Do I want a DSLR

[travlnblueberries]

I will try not to get winded here, and try and just give the facts as I see them. (As not to bore anyone, either)

 

I was looking at different models trying to narrow it down. While doing so, I looked at different pictures they produced. As I paged and paged through pictures on dpreview, I noticed after looking at probable over 300 pictures, only about 3 or 4 captured my attention. I don't know if it was the composition or what, but only those few stood out.

 

I have a couple digital cameras, but thought a DSLR would produce a better quality picture. Some pictures you see the picture is just so crisp, you think the subject is going to move or blink, or you swear you could reach out and touch the petal on that flower. But I'm not seeing that on every DSLR photo.

 

I love seeing a picture that someone took of a street or sidewalk cafe and you feel like you are right there, not just looking at a picture of the place. (Can anyone relate to what I'm saying?)

 

What I'm gathering is, it doesn't matter what camera body you have, I've been reading on here, that it's the lenses that make the difference.

 

The pictures I like to take would require a wide angle lens. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if a DSLR will give the results of what I'm looking for. Does anyone know of a site where someone took the same picture, one with a P&S and the same picture with a DSLR to show the difference?

 

I don't have a budget for this, but I'm frugal enough that I don't think I would spend $5,000 for a body and one lens. Although I would be spending more down the road.

 

So my question is, Do I want a DSLR??

 

Thanks for reading and any help you can give.

[Riverdome]

Love my Nikon D40. She's a few years old now but still takes the best pics of any I've ever taken. Yes you can "point and shoot" but to get the best output possible you should learn how at least the basic features/options work. One thing to seriously consider is size and expense. For the ca$h you would spend you won't want to break it. Couple that with the large size and it becomes easy to give in and take your smaller camera so you can put it in your pocket. Just have to commit to having it hang around your neck or carry a small bag.

 

For our family is was a no-brainer. DSLRs are much faster than anything else on the market and with young children I didn't want to miss a pic because of my camera. I also love only having to recharge the battery every 1000 pictures or so! Hope this was helpful.

[AZVoodoo]

You are correct its all in the glass and the only way to get the best glass is to buy a DSLR since it can be changed. In my opinion the best glass in the world is produced by Nikon. They produce glass for microscopes, binoculars, spotting scopes etc. The second would be Canon.

 

The DSLR body would depend on what you intend to do with the pictures. You don't need a 24MP sensor when creating 8x10's or for the web. You don't need 9FPS when photographing outdoor scenery.

 

I would recommend Nikon or Canon since the others are limited in the selection of lenses.

 

Its like buying a stereo, you should spend half your money on the speakers. I bought a stereo 30 years ago for $1700 and the speakers were $800. The stereo components are long gone but I still have the speakers.

[Rllyfun]

It's really not the camera, it's the photographer!

 

But...if you don't have your camera with you...it's very hard to even be a photographer!

 

:)

 

That being said.....it is easier to get that crisp, clear, outstanding shot with a quality camera & lens.

 

DSLR are normally higher quality than P&S cameras. They are also much more expensive, larger and mostly a little more complicated to get their full benefits. (Or give any benefit at all...I have a Fuji S2Pro that will give me absolutely terrible pictures if I don't pay attention! Newer DSLRs are admittedly better, err, easier!...)

 

There are some new designs (well, new to me) that are kinda inbetween P&S and a full DSLR....with their own benefits & drawbacks. Someone with knowlege about such will post here shortly I'm sure! (hopefully, cause there are several really talented & knowlegeable sources here!)

 

 

whatever you get.... P&S, DSLR or inbetween.... do your homework & you won't be disappointed! There are a lot of nice cameras out there! :)

 

 

 

...

[Rllyfun]

You are correct its all in the glass and the only way to get the best glass is to buy a DSLR since it can be changed. In my opinion the best glass in the world is produced by Nikon. They produce glass for microscopes, binoculars, spotting scopes etc. The second would be Canon.

 

The DSLR body would depend on what you intend to do with the pictures. You don't need a 24MP sensor when creating 8x10's or for the web. You don't need 9FPS when photographing outdoor scenery.

 

I would recommend Nikon or Canon since the others are limited in the selection of lenses.

 

Its like buying a stereo, you should spend half your money on the speakers. I bought a stereo 30 years ago for $1700 and the speakers were $800. The stereo components are long gone but I still have the speakers.

 

...

 

I'm a Nikon fan too.... but don't get caught up in the brand wars, they all make great cameras & lenses! (well, not all, but the major players do!)

 

(Kinda like the Chevy Vs Ford Vs whatever, endless debate.... They all make some really fine wines,... and some really cheap swill!... Ya have to do your homework & make your own mind up!!!)

 

 

 

...At one time Canon was THE choice among the pros,... maybe still is. I had to choose with my first DSLR & I ended up with a Fuji (body made by Nikon).... ONLY... because I already had all Nikon bodies & lens from my 35mm days, which saved me some $$. And, I do like Nikon! But it was a tough choice....

 

Nowdays Sony & maybe a few others are major players too.

 

 

They all can be good!!!!:)

 

 

...

[pierces]

I will try not to get winded here, and try and just give the facts as I see them. (As not to bore anyone, either)

 

I was looking at different models trying to narrow it down. While doing so, I looked at different pictures they produced. As I paged and paged through pictures on dpreview, I noticed after looking at probable over 300 pictures, only about 3 or 4 captured my attention. I don't know if it was the composition or what, but only those few stood out.

 

I have a couple digital cameras, but thought a DSLR would produce a better quality picture. Some pictures you see the picture is just so crisp, you think the subject is going to move or blink, or you swear you could reach out and touch the petal on that flower. But I'm not seeing that on every DSLR photo.

 

I love seeing a picture that someone took of a street or sidewalk cafe and you feel like you are right there, not just looking at a picture of the place. (Can anyone relate to what I'm saying?)

 

What I'm gathering is, it doesn't matter what camera body you have, I've been reading on here, that it's the lenses that make the difference.

 

The pictures I like to take would require a wide angle lens. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if a DSLR will give the results of what I'm looking for. Does anyone know of a site where someone took the same picture, one with a P&S and the same picture with a DSLR to show the difference?

 

I don't have a budget for this, but I'm frugal enough that I don't think I would spend $5,000 for a body and one lens. Although I would be spending more down the road.

 

So my question is, Do I want a DSLR??

 

Thanks for reading and any help you can give.

 

Below are two images, one taken with a P&S and the other taken with a DSLR with an $800 constant aperture zoom. I have been widely complimented on both and use them often to illustrate that it often is not the camera or the lens that makes the picture pop. What makes the difference, as you have noticed (based on your comments), is the subject and composition. By composition, I'm not just referring to framing the image but to the use of light, point of view, controlling the contents of the background and choosing the aperture to give the depth of field wanted. With a P&S, you are often limited to how much control you have over depth of field, but given the same scene and similar relative field of view in their respective lenses (note: many P&S cameras have rather wide angle lenses these days), the difference in the final image will depend more on the person holding the camera than the camera itself.

 

Where you will see a difference in an image is at the situational extremes. Low light, very close, very wide, very fast, very long exposures. This is where a DSLR will outshine a P&S by offering more control and a wider variety of lenses to fit a situation. As to the camera, buying a brand because Andre Agassi or Ashton Kutcher use one in a commercial is as silly as it sounds. All of the major manufacturers (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax) produce excellent cameras and fine lenses from the entry-level bodies and kit lenses to the mid-range advanced amateur and pro bodies. Don't base your choice on test images, base them on the features and handling that work for you. The test images may look terrible from a camera where the tester had a bad day and great from another where he or she hit the light, place or subject just right. Choose the features you want and, get the camera and learn to use those features. Set your budget and, if possible, go to a store where you can try out a wide range of cameras from different manufacturers without a sales droid hanging over your shoulder. I chose my Sony because I liked the controls and handling while a good friend of mine with similar tastes and interests chose a Canon. Both cameras are excellent but people are people and we are all wired a little differently.

 

 

 

Happy hunting!

 

Dave

[chipmaster]

Some memories and moments are timeless and fleeting and will be special with any camera, so you got to HAVE the camera. These days the 10+ Mpix modern camera are pretty damm good in bright sunlight and with care even in lower light sometimes. They are so small if and when I think I want a picture they are my first choice, even over the every present smartphone.

 

If you don't enjoy the process of taking the pictures, changing settings, prospective, and or don't feel your pictures are lacking in capturing the moment than a DSLR may not be for you. Don't confuse your enjoyment of a great photograph or moment captured versus the need/desire to personal TAKE it.

 

If you really want to graduate to the next step, want the best control and flexibility to capture fleeting moments in low light, indoors, distance etc. etc with better quality, a DSLR is the way to go. It has a larger sensor, better focus, better low light capability, flexibility for varous flash and most important lenses too!

 

The downside of DSLR is both size and money. Size matters both for lense and sensor and you pay for both. There are lense snobs and brand snobs. My honest opinion is if you aren't already into a legacy brand to consider Canon or Nikon first. While there are other brands and some even have unique and possibly superior features, you really should see if Canon and or Nikon meet your needs, features and budget. The differences between brands in performance and price is small, if and when you want to expand the two dominat brands offer a the best selection of lenses, flashes, and other accessories. People may tell you try cameras for feel of interface, ergo and such and make the choice of what feels best! Just do this REMEBERING that habits and familarity with controls can be "learned" Buy a brand that feels better but not one that has a lense or accessory you may want after investing a few thousand or more will be of little consolation a few years, months or days later if your interest and need expand ;)

 

As to what lense to start out, no question a big pro 2.8 mid range zoom offers better quality at a huge price/size advantage and cost, but you'd be suprised what the entry level zooms can do stopped down. Unless one is trying to impress your neighbors. I've put a 250 dollar zoom on a 5000 body and a 5000 lens on a 400 body, depending on the situation both can produce amazing results. To say only good glass on a DSLR can produce good results comes from someone who doesn't understand the capability or limitations of his equipment.

 

Happy shooting with what every you have and choose to get!

[pierces]

While there are other brands and some even have unique and possibly superior features, you really should see if Canon and or Nikon meet your needs, features and budget. The differences between brands in performance and price is small, if and when you want to expand the two dominat brands offer a the best selection of lenses, flashes, and other accessories.

 

But what would I do if my expansion plans included Zeiss lenses that had autofocus or a stabilized 50mm or 85mm f/1.4?:eek:

 

I can see you leaving Pentax out of this since Hoya just downsized them and sold the brand to Ricoh, but you're going to have to break down and start adding Sony since 2010 found them only a percentage point behind Canon and five ahead of Nikon in total digital camera sales. They're also showing consistent year to year increases in DSLR share.

 

Maybe next year you'll have a change of heart? ;)

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

As you can see, camera enthusiasts are often very biased for their brands, and the two brands with the biggest names tend to be the most widely promoted and recommended, usually by those who know little about the other brands. And some owners of the two smaller-selling brands often feel they need to shout out their brand for some respect. Lenses are always brought up - both legitimately and unfortunately sometimes without any real point to the argument - this brand has more lenses than that brand, or these lenses are better than those. The truth is split up into tiny fractions and spread all through the many responses above, with a healthy dose of the truth barely revealed.

 

Here's the main truth, above even lenses, which some above have mentioned: it's the photographer. Of course, cameras and lenses contribute - in certain conditions the camera or lens must be capable of matching the photographer's skill and vision, but without the photographer having that eye to begin with, no camera or lens is going to help every day snapshots become those ethereal, special photos that reach out and grab you. That's the photographer.

 

The lens matters - moreso than the camera body in some cases. But it's unfortunately naive to say 'Brand X lenses are better than any other'...that's not true. EACH brand has some average to poor lenses, some pretty good lenses, some very good lenses, and some brilliant lenses. That goes for all 4 major DSLR manufacturers, as well as the top 3 third-party lens makers. While some brands numerically have more lenses than other brands, it's the lenses you need that matter, the quality of those available, and the features of those lenses (stabilized or no, coated or no, focus motors built in or no, etc) which matter to the buyer.

 

If one brand has 360 lenses, and another has 850 lenses, and both have the 4 lenses you wanted, that difference in lenses means much less. And if those 850 lenses from the larger manufacturer include many duplicate lenses in different versions, such as with motor and without motor, stabilized and non stabilized...then that 850 lenses compares more closely to the 350 lenses of the smaller manufacturer than it would initially seem - especially if the smaller brand's lenses ALL require no focus motor and are all stabilized.

 

My recommendation, which counts no more or less than anyone's above, is to consider the features, the handling, and the price of ALL brands, and find the one that checks the most boxes, feels the best in your hands, and fits your budget. Unless one of those companies will offer to send you monthly checks for buying their brand name, there's not very many other convincing reasons you should omit the others from consideration. Especially if a key feature or features are only available with that other brand that will be transformative to your photography, your growth, or your inspiration.

 

In the end - if I were to put a percentage weight on how important brand name is to the quality of the photographs you see, I'd guess it somewhere between .1% and .0001%. The camera's features and sensor quality would probably be worth 15-20%, the lens probably another 15-20%, and the photographer between 60% and 70%.

[travlnblueberries]

Thank you all for replying. I'm trying to take it all in right now.

[chipmaster]

A large fan group of ziess fan in the Nikon neighborhood. I'm not a prime person and the new 85 1.8 G and 50 1.4G are not up to the Ziess lovers standards as good as they are.

 

The Zeiss primes make or break it your argument to the novice as you say :D I would say much more likely that 9/10 that of the 1000 that do buy into DSLR will be more dissapointed they can't rent a long zoom for a few hundred for Sony/Pentax/Olympus, can't pick up a good mid-range 2.8, can't find a huge market of used modern lense for resell or other features absent when they don't go Canikon. Oh, lastly I gurantee that in 10 years there will be 1/2 the number of DSLR player, Nikon and Canon and Sony if we are lucky ;)

 

When I shoot with my 200F2 and or the converters or have a fancy to rent a 300 or 400 2.8 I have not a worry in gold labled black or white brand. No other brand has the selection and forget the people who need to justify they chose other wise. When I decided to pick up a few extra flashes it took me two weeks of search on CL. Every week I see tons of update offering on ebay, CL for Nikon/Canon. Look for accessories or new even and your choice in anything else is limited. If Ziess had to seperately choose which mounts to develp lense who would they do it for, the ones with the largest and likely biggest markets. The none Canikon brand markets heavily the things that those two brands don't offer, to a very narrow handful of people I can imagine it might matter. To most people getting into DSLR totally not likely relevant. I find it almost isingenuous of people to think and offer somethign but the first two unless the person asking is asking for something like you say. MUST be waterproof, MUST have inbody stabilizaion, MUST have stablized Zeiss Lens. Very very few new DSLR buyers fall into that camp.

 

To steer the novice or undeducated from a heavy handed sales person is not fair if the person really wants something special like them translucent fast focusing DSLR from Sony or the more waterproof cameras from Pentax. But to honestly think 99% of the buying public need or want that is an overassumption but also to say those that buy with the short sightness and than have to change later is even more painful. You really need a reason to not go Canon or Nikon. Its the people who have to justify "their" brand. Kinds of like looking for a family Sedan there is a reason Accord and Camry dominate. Those that get a Malibu or other sedan really why did you do that.. was it money ( not the case for DSLR ), makes little logical sense.

 

 

Almost all new buyers want somethign with better IQ, better focus, better flash, video perhaps, huge lens selection and maybe future growth.. Sorry the Canikon brand serves that large list far better with more flexibility than any other manufacture!

 

I could care less what anyone buys but funny when people say that anything but Canon or Nikon is a better choice. I'm all eyes to listen to them. For the novice its ridiculous. We have two Sony lovers here and we hear a lot about them, if you have a long list of legacy lense its a reason to consider, but going forward with the advancement in optics and bodies being held to a wrong brand because of your father's lense or lense from 10 years ago is silly.

 

Pierces talks about total digital sales, he hides behind the total P&S market. Let me also tell you that the P&S and the DSLR are under siege. The P&S is going to get eaten by the smartphone. The most secure end actually is the high end, it will be interesting to see how the mirrorless plays out, but that is another story. Pierces tell everyone how much profit Sony has made on the DSLR side of the business?, Olympus, Pentax etc. etc. How much of their future profits or core business is tied to imaging? Tell me why if they have a billion to invest they would choose to do it in DSLR/imaging versus say another larger more profitable business? For the companies its business not some fancy fanboi mine is better. For Nikon there is not much for them but steppers and cameras. Funny the least diversified might actually end up being the last to go.

 

I don't need to change heart :D Everyone one that asks about DSLR can say i bought Canon and I will tell them a smart choice, If they bought anything but Canikon than I know someone whispered some insanity silly thing to prioritize all the common sense business sense. That wont' change now, but maybe in a few years if the business and larger market changes....

 

But what would I do if my expansion plans included Zeiss lenses that had autofocus or a stabilized 50mm or 85mm f/1.4?:eek:

 

I can see you leaving Pentax out of this since Hoya just downsized them and sold the brand to Ricoh, but you're going to have to break down and start adding Sony since 2010 found them only a percentage point behind Canon and five ahead of Nikon in total digital camera sales. They're also showing consistent year to year increases in DSLR share.

 

Maybe next year you'll have a change of heart? ;)

 

Dave

[awboater]

Its easier to take a bad photo with an expensive camera than a good photo with a cheap camera.

 

While that doesn't really make much sense, the idea is that if you spend the money on a DSLR, also take the time to learn how to use it. You can do it yourself, but you can fast-track the learning process with a photography class at your local community college.

 

But some community colleges are still stuck on using film, which doesn't have as much application to many. However, film makes you become more disciplined perhaps, since you cannot cheat and take a bunch of photos until you get it right. Instead, you have to think of what you are doing, and later find out if you were successful or not.

[awboater]

I was with you there Chipmaster until you mentioned Camry/Accord. I bought a Nissan Maxima as it is a rocketship compared to those two granny wagons...;)

[awboater]

Interchangeable lens market share 2011:

 

Canon 4.6m units 32% Nikon 4.4m units 31% Sony 1.5m units 11% Olympus/Panasonic 2.2m units 15% Pentax 800k units 6% Other 700k units 5%

[pierces]

Canon and Nikon rule...Sony and all others are going to fail because they are not Canon or Nikon....(Original lengthy quote was run through Google Translate)

 

Sensitive much? :)

 

I was just making the point that no brand has it all and few people will ever need anything more than the least has to offer.

 

Yes, I like my Sony and if Canon or Nikon suited my preferences better, I would use one of them. I have preferences and opinions and if yours are different, I respect that. Launching into a tirade about fanboys and lashing out at us "regular" people who are just a little too dim to understand the wisdom and deep understanding of global economics behind your insistence on buying Canon or Nikon is just a bit over-the-top for a casual camera discussion group like this.

 

Let's take a deep breath and remember to have fun!

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

Personally, I haven't really noticed any Sony fans here. I do clearly see some Canon/Nikon fans, but the two people who have mentioned Sony appear to have shopped the whole market, and found the cameras that best serve their needs, without the biases or brand loyalties...and both would be more than willing to switch to any other brand to get the best camera for their needs.

 

Here's the simplest fact as to why I currently have a Sony DSLR, and it's worth noting I have no other Sony products in any other form of electronics than cameras so I'm certainly not a 'Sony' person: Sony makes the best DSLR on the market for my needs, both professionally and for personal pleasure. No other manufacturer currently makes a camera that can do what my Sony camera does, which makes my photographic pursuits more enjoyable, easier, more fun, and in some cases, gives me abilities I couldn't get with any other camera, period. If another brand were to start making a camera with similar abilities, and Sony were to stop offering such a camera, I'd switch brands with no hesitation. While I have built a very good lens collection, I am financially secure enough to be able to switch if need be. Fortunately, I haven't had to so far.

 

The Camry/Accord point was quite humorous for me too - I wouldn't be caught dead in either of those cars. It goes a long way in explaining where some folks are coming from - buying whatever is the best-seller or most popular - whereas I base my buying decision solely on what works best, and delivers the most features, and fits me and my style - whether it's the #1 seller or the #349 seller out of 350. What I can do with my car I could never do with a Camry or Accord - like my camera, I bought the car that has everything I needed and wanted, and like my camera, my car clearly outperforms the 'best sellers' for my particular driving needs and style. I can say without a doubt that in any and all aspects of my life, the two least important words to me are "best seller". I don't buy Toyota or Honda, I don't shoot with Canon or Nikon, I don't use Apple products, I don't have a Casio or Citizen watch, I don't eat at McDonald's, and I don't shop at Walmart - being #1 with the general public means nothing at all to me - I have nothing against any of those things - but they just don't appeal to me or my needs. Being the best suited to my needs...that's by far the most important thing to me.

 

For anyone else who considers finding the best product for their particular needs and wants to be more important than buying the best-selling product, I'd recommend shopping all available brands and models, and finding the one best tailored to you. It may end up being that #1 seller, or it may be the #4 seller...that you are happy, comfortable, and satisfied is the most important goal. Otherwise, you just may be the type who's more comfortable and happy knowing you have whatever's most popular.

[wbdlangston]

Thank you all for replying. I'm trying to take it all in right now.

I bought my first D/SLR camera in May. It came with 2 lenses(18-55mm and 55-200mm).

I also took 2 photography classes this summer, which helped me tremendously. My instructor, who also loves to cruise, suggested that I rent a 100-400mm lens and a 50mm f/1.4 to use on the cruise. That is what I am doing. I am renting both lenses for 3 weeks, including insurance on both of them for about $230.00. I would have never thought of this on my own. I am really excited to use both of them. There is no way I would have wanted to buy them at this time, too, too expensive after the initial expendure of the camera and other accessories and the cruise cost. We are going on an Alaskan Cruise on September 3rd. Good luck with whatever decision you make.

[travlnblueberries]

I bought my first D/SLR camera in May. It came with 2 lenses(18-55mm and 55-200mm).

I also took 2 photography classes this summer, which helped me tremendously. My instructor, who also loves to cruise, suggested that I rent a 100-400mm lens and a 50mm f/1.4 to use on the cruise. That is what I am doing. I am renting both lenses for 3 weeks, including insurance on both of them for about $230.00. I would have never thought of this on my own. I am really excited to use both of them. There is no way I would have wanted to buy them at this time, too, too expensive after the initial expendure of the camera and other accessories and the cruise cost. We are going on an Alaskan Cruise on September 3rd. Good luck with whatever decision you make.

 

Before you bought your DSLR did you have a P&S? What made you decide on a DSLR? I think what I'm thinking about at this point is having to change lenses if I'm on a island tour just to get a picture. If I'm home I wouldn't mind fussing around, but when you're on vacation, you want to get the most with the time you have. I don't want to be using my time changing the lens to get a picture.

[Habenero]

The only way to find out if you are going to use a DSLR is to go to a bricks and mortar location and play with various models. Do not listen to the hype of the salesman or saleswoman. Only a camera that feels good in your hands will ever get used, and the only way to find out how it feels is to get it into your hands. When buying a DSLR, shoot a few pictures using various focal lengths and light levels, change the lens for another and shoot some more. Examine the images in detail (the better cameras will let you enlarge the image in the display) looking for sharpness and artifacts that may show up when shooting jpegs. Spend about 1/2 to 2/3 of your budget for the best glass (lenses) you can and let the camera be of secondary importance.

 

After you get the camera home, shoot as many images as you can and play with all the features your camera has. If learning your camera seems difficult to you, put it down for at least one day. The worst thing you can do is make your picture taking feel like it is work. If you have questions, ask them.

 

Have fun!

[zackiedawg]

Before you bought your DSLR did you have a P&S? What made you decide on a DSLR? I think what I'm thinking about at this point is having to change lenses if I'm on a island tour just to get a picture. If I'm home I wouldn't mind fussing around, but when you're on vacation, you want to get the most with the time you have. I don't want to be using my time changing the lens to get a picture.

 

Do remember, you can actually look to buy a DSLR as a 'body only' camera, then purchase a versatile 'superzoom' lens...they'll cover pretty much all the focal range you'd need in one fairly compact lens, and allow you to not have to change lenses. As you grow with the idea of the DSLR, or get more into photography where you find yourself interested in experimenting or learning or expanding, then you can start looking for additional lenses to add to your collection. That's the beauty of a DSLR system - you CAN still use them on 'auto' or scene modes, and stick one all-purpose lens on them, and use them like a big P&S camera, but they also have excellent expandability, versatility, and ability. They still are generally for people who are really 'into' photography - not just looking to take snaps of the family on vacation.

 

If you view a camera as an appliance that achieves a necessary function, not unlike a toaster or a screwdriver, then you really don't need a DSLR. If you see a camera as a fun device that you enjoy using, and photography is actually something you like to do, then a DSLR is a good move.

 

Despite having grown a nice collection of specialty lenses for my DSLR, I have continued to use my superzoom as my travel and all-purpose lens - I bought both my cameras without any kit lenses, and just purchased a nice, versatile 18-250mm lens...I can go from wide through telephoto with a single lens, giving me 14x zoom, and in a carryable package without having to swap lenses. When I have the time or the comfort level to change lenses, I can switch to more dedicated primes and higher-end specialized zooms...but I love being able to switch back to that convenience lens when I need a quick, portable all-in-one solution.

 

Each brand has a similar lens - something like an 18-200, 18-250, etc., and there are several available from third party manufacturers as well (Tamron 18-270, Sigma 18-250). So consider that if you want to go to a DSLR, but want a one-lens travel and convenience solution.

[wbdlangston]

Before you bought your DSLR did you have a P&S? What made you decide on a DSLR? I think what I'm thinking about at this point is having to change lenses if I'm on a island tour just to get a picture. If I'm home I wouldn't mind fussing around, but when you're on vacation, you want to get the most with the time you have. I don't want to be using my time changing the lens to get a picture.

Yes, I did have a Kodak P&S. It takes good pictures. I've had it about 5 years. I'm sure I will also use it on the cruise. I bought a Canon t1i D/SLR. I had made up my mind to get a Nikon, but my photography instructor is a Canon person. He talked me into getting this particular camera. For the money, I think I got more than I could get with a Nikon for the same price. He also told me that you can only use Nikon lenses with a Nikon. Hopefully the Canon will be more economic in the long run. I have enjoyed it so far, and I am very happy with it. Hopefully, I made the right pruchase. I guess I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

[TheOldBear]

Yes, I did have a Kodak P&S. It takes good pictures. I've had it about 5 years. I'm sure I will also use it on the cruise. I bought a Canon t1i D/SLR. I had made up my mind to get a Nikon, but my photography instructor is a Canon person. He talked me into getting this particular camera. For the money, I think I got more than I could get with a Nikon for the same price. He also told me that you can only use Nikon lenses with a Nikon. Hopefully the Canon will be more economic in the long run. I have enjoyed it so far, and I am very happy with it. Hopefully, I made the right pruchase. I guess I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

 

One part that jumps out is

He also told me that you can only use Nikon lenses with a Nikon.

If that quote is accurate, I would take other of his statements with more than a pinch of salt ;)

A great strength of the Nikon family is the long reign of the F mount lenses. With minor exceptions [some old fisheye lenses that required mirror lockup] all F mount lenses will function on any current Nikon camera. This is in contrast to Canon's jump from the FL/FD mount to the current EF mount.

 

All third party lens makers [including high end lenses like Zeiss] have F mount editions.

[robbie21]

I was a film SLR user for many years and when I finally made the change to digital I went to a superzoom digital camera.

 

The primary reason for this is personal convenience. Carrying a bag with a heavy camera and 3 or 4 lenses is a burden. Changing lenses to get just the right picture (or missing the shot because I had the wrong lens on) is also annoying. Putting a wide range superzoom on a DSLR (or an old SLR) makes for a bulky and very heavy rig. Basically, I just got tired of it all.

 

My current travel camera is a Panasonic FZ-35. It is a 12 megapixel 18X Zoom. With the modern anti shake technology I can take good museum pictures in pretty dark places at 1/2 second exposure (if I can find something to lean against). It has good manual controls that I can use if needed although the program setting is fine for most situations. I do sometimes cheat the auto exposure by metering the sky or whatever, locking the exposure and then recomposing the shot.

 

The camera weighs a bit over a pound and fits comfortably in my shoulder bag. All in all it is a fine compromise. I suggest you look at the reviews at dpreview.com. Everyone makes one of these type cameras and they have done direct comparisons.

 

Robbie

[pierces]

I was a film SLR user for many years and when I finally made the change to digital I went to a superzoom digital camera....

 

Another great option if weight and bulk is an issue!

 

Certainly a viable option for a lot of people. None of the currently available models from any of the manufacturers is a clunker.

 

A whole lot of camera in a tidy package (and limited accessories reduce temptation! :D)

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

I had made up my mind to get a Nikon, but my photography instructor is a Canon person. He talked me into getting this particular camera. For the money, I think I got more than I could get with a Nikon for the same price. He also told me that you can only use Nikon lenses with a Nikon.

 

Unfortunately, that's the downside of taking advice from brand users or fans - they might not even have bad intentions, but can be prone to spreading bad advice or misinformation.

 

As you've phrased it, that statement is incorrect - You don't have to use only Nikon lenses with a Nikon. There are lenses made by Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and others that will all work on Nikon bodies. Pretty much the same goes for Canon, Sony, and Pentax. Each one has its own 'mount', but each has both their own brand lenses as well as third party lenses designed to be used with that mount. In that sense, every brand has a particular 'mount' and each requires you to use lenses designed for that mount. But none of the manufacturers requires you to stick to lenses made by their brand.

 

Hopefully, I made the right pruchase. I guess I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

 

As long as you are comfortable with the camera, like the way it feels, like the shots you get from it, and are happy with the lenses and lens selection, then you made the right purchase. It doesn't matter if you went with Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Pentax - they're all 'right' choices as long as you like using them, holding them, shooting them, and the results that you get from them.

 

So no worries on your decision, but the advice given was sadly misleading/wrong. Fortunately, you can't really go too wrong with cameras these days, and now you have a camera to enjoy and grow with.