i have pretty much decided i need to upgrade my lowly canon G3 point and shoot to an actual D-SLR. i have done some reading and spent time at DP Review, et all. based on the experience here, i wanted to know what you all would recommend.

i am leaning to the Canon 350D/Rebel XT—tho i am reading that the stock lens is not the way to go. (B+H has the camera body for $799.) i don't need anything really fancy as i am only interested in good image quality for portfolio shots, school source photos, design projects, etc.. not huge zooms and wide fisheyes.

the only other brand i would consider is Nikon.

thoughts?

I have the 350D and nothing but the stock lens and I quite like it.
Have a look at my shots and let me know if you can spot any shortcomings. It's quiet, fast and good all-round. The only thing I can think of, is that the manual focus is a bit flimsy and loose. Not too much of a problem once you get used to it, though.
Another minor annoyance is that it uses E-TTL for the flash, so any of the older canon flashes don't communicate properly, but it's ust a case of doing it manually instead. :)
I'm well please with my cam, and even though it may be going slightly over the top for what you need, I'm certain you won't regret it. :)
That's my bit.;)

thanks for the info.

i would normally totally agree its over the top for what i am doing, but the quality of photos i have seen from a D-SLR versus a point+shoot (even a really good point and shoot) just do not compare. call it the overall gestalt of the picture or whatever, but the D-SLR pics look dramatically better, and to me, thats worth it.

it's an investment really.
i hated digital cameras, until dslr's.
i bought the d70 because i already owned two slr's and had a couple of lenses.
i say if you can afford it, go for it, no matter which brand you choose, you really can't go wrong.

I don't think that stock lens on 300 is that bad.
I've seen some really good images done with that.
Or you can get just the body and buy a bit better lens for extra few bucks.

As far as Canon vs. Nikon goes the only thing I would consider is that Nikon is doing some weird stuff to their images. Some sort of DRM where only "allowed" application would be able to open them and such. Other than that it's all the same.

Some sort of DRM where only "allowed" application would be able to open them and such.


that pretty much immediately makes not interested in the Nikon. plus i have had a couple of Canons and i have been very happy with them, as well as the fact that Canon has always played very nicely with Mac OSX as well, in my experience.

I have owned a nikon film body for ages , and wouldnt buy anything else for a film camera. I might possibly consider a nikon digital if it was at least 8mp to match the canon, simply because I like the nikon feel and interface better, but its not that big of a difference...at least not enough for me to spend the xtra bucks to pay for the nikon name. I am not convinced that the digital imagining technology is of nikon is on par with Canon either - though shots I have viewd on the web haven't shown me any difference in quality so I have no imperical evidence...and really one could argue its more the photographer than the camera that will take a good shot. Canon however, is the clear leader in the digital game, both for quality and availabilty.

I have used Andrew's Canon 10D alot and think its a nice SLR, so all things considered...budget included I would problably suggest purchasing the Canon 350d...though if its anything like the 300d I wasnt overly impressed with the light construction of it. I have big hands and smaller delicate camera bodies dont last long in these meat hooks. :)

I just recently purchased my 300d from this place

http://stores.ebay.ca/Panwebi-Electronics_Canon-Digital-Camera_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQftidZ2QQtZkm (Panwebi Electronics)

I just got a EOS digital rebel (no stock lens), 2 sigma lenses (28-70mm and 70-300mm), carrying case, extra battery, 1gig CF stick, cleaning kit, tripod, and usb flash reader doohickey, for $1400 canadian, the stock rebel xt is $1300 canadian before tax, so Id like to imagine I got a kickin deal.

Anyways, Im in love with it, only had it for 2 days and already took about 500 pictures.

i am pretty much decided on the 350D, and the Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM rather than the 'kit' lens. actually all i need to do is sell my G3 and my maxxum 8000i (sneaky linkage to the sale here (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/57909216/m/441003484731)) and then i am gonna order the puppy.

any recommendations on a wide angle/near macro lens in the $200 range? i am worried that the 28mm on a digital SLR is not going to be enough for me.

Wide angle and macro don't really go together. You want more telephoto/macro.

I would probaly stick with the stock lens over the 28-105 as they are probably close to the same quality (unless you have read something somewhere). The lower the zoom range the better image quality you will get. I like the 28-75 Tamron I have for the 10D but it maybe out of your price range.

Have you looked at the 60mm Macro? It has got some good reviews. Not sure how it compares to the 100mm which is what I have.

:)

the reviews i am reading say that for the extra cash of only about $130 US the better lens is a lot better; USM, metal mounts, not as soft, better overall quality, etc.

see i get all confused with macro/telephoto/wide angle terminology. macro is technically a magnification from what i understand; i guess what i really need is more 'close-focus' — the equivalent of the little flower setting on a point+shoot digital camera. i need to be able to focus on something thats 8" in front of the camera lens and get high quality (i use this mostly for a lot of staged cinematography/model/ephemera shots)

Something like the 60mm Macro should do nicely for that. Like freaky said, its got some great reviews and I really want one:)

Nikon is doing some weird stuff to their images. Some sort of DRM where only "allowed" application would be able to open them and such.
Erhm what? Not the case, where have you read that?

As for Canon vs Nikon, I've had both, you cant go wrong with a d-slr or any slr. Pic what you and your wallet agree upon. :)

You can read about the 28-105 here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=9&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

It has the second lowest average rating of any canon lens.

Can you afford the Tamron 28-75 XR DI F2.8 lens? It is a really good lens. (You would have to add a wide and a telephoto). The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is another excellent Tamron lens.

Plastic mount is no big deal. The 50mm F1.8 has a plastic mount and feels all around plasticy but it delivers good pictures.

Macro
A true "Macro" labled (fixed) lens will produce life size images 1:1 (based on 35mm format, so 36mm on a ruler will fill the frame).
Lens that have a macro feature will produce less than life size (Like the Tamron above which will do about 1/4 life size).
Generally the wider angle the lens the closer you have to be to get maximum magnification (which is bad). A 24mm you may have to be a couple of inches, a 100mm 6-8 inches and a 180mm 1-1.5 feet. The closer you are the more you block the light, block the flash with the lens or get into stinging / biting range.

:)

gahhhhhhhhhhhhh too many freaking choices. after looking at fred mirianda now i am, of course, unsure.

i think maybe the wise move is to take the kit lens (which only costs $80) and the 50mm lens (which only costs $75) and go from there... spend some time with the camera and then make a purchase of a good lens later on.

Erhm what? Not the case, where have you read that?


Erhm, yes that is the case.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/25/responding_to_nikon_.html - among many aticles.

@Shecky=Yeah that would work.

The 50mm probably won't be that useful to you. It doesn't close focus and you are overlapping the kit lens. It is a good lens for the money though.

Maybe the 85mm F1.8 would be a better choice though quite a bit more money or look at a Sigma or Tamron 90mm Macro???

You may need something a little longer though. Also look at the 135mm softfocus lens. It's quite inexpensive for the quality and will be one of my next 2 lens purchases (the other being the 85mm 1.8).

:)

I'v been using this one (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10&sort=7&cat=27&page=1) for a while and I like it a lot. Not the sharpest lens out there but it'll do. With IS turned off images get better though. You can pick this one up for about $300-$400 if that's what you want to spend.

Erhm, yes that is the case.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/25/responding_to_nikon_.html - among many aticles.
Well I havent encountered any problems ;)

Well I havent encountered any problems ;)

It only applies to the newest cameras in particular the 2dx or whatever it's called.

It only applies to the newest cameras in particular the 2dx or whatever it's called.
D2X... eeeeeeeeek! Then we are talking about a $10.000,00 camera so it's out of the question anyway :grin2:

I think the D70s, D50 and D2hs have it too. The D2x is $5,000 and that is no excuse, no other large manufacturer does it.

i agree—DRM of any kind on self-generated content that is not controlled by the author is ridiculous IMO.

while we are here, what's a decent tripod—or at least a decent brand? mostly for studio work. right now i use a $18 Wal-Mart special (read: piece of shit) but i dont trust it with this camera.

I have a compact Velbon CX 200 and it's brilliant for things like hiking trips, rockclimbing, canoeing...that sort of thing. Very light and good size at a small price. I think it was £15 when I bought it.
For still life and and the heavier stuff, I have a Benbo Trekker. Sounds like it should be tiny and light, but I think it's fairly heavy duty, and it's incredibly versatile. Don't knwo the price, as it was a gift, but I seem to recall $120..might be wrong though.
:)

I have Manfrotto with the same head and that thing is sturdy ass all hell!

I have a Manfrotto 190 (older style) leg set and 3way head plus a Giottos MT9180 with a Manfrotto Ball Head

The Manfrotto isn't bad for a light camera and lens, the Giottos is a lot stiffer and more versatile.

Neither of these tripods will hold my camera & 300mm to the point where I would say it's "rock solid" or even close.

Gitzo is the best and one of the most expensive. Expect to pay over $500 US for legs plus more for a good head.

I read your tripod should weight at least as much as the heaviest lens (and body) you will be putting on it.

Your best buy is probably the Manfrotto as you can get packaged heads and legs. The Giottos is quite inexpensive but you will need a seperate head. It has a built in head that you can do funky things with but you also need a "proper" head.

I recommend a large ball head unless you want lots of accuracy in adjustment in which case you need a 3-way head, preferably a geared one.

Looks for a head with levels. The giottos has a level built in too so you can level the legs and then the head too with it's levels.

The Giottos cost $190, the 3way head was $160, the ball head was $230 (all cnd)

The Manfrotto legs were free from Chris, about $120 (cnd)

:)

well this is what i ended up with:

Canon CAEDRXTB EOS Digital Rebel XT (a.k.a. 350D) Digital Camera (Black)—$799.95
Sigma SI247035CAF Zoom W/A-Telephoto 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF AF Lens—$129.00
Canon CA50182EF Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens—$74.95
Lexar LECF40X1GBQ 1GB 40x CompactFlash Card—$84.95
Canon CARS60E3 RS-60E3 Remote Switch—$25.95

all from B+H Photo

i decided to go with the Sigma instead of the kit lens after reading the reviews of both - the added cost is literally only an extra $50 for what sounds everywhere like a much better lens, and i will get a wide angle lens later on if i find i need it, which, i never have in the past.

the next purchases are going to be 2 tungsten lights+stands and a gray card.

Sounds good

For the future, the Sandisk cards have a lot better reputation than the Lexars.

Grey card should only cost you like $10 (for two 8x10 and one 5x7)

If you are doing reproduction work you might want a GretagMacbeth Colorchecker for colour and possibly a copy stand (with lights).

:)

just grabbed a gray card and i finally settled on a tripod: a manfrotto 3021 Pro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=217263&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) with a manfrotto 3047 3way head (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=5293&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation)

not as little as i wanted to spend, but they seem very sturdy and i have no reason to belive i will need to buy another tripod ever again. plus the Pro tripod allows me to shoot with the center arm mounted horizontally, so i can shoot straight down at flat art—very important for what i am doing with this stuff.

I have the same head and I absolutely love it.
It's very sturdy and once you tighten it down it won't budge at all :)

I have the 329 3-way head but prefer the ball head ... which is not what I would have thought when I bought them.

For shooting artwork you will really want a copy stand. You will see what I mean after you try the tripod.

Like This (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=53764&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)

i agree except for 2 small problems; first, it seems like any copystand less than $200 only goes to 36"—with the tripod i can get 48" above my work—allowing for larger pieces, and second, i needed a good tripod anyway, so the fact that this one serves double duty is even better.

plus since i am not doing reproduction quality, only portfolio-quality, i think the tripod makes sense for now at least.

also while we are here, in terms of lighting i was thinking about this 2 head tungsten kit (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=48851&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) as its more or less within my budget; however after talking with one of my professors (http://www.skolos-wedell.com) he suggested that adding 2 umbrellas would make for much better photos; this convertible photoflex (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=42500&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) seems to make sense. thoughts?

You forget though that the tripod legs will not let you get nearly that big a piece of artwork even with the horizontal center tube.

You are better off hanging it on a wall when using a tripod.

With the tungsten kit I don't know what kind of umbrellas will fit it.

Also you have to get ones that will take the heat of the tungsten bulbs

i ended up with this 3-head 1500W tungsten kit (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=48852&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) along with 2 of these diffusers (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=48786&is=REG&addedTroughType=search) instead of umbrellas.

interestingly my local photo place discounts to within a few dollars od B+H mailorder.