Any pro digital photographers in the house?

[JoshEEE]

First, I'd like to point out that I searched for a thread on digital cameras instead of starting a new one.    I did find one existing thread, but the formatting was all ****** up on it by some huge images, and so I started this new one.

Does anyone here shoot with a DSLR camera?  I've never used one (other than taking a picture with a friend's camera here or there)....but I'm in the market for one.

My current leaning is the Digital Rebel XT.  I'm told this camera is fine for anything I'll do.  Of course, there's always something just a little better (and more expensive) and that's it's cousin, the Canon 20D.  I can't afford that damn camera, but I'm also thinking that if I buy it, I may not need a new one for years.


Does anyone have either of these?
Know anything about em?

I need recommendations.   I have two friends and between them, they have both of these.  They both recommend their baby to me.  I need impartial tiebreakers. 

[name]

The only thing I would caution on for digital SLR's is that I'm told that the imaging sensors are EXTREMELY sensitive to dust.  This sensitivity makes one of the key benefits of an SLR - interchable lenses - almost not worthwhile.  You'll not want to change your lense in the middle of a shoot.

A lot of pros are just going with multiple bodies of the same camera to accomodate their range of lenses.  So instead of changing lenses and risking contamination, they just change cameras.  Clearly, this isn't an alternative for a consumer.

That said, I'd love a prosumer grade digital slr.  I haven't looked closely at what Cannon is offering in this model, but I'll take a look and give you my opinion when I have a chance.

[JoshEEE]

That's the first time I've heard that complaint.  I'll have to keep that in mind, though I don't imagine I'll be buying more than one lens anyway.

I do have a couple for my SLR film camera, and it's a canon, so if they're interchangeable, that would be the only way I'd actually take advantage of the ability to switch. 

Right now I'm leaning towards the Rebel XT and a 17-85 lens, because that's what my friends are suggesting.  But it's too pricey....

[Morgbug]

I'd not heard the comment on the switching of lenses either.  It's fairly depressing.  I do a fair bit of macro work for my job but cannot afford a good DSLR at this point.  I could probably manage with a decent 80-200 lens so long as it has good macro capabilities but would still prefer a dedicated lens. 

Digital cameras frustrate the hell out of me, relative to SLRs.  The always on autofocus type that they seem to be makes good close ups difficult.  I've managed to get some spectacular shots with a 3 MP point and shoot beast, but it requires so many more photos (which are much easier to dispose of) just to get a good one.  The LCD displays are nice, but try determining if it's a good photo or not outside in bright sunshine.  Oy.

[Jayson]

How much are you looking to spend?

[name]

Right now I'm leaning towards the Rebel XT and a 17-85 lens, because that's what my friends are suggesting.  But it's too pricey....

I think that lense should give you plenty of versatility.  I was going to suggest a 28-80. . that would hit most of your everyday needs.  In fact that's what is almost always on my film slr.

[JoshEEE]

@jedijaybird ===I wanted to spend well under 1000 for the camera, lens (or lenses) and a CF card.   Somewhere between 500-750 is my ideal price. That's a lot to ask, but I was pretty sure I could do it.

@Morgbug===Honestly, your problem with digital cameras is the same reason I want this new camera. My little point and shoot elph takes great snapshots, but if I want to take a shot at night, in weird lighting or with any sort of movement, it requires a lot of trial and error before I find the perfect setting and get it right. That's why I like SLR for the stuff that counts.  And that's why I need a new digital one before I get married....because I'm only going to have this opportunity once.   And it's gotta be digital, because film just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Who wants to carry a heavy rig and 10 rolls around when you can have the same functionality with a DSLR camera and a CF card? 


Anyway, I took my regular SLR (EOS Elan IIE) down to the camera store today and tried out the lenses I have for that on the Rebel XT 350D. I had done some research, and it sounded like many of the lenses for my film camera might work on the Rebel.

Even with the big lens, that camera is surprsingly much lighter than my film rig (and it's 20D counterpart). It doesn't weigh much for as big as it is.

Turns out all of my film lenses were indeed compatible, which ended up making this decision a no brainer for me.  I was able to find some internet coupons at Slickdeals that enabled me to buy the camera body on Dell.com for 659.  That's just a bit more than what I paid for my point and shooter...and this is a beast of a camera for someone like me that is a relative noob to this stuff.

I still want that 17-85 lens sometime...but I have a couple of good ones for the film camera that I can use until I have a few more bucks to rub together.   

[BrentS]

I'm thinking of getting a Digital SLR camera for Christmas this year.  I'm curious if anyone else out there has a newer model Digi SLR?  I've always been fond of Canon Camera's in the Point and Click variety.  So I'm contemplating one of the Canon models.  As far as my "needs", I'd like to get one that can be used to take nice landscape photos (going to Alaska next year) and also compatable with zoom lens capable of capturing kids' sporting events (think Gymnastics, Baseball, and Basketball).

Any recommendations out there??  I'd like to stay under $1000, preferably with the zoom lens (not sure if that is feasible).

[Rob]

I've got a Digital Rebel XT.  I know there is a newer XTi, and probably a newer one than that at this point.  My only suggestion, and it's the same one that I made to Deanpaul, is that if you're really looking for top notch quality and aren't worried about spending some extra coin, don't buy the kit.  Just get a body, and then buy a nicer lens.  I bought a Canon EF 24 - 70 mm F2.8 L USM lens.  It set me back more than the camera, but it's phenomenal and is a really great all purpose lens. 

The only other thing to consider, if it's important to you, is that something like the Digital Rebel does not have a full frame sensor, so you won't be capturing everything that the lens is capable of capturing.  Something like the Canon 20d (more expensive) or the Canon 5d (much more expensive) do have this.

Check out that photography thread that I have (just underneath this thread...).  The New Zealand pictures were taken with the Rebel and the kit lens, the Italy pictures don't apply, they were on an old point and shoot, and the WWII aviation pictures were shot with the upgraded lens, but I took a lot of the color out of those pictures after the fact.

[Morgbug]

I guess I can comment now on DSLR's since not long after that post I picked up a Nikon D80.  Simply put it is amazing and can do more than any camera I've ever laid my hands on.  For me it is the subject of a freakish kind of love, it is that amazing.  I swear the camera is smarter than I am (I know, not much of a stretch). 

A newer model, the D90 (and the older D200) are both more expensive and do more than the D80, but for most of what anyone other than professional use you can get a D40 or D60 as well, probably for less than $500 for the body, if not a lot less now.  I'm an avowed Nikon fan from the days of owning an FM2 and an assortment of pricey lens that are now virtually useless (I still use a couple with my D80 though, only in manual mode). 

I'll echo Rob's sentiment on not getting a kit, unless the lens actually fits well with what you want to do.  Otherwise better off getting the lens(es) you want and being happier that way.  I seldom use the lens we got with the kit as most of my stuff is macro in nature.  I use a 100mm macro lens for most of my work.

[BrentS]

Thanks guys.

I'm going to start looking at the Nikon and Canon Digi SLRs.  The problem is that I figure I'll need three basic lens types.  I want a "standard" focal length lens (is that the right term?) for normal day to day use.  However, I think I'll seen some sort of telephoto zoom to get the kids sports activities and I definitely want to get a Macro lens for some close up pictures.  Maybe the standard lens will support the macro work?!?  Maybe the standard lens will have enough zoom (unlikely).  Oh, the decisions.

More input please!

[Rob]

The 24mm to 70mm that I have is very good for all purpose.  It gets you reasonably close, but is by no means a telephoto.  the 24mm setting is wider than most regular lenses go.

The only thing is that this lens is so big that if you push all the way wide to 24mm, the lens will cast a shadow on your image, so unless that doesn't bother you, you'll want to get a real flash that sits higher on the camera.

[BrentS]

I was pricing that lens and wow.  I'm not sure I'm ready to plunk down $1000 on just the lens.  I understand from my research that you get what you pay for but I'm not quite ready yet!  I'm still going to keep in doing some research and see what I can come up with.

[Rob]

There's certainly no shame in that.  I didn't want to either... but at the same time I did.   I started with the camera, had that for a while, then decided to upgrade the lens.  I plan on upgrading to a 20D body next time I feel like dropping a bunch of money on camera equipment.  I don't, however, foresee any reason to buy another lens in this zoom range.  Unless I break it, this one should be great for a long time.  I'll look at 200mm L-series glass down the line as a second lens.

The other thing about this L-series lens is that it's pretty heavy.  Picture quality is excellent (and I could do even better if I upgraded from the Digital Rebel body), but you've got to be committed to carrying a few extra pounds.  Maybe 2 pounds? 

[Morgbug]

There are (or were in the pre-digital era) a number of lens' with the Nikon mount that had a macro at the end of the telephoto focus, sort of a combined lens.  Around 135 mm if memory serves me correctly, but I can check once I get back to work on Friday because I have all of my old Nikon stuff there.  That might suit your needs for macro sufficiently and allow only a single lens plus the basic lens. 

The 100mm macro I use was about $700 and is pretty useless for anything other than macro stuff, because at more normal focal lengths, the width of the field is too narrow.  You can't do panoramic shots with it really at all, at least not of any scope.