Need camera advice regarding my first DSLR

Hi mal! *squee* Let me just start by saying congrats on getting back into photography and welcome to the digital age! :B $600 is a really good budget to start off with. (Mine was half that xD) If you are looking for reviews on specific cameras you already have in mind, then this website, DPReview, will be so much more helpful than I can be! They have EVERYTHING: cameras, lenses, and forums about this stuff.

I don't know much about Nikon or Canon other than the fact that they are expensive. I, personally, had an Olympus as my first SLR and never went back, though the first SLR I used was my friend's Canon. I don't recall noticing any difference between our cameras other than hers had slightly better noise control at higher ISOs. BUT! I can tell you that Olympus has AMAZING glass. Even their kit lenses are amazing. All of their cameras come bundled with two kit lenses: 14-42mm and 40-150mm. My Oly E-410 is an entry lvl SLR and cost around $300 (aka my budget). Recently, I upgraded to an E-620 (bundled with a 35mm macro) for about $400+

So, I am rambling, but that is the bulk of what I like about Olympus. Give that website a browse and I am sure you can be much more (unbiased) help than you can here on DoA. Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of camera companies other than Canon and Nikon. If you're really set on getting your money's worth, you have you be willing to branch out!

As for the doll side of things, I've found, the type of camera really doesn't matter if you are getting a SLR. What really matters is the lens and that varies from person to person. Though, I suggest getting a camera that has good noise control. I hope my rambling was helpful. ^_^ Good luck with your search.

 

Are you already set on a Nikon or Canon? You can consider Olympus/Panasonic/Sony, which are smaller mirrorless systems. You lose the optical viewfinder but gain a smaller and lighter setup. All systems will have some form of the typical lenses used for doll and general photography. (Kit zoom, fast portrait prime, telephoto zoom, macro.)

I only ask that because you should be choosing the camera that best fits your hands and brain--something you find comfortable and simple to hold and use--and it might not be a Nikon or Canon.

OTOH, if you are pretty confident in your ability to use/learn any system, I would say buy the same system as your closest friends; you can share lenses, accessories and technical tips easier that way.

Personal bias: I think you should go for the new T3i if you can swing it. Tilt screen.

 

The D3100 is the best in class right now, compared to the other stuff of the same price. The Pentax K-m or K-r or whatever it's called is supposed to be pretty good too.

However, if you can get one for the money, the Rebel T3i is probably better than anything else in the sub-$1000 range. The T1i and T2i are also fine, the only real difference between the T2i and the T3i is the swivel screen.

 

My first DSLR was the Canon T1I. I almost purchased the XS, but for about 100 dollars more, I was able to get the T1I. There are only a few differences in the two, I think, so it isn't really that big of a deal.
I absolutely adore it. It has some really wonderful features, and does everything that I need it to do (plus the T1I has HD video, which is useful)
I've used the Nikons at my school before, and I definitely prefer Canon. It is just a personal preference, though. If you can, I suggest going to Best Buy or somewhere that keeps DSLRs on display, and just looking at them, holding them, comparing them IRL etc. I feel like my canon fits better in my hands, but everyone is different.
If you decide to go with Canon, the f/1.8 lens is really wonderful. It costs about 100 dollars, and is really good for doll photography, in my opinion. In my newest photoshoots, that's what I've used.

I'm not a fan of the kit lens. As a beginner, it was nice to have something generic that it came with before I could research other lenses, but if there are a few lenses you already know you want, I'd suggest just buying the body then some of them. The kit lens is versatile, but it isn't particularly good or bad at anything. It is, as I said, very generic.

So, ignoring the TL;DR, I have a Canon T1I that I use with an f/1.8 lens for doll photography, which you can view here. But in the end, its all about what you like best.

 

It's really up to you and what you're comfortable with.

For me, I got a nikon d40 because my brother had the D50. He was personally set in his ways that Nikons were the best thing out there, but for me I got a nikon A) because he told me to and B) because he was my resource for information and I could go to him with my camera questions.
I could also steal lenses from him

So for me the decision boiled down to what someone close to me owned so I could leach of their knowledge and accessories
And I personally love my D40, and have shot with a rebel before and I can never understand who people put up with them because I think they're terrible. But that's most likely due to the fact that I've gotten comfortable with the feel of my nikon.

So also depending on what your SLR was before, you may want to stick with that company if you're really comfortable with it.

 

I see the deal with the T3 now, I hadn't heard about and thought it was the same as the T3i.

Between the D3100 and T3 there's probably not much difference. I'd go to a camera store, see which one feels better to you, and go with it.

 

If you have a friend shooting Canon and are brand-agnostic, I would highly suggest you match him/her, as I mentioned previously. If he's willing to loan gear to you (like a macro lens, perhaps), all the better.

If you have an old or broken Canon camera (ANY kind, compact or SLR, film even, doesn't matter), call Canon USA and ask about their "Customer Loyalty Program". This is an upgrade program where you trade in your old camera for a refurbished model at a reduced price. Selection and prices vary depending on what your camera is and what they have in stock so you must talk to an actual person to get it. Even if you have a low end compact, I believe you can still get at least an Rebel XS offered to you, which isn't too bad for something you'd otherwise just throw away.

Used should be ok, though the oldest Canon I'd suggest is an XSi for the Live View feature; the feature is seriously good for tripod use and basically costs you nothing. KEH is a reputable used dealer and you can also look at refurbished stock from Adorama. If you buy used from Craigslist or eBay, you'll have to evaluate the condition yourself and go without a warranty, which can be a hit or miss experience.

 

If I were you, I would honestly go for a Canon EOS Rebel T1i body with a 50mm f/1.8 lens for starters like Ella suggested. I've found that to be a nice set up for all your basic doll photography needs and that's what I'll be getting later myself. I can easily find the body alone in retail stores in the $500-$520 range in my area (prices may differ in different states, though) and the 'Nifty Fifty' lens is around or under $100, which makes it within your price range for what would work well for this purpose, versus what works generically well for standard photography.

I'd also suggest the 100m f/2.8 lens later down the road for very close-up detailed shots (such as if you wanted to show the eyelash detail of a face-up perfectly) if you end up getting much more involved with photography, since it is a bit of an expensive lens it might be a waste otherwise.

I've used (more like borrowed from photography friends) Canon, Olympus and Nikon cameras and my take on things from the three or so models from each company I've handled it breaks down to this for me: I don't much like Nikon for strictly doll photography, I find it muuuuch more suited to active-life captures than still-life captures and in fact I'd rate it higher than any Canon or Olympus camera for sports captures or something like that where the object is moving often. I think Olympus is a good second place holder for doll photography, they seem to make sharper still-life captures than Nikon but not as sharp as Canon. Also, their cameras are great for structure-captures and they are very newbie-friendly with their button set ups and features.

I prefer Canon for still-life and doll photography more than the others for many reasons. Specifically the sharpness of shots with their lenses, the fact that the lenses can so easily transfer between many Canon models (it was truly this which won me over more than anything else about Canon, after having 'blown' $1,000 in lenses from an old Olympus model camera that wouldn't transfer over to the newer models when my old model went ka-put on me). The user-friendly button set up of most Canon cameras is very nice and inviting, I can honestly say I get excited to handle one of them versus the overwhelmed feel I get when being handed a camera of most other companies and being told to pick it up and learn it.

Well, it looks like I've written a novel. I'm sorry about that but I do hope this can be of some help to you. Best of luck finding your perfect fit camera!

 

I have heard many buy a Nikon. Must say that I am a newbie when it comes to DSLR. In fact, I don't own a (D)SLR yet. Have been looking around to see what I like or not. I might have other "criteria" when looking at the DSLR, anyway Sony has some interesting DSLR for sale like the A33 SLT (if correctly named). Or maybe try out a Pentax, which have good quality for what you pay for.

I know, it is not much help with your choice between the cameras you want. Get the one you feel the most comfortable with would be my advice and read some reviews on dpreview.com for some (professional) opinions.

As far as I know, it is not always about the camera, but also the lenses you use and the skill you have. My skill is average, so my photos will be average or simply say not good. With good skills comes good photos, hope you have the skills.

 

this is so true.
I've learned a lot over the past year and few months that I've had my DSLR I've been doing tutorials, reading books, looking up techniques, etc.

But my D40 is the only camera I use now. I thought I'd keep my Point and shoot Sony handy just to drag around with me for fun since DSLRs are rather large and heavy, but I've gotten so used to my DSLR that it's just normal to tote it around XD

I don't have purses, I have camera bags :B

 

The lower the ISO, the better it can look, however you need either a lot of light or a long exposure time. For the latter, that usually means a tripod is needed. Higher ISO usually means colours start to get muted, you lack some dynamic range and also noise will prevent fine details from being obtained.

While I haven't used the E-620 specifically, I used to have an E-510 and I can't imagine the '620 being worse than that. Even the E-510 produces competitive output quality at ISO1600.

To me the bigger concern about Olympus is what future you have with the system? Their DSLRs are pretty much a dead end so what's available now is going to be all you'll ever be able to get for it.

 

honestly, I just leave my iso on 200 or auto if I can.
It's not something I ever bother with...for me it's never been that big of a deal.


I've made fullsize prints and never had a problem with grain in my photos.

If you're just planning on downsizing them for web viewing, then you're most likely going to be downsizing enough for grain to be too fine to show when brought down.

 

I doubt you'd want to go above ISO1600 anyway. My camera (Canon EOS 450D) doesn't go above 1600, and I almost always stay at 400 or below. The only time I've used 1600 was at concerts when I was in the dark, couldn't use flash, and wanted a fast shutter speed because I was hand-holding the camera and the things I was photographing weren't holding still.

 

They're taken with a 50mm lens.
*poked at the metadata*
couldn't tell you what 50mm lens they bought though. looks like they range between 100 to over 1,000$ *ded*

 

depends what you want to do.
50mm is generally a portrait lens. Great for low depth of field and big boke.

it's not going to work that awesome for shooting much else though.

A kit lens has a wide range and is good for just about everything. I use my kit lens for everything.

But many many things I read says that the canon kit lens is nothing special and if you get a canon you might as well get a lens with it.
So if you're sold on the canon, then you may be set.

But don't trap yourself to one idea of photos. Versatility what I would recommend if you're going to be dropping 400-600$ on a camera.

 

In most cases, a 50mm lens will be better than the kit lens for portrait-type photography and be able to do all the same things the kit lens does if you're using it for that. Take a look here to see what I mean. In the case of the default lens the Canon EOS Rebels come with and the 50mm f/1.8 II side by side, I preferred the 50mm by far for doll photography. To me, the standard 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens isn't as good for this type of thing and I wouldn't consider it to be worth the extra mark-up but some people really enjoy the bit of extra versatility it offers. I normally consider the default lenses as just a random generic lens they give you which can take basic pictures right out of the box, it truly isn't anything special that you'll absolutely have to have for photos though if that's what you're worried about. Also, it's one of those that's super easy to pick up later for much cheaper separately than if you bought it with the kit. I kid you not when I tell you I see them at the pawn shop and local camera shops for $50 almost every day. I see people selling the kit lens all the time for a fraction of the price than what it would cost if you bought it with the kit. In that respect, no it's not a necessity. For indoor and low light, the 50mm F/1.8 II will beat it every time. If you take pictures almost exclusively in sunny weather outside though, this isn't as much an issue.

The second post of this thread shows some pictures taken with a 50mm f/1.8 II, from the sounds of things you're liking this size lens too. And for a better explanation of the different things the lenses do, you should probably read at least the first page of that thread. I found post #15 to be an especially descriptive and easy to understand post that goes full circle in explaining the matter. I'll also throw this out here, as it was really helpful for me when I was deciding if I wanted the kit lens or not. Heck, might as well toss this one out here, too. It explains the strong-points of the 50mm F/1.8 II

That's correct. They're the same, it just goes by multiple names. The T1i is also known as the Canon 500D, the "replacement" (this is debatable) of the XSi.

 

I can't agree with skipping the kit lens, especially if you are new. The $100 you save can't pay for how "useless" your camera will be without it (or a more expensive replacement):

• wide angle ability (can shoot in tight areas)
• zoom functionality (much more convenient)
• higher than normal maximum magnification (30% life-size magnification vs. 20% for most non-macro lenses)
• image stabilization if using Canon/Nikon

It does have shortcomings of course, but addressing them any of them will cost a lot of money, with the exception of the 50mm. The 50mm IMO makes a fantastic second lens but a poor first lens. It will be generally be too tight to use when you are indoors, especially in an apartment or bedroom. Get used to doing mostly headshots, because that's all you will be able to frame with it.

But that said, it's mostly academic--you are only considering a ~$500 SLR anyway and those are almost always sold as kits.

 

It's the EF 50mm f/1.8, which runs about $120. It's definitely a good lens bang for your buck. I have an entire flickr tag of photos I took with it.

TBH I find the kit lens to be a good investment because it's a good-enough all-purpose sort of lens. It's not a great lens but it's definitely good enough that my photography skills are insufficient to hit its limits. I generally use the 50mm lens for doll photography, but I use the kit lens and an inexpensive longer zoom lens I bought for things like vacations, concerts, and day trips.

The 50mm lens is a prime lens, so it can't zoom in our out at all -- it's always at the same focal length. That means you get to zoom with your feet, which isn't a big deal with dolls but can get a bit annoying when you're photographing scenery, and can downright ruin your day when you're photographing something like a concert in which you can't really move! What lens is best for you really depends on what you're planning to do with it. If you're never planning to photograph anything except dolls you can probably get away with just the 50mm prime lens and skip the kit lens. But if you're planning on photographing other things I'd suggest shelling out for the kit lens (the kit isn't that much more expensive than just the body), because it's a good enough lens for a beginning hobbyist and it's fairly versatile.

ETA: I do use the 50mm lens all the time in my small apartment... but only for photographing dolls and doll stuff. So, small things that I can get right up close to. And even then I have to back up at least 18 inches, as that's the minimum focal length, and often farther. XD So yeah it's a great doll and portrait lens, but if you want to get anything large in the frame in a small space you might have some issues.

 

my thing on the kit lens is that they're good for just about everything and they're cheap because they're standard.

Its the good lens to just take with you when you don't know what you're going to be doing.


for a 500$ camera, you're probably going to be wanting ot use it for more than just dolls!
You have a whole life Holidays, birthdays, trips, kids, etc. Having just a portrait or just a telephoto REALLY limits what you can capture.

But the kit lens is smack dab in the middle and allows you to just snap and go.

You said you liked my photos - 90+% of them. and 100% of them since the past year have been shot with the D40 kit lens. It's powerful.

It's cheap, it's standard, but it's /good/

 

Back again!!

ISO Question: ISO for you isn't something you should worry about to such a degree. It shouldn't be your deciding factor when choosing a camera, unless you have major ideas of doing night photography. Honestly, I used to leave my ISO at 1600 when I first got my E-410 because I didn't understand the consequences of it. But I never really noticed, so I never really learned xD (until joining forums and taking a photo class lol). Also, sometimes I forget about ISO completely. Here is a shot in b/w that I forgot to change the ISO from 1600: here. And here is a colored one in low light (aka no choice): here. And that was on my Oly E-410, my E-620 is much better than that. :3 I have never posted any uploaded ISO 1600 photos because they were just tests, so no samples. Sorry.

Lens Advise: Gaiaswill hit the nail on the head and gave you great advice! Stick with the kit lenses (especially if they are zoom lenses). You really don't want to waste money on lenses other people like only to find out that the lens doesn't work for you at all. Kit lenses are usually all-around lenses and you'll eventually learn what you like and what lens to get. I shot with my kit lenses (zooms) for a year before deciding that I like prime (non-zoom) lenses in the 25-50mm range. So, I got a 25mm lens, 35mm lens, and a 50mm. Don't try to think of everything when you're getting your first camera. It's impossible to know what you'll want in the future.

 

boke isn't an affect you learn DSLRs just do it.
it's the way the lenses work Different settings, light, etc just change the size

and it has a lot to do with apature.... fffff can't spell today..... Tight focusing will get you boke in the back.
This is why 50mm lenses work so well


But congrats on your canon ^__^
I hope you really enjoy it!

 

Bokeh is just a term for the appearance of out of focus areas. In other words, how nice the blur looks. Tastes will vary about this, but the general idea is that bokeh should be as non-distracting as possible, to keep viewer interest on the subject in focus. Good bokeh shouldn't have sharp edges or cast odd shapes or patterns (like oval or donut highlights). Most people would consider "creamy" a good way to summarize ideal bokeh.

Ways to get more blur include using a large/fast aperture, i.e. a low f-number, like f/2 or f/1.4. Another way is to magnify the background with a telephoto lens, like using a lens of focal length 85mm or higher. You can also bring the subject closer to the camera, which shrinks the depth of field (how large the "in focus" area is) and thus increases the background blur.

That's an overview. Honestly, the kit lens doesn't do bokeh that well. That is one of its shortcomings that the 50mm addresses.

Bokeh does indeed vary by lens. But don't worry about that, really. Only an extremely dedicated/rich photographer would buy a lens just for its bokeh. (They do exist!) And from informal "normal people" experiences reported online, the only people who really pay attention to bokeh are other photographers anyway.

 

Congrats Mal!! You'll love playing around with your camera and learning new techniques! Don't worry about bokeh. XD As long as you understand depth of field, then bokeh just comest from that. :3 You'll learn how to overcome a lens' short comings. Like, telephotos are easier to achieve bokeh with, but I get pretty good results from my wide angle.

Edit: Gaia, I totally bought an old film lens because I liked how creamy the backgrounds were wide open. xD But, it only cost around $50 or so....SCORE!