What's the best "First DSLR" for an experienced photographer?

[Sp12]

But to get the same magnification on FX you would also have to move closer or use a longer lens, so you will have even less DoF on FX.

That's actually where the DoF benefit comes from. The larger your sensor the larger the DoF actually is when reproduced (less magnification for the same print size), it's because of how close your are to your subject with various lenses that gives you less DoF with larger formats. For example, 80mm on medium format is roughly 50mm in full-frame equivalent, so you stand closer with your 80mm lens than you would with 80mm on a full-frame body, giving you less DoF. You can stop down and use higher sensitivity film to make up for that at any given focal length.

 

[virtuamike]

My background: I shot a lot of film in college, primairily TMax 400 on an old Nikon FM, But since I left college I haven't done much photography. I'd hoped to see cameras with light metering on the body become the standard, so I could re-use my old lenses, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, so I think that I'm just going to have to give in and buy a whole new setup.

I've recently moved, and after a bit of sticker shock at the price of artwork, I decided to add to the framed pieces I still have from college ($500ish for a camera and $10 per 20x30 print is a much better deal than $300ish for one mediocre painting)

Because I'm going to be having relatively large prints made, I'm going to need a camera that can handle the kind of resolutions without excessive pixelation or noise (I primairily shoot landscapes, macros and various art shots, so most of the time I can use a tripod and low ISO if nececary)

With the camera itself, I want control. IMO people who shoot a DSLR on auto should probably just sell it and get a D#&% point and shoot. Having an easy to use focus ring on the lens is a requirement, and I'd also prefer apeture control there as well, I would be disapointed to have apeture control via menu, but having exposure control there wouldn't be too big of a deal.

I used to read that the D40 was the best "beginner" DSLR. Is that still the case, or is there a better option out there now? I'm OK with buying used, and would prefer Nikon, since I have experience with them, but could be talked into a different brand if there are better options for the price. I don't have a firm budget, but since I haven't shot in the better part of a decade, lower is better, if it'll suit my needs. Finally, I'd prefer to buy locally, preferably somewhere off the 1 train, to give me easy continuing access to the store, but I could be talked into buying online.

If you want something that'll meter with manual lenses, you'll need to go with D200/300/7000/700/1/2/3. Look for the lever inside the mount - the entry cameras don't have it (they'll meter with chipped lenses).

You can use aperture ring on your lens on any body, but without the lever you'll be viewing stopped down. If you're big on manual focus then either stick with manual lenses or try some of the Zeiss stuff. The focus rings on AF lenses don't have the same feel or precision.

The viewfinders have gotten better, but they're not the same as your FM. The D700 and 3 series are probably the closest to what you're used to. If you've never shot cropped, it'll take some getting used to.

Would definitely recommend handling some cameras before buying. Try B&H. They're off the 1.

 

[finbarqs]

Well, on full frame you can always stop down (which has a side benefit of almost always making a lens sharper) to equalize DoF (and diffraction effects), then raise your ISO to compensate for the reduced shutter speed (which will equalize noise). You can never reduce diffraction or get less DoF or get cleaner files on a smaller sensor format.

Diffraction is not an effect: it's a limitation of the bending of light. The result is a smear across your images because the limitation. I think you guys are confusing the meaning of DOF. DOF = Depth of Field or some like to call Depth of Focus. You would want "less" DOF if you want LOTS of bokeh. You would want MORE DOF if you want MORE in focus! To better understand how diffraction limits your images, it's not so much "solely" about the sensor size, but more of a formula of a combination of the sensor size, the amount of megapixels, and the lens resolution.

But to get the same magnification on FX you would also have to move closer or use a longer lens, so you will have even less DoF on FX.

That's actually where the DoF benefit comes from. The larger your sensor the larger the DoF actually is when reproduced (less magnification for the same print size), it's because of how close your are to your subject with various lenses that gives you less DoF with larger formats. For example, 80mm on medium format is roughly 50mm in full-frame equivalent, so you stand closer with your 80mm lens than you would with 80mm on a full-frame body, giving you less DoF. You can stop down and use higher sensitivity film to make up for that at any given focal length.

A crop sensor does NOT have any magnification. It's the image CROPPED, to give you a "Field of View" of a specific focal length (the 1.5x or 1.6x aps-c crop factor).

As I said in my early post, think what "digital zoom" does in a traditional point and shoot, and that's what a crop sensor is doing!

But to get an equivalent FIELD of VIEW as a full frame sensor, You would need to be at a different focal length, and a different aperture as well.

 

[finbarqs]

Don't return the D200... it's a great camera, and the last of the CCD's. Some people find CCD's will be able to pick up the finer details than CMOS sensors, and may have that special "look" you're looking for. I believe the gradation of the tonal ranges are also smoother too (though I personally shoot a 5D mark 2)

 

[Sp12]

Diffraction is not an effect: it's a limitation of the bending of light. The result is a smear across your images because the limitation.

Diffraction effects are indeed what I was referring to -- the loss of resolution due to an aperture approaching a pinhole. It's actually not really dependant on sensor format, but pixel density (which, at least on consumer DSLRs, is always higher on smaller formats).

A crop sensor does NOT have any magnification. It's the image CROPPED, to give you a "Field of View" of a specific focal length (the 1.5x or 1.6x aps-c crop factor).

By magnification, I meant the magnification needed for a specific print. DoF depends significantly on print size. As you enlarge your file you'll find that even at F11 on a 14mm only a few feet are actually pixel sharp. A full frame sensor needs to be magnified less at a given print size than an equivalent image shot on a crop sensor, making the apparent DoF greater.

Also, I love CCD sensors for slow, planned work. Great IQ. There's reasons scientific and medium format digital sensors (read: those were image quality is critical) are CCD and not CMOS. That said, one of CMOS's biggest advantages is low-light, and you can see a clear difference between the D200 and newer bodies in that area.

 

[lePhotographe]

What lenses do you still have?

If they're Nikon F-mount, Pentax K-mount or newish Konica/Minolta, you can buy a dSLR body to use them. A friend of mine uses a very sharp F-mount Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 manual focus lens on a D3 digital body to photograph people.

dSLR bodies have multi-point metering built-in, and focus confirmation for manual-focus lenses. You can also get microprism collar/split screens for most dSLRs from Katzeye optics, www.katzeyeoptics.com.

If you don't have a bunch of older lenses (or they're old Canon FD-series lenses, now orphaned), buy a camera supporting a large system of high-quality lenses. Then you'll be set for anything you choose to photograph.

I bought into the Canon EOS system years ago, and that's what I use when I'm shooting wildlife or products for clients (5D mark II and 1D mark II, with a 7D on the way).

My wife just picked up an EOS 60D. This is a fairly-rugged, metal-framed camera with good weather-sealing. The T3i is pretty good too, but its polycarbonate body isn't as durable or as well-sealed.

Nikon has equivalent models. I'd buy something durable over the least-expensive model.

I buy most of my gear through B & H Photo in New York. They've had excellent prices and good customer service over the years.

***
I'm also a Leica user - my first serious camera was an M3. I still use newer and old Leica / Leitz lenses on an M8 when I'm traveling light. I love the way they draw, the same way you might appreciate the 'look' from your old Nikkors.

 

[lePhotographe]

EDIT: ...I've only ever shot one roll with an ISO higher than 800--it was a 3200 for night photography. It was a lot of fun, f1.4 lens fully open, Tripod, and most of the exposures were still 1/4 second+ (I think I even manually forced a few 5 second exposures) I never did more because none of my photo classes were suggesting it, plus the film was painfully expensive ($10 or so a roll) and only yielded 3 good shots. However, those are some of my favorite shots I've ever done.

You'll find the noise reduction on mid- to upper-level dSLRs produces great results at high ISOs, up to 3200 and beyond. But you'll be getting a different look than film gave you - everything looks a bit smoother and less grainy.

**If you're looking for a particular black and white tone, try Lightroom 3 and the Lightroom forums for how to get a good B&W 'look'. I play with sharpness and levels of shadows, darks, lights and highlights to get the look I want in color.

 

[maniac5999]

Adorama has the Nikon 18mm - 70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX Wide Angle Autofocus Zoom Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A. for $239.95. I understand this to be a very sharp lens, with build quality like the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 for 35mm/FF.

http://www.adorama.com/NK1870DXR.html

I'm really considering buying this (unfortunately it's out of stock at Adorama now) I took a bunch of shots with the 50mm last weekend, and most of the time I was wishing for a wider lens. It looks like I can buy used versions on Amazon for about $160.(this looks like it was the kit lens on the D70, right?) would you guys go this route?

Also, should I assume that the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 is a piece of junk, since it was the kit lens on all the low end cameras, and you can buy it all day long for $100?

 

[Griffinhart]

Take a look at the Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. The f/2.8 zooms are out of my price range at the moment so this is the lens that I have gotten the most use out of. I love this lens. The zoom range and image quality are fantastic for what it is.

These were taken with my D90 with the 18-105mm lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbalcius/5851288709/in/photostream (night with flash - macro)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbalcius/5837358663/in/photostream (extremely bright day)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbalcius/4565791889/in/photostream (sunset, last 20 minutes of sunlight)

If money were no object, I'd say go with one of the f/2.8 zooms but at $1600+ the 18-105mm at $250 (used) to $350 (new) is a bargain.

 

[finbarqs]

Diffraction effects are indeed what I was referring to -- the loss of resolution due to an aperture approaching a pinhole. It's actually not really dependant on sensor format, but pixel density (which, at least on consumer DSLRs, is always higher on smaller formats).




By magnification, I meant the magnification needed for a specific print. DoF depends significantly on print size. As you enlarge your file you'll find that even at F11 on a 14mm only a few feet are actually pixel sharp. A full frame sensor needs to be magnified less at a given print size than an equivalent image shot on a crop sensor, making the apparent DoF greater.

Also, I love CCD sensors for slow, planned work. Great IQ. There's reasons scientific and medium format digital sensors (read: those were image quality is critical) are CCD and not CMOS. That said, one of CMOS's biggest advantages is low-light, and you can see a clear difference between the D200 and newer bodies in that area.

pixel density is only a portion of diffraction. You're talking about sensor diffraction. Diffraction can also occur at the lens.

When you say specific print, you mean a specific size? Roughly, I think you're still talking about field of view, which doesn't really constitute magnification. There is nothing that is "enlarged", unless you're talking about enlarging a print from a 8x10 to a 11x14, or 16x20, etc.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, and not talking about 2 of the same theories (albeit through different ways) a 5D Mark 2 can give you roughly the same picture as a Canon 30D when you crop the image to the to an APS-C size. (Logic being canon 30D being 8MP has roughly the same amount of megapixels that a 5D Mark 2 has when you crop down to APS-C Size)

 

[maniac5999]

Update: I managed to score a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VR) off CL for $300! (the guy wanted $850 for a D90 and the lens, I harassed him about selling the lens alone, and he bit, and named that price!) it has the filter ring wobble, but I'll fix that next time I'm out in jersey at my parents, and have access to a full workbench. So far I've been in love with the Tammy. It gives me a great walkabout/everyday lens, and rarely leaves me wanting more.

I've also found that, as somebody said before, using the manual focus 50mm f1.4 has been a pain for anything but the most planned shots. without the split in the middle of the viewfinder it's tough to find a quick focus, especially since most of the time when I swap out the Tammy for it, it's because of low light and I plan on shooting it wide open. I did go to a rooftop party in Hell's Kitchen for the 4th, however, and putting on the 50, just cranking focus to infinity and blowing everybody's iPhone pictures away was worth it.

Next up is going to be buying a camera bag that doesn't look like a camera bag from Adorama tomorrow. (I refuse to look like a tourist on the subway. I live too far uptown for that to be safe) Why oh why do they have to be closed on saturdays? I'm going right past the store in half an hour.

Anyway, happy shooting. I'm off to see a friend's modern dance performance.

 

[alkemyst]

First, as an experienced photographer most 'first beginner's [insert camera type here]' won't really apply to you.

Second, as an experienced photographer you should know it's not always how much money you spend, but how you set up the shot.

Third, as an experienced photographer you should know there are many good reasons a lot of things cost 'a lot'.

Honestly, pick your budget and stretch it as much as possible.

If you only have a budget for a D40 kit, that's still a great camera. If you can easily spring for a higher end Canon/Nikon then buying the D40 would not be a smart move.

In the end, I have known a couple people where money is no object more or less and decided going to a 'Pro' model would be the way to go. They really regreted it. Most pro models add a tremendous amount of bulk over the prosumer grade and much of that bulk goes unused in typical snapshot type deals.

Also in the end, if you are doing all studio work then that added bulk is not so much an issue...if you are carrying it around then it would be.

Too many forget lens/supporting gear budget when buying their dSLR. Also if you have already a considerable investment in lenses it may be worthwhile to select a "top 10" camera that can reuse your investment rather than a #1 choice.

 

[iGas]

"20x30" print is encroaching on the territory of medium format cameras, hence a full frame camera make more sense here. Grain size is a concern at this print size, but more importantly colour and saturation in highlighted and shadow area is a big concern.

20x30" Print Comparison -- 2008 KenRockwell.com.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I'm really considering buying this (unfortunately it's out of stock at Adorama now) I took a bunch of shots with the 50mm last weekend, and most of the time I was wishing for a wider lens. It looks like I can buy used versions on Amazon for about $160.(this looks like it was the kit lens on the D70, right?) would you guys go this route?

Also, should I assume that the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 is a piece of junk, since it was the kit lens on all the low end cameras, and you can buy it all day long for $100?

Adorama does have this lens "used" in E+ condition for $199. I love it on my D200.

I still use the 18-55 kit lens on the D40 when I want to carry an ultralight DSLR.

The 18-55 kit lens is very sharp. Not great for action, but the VR version is available from Adorama (Refurb by Nikon) for $99 with free shipping. With VR you can shoot down to 1/15 handheld, which does wonders for taking pictures of things that don't move. If there is very little light, then slap on the 35mm f/1.8 prime.

Ken Rockwell says the 18-55 is "ridiculously good".

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

JR