Which DSLR to get

I am looking to buy a DSLR,I am new to photography and videography world as you can tell. I am going to be filming Snowboarding and Skateboarding. I have been looking at canon t1i,t2i,t3i. But havent really looked outside of canon. I have a compaq laptop, and have Vegas pro 9( if those make a diffrence) My prices range is around under 700, and if I look around I can find some pretty good deals. So, I would like to know what would be the best camera for me.. I'm not to worried about getting my camera wet while I film in the winter, and i will be filming in the winter so itll be crappy lighting and such. Also, since im going to be filming action sports, would it be better to get the t1i since in only shoots in 720 at 30 FPS( i think) and isnt that better than 1080p for action? i may be wrong....
Also, what lenses should I get, for extras?


Thanks,
Dylan.

Whichever equipment you end up getting please do yourself a BIG favor and read my post listed Before Buying off the internet check here. You will find a link to it in red at the bottom of my reply, Jeff

Can't comment on the Canon cameras, however if you intend to use it outdoors during wet or damp winter weather you want to make certian that the camera is appropriate for those conditions.
Your other concerns pertain mainly to lens selection.

Volks,
If I were to get a fisheye, which would you recomend?

Have a look at Nikon 10.5mm. Not cheap.
Don't personally have one so hopefully someone here who does will comment.

haha yeah, deffinatly not cheap!
But, more discussion on dslr to get!

If I were you I would save up a little more money and get the Canon EOS Rebel T3i It is one of my favorite Mid level DSLR cameras on the market.
Perfect for sports and has some of the best HD recording. Just save up a little and get that. The rebel series is solid and tested.

If video is your main purpose, then I'd steer you towards the Sony Alpha A55. I own a Canon EOS 7D and I've also used the Nikon D7000 extensively and neither one compares to the Sony A55 for action video. IT's the only SLR-style camera that has continuous auto focus for video that actually works. The Canon doesn't have it at all, Nikon has it but it's pretty weak - Sony's transparent mirror cameras are the only ones where you can actually shoot action with continuous auto focus and expect decent results. Here's a link to my Sony A55 review:

Sony Alpha A55 Pro Review >>

Oh yeah - the A55 also has a tilting LCD display, which, as you know, makes a big difference for action video shooting.

I'm a longtime Canon owner (well over 10 years), but if I was investing now and video was my main concern, I'm pretty sure I'd buy the A55.

Hi! I am also in the market for a dslr. I will be using it to film skateboarding also.. I have had my heart set on the canon t3i however I know it dosn't have auto focurs in video mode. Will this be a big problem when shooting action like skateboarding?

Currently have an Olympus E-510 and I'm thinking of jumping ship from Olympus.

The camera that appeals at the moment is the Canon EOS 7D. Any views?

And why jump ship? Olympus isn't popular enough for you?

Why leave Olympus, isn't an upgrade to the E3 or E5 good enough?
It will use the lenses/flashes you've already bought.

lol, I think my snide remark put him off. Sorry VSS, didn't mean to spoil your query.

I agree there is a world of difference in the E5 and 510. You would go into culture shock comparing the two. At least four stops better with noise. The E5 with the 12-60mm is an awesome combo, weather sealed. A beast. I have made prints as big as 36x22 and the IQ is way more than I will ever need. The E5 also produces much sharper images. I say grab an E5. You may never need another camera.

Hey guys,
I'm trying to decide on buying a new DSLR. I'm very much a beginner and I have extremely little experience with using DSLR cameras. I just plan on using it for fun, nothing too serious. The two point and shoot cameras that I have are both Canon Powershots. I'm planning on buying the new camera refurbished on Adorama. Right now I'm trying to decide between a Canon Rebel XS, the Nikon D5000, and the Nikon D3100.

I can get (all with a 18-55 mm lens) the Canon for $400, the D5000 for $500, and the D3100 for $580. Can anyone give me their opinion on which of these cameras is the best bet for my money. I want something that's very easy to use because I don't have a lot of experience.

I definitely want something with live view but video isn't all that important to me.

Thanks!

Get the Nikon D3100. Made just for you.

I sure like my Olympus E-5. I liked my E-3 so much I still have that too. Both are great cameras, other than they make too much noise when close to wild critters is pretty much the most of what I shoot. But the picture quality is as good or better than Cannon or Nikon I believe.

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q...Snakes/4-1.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q...ountry/106.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q...ountry/104.jpg

Have a good one. BB

Wow, fantastic photos. Well done.

Hi dylanpipe, if you want to go for Canon Camera then compare the reviews of different canon camera.
You can better compare them according to your requirement and bucks you want to spend for purchasing it.

Hi all. I need some advice in an entry-level dslr. It'll be my first one after working with point-and-shoot cameras all my life. I originally wanted a Nikon D40, but by the time I could afford to buy one, they have been discontinued. So I'm almost settled on a Nikon D3100, but I'm open to opinions and suggestions on other cameras like Sony, Olympus, Canon, and Pentax DSLRs. Price is a factor, but I want a camera that can last a good while.

I'll mostly be using the camera for nature, food, and travel, if that helps.

The Nikon D3100 is a good beginners camera. Once you have it, the real issue will be lens selection.

I too need advice from you experts out there as to what kind of DSLR camera and lens to buy to take good action shots of motorsports action. Mainly NASCAR races. What are good values of the most important attributes of the camera body? Such as shutter speed, frames per second, ISO (keeping in mind some races will be at night, although well lit). What are the most important attributes for camera body and lens?

For the lens, keeping in mind the size of some of the larger tracks, I know I probably shouldn't go less than 300mm, right? Also, keeping a budget in mind, what is the max aperture f number and still achieve good results? It looks like a good 300mm with a f/2.8 is a little more expensive than I would like to spend. Could I get good results with an f/4-5.6?

Can a get a good camera body and lens, for this purpose, at a price range of $1,000 - $1,200? I would be open to any suggestions as to what make and models to consider.

I appreciate any advice you can offer.

Thanks,
Travis

I'd side with the D3100--very pleased with my purchase.

@buglinbily--great pronghorn shot!

Greg

I am looking for one myself

Based on what I have seen as a new entrant to dslr I wouldn't buy anything other than a Nikon. I judge camera manufacturers by their kit lenses.If the kit lense is crap how can I have any confidence in their camera ? My first step into the dslr world was to buy two used dslrs. One is a 6mp Digital Rebel and the other is an 8 mp xt. Despite their ages I can't fine tune the telephotos because they bind and jump. The only smooth turning new counter cameras I have tried to adjust successfully are Nikons. I also have an older Tamron 28-300 that came with the 6 mp Canon digital. It has smoother, quieter movement than any kit lense I have tried so far. I find it somewhat sad that I have more confidence in Tamron than any of the major camera manufacturers right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldhippy

Based on what I have seen as a new entrant to dslr I wouldn't buy anything other than a Nikon. I judge camera manufacturers by their kit lenses.If the kit lense is crap how can I have any confidence in their camera ? My first step into the dslr world was to buy two used dslrs. One is a 6mp Digital Rebel and the other is an 8 mp xt. Despite their ages I can't fine tune the telephotos because they bind and jump. The only smooth turning new counter cameras I have tried to adjust successfully are Nikons. I also have an older Tamron 28-300 that came with the 6 mp Canon digital. It has smoother, quieter movement than any kit lense I have tried so far. I find it somewhat sad that I have more confidence in Tamron than any of the major camera manufacturers right now.

---

I would say that there are no longer any bad kit lenses, but if you choose by kit lens only - Olympus. - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I would say that there are no longer any bad kit lenses, but if you choose by kit lens only - Olympus. - Terry

---

Over the past 20 years I made many trips to the new camera counter. I always walked away after trying out the cameras with their attached lenses. I have been told our dry climate affects lense handling dramatically. There is nothing more irritating to me than lenses that stick and make scratchy noises when you try to turn them. My recent used camera purchases came with Canon 18-55 and 35-80 lenses. I would never enjoy using them due to their irritating feel and sound. A week ago I was seriously thinking of buying an Olympus 520 with dual lense kit. The feel of Nikon lenses drew me away from it. I feel a camera is only as good as its weakest component. Lense performance at the counter has stopped me from buying new cameras for at least 20 years. If not for the pleasure of handling my Tamron 28-300 I probably wouldn't even be thinking of buying a new camera at all.

I used to have a Olympus E510 and it was a fine camera, but I sold it to get a Pentax K-x for a couple of reasons. One was I had an old Pentax film camera (ME Super) with a couple of relatively nice prime lenses. I wanted to use those lenses again! Also, the Olympus was bigger and heavier than the Pentax. I got a 4/3rds system because of the promise of smaller cameras and lenses and once I had it in my hands it seemed awfully big. Images were also noisier than I wanted once I started increasing ISO. I like to take my cameras mountain biking and skiing and when I'm under my own power in the backcountry, I don't want any extra weight or bulk yet I still want SLR quality and control. Oh, and only Olympus and Pentax (and Sony?) have shake reduction in the body. I like this because it keeps lenses smaller and cheaper since you only have to buy the SR mechanism once. It also allows you to use vintage lenses with the addition of SR. Can't do that with CaNikon!
The K-x has not disappointed me one bit. My criticisms are that the shutter is loud - no taking unnoticed photos in quiet environments. Also, it's not sealed like all the higher end Pentax cameras are. So far that hasn't been a problem, although I'd like to step up to the quieter sealed K5 at some point. High ISO performance of the K-x was the best for C crop sensors when it was released. It's still very competitive with much more expensive cameras. The kit lens is pretty good, although slow as most kit lenses are. Finally, there are tons of old K mount lenses available that work on modern Pentax bodies for relatively cheap prices (although they are goin up as more people catch on).
The K-x has now been replaced by the K-r which is just an updated K-x with a couple of additional features and MPs.
I got a inexpensive fisheye for it too, a Rokinon 8mm which was about $260 on sale at Amazon. The FE is good fun and much better than the price would indicate. Here's a recent FE photo From the K-x/Rokinon 8mm:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/...64c06f86_z.jpg

Finally, for video, it's ok but not great. I'd second the Sony recommendation for video if that will be your primary use. For my occasional use the K-x video is adequate.

For a SLR, it's hard to beat the portability of the K-x/K-r and a nice compact prime or two (Pentax DA Limited primes are amazingly good and small). It's (almost) my ideal backcountry setup.

Edit to add: PS - I don't know of any modern dSLRs that are just plain bad. Choose one that fits your lifestyle and shooting style, or one that has the lenses you want available for it and that fits your budget. Go out and shoot with it and you'll know if you made a good choice or not. If you didn't, sell it and try something else like I did.

I keep changing my mind on which new camera to buy. I was going to buy the Nikon 3100 but I have now learned you can't use older lenses with it. In the meantime I just bought my third used dslr camera. The first two were Canon Digital Rebel and Canon XT. I learned from them how badly I want a bigger and better view screen on the back.My newest acquisition is a Nikon D60 with less than 900 shutter actions. My next quest will be for a micro lens for the D60 . My main interest for the camera will be micro photography. I want to primarily use this camera for natural objects under two inches diameter. Most subjects will be under one inch. I have no idea what lens to buy for this purpose. At the rate I keep changing my mind on what new DSLR to get I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever get one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldhippy

I keep changing my mind on which new camera to buy. I was going to buy the Nikon 3100 but I have now learned you can't use older lenses with it. In the meantime I just bought my third used dslr camera. The first two were Canon Digital Rebel and Canon XT. I learned from them how badly I want a bigger and better view screen on the back.My newest acquisition is a Nikon D60 with less than 900 shutter actions. My next quest will be for a micro lens for the D60 . My main interest for the camera will be micro photography. I want to primarily use this camera for natural objects under two inches diameter. Most subjects will be under one inch. I have no idea what lens to buy for this purpose. At the rate I keep changing my mind on what new DSLR to get I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever get one.

---

For macro photography (micro in Nikonese), these are the things that I found to be important:

- The lens is the most important. Other things will work, but nothing beats a good macro lens for quality and convenience. The focal length depends on how close you can get and how much you can control your background. If what you are shooting will fly away if you get close, look for a longer lens. If you want to limit your background, look for a longer lens. I would love a 200mm macro, but find the price/ length compromise for me ends up in the 90-100mm length. AF is somewhat less important since MF will be preferred (if the subject will just hold still!).

- Good Main Sensor Live View with MF assist modes and a really good multi-position LCD. The manual assist may be just the ability to digitally zoom the image, or may even be sophisticated software assist such as ‘peaking’. An articulating LCD makes life sooooo much easier.

- Stable mounting. Motion is your enemy - weight is your friend. Get a very stable and versatile mounting system suitable to your shooting style. Don’t forget to stabilize the subject also if you can.

- Lighting. If you are going to use assisted lighting, you need to look at ways to get it close and off the hot shoe.

My ideas,
Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

For macro photography (micro in Nikonese), these are the things that I found to be important:

- The lens is the most important. Other things will work, but nothing beats a good macro lens for quality and convenience. The focal length depends on how close you can get and how much you can control your background. If what you are shooting will fly away if you get close, look for a longer lens. If you want to limit your background, look for a longer lens. I would love a 200mm macro, but find the price/ length compromise for me ends up in the 90-100mm length. AF is somewhat less important since MF will be preferred (if the subject will just hold still!).

- Good Main Sensor Live View with MF assist modes and a really good multi-position LCD. The manual assist may be just the ability to digitally zoom the image, or may even be sophisticated software assist such as ‘peaking’. An articulating LCD makes life sooooo much easier.

- Stable mounting. Motion is your enemy - weight is your friend. Get a very stable and versatile mounting system suitable to your shooting style. Don’t forget to stabilize the subject also if you can.

- Lighting. If you are going to use assisted lighting, you need to look at ways to get it close and off the hot shoe.

My ideas,
Terry

---

I like depth of field in micro photography. My main complaint with micro lenses is the depth of field is too shallow. Lately I have seen some phenominal micro shots done with superzooms like the Tamron 28 to 300. I recently met one photographer that uses an extension tube on his 28-300. He claims his results beat results from fixed length lenses he has used in the past.

Depth of field is dictated by magnification, as such, it isn't the lens themselves per se, but the nature of what DOF must be at 1:1. The perspective of 50mm allows a slightly greater dof than 100mm at 1:1, but the difference is very little. You simply need to shoot very narrow aperture for macro work.

There is also no way that tamron 28-300mm, with attached extension tubes, could match the optical resolving power of a true 1:1 macro lens, at least none I've seen. However, macro at 300mm can certainly be handy, it may be that he just likes the function of 300mm for macro work and he is better able to make the photograph at that angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Depth of field is dictated by magnification, as such, it isn't the lens themselves per se, but the nature of what DOF must be at 1:1. The perspective of 50mm allows a slightly greater dof than 100mm at 1:1, but the difference is very little. You simply need to shoot very narrow aperture for macro work.

There is also no way that tamron 28-300mm, with attached extension tubes, could match the optical resolving power of a true 1:1 macro lens, at least none I've seen. However, macro at 300mm can certainly be handy, it may be that he just likes the function of 300mm for macro work and he is better able to make the photograph at that angle.

---

I'm quite skeptical about the claims I have heard about using superzooms for micro work.Yesterday I took delivery of a cherry mint used Nikon D60. After extensive research I have decided to acquire a used Nikon Micro 200mm F4 for it. They seem to be relatively easy to acquire at $200.00 or less.There are better lenses but they are out of my economic league.

For my entry to DSLR photography I now have a Canon Digital Rebel with Tamron 28-300, a Canon Rebel XT with 18-55 kit lens, and the Nikon D60 with 18-55 VR. After I acquire the Nikon 200 mm micro it will be permanently mounted on the D60.

On the new camera front , I have changed my mind again. It now seems that my first new DSLR will be a Nikon D90 with 18-105 lens. It seems to offer the best versatility with used lenses and has a better view screen than the Nikon 3100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldhippy

I'm quite skeptical about the claims I have heard about using superzooms for micro work.Yesterday I took delivery of a cherry mint used Nikon D60. After extensive research I have decided to acquire a used Nikon Micro 200mm F4 for it. They seem to be relatively easy to acquire at $200.00 or less.There are better lenses but they are out of my economic league.

For my entry to DSLR photography I now have a Canon Digital Rebel with Tamron 28-300, a Canon Rebel XT with 18-55 kit lens, and the Nikon D60 with 18-55 VR. After I acquire the Nikon 200 mm micro it will be permanently mounted on the D60.

On the new camera front , I have changed my mind again. It now seems that my first new DSLR will be a Nikon D90 with 18-105 lens. It seems to offer the best versatility with used lenses and has a better view screen than the Nikon 3100.

---

The Nikon F/4 Micro AF is a $1500+ lens. Are you refering to the old manual focus lens?

You seem to be aquiring a body for every lens. Is there a reason? You also seem to have a lot of overlap. Again, a reason?

Terry

I was sort of curious as well, and why not stick to one system?

To be honest, I'm surprised the D90 is still fetching as much as it is, at ~$1100 for the 18-105 kit. Its a fine camera, its just old, and the Canon 60D has a similar kit at about the same price, and is a much more recent model. The 60D is a much better performance/value. I think they are still selling the D90 to finish paying for that stupid ashton kutcher commercial.

Not trying to discourage getting a D90, its a great camera, but its MSRP is not as good as what canon offers you MSRP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

The Nikon F/4 Micro AF is a $1500+ lens. Are you refering to the old manual focus lens?

You seem to be aquiring a body for every lens. Is there a reason? You also seem to have a lot of overlap. Again, a reason?

Terry

---

I'm looking for an older manual lens. I've been told that it will work with the d60. I gave up photography for many years because of the damage encountered while constantly changing prime lenses outdoors. I was brought back in by a professional auto photographer that does almost all his professional work with a Tamron 28-300. In light of the risks associated with outdoor lens changing I decided if I need a lens I need a body to go with it.

The three cameras and lenses I bought so far were exceptional purchase opportunities. The total cost of all three with their related filters etc. was $700.00. The Canon XT will be my everyday beater.The Canon Digital Rebel with 28-300 Tamron will be for general mountain excursions and the the Nikon D60 will be for micro and or close up work. At most I will carry two cameras at any one time and there will be no outdoor lens changing.

I just lost out on the opportunity to get a new D90 with 18-105 for $799.00.

I acquired the cherry mint D60 kit from a hard core internet used lens dealer I just met.He only charged me $300.00 for it because he doesn't like selling low end products and kits.His primary interest is high end lenses.It looks like he may be able to supply all my future needs because he turns over a lot of product and does not want to risk his online reputation with low end products that come with the high end collections he buys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

I was sort of curious as well, and why not stick to one system?

To be honest, I'm surprised the D90 is still fetching as much as it is, at ~$1100 for the 18-105 kit. Its a fine camera, its just old, and the Canon 60D has a similar kit at about the same price, and is a much more recent model. The 60D is a much better performance/value. I think they are still selling the D90 to finish paying for that stupid ashton kutcher commercial.

Not trying to discourage getting a D90, its a great camera, but its MSRP is not as good as what canon offers you MSRP.

---

I like comparing identical photos from differing cameras. I also enjoy trying to beat auto functions. I prefer Nikon to Canon now but having bodies from both manufacturers means I can utilize a lot more bargain priced used lenses. If I found a super deal on a 500 mm Pentax lens I would probably buy a Pentax body so I could utilize the lens.

I may have missed the boat on Nikon D90s.Last week there were several liquidation opportunities locally.Those cameras didn't last long before they were sold out. The D90 seems appropriate because of its ability to work with older lenses. I can't afford anything better with that capability.

If the last of the D90s dry up before I raise the money to buy one then I don't know what I'll buy for a new camera. The only thing I know for certain is that sometime soon I want to buy a new Nikon.

I see. The D7000 might get a price cut soon enough.

The Pentax k-x is starting to look very attractive to me.This is a city with a long history of Pentax loyalty so there is easy access to a large inventory of quality used lenses at very low prices . I probably have a dozen Pentax lenses right now that will work with the k-x.( If I can find them ). The local Pentax loyalists have not been sticking with Pentax as they went digital . I've picked up a few Pentax 35 mm slr collections dirt cheap at garage sales during the past two years.. The k-x's in body vibration control may not be perfect but it is better than nothing when working with old lenses. Raising the money to buy one won't be very painful either because of the k-x's low pricing here. If the reviews I read are accurate then the k-x's low light superiority is another big plus.

Every one says I shouldn't judge a camera by its kit lens, but I do. Nothing turns me off on a camera more than the feel of a sticky or scratchy sounding kit lens. The Pentax kit lenses I saw today were awe inspiring compared to many.They were only very marginally second to Nikon with no stickiness whatsoever.

Historically there was a lot of heckling between Pentax and Canon Loyalists around here. As a Canon Loyalist I used to swear I'd never own a new Pentax.Despite past rivalries I'd hate to see Pentax disappear. I just might buy the new Pentax to help them recover some of their lost market share.