR because it's too big and clunky and you'll wish you had bought a small pocket camera instead.

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I have seen several friends go through exactly this process. An SLR camera will not magically make your photographs look amazing, and unless you have a SPECIFIC need for the SLR camera and that need is stronger than the need for a portable, compact camera then it's simply not wise to get one. DSLR cameras are (or should be) the domain of people who have a genuine interest in photography and who really do know the limits of a P&S and why they need the big camera. I urge you to think this through carefully because a DSLR is not for everyone and it could end up ruining your holiday pictures, not improving them.

Edit - I'd also like to add that it's nothing short of ridiculous that you stipulate a minimum of 10mp. Unless you're making 20"+ enlargements this is just wank-factor.

I don't know what kind of DSLR's your friends used, but even on automatic mode a good DSLR will produce substantially better pics than a compact. Unless of course the user is a complete n00b and doesn't know anything about focus points or insists on using the LCD for composing the shots.

For the OP, if you're looking for vacation-trip camera, pick a light-weight entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR, stick the 18-55 kit lens on it, and you're set. Once you get more knowledgeable and serious about photography you can invest in additional lenses and accessories. Instead of fussing over fluff features you'll never use or space-clogging megapixels, take some practice shots to familiarize yourself with the camera's controls, features, its abilities and limitations, and what works best in different lighting conditions.

One tip I will give you right now is to use flash when taking portraits in daylight, to balance out the harsh sunlight shadows.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: munky
I don't know what kind of DSLR's your friends used, but even on automatic mode a good DSLR will produce substantially better pics than a compact.

Pretty much all the P&S I've used push there Sharpening, Noise reduction, and Saturation up to extreme levels, while most DSLRs leave there settings to more neutral. So yeah, most P&S will give you more pleasing "consumer orientated" SOOC shots. Maybe not better shots, but they look prettier than some of the drab DSLR shots, lol.

Originally posted by: munky
One tip I will give you right now is to use flash when taking portraits in daylight, to balance out the harsh sunlight shadows.

I've been trying to use fill flash myself without much luck. With my sync speed of 1/500, how do you stop so much light from entering with this slower SS? Is my only option to use a slower aperture, so that I cannot shoot wide open at all?

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I'm heading to Scotland and Germany for my honeymoon in September. I'm visiting a few cities, several castles, and lots of beautiful scenery. I will be taking pictures of the outsides of the castles, the insides of them, a lot of general nature pictures (mostly hills, sea shores, lochs, etc.), and then pictures of me and my wife in these places.

If your only use for this camera is to take honeymoon snapshots, wouldn't a DSLR be overkill? I would think something more pocketable would be more desirable if your not wanting the camera to get in the way of having a fun honeymoon. And just think if you spent $800 on your new toy to have it break in 4 days, .

Don't get me wrong, a DSLR will open a world of opportunities, but unless you plan on investing the time (learning) and money into your new toy, your results can still be mediocre.

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
Don't get me wrong, a DSLR will open a world of opportunities, but unless you plan on investing the time (learning) and money into your new toy, your results can still be mediocre.

This. My pictures with my XSi so far have ranged from "omg, did i seriously take a picture that bad" to "holy shit, that's amazing". If you are going to buy this camera at bestbuy the week before and probably aren't going to use it again just get a P&S, save a couple hundred bucks and spend that money on something else/buy your wife something nice for the brownie points.

If you're not really interested in learning about/changing and buying different lenses at some point, and especially if your not interested in shooting in one of the manual modes, the dslr is probably overkill and the improvement over a nice P&S wouldnt be worth the cost or burden of carrying a dslr around.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Pretty much all the P&S I've used push there Sharpening, Noise reduction, and Saturation up to extreme levels, while most DSLRs leave there settings to more neutral. So yeah, most P&S will give you more pleasing "consumer orientated" SOOC shots. Maybe not better shots, but they look prettier than some of the drab DSLR shots, lol.

You can adjust saturation and sharpening on a DLSR as well. But the compact will never capture as much per-pixel detail or dynamic range, although the output under good lighting may look better to the average Joe than purely neutral DSLR output.

I've been trying to use fill flash myself without much luck. With my sync speed of 1/500, how do you stop so much light from entering with this slower SS? Is my only option to use a slower aperture, so that I cannot shoot wide open at all?

1/500s x-sync is pretty good actually, most DSLR's only do half that speed. Some newer models have so-called FP flash modes, where the flash strobes instead of doing a single burst, thus allowing even faster shutter speeds, but the flash output is much weaker in that case. I've had good results with 1/500s in outdoor lighting, but I don't do shallow DOF shots in those cases, so no need to be wide open. If you can't shoot wide open, another way of getting shallow DOF is to zoom in closer or move the camera closer to the subject.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Edit - I'd also like to add that it's nothing short of ridiculous that you stipulate a minimum of 10mp. Unless you're making 20"+ enlargements this is just wank-factor.

Actually, at 300dpi, a 10MP picture is just slightly larger than an 8" x 11" piece of paper, and I do plan to have some pictures that size. Have you ever seen a picture of Neuschwanstein (sp?) Castle? I would like to think I can take at least one picture of that incredible structure that's worth putting on a wall. Granted, I will not be doing that with the MAJORITY of my pictures, but there are a few I certainly will blow up to larger sizes.

As for your original suggestion, maybe you are right. I did like the pictures I took with a crappy old 2.2MP P&S when I was there last time, so maybe I should just stick with that. I appreciate your honesty and all of your feedback. Now I have to figure out which one to get.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Actually, at 300dpi, a 10MP picture is just slightly larger than an 8" x 11" piece of paper, and I do plan to have some pictures that size.

300dpi is just the native resolution of whatever printer you are using; you can scale a 12MP photo and a 24MP photo to an 8"x12" at 300dpi and see no difference in perceived quality, which has more to do with the resolving power of the human eye paired with the viewing distance. Unless you plan on inspecting enlargements through a loupe, or with your nose pressed against the print, you'll find that any DSLR on the market has enough resolution for a normal enlargement.

The resolution argument is more important for heavy croppers.

 

[ElFenix]

you can get neutral density filters to dim the image your camera sees if you can't get your sensitivity low enough for both 1/500th and wide open. you can also use fp sync if you've got an external flash. i'm not aware of any built in flashes that do fp sync.

 

[jpeyton]

You can get an excellent deal on a new Nikon D40 kit right now.

hxxp://www.electronics-expo.com/make-a-store/item/NIKD40KIT/Nikon/D40-Kit/1.html

There is a coupon code (available on any of the big deal sites) that will knock off another 10%, making the D40 kit $367 shipped.

Add a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G for $199, and you'll have a nice compact DSLR and two-lens kit for under $600. The 35/1.8 is an awesome lens; I keep mine mounted on my D90 all the time.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Actually, at 300dpi, a 10MP picture is just slightly larger than an 8" x 11" piece of paper, and I do plan to have some pictures that size.

300dpi is just the native resolution of whatever printer you are using; you can scale a 12MP photo and a 24MP photo to an 8"x12" at 300dpi and see no difference in perceived quality, which has more to do with the resolving power of the human eye paired with the viewing distance. Unless you plan on inspecting enlargements through a loupe, or with your nose pressed against the print, you'll find that any DSLR on the market has enough resolution for a normal enlargement.

The resolution argument is more important for heavy croppers.

and if you're looking to print detailed billboard sized prints =)

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
and if you're looking to print detailed billboard sized prints =)

Billboards are usually printed at very, very low dpi.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randomlinh
and if you're looking to print detailed billboard sized prints =)

Billboards are usually printed at very, very low dpi.

Yeah I've heard of billboards being printed from a 6MP image, and as jpeyton mentioned earlier, its all about the viewing distance.

An even more important factor than MP count should be that your photos is spot on focus and no blur from camera shake. Regardless of how many MP you have, if the shot is OOF you can't do much with it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randomlinh
and if you're looking to print detailed billboard sized prints =)

Billboards are usually printed at very, very low dpi.

Yeah I've heard of billboards being printed from a 6MP image, and as jpeyton mentioned earlier, its all about the viewing distance.

An even more important factor than MP count should be that your photos is spot on focus and no blur from camera shake. Regardless of how many MP you have, if the shot is OOF you can't do much with it.

Indeed. Focusing errors, camera shake, high-ISO noise reduction, using your lens at a sub-optimal aperture, etc., all reduce the effective resolution of a camera.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Indeed. Focusing errors, camera shake, high-ISO noise reduction, using your lens at a sub-optimal aperture, etc., all reduce the effective resolution of a camera.

Totally agree... that's why I'm leaning towards something like the Canon Powershot SX10 IS. I think I'll probably take better pictures with it than a DSLR. I'd just mess up the aperture or something on the SLR.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randomlinh
and if you're looking to print detailed billboard sized prints =)

Billboards are usually printed at very, very low dpi.

hence the detailed adjective

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Indeed. Focusing errors, camera shake, high-ISO noise reduction, using your lens at a sub-optimal aperture, etc., all reduce the effective resolution of a camera.

Totally agree... that's why I'm leaning towards something like the Canon Powershot SX10 IS. I think I'll probably take better pictures with it than a DSLR. I'd just mess up the aperture or something on the SLR.

All those things affect P&S cameras as well; probably more so, since their ISO sensitivity is worse (NR is stronger), their lenses are lower quality, and their pixel-pitch is so small that errors are amplified. Remember that consumer-level DSLRs have a "auto" mode just like P&S cameras, if you're afraid to dive into any sort of manual control.

That Nikon D40 kit for $367 (now expired) can easily go head-to-head with the best P&S cameras on the market. Adorama has refurbished D60 & D40x 10MP bodies that go in/out-of-stock all the time for $300. Wal Mart recently had Canon Rebel XT kits for $300 on clearance, and Dell has Rebel XS kits for $450 or less every other month. Inexpensive compact DSLRs are still a better option than P&S cameras *IF* you don't mind the added size. My only point was that you can't escape the consequences of poor technique if you use a P&S camera, and that megapixels shouldn't be your primary concern when choosing a camera.

 

[randomlinh]

You can sometimes find uses XTi's for under $400, too.