DSLR camera advice

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Hmm, I've been thinking about upgrading from my 3100. If you you are interested in used but pristine shape, and I can get it to you, would you be interested? I live on Vancouver Island and it looks like you are in B.C. I was thinking about listing my 3100 plus 18-55 plus 55-300. I would take 575.00 for the bunch. I have all the boxes and could probably ship safely and cheaply by greyhound...just a thought, you may not want used.

Thanks for the offer Zevo. I actually ended up ordering a new one last night.

[Zevo]

Cool...welcome to the dslr world. Be warned, looking at what lens and equipment you want next becomes addictive.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Good, then you are looking at the right vein of cameras. Get a prime lense with whatever body you end up with, something with a low fstop

^ This. Pickup a 50mm 1.8 or something similar, it's cheap but will take fantastic photographs. The only negative is that zooming in and out can be tiring

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

^ This. Pickup a 50mm 1.8 or something similar, it's cheap but will take fantastic photographs. The only negative is that zooming in and out can be tiring

I just picked up a 35mm 1.8 FStop for my Nikon D3000. Apparently, due to some physics I can't remember a 35 mm lens will actually work like a 50 mm lens on these cameras. This one was on sale for $50 off a few days ago:

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...4583025d00en02

I've only had a it a few days, but absolutely love it. Takes amazing pics. This lens is so much better for anything remotely close up than the kit lens.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by blankall

I just picked up a 35mm 1.8 FStop for my Nikon D3000. Apparently, due to some physics I can't remember a 35 mm lens will actually work like a 50 mm lens on these cameras.

It's because your sensor is 24mm x 16mm (DX), rather than 36 mm x 24 mm (FX, which is the standard "equivalent" is based on). I'm kinda surprised you didn't learn the difference between DX and FX when you bought.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's because your sensor is 24mm x 16mm (DX), rather than 36 mm x 24 mm (FX, which is the standard "equivalent" is based on). I'm kinda surprised you didn't learn the difference between DX and FX when you bought.

I canvassed the issue with several professinoal photographers prior to buying. The universal answer was that:

1) the difference is less pronounced with new lenses.
2) the difference becomes even less pronounced with entry level cameras.

They instead said to get 2-3 well reviewed body/lens combos that would offer me a variety of options. Focus on that instead of the technical aspects.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by blankall

I canvassed the issue with several professinoal photographers prior to buying. The universal answer was that:

1) the difference is less pronounced with new lenses.
2) the difference becomes even less pronounced with entry level cameras.

They instead said to get 2-3 well reviewed body/lens combos that would offer me a variety of options. Focus on that instead of the technical aspects.

I'm not disparaging DX. I have a D90.

But when you're buying, you should understand a few things about DX:
- Lenses behave as if they are 1.5x longer on DX.
- Your depth of field is deeper than FX (i.e. FX is better at subject isolation, but requires smaller apertures to keep everything in focus).
- DX lenses are generally cheaper and lighter than FX, but can't be used on FX if you uprgrade your body.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm not disparaging DX. I have a D90.

But when you're buying, you should understand a few things about DX:
- Lenses behave as if they are 1.5x longer on DX.
- Your depth of field is deeper than FX (i.e. FX is better at subject isolation, but requires smaller apertures to keep everything in focus).
- DX lenses are generally cheaper and lighter than FX, but can't be used on FX if you uprgrade your body.

I paid $299.99 for the body. And $199 for the 35 mm lens. If I want to upgrade or take things more seriously, I will sell the equipment and stand a good chance of recouping all my losses. I don't plan to buy any ultra expensive lenses for this camera.

[MonsieurFish]

Bump... thinking about buying a DSLR camera, completely new thing to me. Does this seem like a good deal?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...2c18b4b618en02

Don't know a thing about lenses... is that lense a good one for a beginner?

[MrMastodonFarm]

It's a fantastic deal.

The 18-55mm will be your basic go-to lens that most people use first. The 75-300mm is your standard zoom lens that a lot of people go to next, so nice to get both in a package for a really good deal. Canon's rebel DSLR's are a very popular beginner camera system.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by MonsieurFish

Does this seem like a good deal?

You could take a look at Costco as well. They have the same package online (with a tripod as well) for $699, but the price is always cheaper in store.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

You could take a look at Costco as well. They have the same package online (with a tripod as well) for $699, but the price is always cheaper in store.

That deal is with a t2i though.

They have another package for $798 that has the 55-250mm IS lens (which is much better than the 75-300mm) with a 16GB card, monopod and bag. It's worth the extra $150 if you're willing to spend it, but the Best Buy offer is still a decent starter kit.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

That deal is with a t2i though.

Whoops. So it is.

[SebC]

75-300 without IS a "tripod or bright sunlight only" kind of lens. Unless the deal is so good that you can sell the 75-300 and profit compared to buying a package that doesn't have it, I would skip that lens and go for a telephoto zoom with IS instead.

Any time I forget to turn IS back on (after shooting on a tripod) it basically feels like my camera is broken.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Didn't notice the lack of image stabilization on the 75-300mm.

[Street Pharmacist]

Ok here's my dilemma

Wife wants a DSLR. I sell a canon t3 Rebel, she's had her eye on the t3i

She has no photo experience but wants to turn it into a hobby as we have an 11 month old and she snaps a ton of iPhone pics

I can get the t3 for cost (~$400) without anything else plus I can spend some optimum points on it. Of course those points can be used for things like diapers, etc.

Costco has a t3i plus 2 lenses, a monopod, a 16 GB memory card and a sweet ass shirt I can show off to my friends with for $748

http://t.costco.ca/Canon%C2%AE-Rebel...100020477.html

What is the smarter buy?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

What is the smarter buy?

When I was looking I found the T3 to be better for an entry-level as any reviews I read mentioned was less prone to noise, etc if the photographer didn't know what they were doing.

However the T3i's articulating screen is enough for me to want to step up to the T3i instead. Especially with little ones, where the viewfinder is more likely to be at odd angles, lower viewpoints.

I have little comment on the price, other than $400 for the body only? I would think that's not much higher than retail. I found the Costco prices to usually be good. That's where I got my T3 package from.

[Street Pharmacist]

Yeah I get your point on the pricing. I can actually buy the t3 from Costco cheaper then my wholesale. Kinda silly.

I'm wondering if the t3 is maybe better long term anyways as it has the extra lens, and is higher end. We likely wouldn't have to upgrade for some time

[DownInFlames]

The Costco deal is better hands down. In fact, I've already recommended that package in this thread. The extra lens and accessories make up for the price difference, and you get a much better camera, especially if you shoot video.