<p>FWIW, I have the “old” Canon digital EOS Rebel XT, which I love, but also Canon’s image-stabilized lens U 24-105. I used to have a zoom that went to 200 but this one actually is so good that I can blow up the photo as much as the zoom on the old one. I use a 2G card. This past month, I have shot probably 2,500 photos in low light or evening (mostly theater or concert shots, some prom pix) and with this lens I use ISO 800 and the TV setting with 1/80 or 1/100. I rarely, rarely use a flash, as I hate how it flattens and wrecks the light. (I use flash outdoors sometimes for fill light for backlighting. Then I use speedlite 580X with the cheap white plastic box that fits over the flash.) I have lugged this thing on choir trips, to choir camp, here and there and don’t care a hang about having a camera that fits in my pocket. Only downside to DSLR is the sound of the shutter. I tested the comparable Nikon when I was shopping and it was noisier; plus I just liked the Canon better. But it’s a personal thing. </p>
<p>I totally agree that a digital SLR that’s twice the price of mine wouldn’t necessarily mean that my photos would be twice as good. Entry-level DSLR is just fine for me. (Although I did spend MORE on this IS lens than I did on the camera!) What’s really important is learning how to use the camera beyond AUTOMATIC. And turn off that beep first time you go into the menu.</p>
<p>I use iPhoto for quick slideshow editing and Photoshop CS2 for major editing but I really actually like Picasa2 for quick editing, as it color corrects much better than iPhoto and does everything more quickly. (The best thing, is, of course, to take photos that need little editing, but sometimes that EXIT sign gets in the way in a theater.) I make a disc of photos on my PC using Picasa2 (not available for Macs, sadly), photos original size (NOT reduced), then pop the CD in my Mac, where I upload to iPhoto and to private albums on my Flickr account (another amazing product; I am not a salesperson, honest). Well worth the pro account for $25 per year as it’s a backup for your photos and you can send people the link–and they can download print-quality photos from the Flickr. Or not (let’s say you are trying to make money from your photos!)–you choose the settings. I’ve done various theater/music/prom/church events this way and people love it. Now if I can only figure out a way to make money with photography.</p>
<p>Pearlygates: The D200 is not full frame/sensor. You have to go to the D2h for full sensor.</p>
<p>I agree with whoever recommended taking classes. I took photo classes through my university (required for my old major and still some of my favorite classes), and also picked up some stuff on the side from a family friend who is also a well-known photographer. I do give both of my teachers lots of credit for the fact that I can take better photos with a little p+s Nikon than most people I know with DSLRs.</p>
<p>I manage my workflow in iPhoto, but do all of my editing in Photoshop. I use iMovie for slideshows.</p>
<p>After a long and detailed research, I finally placed my order of a D80 body (with a 5 year warranty), a Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 with macro and a Nikkor 70-300MM VR. The overwhalming opinion is that spending money on lenses is better than on camera. </p>
<p>The FedEx package should be here this Friday and I will be busy for a while learning all the new things.</p>
<p>Any one could recommend a shareware photo editor? I heard that Photoshop while is excellent, it will take a long time to master.</p>
<p>PS I ordered from buydig whose service seems to be acceptable.</p>
<p>For photo classes, betterphoto.com has some online classes where they give you an assignment (with examples etc) and you upload a few pictures. The prof and other students then critique those pictures. Classes range from beginning to “so you want to be a professional” type classes, and include some photo shop classes. So if you don’t yet have time to schlep to class every day, it’s an easy way to start out. And we have a D80 around here somewhere, and a D1x, D2x, D100, D200, D40 and way more lenses than you can shake a stick at around here somewhere. As well as bunches of little point and shoot digitals. So our hobby has gotten a tad out of control. (I’m not even going to mention the lighting stuff we have in the garage for that portrait class…) We use photoshop to download and fixup pictures. And its a great hobby for those that like to travel.</p>
<p>do you already have a program with your OS?
( Apple has iphoto and windows has photo gallery)
Consumer reports rated the software that Nikon puts out as poor but Microsofts digital image suite as good ( $20)</p>
<p>I just ordered a Canon A570 IS which may end up being for myself- I thought that as we already have a few SLRs, that getting a compact, a subcompact and perhaps a lower end DSLR ( looking at the lower end Canons) as well would be a better idea than getting something too big to lug around.
My D wants one that can fit into her pocket, but I don’t like the way that the smaller cameras feel</p>
<p>Why do people say getting a DSLR is the fastest way to go broke? It can’t be any worse than the old film based SLRs cam it? I mean, there’s no film to buy, no dark room to maintain, and you only print your best shots. I only have a cheap point and shot digital (Nikon Cool Pix L3), so what do I know?</p>
<p>poetsheart: I think the only reason people say that is because as soon as you buy a DSLR, it’s [almost] obsolete. Not really, but they’re like computers and printers–something new is coming out every day, it seems, to replace the “latest.” Also, while film, commercial paper, and darkroom are expensive, you can’t really use a DSLR unless you also buy a computer/printer/scanner/inks/paper/transparencies (if you make your own digital negatives), all of which you’re always replacing–not to mention software, like Photoshop. (Of course you can always use the GIMP, which is open source, easy to use, and does pretty much what Photoshop does, except it’s free.) The DSLR is probably the least expensive part of the proposition, so I’m guessing that’s why people say “a DSLR is the fastest way to go broke.”</p>
<p>poetsheart, let me use my own experiences to ilustrate the point. </p>
<p>Getting a DSLR with relatively cheap lensese first;
Buy filters - UV, PL, FL
Buy SDHC cards
Subscripe outdoor photography magazine (local lib does not have)
Looking to buy tripod, carrying case; software, extra battery
Looking for places to take vacation
Looking to buy a laptop with faster processor and large hard disk
Looking into space on the web so I upload photos there and send a link for others to view my photo rather than send them a 20 MB file
may look for other more expensive lenses if the initial failure to make good photo can be linked to “poor” equipment. A 80 - 200MM F2.8 VR and a 10 - 20mm will be my next set of lenses
etc</p>
<p>Adding everything up will be several times of the first 2K cost of camera and lenses</p>
Depends on where you look. Count the white lenses at any sporting event. Those are all Canons. Canon has owned the telephoto end of journalism for many years due to very fast long glass.</p>
<p>Figure out whether you want to be in the Canon system or the Nikon system for the long term, then buy the camera that fits your budget. The camera will be obsolete in a few months, but it will still take the same pictures it always did. The glass you buy will last essentially forever (within reason). You can upgrade the camera body many times without changing glass. There’s not much difference at any given price point between Canon and Nikon, either is fine. Canon does have the only affordable full frame camera and much lower noise in low light conditions. Nikon has better ergonomics and better wide angle lenses.</p>
<p>I picked Nikon D80 based my reading of popular photograpy magazine. They rank D80 better than XTi per image quality. </p>
<p>Yes, I do see a lot of “white head” in sport events. I don’t think I will afford one of those any way. A 70 - 200MM F/2.8 VR is aleady at $1600. BPSS.</p>
<p>That’s why I think it’s more worthwhile to spend the money on the lens, not the camera body.</p>
<p>Just wanted to add here, too, that for 35mm (film) cameras, a lot of pros use Leica/Leitz lens, which–sadly-- completely missed the boat on digital. While Nikon film cameras were always used more than Canon film cameras (by pros), Canon’s digital cameras/lens are excellent and definitely compete with Nikon digital cameras/lens. I wouldn’t turn around for the difference in lens quality, either–both excellent.</p>
<p>For long lenses, it is worth the extra money to get the *optical<a href=“not%20digital”>/i</a> image stabilization (The “IS” lenses for Canon, for example). No matter how many megapixels you have, if the image isn’t sharp to begin with, the extra pixels won’t help. And on a long lens, it doesn’t take much movement to blur the photo. Optical stabilization offers a floating element that offsets these tiny movements.</p>
<p>Also (probably obvious) take all photos in RAW mode (very memory intensive). You can always reduce file sizes later, but you can’t later recover the pixels you didn’t capture. Also, the software you get should work with RAW formats.</p>
<p>kluge is right about the megapixels; there is a trade-off between storage requirements and quality. And, like I implied above, having more megapixels does not necessarily mean sharper photos.</p>
<p>As for lenses, a zoom might be OK for casual photography, but to take advantage of 10 megapixels, I think the quality would be better with fixed-length lenses.</p>
<p>Life is too short to mess with RAW, for me, anyway. I just take four or five photos quickly changing the settings. I use manual. I just don’t have time for post production on every photo.</p>
<p>Just started a 4-evening Event photography class and the instructor said forget filters, use a hood all the time (he said, why would you put a relatively cheap piece of glass over your expensive lens? The hood reduces flare and protects the lens better). Also said to spend time with white balance beforehand so there’s less post-production. The best thing he said was: the best camera in the world is the one you have. That being said, he recommended getting a f/1.4 lens for shooting indoor events, so I did. Canon 50mm 1.4. Unbelievable how much more light it lets in. I’m not used to a prime lens, though, and almost fell off a stage backing up to get the photo.</p>
<p>neumes: I have to disagree with your instructor. While a lens hood will protect from getting sun flare, it will <em>not</em> protect your very expensive lens from dust, dirt, grime, scratches and possible breakage–like a filter will. You really should have a filter. I do agree with him/her about the 1.4 aperture, though.</p>
<p>digmedia: I agree that fixed lenses are <em>generally</em> better than zoom, but that’s usually because people aren’t willing to pay the extra amount of money for a zoom with a wide aperture and excellent optics. They’re out there, though, and can certainly equal the optical quality of a fixed lens. I’ve never thought beginners should get zooms, though, because it encourages them to simply stand in one place and never move around.</p>
<p>I agree about the quality of the lens, but if you ever want to enlarge your images to something like 16x20 (or larger), you will also need those megapixels. If you have only the excellent lens and not the megapixels, you’ll never be able to print very large–regardless of how great the lens is.</p>
<p>The filter will generally cost you a 1/2 stop, but mine only comes off in a dark auditorium when I need the extra light. My favorite lens is the Canon 80-200 F2.8 “Magic Drainpipe”. It’s an oldy and a goody.</p>
<p>bandit: There are some filters that, among other things, do cut light (ie, neutral density; colored filters, polarizer), but UV filters simply do <em>not</em> cost you any light. They will cut haze and absorb UV light (hence, the term “filter”); consequently, your resulting image will, in fact, be much sharper. However, they cost you no light-- not even 1/2 stop. </p>
<p>I personally cannot imagine having an expensive quality lens and not using a filter to protect it.</p>
<p>Jack and bandit_TX, I guess we need to be precise here. A UV filter 100% does cut light, but it cuts only the UV part of light (<400 cm-1). I read some where that UV light, while it is not visible by human eyes, it is “visible” to the CCD sensor. Use a GOOD filter protects lens and the CCD plus yields a better photo.</p>
<p>I actually took 1/2 day off Friday to wait for my package. Took two rounds of photo each with the 70 - 300MM VR and the 15-80 F/2.8 with Macro. Love the long one but dispointed with the macro. Now I understand why people buy so many different lenses. It is the lens that makes or breaks the photo.</p>