Hey guys,

As of now I have really gotten into photography. I have a canon G9 and I love it to death but I wish I had more control over the picture. Right now I am torn between the Canon EOS Rebel XTI, Nikon D60 , and Nikon D40x. Any suggestions? Any tips you guys can give me when looking to buy a dslr, I am kinda new to them and only purchased point-and-shoots. I know the basics but when it comes to lenses and all I am lost at sea.

thanks

corin

 

hey! dont feel bad about being unsure, i was completely confused when i got my first dslr. right now i have the canon rebel xti, which imo think is a great dslr learning camera. also, depending on the type of photography you are most interested in, you may just want to buy a dslr body, and buy a lens/lenses seperately. There are a lot of photo buffs here that know lots more than me, so im sure a few of them will post here, but i thought i would just share my .02. good luck!

 

You've already gone digital so learning just got much cheaper and faster than those of us that learned to use a camera in film.

From:
http://bythom.com/rightpixels.htm

My first question is going to be where specifically do you feel limited by the G9?

It's is certainly not a camera to scoff at when it comes to image control, esp. within the P&S market.

 

Do you shoot RAW with the G9? Use manual exposure? If not, there's certainly more to explore there while you're thinking about what you need for your next step in gear. I don't have a G9 but know people who do and they love it. That's not to say you won't want a nice dslr at some point but very often it's too tempting to think in terms of new gear as a solution.

 

Oh and you can also do some very cool off-camera high-speed sync stuff with the G9:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/04...th-of-sec.html

 

check this guy out - excellent site http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

 

+1 He's my photo hero.

 

I'm in the same boat - debating between the XTi and the D40. I've been going back and forth forever now, it seems like. From those two the Nikon definitely has an easier user-friendly menu!

 

Just remember that lenses are the expensive part. Once you get a camera body, you'll eventually get several lenses for it. Unless you have the $$$ to sell all the lenses and buy new ones, the costs of lenses tends to lock you into a brand for quite a while.

I have about $6000 in Canon lenses. My next camera will therefore be a Canon. Switching to Nikon would be too expensive.

From what I've seen, Canon and Nikon have very similar entry level bodies, and both are quite good. In the past, Canon has had slightly better lens quality and Nikon had slightly better flash technology. I believe they've both pretty much equalled out.

 

yeah i use RAW and the manual focus but i do not like the G9s manual focus. i like to have full control over it unlike with the G9s wheel that isnt that precise and you can never get exactly what you are looking for.

yeah i've seen how much you can spend in lens alone. that is one of things that i am also considering, if i should get just a body and choose a decent lens to start with and build from there or if i should get the kit camera and then get into the lenses.

 

You'll have to ask yourself what you primarily want to shoot. If it's an all-around camera, you'll want something in the 28mm-135mm range most likely. These lenses can be had cheap (by that I mean between $80-500) if you don't go for anything special (ultra-wide aperture, image stabilization, professional coating glass).

I shoot freelance photography for a newspaper, and have shot for a car magazine in the past. I needed a good 70-200mm for sports (wide open aperture, too) and an ultra-wide angle lens for news stories (you need to show your subject in its environment, typically with limited room in which to work). The 70-200mm lens cost me about $1600, and the ultra wide angle (16-35mm) was about $1700. If I got more clients, I'd be going for a $5000 lens that's a 400mm with a wide aperture, too, but haven't had the need yet.

Your type of shooting will dictate your needs. If you want to shoot bugs or flowers, macro lenses can be pricey too. The important thing is not to spend too much on a body that you can't get the important stuff (lenses!) to do your photos.

Here is some of my work, by the way. If you are offended by scantily clad (or less!) females, don't click.

www.djaphotography.com
www.onemodelplace.com/djaphoto

 

Yep, speed of handling and low-light performance would be good reasons. The G9 will still make a great second camera when you don't want the DLSR, though.

I'm always tempted to suggest prime rather than zoom lenses, especially for someone starting out, because you get very high quality at a relatively low price and I think it's easier to learn to "see" at different focal lengths with a set of primes. But I know zooms are now also very good and they're convenient. On the Nikon side, for a zoom, the 18-200 AF-S DX VR is highly regarded, especially for the price (see Thom's review). It's not an el-cheapo kit lens and it's not a multi-thousand dollar lens, either. I might throw in the 50 mm f/1.8, too, for a really high quality fast prime that's very inexpensive.

 

Ken Rockwell is a dolt. He praises items he hasn't even used yet based on reviews of others. Thom Hogan on the other hand has a clue.

That said, for dSLR, stick with Canon or Nikon. Most lens and accessory selection and have been at this awhile. I have a Nikon D70 but that was more because it was on sale than any affinity I have to that brand. I've no regrets however...

 

true dat....