A good friend of mine just recommended the Canon Rebel to me. Her husband is head of the photography department at a well known Art Academy and so I will take her word for it. :D
digital is the way to go try this web site digitalreview.ca
I have a canon xti. I like it better than the Nikon (which a friend of mine has)
The canon has brighter colors…holds an amazing charge!!! it’s also has a wider view 52 mm.
They’re both SLRs I know people who have a Nikon—but would rather have a Canon…however they have lens for the Nikon so they got a D40 instead.
The best info you can get, go to 1] steves-digicams.com and 2] luminous-landscape.com
I also suggest going and trying out these cameras, holding them seeing how you feel about them. I went to a local camera store to look at the one I own—before buying it.
Some places also offer things like free classes with a purchase or prints. Which can be helpful, with all the options that these digital cameras come with.
Just to balance things out a bit (and partly to annoy my good friend Times’…!) Canons are much worse than Nikons UNLESS you are attempting to photograph sporting events. (Even then, the Nikon D2XS is more than adequate!) There are numerous reasons that I could mention, among them better in camera processing, more intuitive controls, and brand reliability. And, I’ve used both Nikon and Canon digital SLRs. I own two digital Nikons now–a D50 and a D200, and numerous lenses.
What is really the point of all this? You are going to find people arguing vehemently for their favorite brand–each of them is convinced that theirs is far superior. The best thing to do is get out there, like Times’ suggested, and get your hands on them and find out which one feels the best to you. Bottom line is that if you don’t like how it feels in your hands, you won’t like using it–and you’ll leave it behind more.
Also, I’ll point out that one of the major reasons for either Canon or Nikon is the ability to grow your kit as your skills grow. If you don’t anticipate becoming a super avid photographer, there are other DSLRs that can take very, very good pictures. Sony uses the old Minolta mount, and you can buy very good used lenses much cheaper than for either Canon or Nikon. Pentax makes the k100d which is more weather proof than either Canon or Nikon–and used lenses are also far cheaper.
Keep your options open! Look at everything, and then buy the camera that you enjoy using the most, regardless of brand.
Good Luck!
*pokes Gimli with a stick*
My father also owns a Canon so it was super easy to steal (borrow) parts of his rig…
Thanks everyone!
Times’ *is ded* wrote:
I also suggest going and trying out these cameras, holding them seeing how you feel about them. I went to a local camera store to look at the one I own—before buying it.
Some places also offer things like free classes with a purchase or prints. Which can be helpful, with all the options that these digital cameras come with.
I’m definitely going to look into that!
gimli wrote:
Just to balance things out a bit (and partly to annoy my good friend Times’…!) Canons are much worse than Nikons UNLESS you are attempting to photograph sporting events. (Even then, the Nikon D2XS is more than adequate!) There are numerous reasons that I could mention, among them better in camera processing, more intuitive controls, and brand reliability. And, I’ve used both Nikon and Canon digital SLRs. I own two digital Nikons now–a D50 and a D200, and numerous lenses.
What is really the point of all this? You are going to find people arguing vehemently for their favorite brand–each of them is convinced that theirs is far superior. The best thing to do is get out there, like Times’ suggested, and get your hands on them and find out which one feels the best to you. Bottom line is that if you don’t like how it feels in your hands, you won’t like using it–and you’ll leave it behind more.
Also, I’ll point out that one of the major reasons for either Canon or Nikon is the ability to grow your kit as your skills grow. If you don’t anticipate becoming a super avid photographer, there are other DSLRs that can take very, very good pictures. Sony uses the old Minolta mount, and you can buy very good used lenses much cheaper than for either Canon or Nikon. Pentax makes the k100d which is more weather proof than either Canon or Nikon–and used lenses are also far cheaper.
Keep your options open! Look at everything, and then buy the camera that you enjoy using the most, regardless of brand.
Good Luck!
Don’t you know I wanted to bring all the canon and nikon die hards out for an online deathmatch? :)
But you made a good point… keep my options open. They are open, but somehow I narrowed my choices down to those two…well mostly because I have a friend who has a D40 and my aunt uses Nikon, but told me to go with a canon… no one has suggested anything else, until you did.. so I’m going to consider other things.
In regards to what I’m really looking for, I want to achieve bright, vivid colors… that’s the most important factor to me. Everyone seems to be saying canon for that one. Second would be clarity and sharpness… Would I be able to achieve these with a less expensive camera?
I do like the idea of shooting in RAW, because I was hoping to have the option of selling my prints as posters online at a later date.. the Xti has that option… not sure if the d40x does. But maybe I could achieve the quality level I need from just a Rebel XT and not the Xti…. I’m sooo confused! I don’t know that much about cameras, this is why I asked on here…
Couple of quick things:
First off, unless you plan to do a lot of post processing (editing images in your computer) you don’t really want to shoot in RAW. RAW images are not really images at all–it’s just taking the electronic data off the sensor. Your computer won’t be able to do a single thing with it unless you have the appropriate software installed on your computer. The images are uncompressed, which means that you won’t be able to fit nearly as many images on your memory card. I’m not even sure that either of those cameras, the Canon XT or the NIkon D40, will even let you shoot in RAW.
Second, in terms of bright, vivid colors, both cameras are going to offer saturation control. BUT, it’s going to be far simpler to adjust each image after you’ve downloaded it to your computer. It’s incredibly easy to do. The reason you don’t want to supersaturate your images in the camera is due to skin tones. They can get pretty finicky, and unless you are careful skin tones will look too pink or orange.
Third, clarity and sharpness are going to be determined by the lens on your camera, not the body. (Actually, color is too, but can be compensated for elsewhere, as I mentioned above.)
I realize that I’ve basically just turned your world upside down. I’m sorry!
If I can be bold enough to ask, what kind of camera are you using now? What will your budget for a new camera be? Would you be willing to buy a gently used body to get better lenses? Let me just quickly say that if you do become Miss Super Avid Photographer, the lenses are going to be your primary investment, not the body, since you’ll want to upgrade periodically to keep up with technology…
Get out there and find out what feels good in your hands!
My point is that you are trying to figure out who to marry without falling in love first! Go fall in love with a camera. You’ll be able to do what you want to with it…I promise!
HA-HA Gimli-y
The Canon will let you shoot in RAW.
I don’t but it lets you.
OK…my bad. I may be wrong about the D40, too…I never claimed to know everything!
gimli wrote:
OK…my bad. I may be wrong about the D40, too…I never claimed to know everything!
:D hehe
gimli wrote:
Couple of quick things:
First off, unless you plan to do a lot of post processing (editing images in your computer) you don’t really want to shoot in RAW. RAW images are not really images at all–it’s just taking the electronic data off the sensor. Your computer won’t be able to do a single thing with it unless you have the appropriate software installed on your computer. The images are uncompressed, which means that you won’t be able to fit nearly as many images on your memory card. I’m not even sure that either of those cameras, the Canon XT or the NIkon D40, will even let you shoot in RAW.
Second, in terms of bright, vivid colors, both cameras are going to offer saturation control. BUT, it’s going to be far simpler to adjust each image after you’ve downloaded it to your computer. It’s incredibly easy to do. The reason you don’t want to supersaturate your images in the camera is due to skin tones. They can get pretty finicky, and unless you are careful skin tones will look too pink or orange.
Third, clarity and sharpness are going to be determined by the lens on your camera, not the body. (Actually, color is too, but can be compensated for elsewhere, as I mentioned above.)
I realize that I’ve basically just turned your world upside down. I’m sorry!
If I can be bold enough to ask, what kind of camera are you using now? What will your budget for a new camera be? Would you be willing to buy a gently used body to get better lenses? Let me just quickly say that if you do become Miss Super Avid Photographer, the lenses are going to be your primary investment, not the body, since you’ll want to upgrade periodically to keep up with technology…
Get out there and find out what feels good in your hands!
Yeah I’m not sure about the D40 or D40x shooting in RAW, but the Canon Xti does at least. My budget, well I’ve looked at the pricing for all 4 of those options and probably the most I want to spend is $1000, but that’s with maybe 2 lenses and a memory card and case or something…as a packaged deal… That’s the very most! I’m looking more in the $600-$800 range though.
More than likely I will be doing a lot of post processing on my shots… believe it or not, I do photo retouching on the side for photographers, but I still don’t know that much about “photography, so I’m not 100% clueless, just 50%! I haven’t worked with RAW before, but I’m pretty sure I can process RAW files on my current PS version.
I did read about the lenses being the system I’ll be “marrying” into. I think maybe I should have asked who had better lenses! j/k I was curious though, which lenses would actually give me the, I guess, “look” I was going for… maybe I’m going to have to actually use these 4 cameras and see for myself. I think maybe a concern of mine was which camera had more lenses to choose from. Would that be an easy question to answer? or is that still up for debate?
Oh and to answer your question, while I don’t currently have a camera, the most I’ve ever had was a canon point and shoot… color was OK to me.. I’ve played around with a D1x though and found it simple enough…well you know what I mean, for my basic photography subjects…. in natural light. I do love what I’ve seen from my friend’s Nikon…the one with the D40, but I was concerned about there being a motor or not being a motor in the lens (I read this somewhere and was completely confused). So I was wondering if it would limit the types of lenses I could use with the camera, or is it even something I need to worry about.
Thanks again!
I think over all I think Nikon is cheaper…
I’ve seen ads for kits, like a body with two lens.
No matter what I would invest in some good spare batteries—a case, tripod and some filters (UV DEFINITELY and possibly circular polarizer). Personally I also have an extended warranty. In total for my XTI I spent almost $1400.
As for motors—I didn’t know Nikon has them—I know with my canon there are contacts where the len meets the body, that let it be auto/semi-auto (focusing) and completely manual.
hmmm…. the whole lens thing is what really confuses me. I’m going to have to look into it some more.
Older Nikon lenses are driven by a motor in the camera body. Newer lenses (AF-S, to be precise) have the motors in the lens itself. These lenses are quieter and faster. The D40 just won’t let you use the older lenses if you want them to autofocus.
If you have plenty of money to throw around, then it’s not an issue. If you are going to use the kit lenses all the time, then it’s also not an issue. On the other hand, if you have non-AF-S lenses already, or would consider buying them, then it’s a big deal.
Do you know what kind of photography you’d like to pursue? It might help determine what lenses you are going to need eventually…
AH! THANK YOU SO MUCH! You finally explained the lens situation in a way I can understand!!! :) So since I don’t own any lenses it’s not an issue, I swear it had me worried I’d be buying something I couldn’t use…
Photography I enjoy is mostly landscapes and architecture… possibly with people, but more than likely not. However, for my trip there will be people, but I think the kit lens should suffice for that one. In the long run, it would be fun to do still life (jewelry and fashion accessories to be exact).
Ok, just off the cuff, you are probably eventually going to want to buy a wide angle lens and a macro (Nikon call these Micro lenses, for some bizarre reason.) Both of these come in both the older style and the newer style lenses…but the price difference is significant.
As an example, I have the Tokina 12-24 wide angle lens, which you could probably buy for about 350 bucks used. It uses the camera body AF motor. You could buy the Nikon 12-24, which is not that much better optically, but does have the internal motor, for about $750 used.
As you can see, having the flexibility of using older lenses can mean saving a significant amount of money!
oh… crap… haha that makes a lot of sense… so I’ll probably have a harder time finding older lenses to work with the D40 then? Hmmmmm….Ok… well I think I’ve got to go out and try the cameras to make a final decision.
Thanks everyone for all your help!
Now you’re getting it! Forget everything and go out and find a camera that feels good in your hands. Let the lenses take care of themselves…and when you do become Miss Super Avid Photographer, you can justify the camera and lenses that you need.
The most important thing is to have fun with your photography!
Very true! :) Sooo wait, do you have any photos we can see??
I was afraid you might ask that! I’m not a professional photographer, but you are welcome to take a look at a few pictures taken when I went to Brazil. Keep in mind that these pictures were taken with a Nikon D50 (the predecessor to the D40) and a Nikon 18-135 lens. I have done no post processing on these particular images, so you can see what the camera/lens did by itself. Let me know what you think!
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid…
Oh wow! I’m impressed! I love them! See, those are the types of shots I want to capture when I’m on my trip to Israel. See my aunt and my friend both used Nikons and I love the way their stuff looks… my aunt was saying that Nikon comes up a little redder than canon… which I can definitely see on her “whites”..they’re always pink haha. But that may be another issue.
Ok now does Times have any shots using her Canon? Unedited hopefully hehe… I just like looking at photos period :)
Hmm. Dissing Nikon, eh? See if I ever help you again…
I bet that the Nikon may be set incorrectly. On the other hand, people tend to like nice warm images, so it could be that the camera is calibrated on the warm side…I know that my D200 is warm. Unfortunately, the Tokina lens that I mentioned in a previous post is also warm, which means when I use the two of them together I nearly always have to go back and adjust the color temperature during post processing.
Why are you going to Israel? I have some friends over there now!
I’m going to Israel for the birthright trip..free trip to israel for jews ages 18-26. It’s so we can experience Israel and learn about our history in a group setting with our peers for aprox 10 days…plus have FUN! haha. I’m so excited!
Anyway I wasn’t dissing Nikon! That’s just what my aunt told me, and she only uses Nikon! haha. She does do the warmer stuff, and I prefer warm over cool probably, but it all depends. She shoots a lot of pale Pennsylvanians so she needs the warmer color. :) But sometimes studio shots suck and the white always needs to be fixed, I think she figured out some lighting techniques though to correct it… I think cost might have to play a major role in my decision.
honestly if you know that theres an ‘issue’ you can make adjustments with physical filters…I know with the canon there are settings and you can photo a white piece of paper to calibrate the white…
As for images—I’m sad because my account has changed from Flickr…
I took these with a circular polarizer indoors at a greenhouse. So everything has a bit of a blue cast on it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28468669…
oh wow! I looove the color on those! Those are amazing! I swear, why is everyone always so modest? I guess it’s better than “my photos are the s**t!” and then they’re not hehe.
forget digital, keep it pure with old-fashioned film! lol, yeah right. too equipment+labor+material intensive
hey now, who asked you? :p
dupes_81 wrote:
forget digital, keep it pure with old-fashioned film! lol, yeah right. too equipment+labor+material intensive
You’re also forgetting time, and cost… overall to have a darkroom, film and paper, it’s almost cost prohibitive. However, if you were to try—a lot of colleges sell surplus projectors etc.
This reply has been removed.
Sophie!
You almost made me cry! Did you really lose it, or do you suspect that some miserable wretch walked off with it?
Everyone:
I actually have an old Minolta SR-1, made about 1965, that I like to use when I shoot film…it’s all mechanical, no meter…it can still be a lot of fun to shoot film! And, you can buy old film cameras on fleabay for next to nothing…
This reply has been removed.
That’s awful. Do you miss it terribly?
This reply has been removed.
Good point. I guess you’ll just have to go back to Japan to try to recapture some of those shots…
This reply has been removed.
This reply has been removed.
If you like the look of the FM2, you might want to check out some of the Leica cameras. They are pretty classy!
But, as far as I know pretty much any dSLR is going to offer a full manual mode. Some of them are easier to use than others…
wow… you guys pretty much lost me! haha.
Sorry to hear about your camera Sophie… that happened TWICE to a friend of mine on his trips to Egypt… he lost all of those shots… that has to be the worst.
As for film, I just can’t deal with it right now, and I’m the type of person who never gets her film developed. I still have used rolls waiting around from like 1997 somewhere in my garage! That’s why I love digital, instant gratification, and I can work on them myself in photoshop. But I have to say nothing beats the quality and look of film.
Film will never completely die…but it is getting pretty obsolete now!
I just noticed a used D40x with the 18-55 lens at B&H for $544, if anyone is interested. Just for the heck of it I just checked Adorama, and they have a Refurb D40x, body only, for $470.
Just for the record, the D40x has a larger sensor (10 megapixels instead of 6 for the regular D40.)
My friends, please be uber careful when ordering expensive stuff on the net!
I have personally used and can recommend:
B&H Photo
Adorama
Cameta Camera
Anyone else isn’t worth finding out about, IMHO…
Gimli… I’m pretty sure you can get a brand new d40 with 18-55lens for the same price at bestbuy.com, costco.com, and Possibly even calumetphoto.com
This is the D40x…it has a 10.2 megapixel sensor, as opposed to the regular D40’s 6.1.
This reply has been removed.
Ahh…so you admit you are human!
Well I’m only half human… Man..I could’ve sworn it said d40… WEIRD! My eyesight is getting bad in my old age of 23.. Actually I don’t think I had my glases on when I read that…yes… blame my glasses. :)
So, have you gone to the camera store yet? What did you think? Any chance you’ll pull the trigger soon? Huh? Huh? Huh? Hu…..
aww no! I’ve been super busy… plus I have to wait until I get paid…. I work on commission and clients are lagging right now…so it may take about a month or so. But with any luck it will be in a week! haha… I wish!
OliveOil
bjk60
Times' gone mad
photo98
gimli
dupes