finally decided... but what to buy?

[animex]

ive been wanting to get DSLR for quite some time...

i have been using my old Canon SD200 most of the time and when my dad gave me his old Pentax Z-10 SLR, I realized how expensive it was with films and developing...

So ive decided to buy used DSLR but im quite new to DSLR and ive decided to ask few recommandations.


I will be doing lot of landscape photographing (with tripod). Since im a meteorology student, i would like to take few random pictures and perhaps doing time setting shots frame by frame to get changes in the sky and all. For this reason, i would like to have good multishot function.
I also will be taking lots of shot of storm & low light photography i guess... (lightening and all) which means I need to learn some techniques and functions to be able to get good shots but i guess i need something that can do the job well although i guess lens might be very important for this but do know, im not a pro or anything ;) so something not too high

I will be doing bit of photoshop and will start learning aperture once i get my new apple's laptop in September but ill mostly will stick to the original picture with minur editing. Also i wont be printing so much may be 10pictures every 1000 shots will be printed or less i guess.

Since it is going to be almost like a hobby for me, i dont want to get into too much of advenced stuff yet... may be once i graduate
for now, im looking at used one at $500ish range.

Please let me know what kind of body and lens i should be looking at and

oh one more thing...

I do prefer Nikon so if there is Nikon model that can get me pretty much what i am looking for, it would be great but I am open for any!

thank you guys!


===================== added

ok, i tried to narrow it down... (used)

Nikon - d80-d90 (i know it will be hard to find d90 in $500 but... for now im trying to see what model i should be looking at and what brand)
Canon - EOS 40D - 50D
Pentax - K10 - K20

[Anbesol]

Lightning is not low light, its also easier to shoot then some might think, because you simply need to open up a long shutter and narrow f-stop, which any DSLR is capable of.

First off, what lens do you have for the Pentax z-10? The lens from your Z10 should carry over to a Pentax DSLR. If those lens are worth anything, it would boost your starting point, especially considering you're trying ot hit a $500 budget.

Nikon makes good cameras too, but they aren't qualitatively above any other DSLR manufacturer out there, the differences are features and niche. Give all companies equal footing, and determine based on feature set, do not base a purchase decision on the logo.

[animex]

that is actually very good point since my dad did buy nice quality lens...

I was looking at D80 (i saw used body itself for $500 ish price range)
for pentax i guess K10 would be similar model to look at then...

but, only thing that is stopping me from getting Pentax is that it doesnt seem that it is such popular brand... (i could be wrong but looking at retail store and others, it sorta speaks for itself)

but that is very good point...

*also, sorry, i didnt write it clearly... low lighting and also lightning which yes, the long exposure would do it i guess.. but my question to photographing such a pictures, what kind of lens am i looking at? someone told me perhaps 18-105 but... wow... it was quite expensive at brand new

[BlueRob]

I have done a bit of research lately and personally I would not go with Pentax...at least for me other brands gives you more detail pixel per pixel...but that is me.
I would stick with Canon , Nikon or Olympus. If you are wondering I ended up with Canon at the end.

[animex]

I have done a bit of research lately and personally I would not go with Pentax...at least for me other brands gives you more detail pixel per pixel...but that is me.
I would stick with Canon , Nikon or Olympus. If you are wondering I ended up with Canon at the end.

that is pretty much where i am at right now...
From what i have researched, Nikon is better with quality and Canon is better at the software and the function of the body...

but still... i need to know what kind of body and lens i should be looking at... at least the range...

would d80 good enough? or can i even go lower?

btw, i have zero knowledge on lens so please help me out

[BlueRob]

that is pretty much where i am at right now...
From what i have researched, Nikon is better with quality and Canon is better at the software and the function of the body...

but still... i need to know what kind of body and lens i should be looking at... at least the range...

would d80 good enough? or can i even go lower?

btw, i have zero knowledge on lens so please help me out

This forum is good because there are no brand wars..so what I´ll say is only what I can appreciate.

I dont fin Nikon to be superior than Canon quality wise...at least in the price range we are talking about.
Regarding the "software" advantage you mention I have my doubts...I do not use the bundle software for editing so I assume a RAW from these brands will do just fine in third party software with the same room for editing.

My price range was similar to yours. My best choice was a used Canon XSi without the kit lens...instead I went for a 18-85 glass, no doubt superior and a simple but very good for the money 55-250mm.

What I can suggest is that no matter brand your glass should be fast if you are going for low light situations....lower f number.

To make your decision check the option in your price range and check what features you will be more comfy.

If you narrow it down it would be easier for us to suggest particulars.

[animex]

This forum is good because there are no brand wars..so what I´ll say is only what I can appreciate.

I dont fin Nikon to be superior than Canon quality wise...at least in the price range we are talking about.
Regarding the "software" advantage you mention I have my doubts...I do not use the bundle software for editing so I assume a RAW from these brands will do just fine in third party software with the same room for editing.

My price range was similar to yours. My best choice was a used Canon XSi without the kit lens...instead I went for a 18-85 glass, no doubt superior and a simple but very good for the money 55-250mm.

What I can suggest is that no matter brand your glass should be fast if you are going for low light situations....lower f number.

To make your decision check the option in your price range and check what features you will be more comfy.

If you narrow it down it would be easier for us to suggest particulars.

I am definitely open for any suggestions which i find this forum great like you said.

and it sounds like you have good point. At $500, just about all brand will be about the same...

i will try and narrow it down and see if i can make things easier.

Thanks!

[Anbesol]

I have done a bit of research lately and personally I would not go with Pentax...at least for me other brands gives you more detail pixel per pixel...but that is me.
I would stick with Canon , Nikon or Olympus. If you are wondering I ended up with Canon at the end.

Ahem? What about Sony? They are the low-iso MTF champs right now.

Animex - I think I speak for most photographers here when I say that I would rather have the cheapest oldest camera body available with an awesome lens, then a crap lens with an awesome body.

That being said, for your use it sounds like a fast wide to standard angle zoom, or a pair of primes would take care of your needs well. For example, a 17-50 or 24-70 or 28-75 - f/2.8 zoom, or a 50 f/1.8 + 24 f/2 (or somewhere around there). Getting those under $500 with a camera body is anywhere from damn tough to impossible though, most of those zooms are hovering around $500 alone. The only lens of those I think you could get with a camera body around your budget is the 50mm f/1.8, which as far as I'm concerned is the most important one of them anyway.

But do find out what lens you have for pentax anyway, maybe you already have one of those.

*edit - blue, I'm confused, you say you went with Canon, but your sig says you have Olympus gear... ??? Did you switch or are you double dipping?

[animex]

Ahem? What about Sony? They are the low-iso MTF champs right now.

Animex - I think I speak for most photographers here when I say that I would rather have the cheapest oldest camera body available with an awesome lens, then a crap lens with an awesome body.

That being said, for your use it sounds like a fast wide to standard angle zoom, or a pair of primes would take care of your needs well. For example, a 17-50 or 24-70 or 28-75 - f/2.8 zoom, or a 50 f/1.8 + 24 f/2 (or somewhere around there). Getting those under $500 with a camera body is anywhere from damn tough to impossible though, most of those zooms are hovering around $500 alone. The only lens of those I think you could get with a camera body around your budget is the 50mm f/1.8, which as far as I'm concerned is the most important one of them anyway.

But do find out what lens you have for pentax anyway, maybe you already have one of those.

*edit - blue, I'm confused, you say you went with Canon, but your sig says you have Olympus gear... ??? Did you switch or are you double dipping?

thanks for great reply,

oh and sorry for another unclear statement... $500 range would be body only ;)
For the lens, i was looking at 18-105 it hurts but, from what i was told by the retail, that is it... but i couldnt really trust the guy second thoughts?

[Anbesol]

The 18-105 is a lot slower than the ones I mentioned. Its a very practical range and I've only heard good things on those optics (a lot of people here like it). The lower the F number, the faster the optics. F/2.8 is the fastest you can get in a zoom, that 18-105 is a variable aperture zoom, so the aperture closes down as you zoom in (quickly) ranging from 3.5 to 5.6. I personally found the f/2.8-f/4 range more accomodating, practical and useful in lens than extra focal range, hence why I would pick a 28-75 f/2.8 before I'd get an 18-105.

But, whatever you do - I emphasize the importance of getting the 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4, or 1.7), as its that is the best value, quality, and multifunction you can find in any optic at dirt cheap (~$100). Having the high f stop clearance of 1.8 will really show you how valuable a wide f-stop is.

Just please make the effort to learn how to use a priority mode, its a very easy to control and a very responsive mode that only requires a basic grasping of the concept. If you let the camera decide the entire metering formula, you have virtually no immediate control over the exposure. In a priority mode, you tell the camera what aperture or shutter to shoot, and it creates an exposure around your input.

*edit - by the way, every camera manufacturer has the lens ranges I mentioned. The 17-50 and 28-75 are Tamron ranges which are offered through Tamron on all of the mounts.

[Frog]

Get a 50mm f/1.8. I think they make them for all the brands.
Least expensive prime lens you can get.
It won't give you wide nor much telephoto but being limited to one prime lens will force you to learn composition and how the rest of the camera works within the boundaries of that one focal length. As you use it, you'll find out how much wider and/or zoom you need to get what you want without having to move back and forth so much.

[animex]

The 18-105 is a lot slower than the ones I mentioned. Its a very practical range and I've only heard good things on those optics (a lot of people here like it). The lower the F number, the faster the optics. F/2.8 is the fastest you can get in a zoom, that 18-105 is a variable aperture zoom, so the aperture closes down as you zoom in (quickly) ranging from 3.5 to 5.6. I personally found the f/2.8-f/4 range more accomodating, practical and useful in lens than extra focal range, hence why I would pick a 28-75 f/2.8 before I'd get an 18-105.

But, whatever you do - I emphasize the importance of getting the 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4, or 1.7), as its that is the best value, quality, and multifunction you can find in any optic at dirt cheap (~$100). Having the high f stop clearance of 1.8 will really show you how valuable a wide f-stop is.

Just please make the effort to learn how to use a priority mode, its a very easy to control and a very responsive mode that only requires a basic grasping of the concept. If you let the camera decide the entire metering formula, you have virtually no immediate control over the exposure. In a priority mode, you tell the camera what aperture or shutter to shoot, and it creates an exposure around your input.

*edit - by the way, every camera manufacturer has the lens ranges I mentioned. The 17-50 and 28-75 are Tamron ranges which are offered through Tamron on all of the mounts.

i read your reply and did some short research on aperture and stuff... this is getting me really excited! =D
I was talking to my local shop guy and he also told me about the importance of the wide f-number is so i will probably get f/1.8 which is more reasonable price for me.

but stuff you have told me is still sound a bit advanced for me...
can you explain me the benefit i will be getting out of 18-105?
i am asking since 18-105 is the lens my local shop recommended me for what would like to do with my dslr (taking landscape pictures mostly dealing with clouds and taking number of shots at the same spot to see the changes in cloud and all; taking approaching storm front).


And it looks like i am leaning toward d80 for the body...
anything on that? (i liked d90 but i dont need video recording and 10MP to 12.3MP isnt gonna be so much for me... which comes down to processor itself with image noise and few other features... but for what i need i dont know if its gonna be worth it)

[Anbesol]

the numbers 18-105 represent the 'focal range', meaning, the field of view that you see through the lens. 18 is very wide angle, 24 is a normal wide angle, 30 is a mild wide, 30-45mm is a 'standard angle, meaning close field of view to normal vision, beyond 45 becomes mild telephoto up to 105. Strong telephoto begins about 200mm and super telephoto begins at 300mm. The numbers for Olympus are slightly different (a little smaller due to sensor size).

The 18-105 has a bit more reach than a typical fast aperture zoom like a 17-50, meaning: it can zoom in more. The 17-50 however, having a wider aperture diaphragm, lets much more light in, allowing for wider exposure flexibility and more control for depth of field. Wider apertures will also allow for quicker autofocus, and a brighter viewfinder.

The prime lens mentioned: the 50mm f/1.8 and 24mm f/2 are both even faster aperture than the mentioned zoom lens, meaning, they let more light in. They don't however zoom. You probably have one with the pentax, the technical term is 'fixed focal length', "prime" is actually more slang.

The aperture is a 5-9 bladed circular diaphram that opens and closes within the lens, how wide it opens is described as the f number, or f-stop. f/1 for example, would be a simple hollow tube without any diaphragm, f/32 would be a very narrow aperture, basically like a pinhole that only lets a tiny bit of light in. f/32 would require much more light than f/2.8 would (about 11 times to the same shutter speed). f/1 will have very narrow depth of field and f/32 will have very wide depth of field. Depth of field, however, is a significant variable primarily relative to magnification, focus distance, and sensor plane.

Anyway, when I started I pretty much stuck with aperture priority - I told the camera the f-stop and it figured out the rest. Though I do mostly manual at this point, in variably lit environments I still find priority modes useful, to help a quick trigger finger.

(taking landscape pictures mostly dealing with clouds and taking number of shots at the same spot to see the changes in cloud and all; taking approaching storm front).

Landscapes don't typically require standard to telephoto angles, virtually all landscapes I have done have been between 18 and 40mm. The local camera shops (franchises like Ritz and Wolf) don't usually carry the f/2.8 zooms, so he probably suggested the 18-105 based on his ready inventory. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

anyway I just like wrote a book here so I'll digress, wikipedia is your friend, theres a ton of information but you can learn a LOT just by wiki'ing 'Aperture'.

[Frog]

The D80 is a fine camera which I own. If I had to choose between d80 and 90 I'd go with the d90 in a flash...not for its ability to shoot video but for its better sensor which has very good high iso capability. The D80 is ok but nothing like the D90 when it comes to noise control at high iso.
What's iso and noise? To keep it simple, high iso will increase the sensitivity of the sensor and allow one to shoot at higher shutter speeds in poor light. In many cameras this also leads to 'noisy' pics....ones that have lots of grain.

[BlueRob]

Ahem? What about Sony? They are the low-iso MTF champs right now.

TBH Sony´s SLR´s are not my cup of tea yet. I ahvent seen anithing that catch my eye so far...that being said I dont dobt the deliver quality too but as a matter of personal preference I was incline towards the brands mentioned.

*edit - blue, I'm confused, you say you went with Canon, but your sig says you have Olympus gear... ??? Did you switch or are you double dipping?

No wonder why! I haven't changed my signature:blush2:
I have a 4/3 rig and I have been shooting with it for 3 years I think...good stuff all around but I found a dead end with the lenses available at my core price range. My immediate step up in a glass was the 12-60mm but the price tag scared me off. For a similar price I went and treat my self with the Xsi and a pair decent modest glasses plus some other (features) advantages Canon offers over my 4/3 system.

I´m selling the Oly...in other words I´m migrating to Canon.

So far the Canon gives me more of what I like and I´m pretty happy to the day. For one thing I have found easier to achieve the correct Exp. with it but I´m still holding a bit my opinion till I get a decent "test drive".

[NaturalWoman]

My price range was similar to yours. My best choice was a used Canon XSi without the kit lens...instead I went for a 18-85 glass, no doubt superior and a simple but very good for the money 55-250mm.

i've been looking at this camera. i think if can find an inexpensive body and one lens, i might get it out of curosity. since the olympus was my first digital camera, i think i want something to compare it to. always been a canon user. the 18-85 might just cover me.

[Anbesol]

TBH Sony´s SLR´s are not my cup of tea yet. I ahvent seen anithing that catch my eye so far...that being said I dont dobt the deliver quality too but as a matter of personal preference I was incline towards the brands mentioned..

Well the sentence you said was preceded by mentioning 'detail per pixel', something which Sony does best. But really what could you possibly have against Sony? Have you ever seen or held an A7/8/900? I use Nikon for work, I've used plenty of Canon, and I'm still thrilled with my Sony gear.

[BlueRob]

Well the sentence you said was preceded by mentioning 'detail per pixel', something which Sony does best. But really what could you possibly have against Sony? Have you ever seen or held an A7/8/900? I use Nikon for work, I've used plenty of Canon, and I'm still thrilled with my Sony gear.

Sorry Anbesol, but I haven't said anything that leads to your comment me having something against Sony. FYI my house is well saturated of Sony branded gadgets so ...no I have no problem at all with Sony.

On the other hand the models you mention are in a different price range if I´m not mistaken, and for me it seems unfair to compare them with something in the price range we are talking in this particular thread.

Remember that since this is a public forum and thus, members state their personal views, opinions and "taste"....that leads to mixed environment, not all of us will have the same appeal to certain gear. Sony SLR´s are not my cup of tea so far.

[Anbesol]

Not saying you are 'against Sony' either. And thats fine that Sony DSLRs are not your cup of tea, totally cool that's your freedom. But making advise towards a purchase shouldn't have influence from personal nuance, but rather - technical actual detail. If someone advises me against buying Chevy, I'll ask why, and it should be something more than 'I jus don't like them'.

The A700 is close to target budget used at about $600, the A3/5 series are also close to budget, the A2 is under budget. The A8/9 yeah, not even close, that is true.

Its not good to disparage a brand, rather, to mention specific features and to specifically advise based on actual information.