Help me find a SLR pretty please

[imaginos]

Just to add to this dialouge one important lesson I've learned over many years of vacationing: ALWAYS take a second camera, regardless if it is a P&S, an SLR, or a throw away. This is especially true if it is a special trip or "once in a lifetime" vacation.

I use a D80 for most of my pics (the D80 has a much faster start up time than a P&S for those quick candid shots), but I always take my Pentax Optio 555 P&S with me and have it in a belt pouch for backup, or for places where the D80 is not appropriate (I can take pics on a roller coaster with the P&S and wrist strap wound tightly around my arm - I'd rather not have my SLR fly off the ride). Cameras, regardless of price and quality, DO fail. I'd rather finish a trip with P&S than not be able to record anything at all (or pay a ridiculous price for a new camera where I'm at).

And just a note regarding filters. I believe protective clear filters are essential for protection when in an environment such as an amusement park (general grit/dirt flying around and the grease from concession/restaurant exhausts that seems to be around every corner) or areas where water (especially salt water) can be sprayed on a lens. Hoods are great protection too, but only usually for drops or bumps - they will not be able to stop the gravel/dirt that flies up from the amusement park worker's motorized utility cart that unexpectedly flies by you in the crowd. Do filters impact picture quality? Some do, especially cheap ones, but a decent quality filter should still allow you to get great quality shots and still give piece of mind. Sure, I take my filters off for shots in controlled "safe" environments, but at an amusement park or around salt water, no way would I be without them.

Personally I'd much rather have to clean my $50.00 filter (or in rare cases, use a replacement that I bring with me) in the hotel room each morning before heading out, and know that the actual glass of my $1,000 lens is protected from the grit and resulting pitting (have you ever seen the affects of salt water on a lens? Very ugly!)

My opinions, for what they are worth.

Enjoy shooting.

PS...I will be down at the parks in the Grand Floridian on May 17th for a few days stay before off to the cruise boat. Anyone else going to be down there?

imaginos

 

[jann1033]

My response was less about what the OP can and can't learn and less about what a dSLR can and can't do and more about expectations. Many people see what is wrong with their P&S, read that a dSLR will fix these problems, and then buy one with the expectation that their problems are solved. Some of their problems will be solved with Auto mode. But many people will not get the kind of results they are expecting in those tricky situations unless they take it out of Auto.

My wife is using my Rebel XT right now to take some shots of my DS7's 2nd grade class for a class project. I put it on Auto mode for her and I'm sure she will get great shots. But she has no desire to learn any of the advanced modes/features. But if we want pictures of my DS10's indoor soccer game, she gives the camera to me and I shoot fully manual. Now if my wife had the expectation that she could get good indoor soccer shots using Auto mode, she would be very disappointed with the results. My wife is not a total moron either (although she did marry me so that is one strike against her), so she could learn the basic settings if she wanted to. But she has no desire to fiddle with the buttons on a camera. She just wants to point and shoot. Which is why a P&S is better for her.

I truly believe that getting the most out of a dSLR requires effort. As long as your expectations match up with the amount of effort you are willing to make, you will be happy. Whether that be low expectations and low effort or high expectations and higher effort.

But maybe I should change my vote from "against getting a dSLR" to "make sure a dSLR is right for you". Just because a dSLR is considered "better" than a P&S, doesn't mean that everyone who wants better photos should go out and buy one.

i agree with you on this ....why spend the money if you only want to take snapshots and have no desire to do anything but that...and all of us know the initial dslr outlay isn't the only outlay. with the good zoom cameras now it would cost much more to get a dslr with that range of lenses...even if you get the cheapest ones available.. and then if you go that route you may as well get the p&s anyway

i can't speak for any other brand but the shots my daughter gets with her canon P&s are much better than what the normal snapshot/vacation/family occasion person would want...and her camera was around $200, i would say better than a cheap lens and dslr would do. if someone has something like sports or something in mind maybe not but for the average guy taking a photo, he doesn't need a dslr. i know hers have been good in low light etc, don't know if she has done any sports but it keeps up with my granddaughter

 

[Groucho]

with the good zoom cameras now it would cost much more to get a dslr with that range of lenses...even if you get the cheapest ones available.. and then if you go that route you may as well get the p&s anyway

We've established several times that the cheapest DSLR is the one with the best kit lens (certainly much better than on a PnS) and that it's not lacking in features at all (quite the opposite) compared to the competition's entry-level DSLRs (with the exception of buffer size)... and $50 more gets you IS in the body. It's more like "why spend so much for a PnS when just a little more gets you a DSLR?" (It also gives you an excuse to use a lot of parenthesis! )

This is especially true for someone who is not happy with the image quality of their current PnS camera, they likely won't be getting much better image quality (just more speed and features) out of a new PnS and will make the move to a DSLR sooner or later. Why spend the money on a PnS that isn't going to cut it? My last PnS was pretty much a waste of money for me, and I was happy to get decent money for it when I sold it. I can't see myself being happy with any PnS at this point, due to the poor image quality.

 

[Jackatkc]

Thanks for all of your help. I found a Nikon D50 on sale at a local store here. That's what I went with. I also got the nikon 50mm 1/8, and the Nikon 18-135mm lenses. I can always upgrade later.

I am amazed at how much I have learned in a few days. I had no idea what ISO, Apertures, shutter speed, etc were before a few days ago.

Thanks again for everyones help!

Jack

 

[YEKCIM]

Thanks for all of your help. I found a Nikon D50 on sale at a local store here. That's what I went with. I also got the nikon 50mm 1/8, and the Nikon 18-135mm lenses. I can always upgrade later.

I am amazed at how much I have learned in a few days. I had no idea what ISO, Apertures, shutter speed, etc were before a few days ago.

Thanks again for everyones help!

Jack

"You done good", as we say in Alabama. The D50 and the two lenses you purchased should cover the majority of your needs, for some time to come. At some point, you may want to add a tele-zoom, like the Nikon 70-300VR and perhaps an accessory flash, like the SB-600 or SB-800.

Have fun, and be sure to post some examples here.

~YEKCIM

 

[MICKEY88]

I use a D80 for most of my pics (the D80 has a much faster start up time than a P&S for those quick candid shots), but I always take my Pentax Optio 555 P&S with me and have it in a belt pouch for backup, or for places where the D80 is not appropriate (I can take pics on a roller coaster with the P&S and wrist strap wound tightly around my arm - I'd rather not have my SLR fly off the ride). Cameras, regardless of price and quality, DO fail. I'd rather finish a trip with P&S than not be able to record anything at all (or pay a ridiculous price for a new camera where I'm at).

And just a note regarding filters. I believe protective clear filters are essential for protection when in an environment such as an amusement park (general grit/dirt flying around and the grease from concession/restaurant exhausts that seems to be around every corner) or areas where water (especially salt water) can be sprayed on a lens. Hoods are great protection too, but only usually for drops or bumps - they will not be able to stop the gravel/dirt that flies up from the amusement park worker's motorized utility cart that unexpectedly flies by you in the crowd. Do filters impact picture quality? Some do, especially cheap ones, but a decent quality filter should still allow you to get great quality shots and still give piece of mind. Sure, I take my filters off for shots in controlled "safe" environments, but at an amusement park or around salt water, no way would I be without them.

Personally I'd much rather have to clean my $50.00 filter (or in rare cases, use a replacement that I bring with me) in the hotel room each morning before heading out, and know that the actual glass of my $1,000 lens is protected from the grit and resulting pitting (have you ever seen the affects of salt water on a lens? Very ugly!)

My opinions, for what they are worth.

Enjoy shooting.

PS...I will be down at the parks in the Grand Floridian on May 17th for a few days stay before off to the cruise boat. Anyone else going to be down there?

imaginos

if you wear the strap around your neck and also wrap it around your wrist, there should be no risk of losing your slr on a coaster, I did that for years and never met a coaster that even came close to making me lose grip on my camera...

it amazes me that you worry about your slr on rides, yet take it near salt water, the risk of damage from that is much higher than the risk of damage on a ride...

as for filters I'm part of the no filters club...

I've been shooting for over 30 years and have never scratched or damaged a lens, it's all about being aware of your gear and your surroundings.. part of that 30 years included being at HersheyPArk on a daily basis, from noon 'till 10pm, I never encountered the damage you fear..realistically the odds of the cart incident you mention would be millions to 1, if your luck is that bad, odds are the rock would break the filter and scratch the lens anyway..

when near greasy concession stands, keep the camera pointed down..

 

[Steve's Girl]

Thanks for all of your help. I found a Nikon D50 on sale at a local store here. That's what I went with. I also got the nikon 50mm 1/8, and the Nikon 18-135mm lenses. I can always upgrade later.

I am amazed at how much I have learned in a few days. I had no idea what ISO, Apertures, shutter speed, etc were before a few days ago.

Thanks again for everyones help!

Jack

Great choice! On my trip to WDW in Dec. 06 I had the D80 with these two lenses and it was a great set-up. You'll be a very happy camper!

 

[jann1033]

We've established several times that the cheapest DSLR is the one with the best kit lens (certainly much better than on a PnS) quality.

as of this morning, the prices are $432 for the k100d( guessing that included the lens, forgot to check) and for a "value rated" ie good for the price ...lens of 50-200( which is still shy of the zoom on a bridge camera and smaller aperture as well) $214 so $646 for a dslr vs $250( someone bought a s31S a few days ago for that) or even going up to $300-400 is a big difference to me and i would guess anyone interested in a snapshot camera as well. and while Imight see some difference between the photos with a dslr and a bridge camera, it is ridiculous to say they would not get a good photo at 1/2 the price, which is what most people are after.

 

[imaginos]

Mickey88,

Your years of experience at Herseypark certainly gives you an edge on experience. My paranoia of losing the bigger camera on a ride might be my own personal crutch, but I know several other amatuer photographers who share that very crutch. You obviously do not.

The views on the use of a filter are, of course, my opinions only (that's why I close with the "my opinions" clause). While your wealth of experience has taught you valuable lessons that have formed your opinions, my experience has apparently taken me down a different path where I have formed the opinion that filters should be seriously considered for an amusement park where controlled shooting is not a given. Will I remove my filter to take pictures of my daughter having tea with Princesses in the Grand Floridian ballroom, a pretty much controlled environment? Yes, absolutely. Will I have the filter on while running about in the parks taking photos of my kids where the unexpected can and does happen - definately. Just ask my friend who was an innocent bystander taking a shot of his kids on a ride and whose lens glass was the stopping point for a girl's "lizard on a stick" toy that happened to walk in front of him while she was waving it violantly. The filter he had on the lens was noticeably scratched up, yet it did not break, and instead of needing to buy another $750.00 lens he had to replace a $50.00 filter. And, yes, he even had a hood on the lens, but the stick happened to hit the front of the lens filter just right. Odd chances for sure, but it DID happen. I just happen to feel that you are more than likely not going to get portrait quality photos in an amusement park anyway, so why not use a filter for protection when a good filter should not significantly affect that shot of your kids on that ride anyway?

Again, these are just my opinions, and I certainly respect yours.

Have great day.

imaginos

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey88,

. I just happen to feel that you are more than likely not going to get portrait quality photos in an amusement park anyway, so why not use a filter for protection when a good filter should not significantly affect that shot of your kids on that ride anyway?

Again, these are just my opinions, and I certainly respect yours.

Have great day.

imaginos

I respectfully disagree..

unless you are referring only to studio portraits with backdrops and props...

I prefer more natural location portraits, and WDW is a fantastic location for such..

 

[imaginos]

Mickey88,

Healthy disagreement causes everyone to learn . I CERTAINLY agree these are GREAT photos and something to be proud of!

imaginos.

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey88,

Healthy disagreement causes everyone to learn . I CERTAINLY agree these are GREAT photos and something to be proud of!

imaginos.

thanks,,,I must admit though, it's hard to take a bad pic of my niece, she's a born model...

 

[Groucho]

...is a big difference to me and i would guess anyone interested in a snapshot camera as well. and while Imight see some difference between the photos with a dslr and a bridge camera, it is ridiculous to say they would not get a good photo at 1/2 the price, which is what most people are after.

My issue was the "...even if you get the cheapest ones available.. and then if you go that route you may as well get the p&s anyway" line, which implies that buying the cheapest DSLR means that you're getting something substandard in any way. You actually have to spend slightly more to get something substandard... (and I'm not talking about the Canon or Nikon, either. )

Yes, you give up some range, but the difference in quality going from the over-$300 long-zoom cameras (not just picking on the Canons here) to a true DSLR is very significant IMHO. Would would most of us DSLRs owners rather carry - a long-zoom PnS or a DSLR with kit lens only? I know which I'd choose. Especially for WDW, where the long zoom generally isn't as necessary, but where you will appreciate a wider shot than you can get with most of the long-zoom PnSs. Thanks to my wife's SD600, I have a pretty good idea exactly what to expect from the fairly-current generation of 6mp 1/2.5" sensors at WDW.

FWIW, the K100D w/kit lens and 50-200mm lens comes to approximately $585 after rebate currently from Beach. The $432 price you saw is body only, but you can pick up a K110D w/lens for just under $400.

Jack, congrats on your D50! I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.