so i want to get a new camera

L

LogRoller

Veteran XX
and i am not sure where to begin

the main thing i want is to be able to get action shots of my kids, like when they are on a carousel or running around at a playground or something like that. even just getting the boy to smile can be a split second event.

i have an older canon powershot, and it takes a second or two (depending on settings) to take a picture. i'll hit the button, and then i wait, and then it takes the picture. i don't want that. i want to hit the button and then it takes the picture when i do that, like right then.

i don't want to spend like a thousand dollars or anything, but under that, price is not an issue. and this whole SLR camera with the lens thing, what does that do for me?

let's hear it, folks. i know you have opinions.
 
If you just wanna take some nice pictures, get a $400 - $500 digital camera and make sure it has really good motion detection and a really good night mode.
 
LogRoller said:
and i am not sure where to begin


i don't want to spend like a thousand dollars or anything, but under that, price is not an issue. and this whole SLR camera with the lens thing, what does that do for me?
Click to expand...

that sentence alone means you dont need one
get something small with atleast 8 MP with a rechargeable battery
the rest is icing
i wouldnt spent more than 300-350 bucks as a guide line
 
logroller

look at the entry level canon/nikon SLRs. you can get a nikon d40 with a lens for maybe $500. i say this because it seems you are annoyed by the shutter lag that consumer cams give. SLRs are nearly instantaneous after you push the button. the SLRs will then give you the ability to get better lenses which give you more shooting options. but be warned, it's an expensive hobby.
 
I just picked up the Canon Rebel XTI this morning at Circuit City, there is a $40 off $199.00+ coupon floating around, and the camera is on sale for $599.99 with the kit lense. So I got it for $559, and the camera rocks.

With the money I saved, I won't feel as bad buying an IS lense for it.

Also, Circuit City has a 4GB CF Ultra II for 39.99 which is $20 cheaper than anywhere else including buy.com and B&H.
 
get a rebel xti without the kit lens for around $500, then a midrange lens that lets a lot of light in like:

Amazon.com: Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG IF Aspherical Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

this should be about the perfect range for what you're looking for, and the f/2.8 should let in enough light for you to use it pretty well indoors without requiring a flash.

edit...actually, just go with the older Rebel xt and save $150 or so. You probably won't notice the difference between 8 and 10 megapixels.

Total cost $400camerabody+$300lens=$700
 
Last edited:
i've actually read some reviews and such, and based on what i hear and what i need for shutter speed, a low end slr camera is probably what i need.

i was eyeballing this one at costco:

rebel xt

but it's the older model, and i wonder what the trade-off is for getting something newer. it seems like the megapixels get better and they tweak features, but for the past couple of years these low end slr cameras are pretty much the same.
 
LogRoller said:
but it's the older model, and i wonder what the trade-off is for getting something newer. it seems like the megapixels get better and they tweak features, but for the past couple of years these low end slr cameras are pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

there isn't a tradeoff. In fact, buy one used and save some cash. ($499 is a ripoff for an xt.) These cameras will last 10 years and 100k shots unlike 99% of point and shoots which will have a lens-extending motor failure in 5-6.

The xt was the first dslr I owned and it took great pictures. In fact, any slr will take excellent pictures given a decent lens, even a god-knows-how-old canon 10D. The tradeoffs are mainly lcd size, noise (which only matters 1600+), and general build/feel. Not much has changed in actual IQ - which is why you need to spend more on your lenses than your camera.
 
Last edited:
okay, now i've read a lot about lenses and f-stops and such, and given that i'm not going to be doing a whole lot of zooming for my pictures, should i really bother with anything other than the kit lens in the short term? i am not what you'd call a photography enthusiast at this point.

(ps thx everyone so far)
 
triple pretty much nailed it

you'll find that the image sensor on the rebel xt and pro-bodies like the 30D are exactly the same. The difference is bells and whistles mostly. My Rebel XT has served me well for the past 2 years and has over 15k shutter actuations without so much as a hiccup. Buy a cheap Rebel XT body and spend the most time and money researching lenses. The 18-55 kit lens is ok as far as image quality goes, there is much better.

You should pick up a 50mm f/1.8 lens if you go Canon SLR. The 2nd generation Canon model is 80bucks NEW, best 80 you will ever spend. It's a non-zoom prime but will be tack sharp and has a really wide maximum aperture for lowlight.

The only thing with SLR's and photography is that its really expensive. Lenses cost quite a bit for the nice ones, and you'll always want a new lense to try different shots.
 
Last edited:
Reverend Zero said:
triple pretty much nailed it

you'll find that the image sensor on the rebel xt and pro-bodies like the 30D are exactly the same. The difference is bells and whistles mostly. My Rebel XT has served me well for the past 2 years and has over 15k shutter actuations without so much as a hiccup. Buy a cheap Rebel XT body and spend the most time and money researching lenses. The 18-55 kit lens is ok as far as image quality goes, there is much better.

You should pick up a 50mm f/1.8 lens if you go Canon SLR. The 2nd generation Canon model is 80bucks NEW, best 80 you will ever spend. It's a non-zoom prime but will be tack sharp and has a really wide maximum aperture for lowlight.

The only thing with SLR's and photography is that its really expensive. Lenses cost quite a bit for the nice ones, and you'll always want a new lense to try different shots.
Click to expand...

well, from what i'm reading, the extra $100 i'd spend on the xti sounds like it's worth it (plus i can get a circuit city coupon or something probably). it sounds like it will take older lenses as well, and i have family with lenses sitting around from their film cameras that i'd have access to.

that 50mm f/1.8 lens sounds like what i'd need for the stuff i want to shoot, and the customer reviews on it seem pretty positive.

is this canon xti = godliness just groupthink though? the nikon stuff seems like it's pretty decent and competitive as well, and the pricing is pretty much the same. the images i've seen in reviews seem to be sharper, and they make kits that come with IS lenses as well.
 
no, they all take the same lenses. certain nikon's don't accept anything less than af-s, but thats not an issue.

sharpness has nothing to do with the camera, either. Basically - ignore all "preview" images, since they'll vary with lens choice. You'll be limited by your ability, not your camera.
 
I got the 50mm f/1.8 and love it. Also got the 18-55mm IS for my new(tome) 30D. Saving up for a 70-200 or the like now.

Fucking glass is expensive.
 
triple said:
there isn't a tradeoff. In fact, buy one used and save some cash. ($499 is a ripoff for an xt.) These cameras will last 10 years and 100k shots unlike 99% of point and shoots which will have a lens-extending motor failure in 5-6.

The xt was the first dslr I owned and it took great pictures. In fact, any slr will take excellent pictures given a decent lens, even a god-knows-how-old canon 10D. The tradeoffs are mainly lcd size, noise (which only matters 1600+), and general build/feel. Not much has changed in actual IQ - which is why you need to spend more on your lenses than your camera.
Click to expand...

He's right.

XTi offers more of a boost from xt - xti then xti - xsi.

But if XT is all you can afford, get the 50 mm prime lens, (no zoom, your legs do the zoom) but from all reviews it offers really sharp images.

And btw, once you go dSLR you won't go back. The speed, options, and excellent IQ outweigh any shitty point and shoot.
 
Ender said:
He's right.

XTi offers more of a boost from xt - xti then xti - xsi.

But if XT is all you can afford, get the 50 mm prime lens, (no zoom, your legs do the zoom) but from all reviews it offers really sharp images.

And btw, once you go dSLR you won't go back. The speed, options, and excellent IQ outweigh any shitty point and shoot.
Click to expand...
I have both now.

P&S is convenient for being able to drop in a pocket.

Fuck me SLRs are big and heavy.
 
there is absolutely no reason to get a low end slr ever. the ONLY time this makes even a tiny bit of sense is if you are a college student learning photography, and cant afford anything decent. any retard who suggests canon rebel or some other pos cheap ass dslr for 'normal' shooting, is a fucking moron.

slrs are big 'n bulky, cant stick them in a pocket, lots of moving parts to go wrong, and the cheapo ones will break quite quickly under normal use, and will fucking fall apart if you drop it. they also have subpar sensors, image processors, shitty flashes, and suck up batteries.

if you are not planning on getting serious into photography, have 1,500+ to spend on a body, and plan to pick up a nice set of lenses (2,000+) over the next year or so, dont bother. get a good compact, and be done with it.

the best compact on the market today is the canon g9. its a true 12mp, decent quality sensor, low on noise, full manual control, multi custom wb, manual focus, shoots in raw and raw+jpg, adjustable output flash, and built like a tank. runs about $600

-moto
 
motoxbudd said:
there is absolutely no reason to get a low end slr ever. the ONLY time this makes even a tiny bit of sense is if you are a college student learning photography, and cant afford anything decent. any retard who suggests canon rebel or some other pos cheap ass dslr for 'normal' shooting, is a fucking moron.

slrs are big 'n bulky, cant stick them in a pocket, lots of moving parts to go wrong, and the cheapo ones will break quite quickly under normal use, and will fucking fall apart if you drop it. they also have subpar sensors, image processors, shitty flashes, and suck up batteries.

if you are not planning on getting serious into photography, have 1,500+ to spend on a body, and plan to pick up a nice set of lenses (2,000+) over the next year or so, dont bother. get a good compact, and be done with it.

the best compact on the market today is the canon g9. its a true 12mp, decent quality sensor, low on noise, full manual control, multi custom wb, manual focus, shoots in raw and raw+jpg, adjustable output flash, and built like a tank. runs about $600

-moto
Click to expand...

yes, but will i get the response time on it when i point and shoot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top