recommending a DSLR camera for beginners

[Chopmeister]

I am generally a Canon owner, and know more about their models than anyone elses. My Trusty Powershot G3 (which was fantastic) finally died. I have a Canon 450D as an SLR, and a older cheap ixus 55 as a pocketable P&S. Both of which I love, although the Ixus is a bit long in the tooth, and due a replace as soon as other more pressing things have made it out of the Budget.

My advice is:

1. Think carefully about what you want to shoot and what your budget will tolerate. SLRs are nice, but other options are cheaper, more discreet to use, and readily pocketable - a camera is no use if it's so bulky and inconvenient you never take it anywhere.

2. Buy a decent brand. As per above, I am a Canon user, but Canon and Nikon are both very good choices. Leica is very nice but waaay overpriced - Panasonics are essentially the same thing at half the price. Some Fuji's are good, but they are not the camera maker they used to be. I avoid Sony on principle for anything I buy - nasty, verminous unethical company that hates its users and has a mania for DRM and proprietary add-ons.

3. If you just want snapshots of kids and weddings indoors an SLR is overkill. A good P&S is much cheaper, will give most of the results you want, and is far more convenient to take places. Something like the Canon Ixus 220 HS, the model I am currently considering - very small form factor, good (24mm equivalent) wide angle and good lo light sensitivity. Don't buy into megapixel mania, anything over 10MP is great - past that quality of lens and sensor is much, much, more important.

4. If you get an SLR, get a quality lens and an external flash. If you are going to shoot weddings and indoors GET A GOOD FLASH! If you aren't prepared to spend for this, you lose much of the advantage of having an SLR. Think carefully about the SLR lens that you need - one good lens covering the range you need is much better value than spending the money on a number of cheaper lenses that cover esoteric focal lengths that you will hardly ever use. Starting with the cheap kit len(es) and adding a better lens later after you have a feel for the camera and how you use it is not a bad idea.

5. If you can't make up your mind, an intermediate prosumer P&S like the Canon G12 (or S95) is worth considering. Cheaper and not as bulky as an SLR, good lens and zoom range, and many (but not all) of the advantages of SLRs - aperture priority, shutter priority, manual mode etc.

6. Buy a spare battery (or two) and a large memory card. Both are fairly cheap. No model of camera is much use if you run out of juice or memory at the key moment.

7. Ignore video quality. While it may be nice to have in a pinch, if you want to shoot video then buy a video camera. Video cameras aren't optimised for stills, and still camera aren't optimised for video. Using them this way will result in inferior results.

[lordsmurf]

one good lens covering the range you need is much better value than spending the money on a number of cheaper lenses that cover esoteric focal lengths that you will hardly ever use.

Yes and no.

Hyperfocal lenses can be really nasty quality.
I'd rather use a 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200, as opposed to an 18-200.

The 18-200 is only nice when you're in a situation that doesn't allow lens changing.

And the "number of" lenses are certainly not cheaper.
You can go cheap, or you can buy quality. Mine are all f/4, f/2.8, f/1.8 lenses.

[shell66]

I never feel like I am "lugging" a camera around with my DSLR--I have small back pack camera bag that I bring. Of course the whole family think I carry it to put their sunglasses, wallets, keys, etc in.

If I am in a point and shoot situation--most times our camera phones are just fine. Plus I hate the lag on point and shoots. I do have my point and shoot and our kodak playsport video tucked into my camera bag (just in case) when we go on a trip. So many phone cameras are getting decent piixels anyway and quality is acceptable.

Chopmeister has good points--extra batteries, extra memory cards save the day. I do not agree about the DSLR is overkill for taking pics of kids. With more kids playing competitive sports--the images you capture with the focal choices of a DSLR and also the shutter speed--it's worth the money. I had a photosharing site for my pics of my son's soccer games and the families were so appreciative of the pictures I got with the Nikon DX40.

Lordsmurf--i so wanted a 18-200, but now I saw the 18-300. Need to go check out the weight though. Don't use my 70-300 much due to the bulk of it--plus that was mainly when my son was playing soccer. From the back of the boat I can get great close pics with the 55-200.

Think point and shoots are ok--more storage than a phone, prob a bit better quality than a phone camera. Best advice I can give is rent a DSLR for a weekend. Try it. Most people I know are constantly upgrading their point and shoots--so what I have invested in my DSLR in six years is most likely less than what they invested in their point and shoot collection.

[budwzr]

Keep in mind that it's not the equipment, it's the technique.

I recently built a handheld stabilizer, from PVC, and was amazed at how much smoother the video from my Kodok Playsport is. Getting your hands out further from the camera's center of rotation really makes a difference.

AFA video goes, I'm delighted to have manual focus, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control, AND dSLR still quality in the same camera.

My camera bag now contains:

Canon T3i - For low light video and razor sharp stills

Lumix FZ35 - For point and shoot

Canon G7 - With wide angle lens conversion, for wide angle stills

Kodak Playsport - for general video. Has 720p60.

GoPro - For fisheye video. Also has 720p60.

I'm pretty well covered, and can do multicam too. My total investment in gear is not that much, and now I'm focused on the technique learning. I'm not buying any more gear until I can earn a few dollers, or get a million hit YT video.

P.S. An 18-55mm lenses is very limited. and having a "bonus" 55-whatever is a hassle to change lenses all the time. Get a decent lens kit from the beginning. Get at least an 18-135 kit lens. I was amazed at how so many people on Amazon went for the cheaper kit probably because they didn't know.

[MJA]

that is soo true bud .lol


Chopmeister

I own the Canon 500HS (they call it Canon Ixus 250 HS where u live?) and I can't take any good pix (indoor)even under auto .I don't have this issue with my old SD1100 IS

[orsetto]

An 18-55mm lenses is very limited. Get a decent lens kit from the beginning. Get at least an 18-135 kit lens. I was amazed at how so many people on Amazon went for the cheaper kit probably because they didn't know.

This depends a great deal on the specific camera brand and kit lens. I can tell you the 18-55 that comes with the lower-end Nikon DSLRs is astonishingly good: I hated being forced to buy it bundled with my D40, thought I would never use it, yet it quickly became my go-to lens. Coming from the film age, I was pretty shocked to learn digital is in a different playground when it comes to lens apertures. All my film lenses are f/2.0 or 2.8 to maximize available-light shooting, so I assumed the dinky kit Nikkor at f/3.5-5.6 would be useless. WRONG. At the wide-angle settings, the little kit zoom just KILLS my expensive 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm Nikkor primes. Color rendition, sharpness, contrast are all much better, and handholdability is dramatically better for reasons I cannot fathom (but enjoy immensely). If I mount the 24mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.0 primes, I can get down to perhaps 1/15 without awful blur. With the kit zoom, at a true aperture of around f/4.2, I can reliably hand-hold down to 1/8 sec with decent results, 1/4 is usable and I've actually gotten away with 1/2 sec on more occasions than I can believe (and mind you, thats with the non-VR version of the Nikkor 18-55). It has to be practically pitch-black before the Nikkor kit zoom fails to deliver indoors, there is no contest: the faster primes don't come close.

This may hinge on synergy between camera body and lens: the D40/D3100 was born to take advantage of the 18-55. When used on the newer, much more advanced D7000 the fast primes narrow the gap to become more useful, and on a full-frame like the D700 fast primes are killer. But on a D40, D3100 or D5100? The Nikkor AFS 18-55 rules, unless you need ultra-wide or tele coverage. The expanded "midrange" zooms like 18-105 and 18-200 have much more distortion and (I find) less usability for available light. For kids, pets and family events 55mm is plenty long enough, don't give up the sterling Nikkor kit lens unless you mostly shoot daytime sports and really need 105mm or 200mm. The longer lens will give more reach at the sacrifice of weight, size and indoor usability.

With Canon, its different, their 18-55 is underwhelming: you really do want to go with the 18-135 suggested by bdwzr instead. It has noticeable distortion at the wide end for architecture, but otherwise nicely-consistent performance across the zoom range. Unfortunately this lens will also add a hefty $360 to the price of any Canon camera, so budget considerations may intervene. My photojournalist acquaintances all use Canon bodies but employ Sigma, Tokina or Tamron alternatives to the low or midpriced Canon zooms, feeling Canon glass doesn't cut it for them until you reach the higher end. Nikon also gets slammed for some missing or overpriced lenses, esp at the very wide range, where again Sigma and Tokina maintain a niche.

None of which means jack to a family man on a budget. Midrange- and pro-level DSLR/lens competition between Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax is strong and compelling arguments can be made for each. In the $600 and below pricerange, the combination of Nikon D3100 and 18-55 Nikkor kit zoom is unmatched for optics/handling and will be great to shoot kids, weddings and vacations. Nikon has its flaws but they totally nailed the budget DSLR/lens concept.

[budwzr]

I own the Canon 500HS (they call it Canon Ixus 250 HS where u live?) and I can't take any good pix (indoor)even under auto

Try using "AV" mode and set the f-stop to 2.0.

And to Orsetto: Hey that's great that you love the 18-55, and that you actually MEANT to buy it, and that Nikon hit a home run with it, but Costco and Sam's Club are loaded with those kits, and I suspect the reason why is because that's a "starter" lens that's gonna get tossed in the closet later, and bring the customer back to buy something better.

[Chopmeister]

one good lens covering the range you need is much better value than spending the money on a number of cheaper lenses that cover esoteric focal lengths that you will hardly ever use.

Yes and no.

Hyperfocal lenses can be really nasty quality.
I'd rather use a 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200, as opposed to an 18-200.

The 18-200 is only nice when you're in a situation that doesn't allow lens changing.

And the "number of" lenses are certainly not cheaper.
You can go cheap, or you can buy quality. Mine are all f/4, f/2.8, f/1.8 lenses.

I completely agree with you - I think you misunderstood me slightly. Some of the (especially cheaper) hyperfocal lenses that try to cover enormous zoom ranges are really nasty and should be avoided like the plague. My point was that for most photography people tend so shoot around the 28-140mm (35mm equivalent) range. For a fixed sum of money you are better getting one two really good lenses the cover this range (or whatever range you plan on needing), rather than buying a larger number of horrible lenses covering everything from ultra-wide to very very long zoom ranges that you will hardly ever use. For Canon, the kit lenses are a bit underwhelming, the 17-85mm (27-136mm in 35mm equiv) if a good upgrade as a first lens. Unless you know from the outset that you need them for what you want to shoot, spend the cash on the lens(es) you know you will use. Buy the other lenses later if you find you need them - once you are sure it's not a waste and you have had time to replenish the toy budget to afford something good.

Also, for some of the comments bagging point and shoots for zoom range, shutter lag and lack of features, not all point and shoots are created equal. There is a wide range on the market, from the truly awful to the very very good, and you tend to get what you pay for. My G3 had a very good F2 lens, no noticeable shutter lag and (for a 4MP camera which was top drawer in its time - 2002) astoundingly good picture quality.

And just to reiterate - if you get a dSLR don't spend so much on the camera and lenses that you can't afford a decent powerful external flash (which will make an AMAZING difference to indoor shots), a spare battery, a large memory card, a good camera bag to protect it all. Also, think about extras you may need - like a polarising filter, a tripod etc, depending on what you intend shooting.

[budwzr]

A lot of those super long lenses are wasted on birds. I saw a birder the other day, and he had the tweed fedora too.

[magillagorilla]

My 70-300mm is not VR and it's nearly impossible to get a stable shot handheld. Forget about trying to shoot video on a DSLR using a big zoom. I've tried and the results are comical at best. The 70-300 stays at home 90% of the time. I may sell it for a 35mm prime.

I know most photo geeks hate on the 18-200mm, but it's a really freaking convenient lens. I shoot the 18-200 almost all the time. My 18-55mm kit lens does shoot well but I'd rather use my 50mm prime over the 18-55.

I often take my 18-200 and the 50 when I head out to shoot. Though video on 50mm is very tricky. My default DSLR video lens is definately the 18-200. When I am pulled back to 18 the focal plane is almost infinate so I don't have to worry about the crappy continuous AF on my Nikon taking 20 seconds to lock.

Funny, I saw a birder at a nature preserve this summer that had several ginormous lenses. I guessing one was a 400mm fixed lens. It had a good 6in diameter and 14in long. Something that belongs on the sideline at an NFL game. The other lens was some weird short thing, maybe like 10in long with an 8in diameter. I don't know, that gear was out of my league. I remembered she hastled me because it was high noon and I didn't have my lens hood on.

[MJA]

the 2 finalist are

Canon EOS Rebel T3 $489 http://www.buy.com/prod/canon-eos-rebel-t3-18-55mm-is-ii-kit-digital-slr-camera-with-1...220036283.html

Nikon D3100 ($599.I can't find it cheaper than that)

[budwzr]

MG, yeah, those birders strut around with their gear like they work for NatGeo, and their craft is so technical. How hard can it be to stand around for hours and wait for a good shot. It reminds me of "deer hunting". You sit in a blind drinking beer until a deer walks by, then you blast it.

Not a whole lot to it. If you can squeeze a trigger while looking through a telescope, you've mastered it.

[lordsmurf]

I know most photo geeks hate on the 18-200mm

It's because image quality sucks compared to better zooms and primes, but...

but it's a really freaking convenient lens.

... this is true, too.

don't have to worry about the crappy continuous AF on my Nikon taking 20 seconds to lock.

Learn to manual focus. At one point in time, I could focus almost as quick as a Canon EOS lens. In the old days, all you had were fingers and luck.

I guessing one was a 400mm fixed lens.

These can be amazing lenses. It's not about distance, but sharpness and closeness to the subject.

It had a good 6in diameter and 14in long. Something that belongs on the sideline at an NFL game.

300mm f/2.8. I use these sometimes. I prefer a 80-200 + 1.4x, however. Same difference, especially in an era where my D3s gives me a 12800 ISO with almost no noise.

The other lens was some weird short thing, maybe like 10in long with an 8in diameter.

Maybe a scope with lens mount. Not my thing, either.

I remembered she hastled me because it was high noon and I didn't have my lens hood on.

It really depends on if you're getting corner noise or not. I shoot with mine off under certain conditions, too. That may include high noon. I don't really hassle people, and in fact I generally prefer if others would leave me alone when shooting. I'm working. If you want to talk, slip me a business card, and I'll email later on when I'm not shooting.

My 70-300mm is not VR and it's nearly impossible to get a stable shot handheld.

That's all you -- not the camera. I routinely shoot handheld 600mm, and it's quite sharp. Although I'd note my lenses are probably sharper than yours, especially if you're using that 18-200. The trick is learning to breathe right, bracing yourself, standing properly, and then settings on the camera (shutter, aperture).

Forget about trying to shoot video on a DSLR using a big zoom.

Agreed. Even a light breeze against a tripod causes all hell to break loose and creates "jello vision". I'm looking to buy Nuke 5 with their plugin. Just not gotten around to doing it yet. I don't shoot video for work, so it's hard to justify the cost -- comparable to Premiere Pro + After Effects, without a discount of any kind.

[wmelnick]

Get the D3100. Just be prepared to invest in lenses. I have the D5000 (upgraded from the D40x). I shoot a lot of indoor portrait-type stuff and use the Nikkor 50mm which works beautifully. I also have the Sigma 18-200mm as a general duty lens. When I find myself in a situation where I have no idea of the conditions in which I will be shooting - often concerts - it is a great everything lens. Not great any anything but quite good in the 18-180 range. It gets a bit distorted in the corners if you get to the last 10%.

You mentioned you were going to be shooting your kids' sports. If you will be outdoors you will probably be OK, but I have a friends whose kid plays hockey and in order to get a lens that could stop the action at the distance from which he would be shooting, he spent a mortgage payment on just a lens!

Good luck with it.

[orsetto]

And to Orsetto: Hey that's great that you love the 18-55, and that you actually MEANT to buy it, and that Nikon hit a home run with it, but Costco and Sam's Club are loaded with those kits, and I suspect the reason why is because that's a "starter" lens that's gonna get tossed in the closet later, and bring the customer back to buy something better.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'll try to answer anyway.

CostCo and Sam's Club cater to families and others on a tight budget, or those who have "typical" "average" needs in categories like cameras. Each camera mfr prefers to sell its "low end" (i.e. "under $1000") bodies with a kit lens, in most cases you cannot buy the body at all without one. So megastores will tend to feature low-end to mid-range DSLRs with bundled kit lenses: the lens comes in the same box as the body, there's no other option from the mfr. Like it or not, you get stuck with an 18-55 (the pricier models come with 18-105 or larger kit zooms). This "forced kit lens" purchase can be viewed several ways:

1. It simplifies store inventory (and consumer shopping) since most first time buyers will want the cheapest possible lens to start with anyway.

2. It increases razor-thin profit margins on the camera bodies: forcing the kit lens on buyers functions as a "tax" that makes the camera possible at a price most consumers want. Sneaky and questionable tactic, but mfrs have been doing this for 15 years now and few people complain (those who would have no earthly use for a kit lens usually opt for the much more expensive pro and semi-pro models sold as "body only" instead of the low end DSLR kits).

3. If you get lucky, and the mfr kit lens is outstanding (Nikon 18-55), and it suits the majority of your subjects, then the body/lens bundle can be a great bargain.

4. If you're unlucky, and the bundled lens is mediocre (Canon 18-55), you might feel ripped off. You can sell the lens on eBay or Craigs List (someone is always looking to replace one they dropped or scratched), and put the money toward a better lens, but its inconvenient and does increase the true buy-in price of the camera system.

This is where the pointless camera flame wars start, because people get all emotional instead of calmly deciding what their true priorities are. If the main concern is lowest price including good basic lens, you go Nikon D3100. If you have a particular preference for features or performance or handling of another brand like Canon or Sony, you simply accept the kit lens is crap and plan accordingly to sell it and upgrade. But this advice applies only to the >$600 kits, and only to current/recent models. Specs change without notice: Nikons kit lenses were abysmal in the film days. the superb digital 18-55 design is a fluke more than an intentional "gift". The low-end Nikon D40 dSLR body was a tremendous value, its successor the D3000 was an utter POS even Nikon was embarrassed by (it drove many buyers to Canon Rebels), so it was replaced with the current D3100 (which is excellent with fast response and good PQ). Potential newbie camera buyers have to do the tedious research online, read the magazine reports, and handle the cameras at a store (or preferably borrow from friends/family). Find out what is considered good today, not last year: things turn on a dime. If you already own a film SLR with several lenses, you also need to decide if you want to stay with that same camera brand and re-use your existing lenses (sometimes this is a great idea, sometimes not). Lots of questions to consider before plunging in.

Re the "kids indoor sports" question: this is the single most challenging subject matter most people will ever shoot. Unless you spend major (and I do mean major) money for a fast wide-aperture AF tele lens, 70% of your indoor sports shots will be poor. Crank the ISO up to 800 or 1600 and cross your fingers. A fast 50mm f/1.8 AF lens is cheap at $150 or so, and can work wonders if you're standing close to the action, but thats about it for affordable options. (Using a huge flash annoys the crap out of spectators and can be dangerous to the players.) If bought at the same time as the camera and 18-55 kit lens, many dealers will heavily discount a 55-200mm VR tele lens. Such slow tele zooms are not ideal for indoor sports, but with practice can give adequate results. Doing much better requires $1000-2000 for an 80-200mm f/2.8 pro zoom. Dedicated, experienced Nikon photographers might get away with using an old second-hand 105mm f/2.5 or 75-150mm f/3.5 manual focus lens: these are affordable, superb quality and great for indoor sports IF you have the skills to manually track focus and know how to set manual exposure. Perhaps only one in twenty photographers could manage this, I'm only mentioning it because its a popular alternative with Nikon owners. See the Manual Lenses On Nikon DSLRs Flick'r thread for more info. Canon DSLR bodies can use Nikon manual lenses with an adapter, and in some cases the low-end Canon DSLRs are more compatible with old Nikon lenses than low-end Nikon bodies!

[budwzr]

Hey, that's a great article. I was thinking of buying Nikon, but I found out Nikon doesn't have a histogram like Canon that shows you your tonal range and distribution. I'd rather have that.

[orsetto]

Thanks, budwzr, your comment about the Canon histogram feature is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to think of when I said people should consider the overall system design when comparison shopping their first DSLR camera. Those who have no investment in a previous set of lenses from the film days have the widest choice of options: they aren't predisposed to continue with the same brand. If you already own a bunch of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony/Minolta lenses, it can be a tough choice between core design features you want on a new brand vs tossing all your old lenses and starting from scratch. I envy the "newbies" for their freedom!

[budwzr]

I guess what hooked me on Canon is my G7. It's just such a sweet little camera. In a class of its own, even now.

[MJA]

what do you guys think about this deal?

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-3-0-Inch-18-55mm-50-200mm-Black/dp/B00427Z7NM/ref=zg_bs_3017941_60

[budwzr]

what do you guys think about this deal?

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-3-0-Inch-18-55mm-50-200mm-Black/dp/B00427Z7NM/ref=zg_bs_3017941_60

When I bought my new DSLR recently, my #1 priority was to buy something that would hold its value, and that I could grow into, and not find out later that one of the specs was a crippler.

[magillagorilla]

The problem with trying to future proof your camera when you are getting a "starter kit" is that you may not know what you need until you use something. One could argue to get the best one then you are covered, but the OP has a budget. I'm not a Nikon fanboy but right now I think the D3100 is the best value DSLR out.

Pentax is priced right for the market but the problem is that it is not the popular choice in the US. Go with Canon or Nikon. If you go with Sony, or Pentax you will be shooting your self in the foot when you get serious and want to start upgrading. Pentax and Sony gear will be more difficult for you to sell.

Also, if you go with Canon or Nikon, and you want to switch teams it will be easier to sell your stuff. Like if I wanted to go Canon, it would be easier for me to sell off my Nikon gear than it would be to sell Sony or Pentax. I can easily sell old lenses and bodies to upgrade as well.

Do side by side on dpreview like:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos600d&products=...tDir=ascending

[budwzr]

Here's another good place to compare: http://www.cameralabs.com/

[Seeker47]

. . . If you already own a bunch of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony/Minolta lenses, it can be a tough choice between core design features you want on a new brand vs tossing all your old lenses and starting from scratch. I envy the "newbies" for their freedom!

Yeah, that's something I've wondered about, as someone who shot a fair amount of film way back when, but never made the jump to digital -- apart from a few models of the Canon Elph series of P&S cameras and whatever camera happened to be in my current phone. I still have a nice selection of lenses for the Olympus OM-2 that I never disposed of. Can't re-use them for any of today's DLSRs, can I ? (Or, if it even was possible, probably not a good idea ?) It wasn't just the lenses, either: all kinds of accessories, including a good flash rig. Practically museum pieces now, I wouldn't be too surprised.

Truth be told, for my modest needs of more recent years, the Canon Elphs were pretty adequate. But they all seemed to develop the same problem after awhile: a sort of bad "electrical static interference" in the viewfinder, or whatever the camera is pointed at, that renders it unusable. For awhile, I thought this might have been a problem with the batteries, but then it seemed to be more serious than that. Does this ring a bell at all ? Repairable, or worth repairing ? (Probably not . . . . )

[orsetto]

I still have a nice selection of lenses for the Olympus OM-2 that I never disposed of. Can't re-use them for any of today's DLSRs, can I ? (Or, if it even was possible, probably not a good idea ?) It wasn't just the lenses, either: all kinds of accessories, including a good flash rig. Practically museum pieces now, I wouldn't be too surprised.

My first "serious" camera was an Olympus OM1 that I conned my Dad into buying new for me when I was 16 (I promised I'd pay him back for it, and I'm still stalling him 34 years later). Great compact SLR system with great lenses, but like many other fine old-school camera brands Olympus was caught totally unprepared for the onslaught of the Minolta Maxxum AF system. Consumers ditched their manual-focus cameras overnight to migrate to the Minolta AF system, its popularity surged so quickly that half the once-legendary camera mfrs were effectively swept out of business. Olympus hung on by becoming a point/shoot purveyor, but the brilliant OM SLR system was left to languish as an embarrassing anachronism (although a few savvy photographers kept buying the "obsolete" OM4Ti for quite a few years). Loyal OM owners had hoped Olympus might learn from the mistakes of others, and make a strong comeback with DSLRs. Instead, they surprised (and annoyed the hell out of) OM fans by coming out of left field with the bizarre "Micro 4/3" system. While it has finally become popular as an alternative non-DSLR "EVIL" system (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens), the first couple years saw some really uninspired Olympus DSLR designs.

Adapters are available to mount your old Olympus OM lenses on Panasonic and Olympus Micro 4/3 bodies, but their usefulness varies. Micro 4/3 sensor size is basically the same as the old "half frame" 35mm film format, which effectively halves the angle of view when using the OM lenses. For example, your 50mm F/1.4 Zuiko becomes the equivalent of a super-fast 100mm F/1.4, which is fantastic, but your wide angles that were great on the OM2, such as 24mm 2.8, become a pedestrian 48mm 2.8 "normal." And of course all focus and exposure settings are totally manual: this doesn't bother me, I use my old manual Nikkors this way on digital bodies, but if you need AF and AE you won't be happy using your old OM lenses on digital. BTW, one big advantage for Canon over Nikon is the EOS lens mount is easily adapted to take many other brands of lens: you'd be amazed how many photographers buy a Canon DSLR just to use their old Pentax M42, Leica R, Olympus, and even Nikon lenses. Again, totally manual operation, but this is a plus in some cases (esp motion video). Ironically Minolta, who singlehandedly killed the classic manual-focus film SLR back in the 80s, was the first iconic brand to fold during the digital revolution (they were absorbed by Sony: Sony Alpha DSLRs use the Minolta Maxxum lens mounts).

The market for second-hand manual lenses has heated up quite a bit recently, with prices trending higher and higher (try finding a nice used Nikkor 105 mm f/2.5 or Minolta AF 35mm f/2.0 these days). Old manual Pentax, Nikkor, Leica R (and Minolta AF) lenses are coveted esp for low-end digital video production. The Olympus OM lenses fall into an odd category: they were and are extraordinarily good glass, but are hard to find in really nice condition so they have developed a cult collectible following (particularly in Asia, where they are beloved for their "creamy bokeh"). I would suggest, seeker47, you peruse eBay to get an idea what your OM lenses are worth on the secondary market. The wide angle and normal lenses can fetch surprising prices, you may want to sell these in order to finance a new digital body. The tele and zoom lenses are somewhat less collectible, so you might want to try using them on digital, or keep them with the OM2 for old times sake. Or, just sell it all and go completely digital in one giant leap.

Back in the film era, when I was able to afford it, I put aside my Olympus OM1 kit and bought a clean second-hand Nikon F2AS body (my dream camera) and several Nikkors. It was scary watching their resale prices plummet over the last decade, so I'm very glad old manual glass has inched its way back up to become a valued commodity on digital. Thats how I ended up with Nikon D40 and D700 digital bodies: they let me hold onto the timeless F2AS and make good use of its lenses. I may yet add a Canon 5DIII when that finally gets released, unless Nikon coughs up with a competitive D800. 'Course I'd have to sell something to finance it...

[budwzr]

Get a T3i, it's the best of both worlds.

This is rigged up with a 50mm and I use the camera's digital zoom so I don't have to run around. It's great! The T3i has a swinging LCD screen so if you want to switch to stills, you just flip the screen out and the viewfinder gets out of the way.



Also, this is a perfect example of how NOT to light a green screen.

[magillagorilla]

Nice! I want to get one of those view finders for me D7000 but my camera has a fixed screen. I need to be able to move the thing out of the way quickly. Some of the rigs use rubber bands and I saw one that uses magnets. I'm not sure what to get but I need something. Now that I'm pulling manual focus most of the time I really need a view finder.

By the way, I love running video with the 50mm lens. The image is very sharp, but you have to keep the camera very stable and focus is tricky. I think I'm gunna get a 35mm lens next. The 50mm is a little too much zoom.

[budwzr]

Yah, with the articulating LCD, you get more flexibility, but the eyepiece part does clip off easily and has a neckstrap.

Yeah, there's a "Hoodman" model that costs well over $100 with all the options, but I didn't like the rubber band thingy, it looks like a shoestring tied around the camera, very Micky.

This one passes all the tests. PRICE!, functionality, and simplicity.

[MJA]

I have a new problem now.my wife does't like any of those DLSR cams.she thinks those cameras are made for safaris ,magazine,,,plus the size is huge .

I'm looking right now at Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2,and the Sony NEX-C3.N5 looks nice but the price is too high

I really like to own something like the D3100,but the I'm not the only person at home is going to use it

[lordsmurf]

The words "wife" and "she thinks" never co-exist in a sentence that ends well for men.
Let me translate: She doesn't know anything, yet feels the need to heavily weight in on the decisions.
(And it's very often related to automotive or technology purchases.)

Spent $100 on a POS for the wife to cram in her purse (and shut her up).

Then buy yourself a good camera.


Yeah, yeah, this all sounds sexist, blah blah blah --- but I'm not wrong.
(Do you feel that? It's the earth shaking from all the men nodding their heads in agreement.)

[budwzr]

LS is absolutely correct! HERE HERE!

What the wives actually want is to be included, therefore you have to use some psychology.