School me on DSLRs.

[KG4NEL]

In the dark ages, I used to be kind of a photography geek (started out with a Canon A-1, moved to a Contax RTSII, etc). Loved that until I didn't have access to a darkroom anymore.

I've never had a DSLR - always kept telling myself I'd wait until full-frame sensors came down in price - but my last point & shoot finally bit it and I don't see the point in paying $250+ for one that lets me have any kind of manual control (want to stick with Canon, and their lower lines don't offer any kind of aperture priority modes at all).

I'm looking at getting something like a Rebel T3 kit and slapping a 50mm/f1.4 on it when funds allow...I'm looking at used prices on Craigslist now and laughing, people seem to think their 2 year old used camera is worth a $50 premium over Amazon. Sorry.

Does anyone have any suggestions for what's worked for them? Things to stay away from?

Thanks.

[KG4CGC]

Don't get a used camera because from what I've seen, people want too much for them. If you get a new one or last year's model on sale, you'll have something pretty versatile that you will find fun uses for.

Canon or Nikon, you'll be happy with what you get.

Get good software. You don't need the latest wiz bang Photoshop unless you're a pro who works for corporate clients. CS2 is free, sort of and works pretty damn well and you get pretty professional results for the home/hobbyist shooter. The software that comes packaged with your new camera will get you started but you may wish to get some really sharpened results with other software capabilities. I say this because once you start getting into sharpening, you'll wonder what you did before without it.

[N8OBM]

In the dark ages, I used to be kind of a photography geek (started out with a Canon A-1, moved to a Contax RTSII, etc). Loved that until I didn't have access to a darkroom anymore.

I've never had a DSLR - always kept telling myself I'd wait until full-frame sensors came down in price - but my last point & shoot finally bit it and I don't see the point in paying $250+ for one that lets me have any kind of manual control (want to stick with Canon, and their lower lines don't offer any kind of aperture priority modes at all).

I'm looking at getting something like a Rebel T3 kit and slapping a 50mm/f1.4 on it when funds allow...I'm looking at used prices on Craigslist now and laughing, people seem to think their 2 year old used camera is worth a $50 premium over Amazon. Sorry.

Does anyone have any suggestions for what's worked for them? Things to stay away from?

Thanks.

Plain and simple the EOS system works better. Many years ago Nikon decided to add auto focus to their cameras without changing the mounting system. The thinking was a Nikon lens will fit a Nikon body period. In the short term this did them well as any old customers with significant investment in lens could use their old manual focus lens with the newer bodies. The down side was the mount compromised the auto focus performance. Compared to EOS, they focus slower and they don't do as good a job of keeping focus on a moving subject. Canon took the other road and developed a new mount with the introduction of the EOS system which quickly gave them the edge in auto focus performance. Nikon has been playing catchup ever since. My best friend/evil twin brother is a photographer at a major paper in Ohio. After 30 years of using Nikon and sizable investment in lens, the paper switched to EOS about 6 - 7 years ago.

This is not to say that Nikon makes a bad camera. Their optics are first rate as are Canons. The critical thing with either is DON"T BUY CHEAP THIRD PARTY LENS! I've also found dealing with NEF files from Nikon to be a pain in the rear. Both are good cameras. Either way you go you will get a quality product. The best system to have is the which ever one your friends have so you can borrow their lens if you need to. While I've been a Canon guy for close to thirty years but,I always kept a Nikon body around so I could borrow lens from my freinds

Just my two cents

Archie N8OBM

[KG4CGC]

Agreed on don't buy cheap 3rd party lenses.
Question: Didn't Nikon get past the issue you speak of?

[N8OBM]

Agreed on don't buy cheap 3rd party lenses.
Question: Didn't Nikon get past the issue you speak of?

So far as I know, most of the same issues exist with the Nikons. The AF system is largely mechanical using a small motor in the body and it just can't move as fast as having the motor in the lens as the canon lens do. I have been told that some of the higher end Nikon lenses do use a servo motor in the lens that's almost as fast but, Canons performance following a moving object is still better. Think sports photography where you are using a serious telephoto lens and following the wide receiver down field to try and get the shot of him mid catch. Canon does that better.

Again, the Nikon isn't bad, it's just that Canon is better. My evil twin did sports photography using manual focus Nikons for years and did great work. The Eos digital stuff makes his life easier and he gets more of the breathtaking action shots that he did however, the skill of the operator still rules the day. That said all of the current DSLR cameras are certainly better than the early ones were.

Archie N8OBM

[KG4CGC]

I'm not having that issues but that doesn't mean they're not there for others.

[AE1PT]

The critical thing with either is DON"T BUY CHEAP THIRD PARTY LENS!

The key here is avoiding "cheap." Beware that the OEM (Canon, Nikon, et al) put some pretty cheap and shoddy lenses on their gear under the rubric of "kits."

To say third party lenses are to be avoided in the mien is a mistake. There are some very fine and highly rated/regarded lenses make by Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. Do your research.

[KG4CGC]

The key here is avoiding "cheap." Beware that the OEM (Canon, Nikon, et al) put some pretty cheap and shoddy lenses on their gear under the rubric of "kits."

To say third party lenses are to be avoided in the mien is a mistake. There are some very fine and highly rated/regarded lenses make by Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. Do your research.

Those tend to not be, "cheap." Well, some of the Sigmas of past have been dogs in the DSLR market.
Nikon makes some cheap lens too. They are the "G" series. Chromatic aberration. $170 for an 80 to 300mm lens. What do you expect.

Just test drive a couple of models at a camera shop. The new DSLRs offered from even Pentax take some pretty crisp photos. I almost got a Pentax in 2006 but at the time they had battery life issues. I was headed that direction since I already have glass for my K1000. Matter of fact, I hoping someone made a totally manual DSLR like the K1000 SLR. It's all I knew how to use. Now you can get spoiled (and stupid) with auto and program modes.

[K7SGJ]

I've had a Nikon D7000 for about a year now, and haven't had any issues with the camera or any Nikor lens. While not "cheap" and not an entry level camera, it seems do everything very well. Of course it has a bazillion features on it that I'm still exploring. I just wish it came with more time so I could go out more often to use it. This is the first Nikon I've ever owned. In the past everything was Pentax film until I moved into the digital non DSLR and P&S, which were all Canon. My first digital DSLR was a Canon Rebel.

The Canon Rebel series is a great camera for the money. I never had a problem with mine, and the pictures were always excellent. Well, not always; but it was no fault of the camera.

[N8OBM]

The key here is avoiding "cheap." Beware that the OEM (Canon, Nikon, et al) put some pretty cheap and shoddy lenses on their gear under the rubric of "kits."

To say third party lenses are to be avoided in the mien is a mistake. There are some very fine and highly rated/regarded lenses make by Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. Do your research.

I will agree that it is true that Tamron and Sigma have made some first rate glass. I haven't had any experience with Tokina so I won't comment. It is also true that Tamron and Sigma made some pretty mediocre glass as well. Years ago Tamron made a really wonderful 300mm 2.8f lens that rocked! They also made a bunch of pretty lame 2 touch 75-200 zoom lenses that were sold under their name and Vivitar. Vivitar makes very little of what they sell. They have things made for them with their label. It used to be that some of the Vivitar Series One glass was wonderful. I have a one touch 28-90 Series One zoom that I used as my primary lens for many years. Sharp, reasonably bright, and a really useful range of lengths. I don't know if Series One is still being made or if it's still good.

A couple of basic rules about lenses:

1. One zoom can not do every thing! You do not want any zoom that has a greater than 3:1 ratio of lengths. Zoom lenses in general are a compromise. The greater the range of the zoom the greater the compromise. Can a 35 to 300mm be done? Yes it can but you either need to drastically compromise performance or it will be stupid expensive.

2. Fixed lengths are usually brighter and sharper.

3. Unless you are doing sports, wildlife, or spy photography you probably don't need longer than a 135mm lens. Long lenses compress space and they make your pictures look flat. It's usually better to get closer to the subject with a shorter length lens. For portraiture I use a 90 mm on an 35mm SLR body. I use a 135mm or 150mm if I'm using a 6cm x 6cm body. Don't waste money on expensive telephoto lenses unless you are certain you need them. Good ones do NOT come cheap!

4. You will almost certainly not go wrong is you use the same brand lens as the camera body. The worst Nikon Lens is still better than most third party El Craptar lenses. I've also seen some third party lenses jam on Nikon mounts. I had to get ugly with a dremel tool to cut off a junk lens off my Nikon 20/20 body. Also be careful who you loan you cameras to. Yes, the previous two items are related. Check with the different photo magazines. Over the years they have done very detailed breakdowns of just about any lenses performance. Do you research about a lens before you buy. Doubly so if you are at a big box retailer. If you are at B and H or some other specialty retailer, you can take the sales persons advice with in reason. If you are at best buy or the like....... My experience is that 80% of what they say is misinformation and the other %20 are just plain lies. You could fill books with what they don't know.

5. Long lenses live or die by their coatings. One of the reasons good long lenses are so expensive is the difficulty in coating. There is some similarity between lenses and antennas in that they behave differently at different wavelengths. The coating on the lenses do reduce internal reflections but they also serve to help all the parts of the visible spectrum focus on the same plane, either the CCD or the film. Be kind to you lenses coating. Use a simple haze filter in front of your glass to protect the coating on the front from the environment.

Just my two cents

I hope this helps

Archie N8OBM