Your photo sharing community!

Share On

Hi. I am currently looking at buying an SLR, and want to find something that will be appropriate for a creative beginner with low technical skill AND a good eye. I am mostly concerned with finding something I can GROW INTO, including adding lenses the future. I mostly enjoy taking photos of people in natural light, but will be experimenting with nature, night scenes and action. The Canon Rebel and Nikon N80 have been suggestions. Any comments and other suggestions/information is much appreciated. I am especially wondering about the choosing of lenses, what kind of questions i should be asking and important details to research. Thank you.

Hi Noelia,

Tough question! It's very difficult to recommend a specific camera since modern film cameras all have millions of features and to be honest they're all reasonably similar! Sure, people have their favourites, but that won't necessarily help you. Both the cameras you mention are very well loved by many many photographers. People get a lot of brand loyalty - partly because you're not really buying a camera, you're buying into a system. If you spend a significant amount on Nikon gear, you're going to be less likely to pick up a new SLR that's from Canon etc.

I'm not going to recommend any brand to you. Check out the different systems, handle the cameras, read reviews. Try to stick to reputable sources of information as a lot of garbage gets posted on the internet. Look to the future - will the system support you as you grow as a photographer?

As you describe your needs, any of the modern SLRs will give you the features you need to learn and grow. They will also give you automatic modes to help you, but understand that you may grow far more by learning about photography, then casting aside the automatic modes and using your brain.

I will repeat the standard wisdom that is applied: Spend money on the lenses not on the camera. It's the lens that makes the image, the camera is just a box to hold film. This is such good wisdom, yet people seldom pay attention to it, and instead pursue the latest "auto-red-eye-reducing-perfect-portrait-making-gismo-wotsit-button-endowed-technoweenie-box". It's a little bit like spending a ton of money on fashionable spectacle frames, but then paying for the plastic fuzzy-lenses that just about let you see where you're going.

As for lenses, you want to think about what sort of photos you're going to want to take, and about how much money you want to spend now and in the future.

The main considerations of lenses are
a) Focal length range
b) Widest Aperture
c) Quality of Glass.

NOT necessarily in that order.

The sort of options available to you are:

Option 1:
You haven't got much cash to spend, and you don't see yourself spending much cash on lenses in the future, you want a "one stop solution":
The "superzoom". This has a massive focal length range (eg 28-300mm), and it's cheap. It allows you to take fairly wide angle shots (eg for landscapes), midrange shots (eg for portraits), and long(ish) telephoto shots (eg for wildlife).
HOWEVER, it will have a fairly "dark" widest aperture, perhaps f/3.5 - f/5.6 or worse, making it difficult to use in some low light situations, and causing a fairly dim viewfinder image. Finally, the biggest downside of the superzoom is probably the image quality, which is very likely to be poor due to all the design compromises necessary to produce a wide focal length range for a cheap price. Note: There are plenty of people who use superzooms and never consider their image quality poor. But then they may never have used a higher quality lens.

Second Option:
You see yourself spending money on good lenses in the future, and you're willing to restrict yourself in the short term in pursuit of better image quality.
So... you buy one or two high quality lenses now, and plan to expand in the future. You choose a lens to cover your primary interest at the best quality you can afford, and you accept that some of the things you might like to do will be more difficult until you can expand your range of lenses.

Third Option:
You have a big pile of cash, and you decide on a set of high quality lenses which will fill all your current needs. (Would that we were all this lucky!). Again, you spend your money on good glass though, rather than on a flash camera body.

Fourth Option:
You have strong muscles. So you go secondhand, and buy a full outfit of old equipment that while out of fashion, heavy, lacking automatic features etc, has razor sharp quality for a realistic price. There is a vast quantity of _extremely_ high quality secondhand gear available for a tiny fraction of what it cost new. This equipment is often better in pure image quality than the new stuff, but it requires knowledge to use, and it's not so trendy.

Fifth Option:
This doesn't fit under lenses, but has to go someplace. In my opinion you should be considering carefully before spending significant money on film equipment at this time. Especially on NEW film equipment. I don't want to get into a film-digital fight, so this is just my opinion:
a) Digital equipment is steadily overtaking film for quality, and will surpass 35mm film soon if it has not already done so. (Opinions vary).
b) As a result, lots of good film equipment is going onto the second hand market so you should consider this.
c) Digital has the potential to greatly accelerate your learning.

Note that I am not saying you should buy a digital SLR - you may not have enough cash for that, and it is quite possible that your money would be better spent on lenses at this stage. What I am saying is that you should look towards a future where you may choose to "go digital", and that you should think carefully before spending a significant amount on equipment that may be discarded. Perhaps for example you could spend as little as possible on a functional secondhand film SLR body, and invest in lenses, thinking that in due course you will switch the body to digital. Just something to bear in mind.

Finally, there is the question of "own brand" versus "Third Party" lenses. This confuses many people, because lenses by the same manufacturer vary greatly. Example: The "Kit" lens that comes with your SLR may be an own brand lens (ie made by the same manufacturer at the SLR), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good lens. Third party lenses by companies like Sigma are also confusing until you study a bit. Broadly speaking there are two types of third party lens -
1. the ultra cheap, superzooms generally fall into this category.
2. the own brand pro equivalent. These are high quality lenses that attempt to match the spec of a pro lens by the own brand manufacturer for a fraction of the price. These can be absolutely excellent lenses. Looking at Sigma for an example, the EX range are these pro equivalent lenses. They're not cheap, but they provide a lot of the quality of the _VERY_ expensive pro lenses made by manufacturers like Canon and Nikon for perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 the price.

Wow, this got long! I'll watch the thread, so just ask for more help if you need it!

Best wishes,
Chris

Hi Chris, thank you for your input! If I had to drop into one of the option categories, I would be an option 2 because i don't want an "all-in-one" lens yet i don't have those piles of cash to buy piles of equipment (but i will find the cash when i've made up my mind on the equipment!). That being said, could you suggest reputable resources where i could find reviews and comparisons of lenses/cameras? And how would i know what lens had better quality galss? Perhaps i need to go out and get a beginner book?
Based on your comments, film lenses can get attached onto digital bodies? News to me. I haven't been considering digital, but i suppose allowing that option without compromising the pictures i'd be taking on film is worth a thought or two. it's good to know, regardless.
It looks like i could be looking for the RIGHT camera/lenses all summer instead of taking some pictures!, and i don't want that to happen. However, i'd like to choose something that i will be appropriate for my uses. So, any suggestions for resources that rather ingeniously sort out some of the details (and resources that help a beginner know what the details mean) would be great.
Thanks so much for your reply. All the best,
Noelia

Wow Chris, that was quite a good chapter.

Noelia, I can sympathise with your situation, having researched and compared cameras for the better part of a year before I made a purchase. I was lucky enough to have a borrowed old manual camera, very nice one at that, to play with in the mean time. And like you I wanted something beginner friendly that would satisfy my growing technical skill, a camera that would not hold me back, at least not for a while. I narrowed it down to 2 camera bodies, the Nikon N80 and the Canon Elan 7E.

I went to the camera store and played with both, looked at the work put out by various photographers using both 'systems', and compared the available lenses in each system. For me the available features between the 2 bodies were even, same for the lenses as well. I chose the N80, based on the way it felt in my hands, the control layout and the fact that Nikon still produces manual cameras (the FM3A specifically) in it's system. For lenses I went with 2 good lenses, not the best but not the cheap ones either, the 24-120 and the 70-300. My other option was to buy 1 top quality lens, say the 17-35, 35-70 or 70-200, and live within a more limited focal range until I could buy more lenses. With the lenses I chose I have a more limited light range for hand holding and less creative control with the depth of field.

I don't think you can go wrong with either of the 'big 2', Nikon or Canon, but I would look past the Rebel and check out the Elan 7 or 7E for what you are wanting to do. I can tell you that I am very pleased with my N80 and just today recieved my first new lens since I purchased the camera in December 02', the 105mm f/2.8 micro, which I am really looking forward to playing with tomorrow.

A good resource for comparisons and reviews of cameras is www.dpreview.com

I would really suggest bypassing all of those Rebel and N bodies, and go on Ebay, and buy yourself a good condition Pentax K1000 or Canon AE-1 or F1 and a lens or two---start with a 50mm (cheap and plentiful) and maybe a medium zoom- 30-70 or a 28-80...and learn about photography from the ground up. Learn about F stops, shutter speed, DOF, and other things that are hard to learn about with a camera that does a lot of things for you.

You will keep the camera forever; and when you decide to move on, you will have a good idea of what you want/need, instead of buying something now and spending $$$ and realizing you are overwhelmed by it. Just my opinion....I am glad I went this route, and now I have at least 7 cameras of all types, digital and film, rangefinders and medium format, and I love them all; but my 30 year old F1 gets me every time.

Hi,
Thanks everyone for your comments. I checked out the dpreview.com site and it's apparently all for digital...I am still looking for film at this point. Brian - the first camera i bought some years ago WAS a pentax K1000, used and in good condition. i didn't spend enough time learning with it, however and didn't get myself to a class, so after i took it with me to a tropical country for two years and it grew mold (like everything else i had!) it's reached it's retirement. i took it to a shop and THEY told me it was "no good."
i've wanted something with the auto option because sometimes (with FAMILY, for example) it CAN do all that for me. it will be harder, i know, for me to learn all the intricacies of photogrpahy, but i think it will also allow me to be creative and excited about the photography right from the start. either way, i've got nothing now, so that's not going to get me very far! thank you!
(i've been practicing with my sisters Nikon N65 and it's ok. i am definitely not used to such a sensitive trigger, though!)

hi Noelia,
I've used a Nikon F65,tats a good beginer AF,no doubt.but why u havent uploaded any of ur works yet?share some.
Happy shotting.
regads

That's a bit condescending isn't it Brian?
All except the very lowest Nikon N line have equivalents in the Canon Eos line (those lowest end Nikons BEING the Rebel equivalents).

I'd heartily recommend an N80 or N75 to anyone, N65 to less dedicated people.

Noelia, the shutter of the N65 isn't all that sensitive. It might take some getting used to after working with a camera that requires a lot of pressure that's all.
You can't go far wrong with an N80 (which is effectively the more mature brother of the N65).
You can use it in full auto, full manual, or anything in between.
It's classed semi-pro because of that, but don't let that deter you.

There is a new "last year" new camera on the market based on the pentax 1000 lines and can in fact use those lens. It is totally manual which is great IMHO for learning technical skills. Cost is about 200 dollars. Vivitar has put their name on it, but a lot of students are using it in this part of the area as their first serious camera.

Noelia,

Welcome to the wonderfull world of toys and the "which is the best - were are all the reviews" questions, combined with film vs digital, you'll have all the right stuff for endless holy wars :-)

Now my analysis of what you have said and asked plus my recommendation :-)
Ah...No. You will have to answer some questions yourself! Because... you want il all it seems, and that means prioritising and making a trade-off :-) (you did't have a pile of cash you said).

SLR: well, you used a K1000 so you know what you are talking about (viewfinder shows about 95% of the final image -this is the printable area for most minilabs-, pro versions show 100%, interchangeable lenses)!

Beginner-Intermediate: you will need something that delivers results FAST so you will remain enthousiastic while learning. This is why I recommend against an all manual camera like a K1000 (unless you happen to prefer their relatively small size plus the metal-feeling). Also because you said you have low technical skill FOR NOW - You Will Learn :-).
AND because of that you will need something that allows to be switched from all-auto to manual-what-you-want (shutter, aperture, focus in any combination).

You consider yourself creative, to me this sounds like doing a lot of experiments. Digital with it's immediate feedback and zero-cost per image after the first investments, sounds good here! Plus you'll have lots of creative options later when working on the image at the computer. The latter is of course also possible with scanned negatives/slides.

You enjoy photographing people in natural light. This sounds like you need a FAST lens (aperture from e.g. 1.4 to 2.8 max. As far as focal lengths: 24-35 mm for environmental portraits (people in their surroundings), 50mm for moving in a bit closer but still full or half body, and the flattering perspective of 80-135mm for portraits, even longer for candids from a distance ("sniper style").

Nature. Landscape usually calls for wide angle, around 20-24mm, maybe down to 17. You could start with 28.
Details in nature can be done with anything, depending on how close you can get.
Animals call for long focal lenses or a good shelter and lots of patience :-)
Insect and flower photography require a macro lens, preferrably in the 100mm range for sufficient distance to subject.

Night scenes require a tripod and the possibility for long shutter speeds (no problem with any SLR).

Action. What do you intend to do? Sports? In that case you usually will need a longer focal length 200-400 mm PLUS the ability to focus FAST (camera-lens combo!) A large aperture helps focussing fast. Long lenses quite often require a tripod or some form of Image Stabilisation (Canon speak) or Vibration Reduction (Nikon speak) or Anti Shake (KonicaMinolta speak). All depending on how close you can get to the action!

You want (to spend on) image quality. This spells low ISO film around ISO 100 (print or slide, have you thought about slides?) and fast prime lenses OR very expensive fast zoom lenses (fast in aperture).

You can find reviews (lenses etc.) on photo.net, photographyreview.com, photodo.com, luminous-landscape.com (lots of very interesting articles there!) If you have narrowed your choice, just google: review
But as you have said: taking pictures is more important than researching all summer over minimal differences.
When I bought my SLR, reviews indicated a close match between a certain range of Nikon, Canon and Minolta models. I choose on how "it felt in my hands"

It is very important that you are comfortable with the camera, can access all its controls fast. Remember, equipment does not make great photo's, the photographer does!
A warning: Lots of people make each other crazy by claiming that only the most expensive stuff will do, you will stumble over this -only Leica or Canon "L" lenses will work- and the like, these people have been named "pixel peepers" and "measurebators".

People will tell you that (in the Canon line) a Rebel Ti won't do, you will need AT LEAST a "3" or better a "1". The more expensive models offer features like mirror lockup (mirrors can cause vibrations in the 1/30 - 1 second shutter speed area), better weather (dust and water) sealing, smaller spot-meter area, 100% viewfinder, PC connection for studio flash (adapters are available), high frame rates (fast focussing and fast film advance), very sturdy body (metal). Problem is: at a very steep price AND added bulk and weight. Some people like large and heavy camera's and the "pro" look - a "pro camera is always black".
Your choice if you need this and if you want to pay the price. Don't be afraid of "plastic" however!

Too many options and too many questions for an advice right now I'm afraid.
Still, I'll give it a try :-)

Start with a visit to a shop and hand-hold various camera's and play around with various focal lenths.

No older all-manual camera's. You will miss the very good automatics of modern camera's. Should you go this way, buy only primes. Older primes are/can be VERY good, older zooms are very BAD.

Difficult choice between digital and film based. A Canon Digital Rebel is 3 times as expensive as it's counterpart the Rebel Ti. A digital SLR has as main disadvantages the 1,6 x crop factor (simply said due to the fact that the sensor is smaller than a film frame, a 100mm lens on a SLR behaves as a 160mm on a SLR. It is difficult to go really wide angle on a DSLR, but much easier to go "long") plus dust on the sensor. On the plus side fast feedback as stated above and no film/development costs but you'll need a decent computer and software. Another plus of DSLR's is the noise-free or low-noise high-ISO, which is adjustable per frame. Helps in available light photography!
And yes, you can use the same lenses on film and digital camera's. Some (older)Sigma's are reputed to have compatibility problems! Never heard about this problem in the Tamron line.
Canon has as digital SLR a Digital Rebel or a 10D (more pro), Nikon the D70. Canon film entry is Rebel Ti, a VERY capable camera.

Just for the record, there are digital "bridge" camera's like the KonicaMinolta A2. These have a fixed lens (like 28-200 mm of VERY GOOD quality, do you really need more, very good macro capability), no dust problem BUT a noise (ISO aboe 100) and a speed problem.

For a film Canon I would suggest you start with a Canon 50mm 1.8, VERY HIGH quality, cheap. Or spend a bit more for a Tamron 28-75/2.8 zoom. Then decide if you want macro, wide, long, zoom or prime for your next purchase.
Think about a tripod (night scenes).
For a digital camera, be aware of the crop factor!

What I have you ask? Canon Eos Elan (100 in Europe, this is an older model), Eos Rebel Ti (300v in Europe), 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 for landscapes, 50mm/1.8 general purpose, 100mm/2 for portraits. I shoot slides (Fuji Astia, Velvia, some Kodaks for minimal grain, max detail). Gitzo tripod AND I have a Canon Powershot A80 which I tend to use more and more. This is a cheap but VERY capable digital camera, all auto or all manual, for lots of experiments. I find it VERY important that I have high inmage quality in a VERY portable camera that I can take on hikes and have with me very often.
Maybe after the photokina or in about a year I plan on getting a DSLR. I bought the RebelTI/300v to bridge the gap until then, BUT I still LOVE slides!

Good luck with your choice AND your learning voyage!

Karel

Noelia,

Forgot to mention: almost all digital camera's EXCEPT the DSLR's are slow to operate. They are not very responsive and thus hard/near impossible to use for fast action; one of your requirements.
Unless of course you are very good at anticipating :-)

With tricks (pre-focus at hyperbolic distance for a given aperture) you can speed up things in e.g. my A80. If you want to know how search the web for "achtung albert a80". Still, these are tricks with their own disadvantages.

And even most DSLRs are slow :)

Hi Noelia! You're on the right track - you can't go wrong with Nikon OR Canon. I'm a Nikon person, just because I started with Nikon, not because I think it's better. I know the N80 will serve you well. Two things you should look for in a camera is depth-of-field preview and multiple exposure capability. They probably won't seem important at first, but as you grow, you would miss them. And the advice to buy the best glass you can afford is right on, so I won't add to that - except that a 50mm 1.8 lens is very sharp, fast, and great for learning - and not so expensive. I also advise you to use slide film while you're learning (you may never switch to prints) - what you take is what you get. You'll learn quickly to be very accurate with your metering. And don't forget the tripod!

I cannot compare the Canon and Nikon products so I won't even try. I'll just tell you what my experience has been with Canon.

My first SLR was a Rebel 2000. I loved it (note the past tense) for the first 6 months. Then a friend bought an Elan 7E. What a difference! It has a better, more solid feel to it. Then I bought an EOS 3. WOW!!! Much more solid feel, does lots and lots of neat stuff (auto bracketing, mirror lock-up, multiple exposures, 6 fps with a motor drive) and it just plain looks good.

Lense wise I started out with the "kit" lense on my Rebel. Then I got a Tamron 75-300 f 4-5.6. Then, I bought a Canon 100mm Macro f 2.8. Then,I got a Canon 35-350 L f 3.5-5.6

And then some bastard (actually some bitch...we've got her picture on security camera) stole everything. So now I'm back to square one. It's my replacement choices that tell the story.

I've already bought another EOS 3. My back-up will be an Elan 7 or 7E, definitely NOT another Rebel. I'm also getting a 10D.

My lenses will be as follows: I'll replace the 100mm Macro. I'm getting the 50mm 1.8 mentioned above. I've already ordered Canon's 300mm L f4 USM IS. I actually wanted the f 2.8 but I just can't afford, nor will I survive the spousal discovery on a lense that expensive. I'm also considering a fixed f 2.8 zoom in there somewhere for those situations where changing lenses over and over can be a pain. (Candid shots at weddings for example).

So, the moral of the story....If you go with film and decide on Canon skip the Rebel and get an Elan or EOS 3. You will be much happier in the long run. For lenses, you've already got great advice from the more seasoned photographers but I'll add my 2 cents. Get as low an f as you can afford (2.8 or lower whenever possible) and get the highest quality glass you can afford. For me, it's the "L" from Canon but I know there are 3rd party lenses that rate just as good. And, stay away from these outrageous focal ranges (like my 35-350...10x is huge!). I loved that lense and it was quite versatile but there was a loss of clarity at the extremes of its range. The zoom that I do get will not be more than a 2 to 3x and it'll be an f 2.8 or lower.

If you're anticipating a move to digital (and every film photographer is...they just might not admit it) give some thought to the interchange-ability between film and digital bodies. I know Canon lenses go both ways. I don't think the same is true of Nikon.

Good luck! Either way you go (Canon vs Nikon...Digital vs Film) just make sure you're having fun! When the fun stops it becomes work and work sucks!

I agree with the post above from James McGinnis. I also started with a Rebel and about 6 months ago upgraded to an Elan 7 and am very glad that I did. If you can afford a bit more money, skip the Rebel and look at either the Elan 7 or the 7E. As far as a lens goes, the best advice I ever got around that subject was "get the best ones you can afford."

Personally, I like the Canon Rebel 2 because of the way it felt in my hands and how well we worked together. Also I think that if you and your camera don't, well, 'get along' then you're gonna have a hard time actually having fun while your working. But on the other hand you also want something efficent. Research is the best thing I could recommend. Good luck.

Nicole

Noelia get yourself a second hand 35mm from one of the top 5 brands, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, Canon or Pentax. Make sure it has a depth of field preview and a cable release socket, A mirror lock and multi exposure are useful but not vital. As for lenses do not spurn the common 50 mm,they are good And usually fast f 1.4, 1.8,or 2.you can add on as you need or can afford, , Say a 28 wide angle , a 35 70 zoom or even a 200 mm but I will warn you after lugging heavy lenses around for a while you soon loose your enthusiasm any way the best of luck.

I started out with a Canon Rebel G. I then moved up to the Elan 7E as I progressed in knowledge. I would suggest starting out with a 7E, because it is a very well rounded intermediate camera that is fairly easy to get used to.

I've noticed several recommendations to pick up a used SLR. I would expect you should have that used SLR cleaned and checked out by a qualified technician. Wonder if this might negate the cost advantage of a used SLR over a new one?

I have already been told by my local camera store to NOT bring in my Minolta for a trade in. They can't find technicians that are qualified to repair the older cameras. They provide a waranty on all their cameras.

I know everybody's into Nikon and Canon but, have you checked into Minolta's Maxxum 5? It's about 200 hundred dollars and have all the same options and utilities than the more expensive brands and sometimes more. I just bought one and I'm very impressed.

Matt, I used Minoltas for over 20 years and still own one today.
They've lost the market because of poor quality control and will never regain it after the takeover by Konica who are not interested in selling SLRs and have rumoured to end development and possibly production.

That's not a system to grow into, it's a dead end.

p e t a ..	Malules F.	Jeanette H.	Dan W.	Nanda B.	Gregory M.	Nigel W.	Russ M.

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Your photo sharing community!