Camera People

[WMLute]

Sister is looking at a camera and it is between the Nikon d3000 and the Olympus PEN E-P2.

I know very little about this subject and I would like to pass on good advice.

If not those two, what would be a good all around SLR camera for a novice?

(edit: just talked to a friend who is a photographer and he said to go Nikon or Cannon, and to save up and spend the $1,200 bucks.  Unfort. I don't think that is in the budget so if y'all can keep your ideas under $6-700 i'd appreciate it)

[eagl]

I'd go with one of the cheaper consumer nikons and then spend a little more on their new zoom "VR" (vibration reduction) lense.  I have a nikon D50 and love it, and the newer nikons aimed at the same market as the old D50 have some really nice features.  Even the newer D40x is better than my D50, and it's pretty much the low end of their product line right now.

Or get the equivalent low end Canon DSLR, and again spend a bit on a nice second lense.  But the original advice to go with nikon or canon is very good advice.  You can get a cheaper camera body, splurge on nice lenses if you get into photography, and then upgrade the body later while continuing to use the lenses (if you like them that much).  The lense choices with the other camera brands just aren't as good.

If she just wants a complicated point-and-shoot, there are SLR look-alike cameras that are a bit smaller and much cheaper than real DSLR cameras, but they just don't have removable lenses and are aimed at high end consumer use.  Some of those are really good and don't cost too much.  I'd probably go with Canon if that was what I was going to buy.

[REVRAND]

aaaaah hell just get an iphone............

[saggs]

Hi, I call myself a semi-pro photographer (meaning I make a profit at it, but don't do it full time) and I like to think that I know more than the average Joe Schmoo with a Canon Rebel about photography.  There recently was a similar thread found here

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,276674.msg3472918.html#msg3472918

maybe you can read through it and find some pearls of wisdom there

My advice as to which beginner SLR to buy goes like this.

Short answer: IT DOESN'T MATTER

Slightly longer answer: It doesn't matter because the capabilities of even beginner DSLRs today will far surpass the talents of the beginner photographer. (no offense meant, but most beginners photos suck, doesn't matter what camera you use) You could go out and buy a Nikon D3x ($8,000 SLR) but if you don't know how to use it, you'd get better photos from a $200 point & shoot then from it.  It always irks me for some reason when I see people with a $500 or $1,000 or sometimes even a $3,000 camera that don't have a clue and shoot with it set to the "green square" or "P" mode all the time.  Why they spent money on an expensive camera, without ever learning how to use it I'll never understand.

So my advice, she should get whatever camera she likes, try some out, does she like the ergonomics, the menu system, the viewfinder (most low end DSLRS have dismally awful viewfinders) does it fit her hand, can she comfortably reach the shutter release, and control wheel.  

Something else to consider is what kind of photography she is into, different brand have different strong points in their system which suit different styles of photography.

Also if she really wants to get the most of of any SLR be prepared to shell out more $ for a better lens, ("kit" lenses suck) a decent tripod and/or monopod (shaky hands ruin a lot of photos) and an off camera flash (built in flashes suck too)

Out of the two cameras you mentioned I would get the Nikon just because I think Olympus's 4/3 format is stupid and silly.  It can still create good images though.  You should also consider Sony and Pentax, the big advantage they have is built in image stabilization so you don't have to spent extra on VR or IS lenses if you want that feature.

[saggs]

The lense choices with the other camera brands just aren't as good.

That is total and utter BS!  Tell me what lens an amateur photographer is gonna want, that they can't get in a Sony, Pentax or Olympus mount?

The Sony G/Carl Ziess, Pentax Select, and Oly Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as anything from Canon or Nikon, and in some cases -Sony CZ 24-80 2.8-  better.

Not to mention the plethora of third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for all mounts.

This reminds me of more advice.  Camera brands have some die hard fans just like many other things in life, don't listen to the fan boys.  If someone is pushing you on a certain brand, and saying that all others stink, they are full of it.

spend a little more on their new zoom "VR" (vibration reduction) lense.

Oh and Nikon's VR lenses are not new at all, they've been around for 10 years or more

[Sandman]

That is total and utter BS!  Tell me what lens an amateur photographer is gonna want, that they can't get in a Sony, Pentax or Olympus mount.

The Sony G/Carl Ziess, Pentax Select, and Oly Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as anything from Canon or Nikon, and in some cases -Sony CZ 24-80 2.8- a lot better.

....

I think eagl meant that there are more third party lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts. If so, he's right.

[PFactorDave]

I am a professional photographer by trade, and have been for quite a number of years.  Personally, I am a Canon guy.  Always have been.  And really it does matter which you choose, Nikon or Canon...  Why you ask...  Because once you start with a particular brand, you are pretty much married to that brand for better or worse.  It's simply too expensive to change brands once you get going.

That said, whichever brand DSLR you choose, the camera body is less important then the lens choices.  Even the relatively inexpensive Digital Rebels that Canon offers will give you a really nice image if you have good glass.  Also, if you take care of your lenses, they will continue to serve you well even after you wear out camera body after body.  So, my advice would be to get into a consumer grade DSLR (such as a Digital Rebel), then save your pennies to invest (yes I said and meant invest) in the very best lenses that you can afford.  As your skills and needs progress, it is easier to upgrade camera bodies then it is to upgrade an entire collection of lenses.

This is the lens that I use more then any other...  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html

I do a lot of sports photography for local newspapers, for that I use this lens most for indoor sports...  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html

And this one for outdoor sports....  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183202-USA/Canon_2531A002_Telephoto_EF_300mm_f_2_8L.html

Obviously, these are some seriously high end lenses and out of reach (financially) of most non-professional shooters.  The important point is, as I said, to get the best glass that you can afford for your application.  Put some thought into the type of photography that you want to do, then buy lenses that suit that application.  If portrait work is your interest, then a lens that goes fairly wide for groups and zooms to 70-100mm for individuals would be a good investment.  For indoor action photography, you want something that reaches out to at least 200mm but has the absolutely lowest f stop that you can afford.  Outdoor sports, you want 300mm or longer usually.  And that lowest possible f stop really helps out when the sun starts going down and the light starts to fade.

Feel free to send me a PM with any more specific questions you (or she) might have.  Or if you would like a professionals opinion of a specific model, I'd be more then happy to try and help you out.

[PFactorDave]

I think eagl meant that there are more third party lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts. If so, he's right.

Stay away from third party lenses.  Even though they seem like a good value, typically the performance of those lenses is far far below what you will get from an actual Canon or Nikon lens.  I purchased several Tamron and Tokina brand lenses when I was first starting out (trying to save money) and I can assure you that they don't hold a candle to actual Canon brand lenses.

[saggs]

I think eagl meant that there are more third party lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts. If so, he's right.

Everything Sigma makes for Canikon, they make for Sony and Pentax too.  With the exception of some $10-$30k lenses like the 200-500mm 2.8.

Again tell me what lens an amateur is gonna want that they can't get in a Sony, Pentax or Oly mount?

[saggs]

Stay away from third party lenses.  Even though they seem like a good value, typically the performance of those lenses is far far below what you will get from an actual Canon or Nikon lens.  I purchased several Tamron and Tokina brand lenses when I was first starting out (trying to save money) and I can assure you that they don't hold a candle to actual Canon brand lenses.

I've heard that, but never experienced it myself, I shoot with a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for many years with no problems at all.  In fact I found it was just as sharp wide open then the Minolta 80-200mm 2.8 I shoot now (but the Minolta has better color).  I also shoot with a Sigma 150-500mm now, and while not as good as the Minolta 600mm f4 I really want, it cost a fifth of the money, I think it's a good deal.  (never used Tamron or Tokina though)

As for the expense of switching systems down the road, it's true, I started out with Minolta many years ago, and nearly switched to Nikon (which would have cost me a big loss) when Minolta went under.  Fortunately Sony saved Minolta just in time for me.  

I don't think it should be a big worry for beginners though.  How much money is Lute's sister gonna put into photography really?  It depends how serious she is I guess.  If she decides she wants to get really serious about it, then worry about that.

PS.  Dave what kind of photography do you make a living at.  I would love to be a real pro, but it seems like all the money is in weddings these days.  I have a friend who is a pro commercial guy, and he has really been struggling lately.  I've done a few weddings, but I prefer other things.  Lately I've been doing youth rodeo's, which is actually a lot of fun, but I think I'm pulling about as much money as possible out of that.  Just trying to think what other disciplines you can make a living at besides weddings.

EDIT:
Some good photography websites to check out:

www.dpreview.com
 -has lots of camera reviews, but I'd not believe everything you read in the forums there, lots of die hard "brand fans" there that spent more time arguing about which brand is better than making photos.

www.SLRgear.com
-the place to go for lens reviews

www.Luminous-landscape.com
-thousands of articles, essays and reviews, and a much more useful forum than dpreview

www.cambridgeincolour.com
-Lots of great tutorials to help you understand how photography works.

And places like Flickr, Zenfolio and Smugmug have lots of awesome photos you can check, I always find it helps me be better by looking at others work I like.

[Sandman]

Stay away from third party lenses.  Even though they seem like a good value, typically the performance of those lenses is far far below what you will get from an actual Canon or Nikon lens.  I purchased several Tamron and Tokina brand lenses when I was first starting out (trying to save money) and I can assure you that they don't hold a candle to actual Canon brand lenses.

Can't say I've had the same experience. Sure, third party misses the mark on occasion, but do the homework and read the reviews or better yet, find a way to borrow one. I own a Tokina 12-24mm f/4. Great lens, IMHO.

[PFactorDave]

PS.  Dave what kind of photography do you make a living at.  I would love to be a real pro, but it seems like all the money is in weddings these days.  I have a friend who is a pro commercial guy, and he has really been struggling lately.  I've done a few weddings, but I prefer other things.  Lately I've been doing youth rodeo's, which is actually a lot of fun, but I think I'm pulling about as much money as possible out of that.  Just trying to think what other disciplines you can make a living at besides weddings.

I used to be primarily  a Sports/Action photographer, but I suffered a badly broken leg in a fall from about 25ft and can't really manage that kind of pace anymore.  I did a lot of youth sports back then.  Here is a the web site to the company I used to be half owner of, my old partner is still doing what I used to do.  GainesPhoto.com

It takes a lot of hard work to make money doing youth sports.

Now I do some freelancing for the local papers, mostly High School sports.  Not much money in it, but it's fun.  My real income comes from weddings.  If you want to make a living in photography, weddings are what you really need to be doing.  Aside from that, I still do some portrait work occaisionally too, but I don't advertise it.  

If you're looking to get going on a serious professional level, I'm more then happy to offer up some advice.  Just drop me a PM.  I can tell you how to make money doing something like your youth rodeos too.

[PFactorDave]

Can't say I've had the same experience. Sure, third party misses the mark on occasion, but do the homework and read the reviews or better yet, find a way to borrow one. I own a Tokina 12-24mm f/4. Great lens, IMHO.

Glad to hear you have had good luck, I have not.  My first 300mm f2.8 was a Tokina lens.  I bought it because it was about half the cost of the Canon.  Big mistake.  The lens was significantly slower focusing and less accurate in it's focus too.  I used it for about 3 years and finally couldn't take it anymore and purchased a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS.  The difference between the two was HUGE!  The Canon lens was worth every penny, even though it cost me twice what the Tokina did.  I've had the Canon 300mm for about 8 years now, no complaints at all.  I've similar experiences with a Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 (might have been 80-200mm, I forget) and a Tamron lens in the 28-105mm f2.8 range.

I'll never buy another third party lens.  Ever.

If you are looking to buy a professional grade lens, trying it out before you buy it is good advice.  There are quite a few companies that will rent you a pro grade lens for a few days, you just have to do the leg work to find one in your region.

[PFactorDave]

Lute, I just realized how badly your thread has gotten of the intended topic.  Sorry about that.

If your sister is simply looking for a camera to take general family type shots...  Check out this camera...  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/605216-REG/Canon_2664B001_PowerShot_SX1_IS_Digital.html

I bought one of these for my wife (because she is intimidated by my expensive cameras) and she loves it.  It takes great images, but is flexible enough to grow with the photographer (to some extent).  If your sister decides later that she wants to get a bit more serious about photography, she may want to eventually upgrade to a more traditional style SLR.  But if she just wants an easy to use camera, that takes great photos and is more capable then a basic point and shoot camera...  This would be a good choice.

It has a very nice optical zoom lens (always ignore digital zoom when looking at cameras, optical zoom is all that counts).  It has the capability to simulate different ISO settings (film speeds), up to a simulated ISO 3200.  At 10 megapixels, it has plenty of resolution.  It has a hot shoe for a bigger flash if she finds that the pop up flash isn't cutting it (pop up flashes usually suck, so the ability to mount a stronger flash is nice.  That said, my wife uses the pop up all the time and other then some occaisional red-eye it works pretty good for general family type shots).  And it does really nice video clips too, which isn't a feature I thought we would ever use when I bought it for my wife, but turns out it is kind of fun to use and we like the video feature.

[Patches1]

I'm going to side with PFactorDAVE about lenses vs bodies. Being an improving amateur photographer whose mistakes certainly overwhelm
his successes, I'd like to pass on something I learned from a Photography Teacher in college: lenses are made of glass...only light passes
through that glass...IF, and only IF you take care of that glass, light will not hurt the glass. But, improper handling, cleaning, or dropping it will.

I am in the same situation as Lute at the moment...my Sister (who will be 60 in a month) wants to learn photography and this is what I've told her:

20 years ago I bought my first camera, a Cannon EOS 630 and I knew NOTHING about photography. I skipped buying the "kit" lens and opted for the 28-100mm lens which cost me some extra cash. The point is...I listened to the guy selling me the camera who told me that the standard 50mm lens would not serve me well over time. Within six months I bought a 100-300mm lens to go with my 28-100mm lens and I was quite happy with the range I now had with my lenses, 28mm to 300 mm, I can't miss! Watch out National Geographic, here I come! I burned up roll after roll of film and finally took some courses in photography from a local Community College. VERY quickly I outgrew all of the "automatic" functions on the camera body and was manually dialing in ISO, f-stop, etc., and manually focusing the lens as well, and developing and printing my shots. They were HORRIBLE! But, I persevered and kept shooting! Encouraged by my Photography Teacher (who also said, "Film is the cheapest thing in photography") I kept shooting and challenging myself to "see the shot before I took it". I read and read and read about photography, and I bought filters, and I began to work my shot backwards; I began to "see" it first, then input to the camera what I thought the camera body with the lens I had selected needed in order for me to develop and print what I "saw". And...I began to get some fairly good shots. I am by no means a professional. I like to consider myself as an, "Advancing Beginner".

If you've read this far then you're ready for this: 2 years ago I bought a Cannon EOS 40D digital camera. And! My 20 year old lenses work just as well with it as they did with my EOS 630 (Oh! And by the way, I can still buy film for my EOS 630!). The money I saved in not having to buy new lenses with the body enabled me to buy a lens that I was only able to rent one time, 18 years ago: a 100MM Macro lens!

The shots I have taken with this Macro lens have encouraged my Sister to learn. So! At Christmas time she will inherit my Cannon EOS 40D and I am trusting Santa to bring me a Cannon EOS 5D MkII body (I'll work overtime for the lenses  ). I am hoping that my 20 year old lenses will give me the same full frame 35mm service on the EOS 5D MkII as they have done, and still do on my 20 year old EOS 630.

My suggestion: buy the body...work for the lenses!

Oh! One other thing! When I was a kid my Dad had the camera that changed lenses and had flash bulbs...I think it was an Argus. My Mom had the camera that looked like a black box...I think it was a Kodak Brownie. Nevertheless...more of Mom's shots were in "The Family Album"!

just thoughts...keep it simple.