Help me find a great DSLR

[MoneyGuy]

I want to buy a really nice DSLR camera with extra lenses. I'm in no hurry but would like to have it by April for a trip I'm taking. Best Buy has a Canon with IS 18-55 mm lens and it comes with a 75-300 mm zoom lens. The whole package is on for $900 this week, a saving of $180 on the package. The camera alone is regularly $800 and the zoom lens is regularly $280.

I want nice zoom capabilities and a really versatile lens for normal use, and these two lenses seem to deliver all of these requirements.

If anyone here has worked in retail, I'm wondering should I scoop this up or if there will likley be really nice deals on after Christmas? Anyone know of any other great deals, or the chances something better will come up this winter? Anyone have experience with this camera body?

[jar_e]

Is it the Canon Rebel? Or the Rebel xtsi or whatever they call it now?

Take this with a grain of salt, as I've probably invested over 10 grand in Canon lenses/bodies/camcorders but I really believe Canon is your best bang for your buck. I've never had any issues with any of their equipment and I'm always impressed when I shoot how things turn out.

I know the Rebel has great reviews and is highly recommended. Check out dpreview.com too for an indepth review on the body and it may have lenses on there as well.

[OBCT]

I would definitely do some pre-Boxing Day research. You never know what kind of crazy deals you can stumble upon just after Christmas.

Canon and Nikon are very well respected for their DSLR's. If you're willing to spend up into the $1000 price range, a nice Nikon D60 kit w/ a couple real nice lenses on sale would be an excellent, advisable buy. Hope someone can help you out with some specifics. Keep an eye on www.redflagdeals.com in addition to anything else you find.

[MoneyGuy]

It's the REbel Xsi. It's here.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...96&catid=24394#

[The Ditch]

I'd find someone selling their 5D who wants the get the 5D mark 11(or anyone selling their 5D), I haven't shot with the XSi but I believe it doesn't have spot metering which is a pain in the ass. Also, I don't like not having a wheel on the body. Just something to think about.

[BlackEleven]

Although the kit lenses usually do offer a wide range ( from 18mm to 300 ), the trade off is usually f-stop. You'll probably be limited in between 3.5 - 5.6 or something like that. This will limit the amount of bokeh -- particularly on the short end of the lens -- and low light will result in blurred shots. Personally, I make sure my lenses are all capable of at least F/2.8, but, of course, that is much more expensive. Just something to consider about the kit lenses.

[Flaming Choy]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

I'd find someone selling their 5D who wants the get the 5D mark 11(or anyone selling their 5D), I haven't shot with the XSi but I believe it doesn't have spot metering which is a pain in the ass. Also, I don't like not having a wheel on the body. Just something to think about.

XSi does have spot metering. I think the old rebels did not.

[Russic]

I think with Canon's or Nikon's you're pretty much going to have to work if you want to find a disappointing piece of equipment. I'm more a Canon guy myself but anybody in either camp tends to defend their products with vigor. As for the price unfortunately I can be of no help.

[TimSJ]

I just bought a canon XS with a couple of lenses from dell on the days of deals for $639.. played with it over the weekend.. I am only using the automatic modes at this point and it takes some sweet pictures.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by TimSJ

I just bought a canon XS with a couple of lenses from dell on the days of deals for $639.. played with it over the weekend.. I am only using the automatic modes at this point and it takes some sweet pictures.

Tim, do you know if the lenses are capable of at least F2.8? I'm guessing no way at that price.

[TimSJ]

I have no idea.. I will take a look tonight when i get home.

[Tron_fdc]

I have the XSI and it's a great camera. I use it out in the snow a lot when I'm out sledding and snowboarding, and for what I use it for it does the job. It seems pretty durable, because it's on my back when I'm riding and so far have had no issues. It will do pretty much everything you need it to, and for $900 with a zoom lens you're getting a good deal.

If you go this route I HIGHLY recommend taking a camera course on it; I did and it helped me immeasurably. That way you won't be stuck on auto mode, wondering why your pics don't turn out properly in varying conditions.

What kind of zoom are you looking for with a 2.8 fstop? I have a 70-200 IS lens that is capable of 2.8, and it cost me 2 G's. They get insanely expensive to get a low fstop like that, and have any kind of zoom capability.

[Ryan Coke]

Having lenses that are f2.8 is nice, but they are far more expensive and also much bulkier typically.

It's like talking about travel deals and saying 'I don't like to travel unless I am in a private jet--and I avoid anything less than a G-IV'. Sure, nice, but not realistic for most people.

The lenses I think Tim was talking about (I believe the same package I bought at Costco) has an 18-55 f3.5-5.6 zoom (max is f 3.5 at 18mm focal length, and max 5.6 at 55mm) and a 75-300 f4-5.6.

The Xs doesn't have a spot meter--you have to step up to the Xsi for that. It would be nice to have, but for someone just getting into more advanced photography (my wife in my case) it isn't critical. Otherwise is it just a slightly stripped down version of the Xsi, and very capable for lots of growth.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

What kind of zoom are you looking for with a 2.8 fstop? I have a 70-200 IS lens that is capable of 2.8, and it cost me 2 G's. They get insanely expensive to get a low fstop like that, and have any kind of zoom capability.

That's a great lens. Colour me jealous. I have the 24-70 version.

A nice option for a lens if you don't want to spend a lot of money and still be able to shoot at low f-stop is the 50mm prime F/1.4. Yes, you're locked at 50mm, but that also increases the sharpness of the lens, so that's a nice advantage. But the real selling point is the F/1.4. You can shoot in very low light, on a decent ISO, without a flash. Plus the lens gives beautiful bokeh. This makes it ideal for shooting indoors and for portraits. Plus its very lightweight and easy to carry around, so its a good option for taking to family gatherings, restaurants, etc. In those situations I find that lens beats the pants of my much more expsensive lenses. It cost about $300.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

That's a great lens. Colour me jealous. I have the 24-70 version.

Yeah, I've been shooting a LOT of photos in low light, in the snow, at high speeds (lots of motion) and the lenses I was using just didn't cut it. I cried when I looked at the cost of the lens, but after talking with a lot of semi-pro photographers and doing mountains of research, I figured it was the only way I was going to get decent shots.

Definitely not the lens for everyone, but in my case it was the best bang for my buck.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ns-Review.aspx

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

That's a great lens. Colour me jealous. I have the 24-70 version.

A nice option for a lens if you don't want to spend a lot of money and still be able to shoot at low f-stop is the 50mm prime F/1.4. Yes, you're locked at 50mm, but that also increases the sharpness of the lens, so that's a nice advantage. But the real selling point is the F/1.4. You can shoot in very low light, on a decent ISO, without a flash. Plus the lens gives beautiful bokeh. This makes it ideal for shooting indoors and for portraits. Plus its very lightweight and easy to carry around, so its a good option for taking to family gatherings, restaurants, etc. In those situations I find that lens beats the pants of my much more expsensive lenses. It cost about $300.

i second this recommendation. Even consider looking at the cheaper 50mm f1.8 here:
http://www.thecamerastore.com/produc...f-50-mm-f18-ii

Its a good lens for the technical reasons listed but one of the main advantages of a beginner using a single prime lens like that for a while is its one fewer bell and/or whistle to worry about. Too many people buy a decent quality SLR camera and spend too much time dicking around with the zoom and adding ugly looking effects on photoshop to actually learn how their camera works and how to use it.

Of course I don't know anything about you or your photography experience/personality but that's usually my standard recommendation to people looking to get started with a dSLR.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

That's a great lens. Colour me jealous. I have the 24-70 version.

A nice option for a lens if you don't want to spend a lot of money and still be able to shoot at low f-stop is the 50mm prime F/1.4. Yes, you're locked at 50mm, but that also increases the sharpness of the lens, so that's a nice advantage. But the real selling point is the F/1.4. You can shoot in very low light, on a decent ISO, without a flash. Plus the lens gives beautiful bokeh. This makes it ideal for shooting indoors and for portraits. Plus its very lightweight and easy to carry around, so its a good option for taking to family gatherings, restaurants, etc. In those situations I find that lens beats the pants of my much more expsensive lenses. It cost about $300.

How practical is a 50mm focal length when shooting indoors? I'm relatively new to this whole dslr thing and I was told the same thing by a sales guy at Saneal. He said the f1.8 50mm is a great action/low light beginner lens. My only concern is whether or not you can get far enough away form your subject(s) indoors for anything more than close portraits. Opinions?

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by kevman

How practical is a 50mm focal length when shooting indoors? I'm relatively new to this whole dslr thing and I was told the same thing by a sales guy at Saneal. He said the f1.8 50mm is a great action/low light beginner lens. My only concern is whether or not you can get far enough away form your subject(s) indoors for anything more than close portraits. Opinions?

Very, very practical. Like you said, for low light indoor it's great. Plus for the price, it would be a shame not to own this wonderful lens that is worth it's weight in gold. And don't forget about the beautiful bokeh you'll get from a 1.8. You'll fall in bokeh heaven love. 50mm on a cropped sensor is the approximent focal length of what your eyes see. So remember 50mm on the rebel is really 75mm. But again, for the price, it's a shame not more people have this excellent lens in their bag.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by kevman

How practical is a 50mm focal length when shooting indoors? I'm relatively new to this whole dslr thing and I was told the same thing by a sales guy at Saneal. He said the f1.8 50mm is a great action/low light beginner lens. My only concern is whether or not you can get far enough away form your subject(s) indoors for anything more than close portraits. Opinions?

I'm not a pro, I'm fairly new to this, and this is a bit of a rant, but after getting into this last year these are my suggestions. Some of the more experenced guys around here (Neeper, etc) will probably want to chime in if I'm using the wrong terminology.

Firstly, you will need to understand aperture and shutter speeds, and how they relate to lighting conditions and the type of photographs you want to take. I would take a course (see my last paragraph).

Depending on what you're shooting, that lens will work. I have a similar wide angle lens, and If you're doing portraiture or something where you can get close, it's fine. If you want to take photos at hockey games (at least really good ones) it will only work for anything happening close to you. I would also consider a tripod to help out with blurring. The next step up (assuming you're leaning towards canon products) is the non IS Canon 70-200mm lens with a 2.8 fstop (about $1000.00). I was considering this, but seeing as 90% of my photos are handheld I went with a stabilizer. You can probably get away with the non IS lens and a tripod, but again it depends what you're taking photos of.

Have a look at the Flames bench between periods and check out their equipment. These guys use extremely high aperture lenses (low fstop), with monster zooms on them and a fast shutter. Unfortunately for guys like you and me we don't have a spare 80 grand laying around, and this is why our photos will very rarely look as good as theirs. They're pro photographers with pro set ups......

It all comes down to budget, and how good you want to get. My advice, and this is where I went wrong, is to buy a good camera body without a lens, and then start buying higher end glass. You can always upgrade a camera body if it isn't working for you, and the high end bodies might be a little complicated or overkill if you're not semi pro or a serious amateur. Lenses are pretty specific, last forever, and I kind of look at them as similar to owning 10 snowboards. Once you get one that works in a certain condition, you stick with it.

Think hard about what you're going to be taking photos of, and then build (research) a camera around it. Both me and my brother bought cameras or lenses that couldn't do what we wanted because we either got sold something we couldn't use (didn't have ISO settings, RAW photo abilities or low enough fstop), or bought something we had no idea how to work.

I'd also HIGHLY recommend people take a beginner/intermediate DSLR course. It got me off the basic full auto mode, and into the "creative zone" which was necessary for taking photos in the conditions I was in. I try to take at least 200 photos a week, and out of those I typically get one or two I really like. Without that course, I would still be reading manuals, and likely given up on it altogether because my pictures all looked like crap. If you're spending $800 on a camera, spend $100 on a course. It's worth every penny.

Oh, and get a polarized lens filter......!

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'm not a pro, I'm fairly new to this, and this is a bit of a rant, but after getting into this last year these are my suggestions. Some of the more experenced guys around here (Neeper, etc) will probably want to chime in if I'm using the wrong terminology.

Firstly, you will need to understand aperture and shutter speeds, and how they relate to lighting conditions and the type of photographs you want to take. I would take a course (see my last paragraph).

Depending on what you're shooting, that lens will work. I have a similar wide angle lens, and If you're doing portraiture or something where you can get close, it's fine. If you want to take photos at hockey games (at least really good ones) it will only work for anything happening close to you. I would also consider a tripod to help out with blurring. The next step up (assuming you're leaning towards canon products) is the non IS Canon 70-200mm lens with a 2.8 fstop (about $1000.00). I was considering this, but seeing as 90% of my photos are handheld I went with a stabilizer. You can probably get away with the non IS lens and a tripod, but again it depends what you're taking photos of.

Have a look at the Flames bench between periods and check out their equipment. These guys use extremely high aperture lenses (low fstop), with monster zooms on them and a fast shutter. Unfortunately for guys like you and me we don't have a spare 80 grand laying around, and this is why our photos will very rarely look as good as theirs. They're pro photographers with pro set ups......

It all comes down to budget, and how good you want to get. My advice, and this is where I went wrong, is to buy a good camera body without a lens, and then start buying higher end glass. You can always upgrade a camera body if it isn't working for you, and the high end bodies might be a little complicated or overkill if you're not semi pro or a serious amateur. Lenses are pretty specific, last forever, and I kind of look at them as similar to owning 10 snowboards. Once you get one that works in a certain condition, you stick with it.

Think hard about what you're going to be taking photos of, and then build (research) a camera around it. Both me and my brother bought cameras or lenses that couldn't do what we wanted because we either got sold something we couldn't use (didn't have ISO settings, RAW photo abilities or low enough fstop), or bought something we had no idea how to work.

I'd also HIGHLY recommend people take a beginner/intermediate DSLR course. It got me off the basic full auto mode, and into the "creative zone" which was necessary for taking photos in the conditions I was in. I try to take at least 200 photos a week, and out of those I typically get one or two I really like. Without that course, I would still be reading manuals, and likely given up on it altogether because my pictures all looked like crap. If you're spending $800 on a camera, spend $100 on a course. It's worth every penny.

Oh, and get a polarized lens filter......!

I used to be a newspaper photographer/reporter and I have won photo awards. I know what I'm doing. I just need to find the right gear for my needs and my budget. I do appreciate the advice. Just thought I might mention this. Thanks to all. Keep posting. I'm older and am more familiar with film gear. This digital stuff is a learning experience for me. I do have digital gear now but feel I need to move up.

Hah, last wedding I did I had to borrow better gear from the best man.