Buying my First DSLR.

Hi, I am a long time traveler, and ive been to many countries and on many trips. Coming up soon, im going to the Galapagos Islands and Machu Picchu, and ive realized that a simple P&S camera just wont be good enough for me anymore. Coming home from trips like this, i would much rather have better quality pictures, and also, i think i would have more fun taking the pictures while im there, if i had a DSLR camera.

So, being an amateur, i was hoping someone could recommend to me a couple entry level DSLR cameras, that would be a good start to my new hobby. My price range is flexible, but i would only like to pay more if the upgrade is worth the money. I do not need the latest and greatest!

Thanks in advance.

This is one of the best packages available in terms of quality and price.

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Digita...0386650&sr=1-4

wow, ive been looking for days, and i couldnt find anything close to as good as that...

olympus is as 'quality' as nikon and canon, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red05usa

wow, ive been looking for days, and i couldnt find anything close to as good as that...

olympus is as 'quality' as nikon and canon, right?

---

DSLR's are better than point-and-shoots for several reasons:

- the sensor is much bigger so it is better at collecting light. The overall look of the picture is improved and the sensitivity of the sensor (ISO) can be pushed further without the picture being mushed up by noise
- DSLR's have sophisticated systems for focussing and measuring light which point-and-shoots don't have
- DSLR's are modular - you can change the lens so if you have something special you want to do you can choose the right lens for the job. You can also use an external flash rather than the feeble thing built into the camera

There are a couple of drawbacks to DSLR's:

- they aren't yet very good at doing video (no focus during the shoot)
- they are rather big. You really need a dedicated bag to carry them around
- they are more expensive than point-and-shoots (but I think you get what you pay for)

I can't compare the Olympus with Nikon. I just know that the sensor on the Olympus range is smaller than the size used by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony etc. but it's still much bigger than the one in your point-and-shoot.

Here is a good deal for Nikon (from one of the site's partner stores). Feature-rich entry-level Camera body plus two lenses plus camera bag.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...LR_Camera.html

Olympus is as good of quality as Nikon Canon and Sony (you forgot one ;)), yes, but it does behave differently. High ISO won't look as good as on the other big 3 (ISO 800+), and depth of field behaves quite differently with a 2x focal length multiplier. The olympus still will run circles around any point and shoot, and the relative dof difference and smaller size makes it a little easier to use than other DSLRs. It also, like Pentax and Sony, utilize built-in image stabilizers, so any lens attached to it will be stabilized.

I use Sony, I would love to say that 'Sony is the best possible', but the truth is all of them are very good cameras. Any dork that tries to convince you that one brand has a qualitative advantage over another is misinformed. Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Nikon, Canon - all are excellent systems. The differences are very niche and more feature than image quality. Look at the niche differences to find out whats best for you, and don't buy any camera with the presumption that 'this is the best brand', it would be foolish.

There is also a micro-four thirds system, and a similar system released from sony, which reduces back-focus entirely to eliminate the huge size of DSLR while still facilitating DSLR Image quality. The only major difference is the lack of pentamirror/prism, so no organic ttl viewfinder, meaning - LCD or EVF is primary means of composing, as opposed to glass viewfinder. They aren't quite as cutting edge as some current DSLRs, but they are extremely practical and convenient while still boasting excellend IQ. They would also be worth looking into. Though, I don't know if Sony's new systems will be available in time for you (they were just announced a month ago).

Thank you for the quick responses.

The olympus posted earlier has REALLY caught my eye, because it seems to be a 600$ price tag for the camera and two entry level lenses, which i think would be a great start for me. I'm still researching comparable things to it (the nikon 5000 posted before) and canon comparables (im assuming the canon one around this price is the rebel xsi?).

Basically, if ive got this straight, the differences in each SLR brand is minor, and the top 4 brands are Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Olympus. Also, the people who bought their type of SLR instantly become fans of it and love it. So, once you go one brand, expect to spend the rest of your life following that brand, correct?

Also, if someone could tell me, are 'third party' lenses lower quality or take noticably worse pictures? whats the down side with 'third party lenses'?

Some people switch around and some don't. Depends on whether your kit and options available still deliver the results that please you. Most 3rd party lenses are pretty good these days, although people do rave about Olympus kit lenses as being superior in their class.

Remember that you are buying into a system. Olympus requires olympus mount lenses. Same for Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.

Third party lenses vary in quality. I have a Tokina 12-24 that I'll put up against Nikon's 12-24 and you'll need a magnifying glass to tell the difference. The Tokina is half the price of the Nikon.
Only way to know is read lots of reviews on the lenses. The good thing is that third party lenses are made to mount on all the manufacturers cameras and are much less expensive.

Alright, thats all great information! I've read a lot of things saying possitives and negatives from both sides of everything (lenses, third party lenses, nikon vs canon vs sony etc), and its really great to get a take on everyones personal knowledge. So far it seems like a great deal, and im highly considering / most likely buying the two lens + olympus deal stated earlier above.

The Olympus 620 seems to have a lot of great reviews, and, it comes with a pretty wide range of lenses, which will lead to a lot of exploring for me, and itll be pretty good for close ups on the rare wildlife that i will be seeing on my trips to come, and also good for the scenery photos (of which i like taking the most).

I've pretty much learned all that ive needed to hear, and wanted to say a couple thouasnds of thank yous! Now, i just have to pray that my DSLR doesnt go back after 10,000 shots, or that im not too stupid to learn the trade of a higher end camera.

Again, thanks more than i can say!!

Don't forget to come back and share after you buy!
We will love to see some of your work and help answer questions.

I am still very much a novice, but now that youve said that, ill make sure to take a couple GREAT pictures on my time in denmark (this summer) and when im touring the Galapagos Islands (8-10 months from now). Im sure ill have thousands of questions, and ill make sure to come back and share all i can. :D

It's the best way to learn, so don't be shy about posting problem pictures - there are lots of friendly, well-informed, experience photographers around these parts. And I'm so jealous of your Galapgos plans.

So, i should probably take some practice photos and throw them up here (after some practice of course), and get some criticism before the real thing?

Thats great. So far i love this forum a lot, and i think ill be a long time member. I just hope some of my pictures will look as professional as the people around here have.

Also, about watermarking: should i do that with all my photographs when putting them on a website/online?

Dont bother - I think it looks tacky as all heck. Online web photos are at a very low resolution anyway, so any decent reproduction is gone, nobody will be able to print a decent looking 5x7 or 8x10 based on a ~640x480 sized image (equates to 0.3 megapixel). Even wallets and 4x6's will suffer from grain and aliasing from a web image.

Its not really a big deal for people to "steal" photos. So long as they aren't reproducing them or using them for financial gain.

The only time I am a little touchy about photos is if there is a human being in them, at which case stealing them effects the person in the photo as well. Photography copyright and model release laws are pretty strict, so not many would be stupid enough to try and steal a photo of a person.

But really I do find it trite and stuck up when people put big watermarks on their pictures of flowers and trees. Please dont do it lol.

Post them, ask for critique (wear your tough skin) and listen - the fastest way to learn. You should see some of my early attempts - actually, no you shouldn't. :) TF

Its not really a big deal for people to "steal" photos.


Not sure if serious? Stealing is stealing.

You steal a car, and someone loses a car. You steal money, and someone loses money. You steal a (web resolution) photo, and then what? Whats the big deal? The 'thief' obviously isn't going to be reproducing them, the worst they could do is re-post it on some other web site. Whats the big deal?

Its like stealing one's soul....that's the big deal to me.

Quote:

---

Its not really a big deal for people to "steal" photos.

---

Ah, there I have to disagree strongly.
It's theft.

Well i mean more, should i put my name on it or something? In case in some fact of luck i make a decent photograph and someone wants to see the original, should i have something on the bottom corners? I see a lot of people put a website or name on theirs... is that something i should look into?

Mixed opinions on that. The main thing is not to let your watermark ruin the photo...too big, wrong place, etc. Probably doesn't really matter as they can be cloned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmartWombat

Ah, there I have to disagree strongly.
It's theft.

---

You cant equate it to 'theft', that implies that you are taking something from someone else, when in reality you are actually only copying. It is more appropriately compared to plagiarism.

I'm not excusing the 'theives', what I am saying though is that its not the photographers priority to ruin their photos with watermarks which ultimately can't stop someone from 'stealing' the photo anyway (unless you butcher the photo and paste it across the entire thing blocking crucial detail).

Hmm, so it seems if someone wants to steal a 1024/800 of my pictures, im just going to have to live with it.

I guess if i get good enough for people to take the photos from me, that means that its an honor in and of itself. I'm good enough at that point for people to want to take it.

OR is that just a cop out!?

I confuse myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

You cant equate it to 'theft', that implies that you are taking something from someone else, when in reality you are actually only copying. It is more appropriately compared to plagiarism.

I'm not excusing the 'theives', what I am saying though is that its not the photographers priority to ruin their photos with watermarks which ultimately can't stop someone from 'stealing' the photo anyway (unless you butcher the photo and paste it across the entire thing blocking crucial detail).

---

In my mind, it IS stealing. You say that the thieves are not taking anything. I can think of both tangible and intangible losses from unauthorized “copying”.

For the tangible, if my goal is to sell a picture online, yet someone gets it for free, then I am denied payment for that transaction. Denying someone rightful compensation is the same as taking that dollar amount from them directly. This would not be a factor if I am not selling the picture, but the intangible loss would still apply.

As for the intangible, this takes a bit more explanation. When I take a picture, it’s my time, skill, and effort being used to capture that picture. The result is my creation, a unique combination of time, place, skill, equipment, labor, and thought. If I choose to share that picture, that is my right, but is subject to whatever parameters I assign to such sharing. If the intent is for others to view it, appreciate it, comment on it, or enjoy it, then they should do so within the parameters of my sharing. I am the creator, and the use of my product is my choice.

If the intent is for the picture to be available for anyone to copy and use as they see fit, than I should either give that permission ahead of time, or I should be asked for it. I would never assume that something is mine to copy and use for myself without it being explicitly said or without asking for permission, and that permission being granted. When someone copies a picture for their own use, without permission or compensation, than my right of control over my own creation has been stolen. That is theft of something intangible- the right for my creation to exist within the parameters I have assigned to that creation.

Long story short, if it isn’t yours, don’t copy it, unless you are given permission beforehand, you ask for permission and it’s granted, or you purchase the item within the terms of the sale.

Stealing, only if defined as plagiarism, they aren't taking anything physically from you, they are taking a duplicate.

Regardless of opinion on what qualifies as 'theft', it remains a pointless effort to watermark photos. Web resolution photo's provide very little reproduction value. So, anybody thats 'stealing' it is only getting a severely reduced resolution copy of it anyway. Its the difference between recording onto a tape cassette a static filled AM radio broadcast of a song, versus a full spectrum studio recording.

If they use it for financial gain or marketing - its a very easy lawsuit.

And the bottom line, you either butcher the crap out of your photo with a huge watermark to totally prevent theft, or you use a completely pointless watermark to uglify your image, and it is very easily cloned out.

But really, if someone wants to take my web photo and play with it or do whatever, I really don't care, just don't claim it as their own, or reuse it for commercial purpose. If they don't do those two things, STEAL AWAY! (unless there is a person in the photo)

After spending all this time, effort, and money honing our craft and developing a style amidst millions of photographers out there, I have no idea why anyone would let their work disappear into oblivion.

I don’t think most people would deliberately take credit for photos taken by others. Nor do I think most people ever have intensions of printing web images. But I have experienced having images reposted in other forums without my knowledge and having images show up in strangers’ blogs and having images passed around in chain emails. As long as my watermark is on the images I want to be associated with, I consider it free advertising, more or less, as long as there remains a way for interested parties to find me.

Since most people do not consider what they’re doing illegal nor immoral, they don’t take the time and effort to clone out watermarks.

Free advertising I think does sound reasonable, makes a lot more sense than 'protecting against reproduction and commercial reuse'.

so in the end, should i just put a little crop in the bottom left saying my name in it, or should i go through the trouble of a watermark?

I feel no one would take the time to crop out a name either.

Well you saw the argument lol, there is two sides, I dont and wouldn't do it to my photos, lots of other people do though. Try it, its at least good practice and experience to build a watermark paintbrush and scale it properly to the resolution of the image. Apply it to a second level in photoshop and decrease the opacity of it to make it a bit more subtle too.

this website will provide you a great information of digital camera that will help you in your decision.
http://digitalslrcameraviews.com/ :thumbsup: