Do I need a dSLR?

I currently have one of those P&S thingy's. It's the first and only camera I bought and I've had it for two years. It's a Sony P120, 5.1MP with a sad 3x optical zoom. I love it to bits and will keep it for the obvious P&S pictures (fun, party, family and holiday shots), where quality is not that important.

But I'm now trying to get into photography a bit more and I wonder if I need a dSLR?

Budget is as small as possible and will try to find a used one aswell. For body I was thinking about a Canon Digital Rebel 350D, Nikon D50 or D70(s). They seem to be the most popular models. The 350D is sed to offer the most for its price and that would be my personal choice.

From other threads and reviews I imagine this is a good 'set':
- Canon 350D
- Canon 17/85 4-5,6 IS USM

But I don't know anything about lenses and those numbers. I know the 20-50 or 50-300 is the zoomrange? But I have no idea what to imagine with those numbers.

So a few questions:
- Link to explanation about lenses?
- Do I need a dSLR?
- Get a kit.. or a body and a good lens?
- Where to get a lens? (they are so bloody expensive)
- other tips/opinions.

My P&S does have a Manual mode where I can 'choose' shutter speed and opening. Is this a good place to start learning photography, or is this just a bad way to do this?

All help/tips is very welcome. Thanks.
PS I'm trying to fund this with selling old stuff, so budget is as small as possible.

L

 

don't feel the need to go dSLR to take good photos... if you are short on budget, stick to your P&S and practice manual or even go 35mm film dSLR (you can get some really, really cheap ones... as in super cheap!) to learn what bits are and what they do.

 

ok first off, let's sort out the budget problem

www.fredmiranda.com

that place has a HUGE Buy&Sell subforum (members only although no min postcount needed), with threads being posted literally every 30 seconds, and TONS of canon gear. most of the members are american based, generally this isn't a problem as they are willing to ship as long as you pay for it. this is great - you get teh 2nd hand deal, and at the american price. case in point - that 17-85mm lens is about £470 in the UK right? i got a mint copy still under warranty for £260, with hood. advantage of buying 2nd hand is if the seller is honest, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a sharp copy, as they'll have gone through the hassle to exchange if it was duff, and you can ask for sample pics.

right. the numbers.

17-85mm 4-5.6 IS USM

17-85mm:
this refers to the focal range. for reference, on the 350D which uses a cropped sensor, this range is equivalent to 28-135mm ish.
the lower the number, the wider the lens. the widest lenses out there are in the roughly 10mm range (film equivalent). Thjat's really bloody wide - almost a 180-degree field of view. The longest lenses out there are about 600mm. this is what you call a supertelephoto lense - we're entering telescope territory here. REally the best way to understand what focal length does to your images is to mount the lens and take some pics. wide lenses will give a much stronger sense of perspective, long lenses let you pick out detail from far off, but you also tend to lose some sense of perspective.

f4-5.6:
this refers to the max aperture, or as it is also called, the f-stop.
inside the cam is an opening as you called it, which is variable in size. Make it bigger, it lets in more light. But it also results in a shallower DOF (depth of field), or acceptable range of focus - how much in front and behind the focal point will be sharp. Once you figure this out you can control it to get some really creative effects, but for the time being just realise that a lower f-number stated on the lense means a wider aperture, making it better for low light photography. The widest apertures out there right now are in the 1.2-1.4 range. f4 is actually considered pretty slow (as in, it doens't let much light in, so you need longer shutter speeds), and you can go all the way up to f32 or so depending on the lense.


educate yourself on the cameras, read articles about exposure, learn about the pros and cons of the different lenses out there, but most importantly TRY BEFORE YOU BUY. here's some links to sites with some pretty good editorials

www.dpreview.com <-- great site for reviews
www.luminous-landscape.com <-- opinions, reviews, techniques, lodsa stuff. awesome.

hope that helped.

and to answer your first question - no, you don't NEED a DSLR. but they're awfully nice

(phew, that was long and vaguely pointless)

 

Thanks for the reply;s. And Fod thanks for going true all the trouble of explaining all that!

So if I do want to get one.. its better to go and test one here (in store or whatnot) and then buy one used from that forum you suggested? Just the body, just the lenses or bouth? I'm a bit worried about getting something from the us, in case something is wrong with it.. (thanks for the link to that forum, just what I needed for a bargain!)

L

 

i personally would avoid buying a 2nd hand body. lenses, they hardly ever go wrong, bodies, depending on usage, may be on their last legs even if well looked after.

most sellers on fredmiranda are decent chaps. use paypal, communicate via email thoroughly, ask for samples, you should be fine. i've bought a couple lenses on there now without a hitch. just trust your gut instinct and if something feels wrong, just back out.

 

It's an important decision to make because you will probably be stuck with it for a long time. If you buy a Canon now you will buy canon lenses, then buy another canon body to fit your existing lenses, then buy more Canon lenses, and so it goes. That said, the 350 is a good, if basic, started and the Canon lenses are pretty universal so you can move up later on. There is also somthing to be said for buying a film SLR, and learning on that, but again if you start buying glass for it you will almost certainly trap yourself into buying that companies DSLR body to fit your lenses. Somthing to think about...

 

no! don't buy a film slr to learn on without enrolling in a class!!

the magical thing about digital is that all the settings are right there on every pic, and you get immediate feedback. that is lost with film - you take a roll of images, it can be a week before you see the results! you'll learn a lot slower.

 

I know film SLR is the best way to learn. Most classes require a film SLR aswell. But I really don't want to get into the hassle/costs of film. I think I'll wait just a bit longer and push my P&S to its limits. Around the holidays (xmas&newyear) there always good deals on electronics so might have a look then.

Thanks for all opinions and help.
L

PS: Got offered 650Euro for my computer just now, might have a budget for this sooner then I thought.

 

I find the line between want and need is a fine one, sometimes a very blurry one. You could try a higher spec P&S without commiting to a lens mount. Something like a high spec powershot, with lots of manual options. Like this.

 

Thanks for your suggestion, but if I ever buy another camera it has to be a dSLR, except if my current P&S breaks down offcours. I'm just gonna wait a while and see if I can get any of my old computer and other crap sold. If I can raise enough money I might go searching for a dSLR.

You'll hear from me

Thanks again,
L

 

One thing that hasnt been explained here is zoom. A 1x zoom is equal to 50mm focal lenght or about 33mm on a digital. So your 17/85 lens will do about .5x to 2.6ish x. To get more zoom you will need a different lens. For example my 70-300 on my D50 does up to 9x zoom however wont go wider than 2.1x.

Also realise that dSLRs are fairly large beasts. If you want to take artistic photos instead of just holiday snaps then dSLRs are better than P&S however if you want holiday snaps without having to think about what you are dong then avoid SLRs like the plague. Its alot harder to get the same quality of photo from a dSLR than a P&S but you can get higher quality in the end than P&S.

One thing about the 350D is that it has a pretty small hand grip so if you have a normal or large sized hand it might not be the best choice fit wise.

 

you misunderstand the Xx notation.
a 3x zoom means that at the long end, the image is magnified 3 times in comparison to its wide end. Thus, both a 24-105mm and a 100-400mm zoom are (roughly) 4x lenses.

this is why that notation is actually fairly useless.

a 50mm is considered 'normal' though. this has to do with the perspective, though, not the magnification. that is, it has the same field of view as a human eye. (note that on a 1.6x cropped sensor, normal lenses are about 30mm)

 

Ok. Let's say I go and get a 350D. What lense is a good buy for me? I don't need a telescope, but the 3x on my P&S is just sad. I do want to beable to zoom in a bit on a tall building (looking up) or from a tall building (looking down). I will probably take more close up then huge zooming pictures.

Also, explain to me the difference between

400£ : Canon Objectief EFS 17/85 4-5,6 IS USM
150£ : Sigma Objectief 18-50mm F3,5-5,6 DC + objectief 55-200mm F4-5,6 DC

The second are offcours 2 lenses. But from my newb view, they seem to offer alot of options for alot less money, whats "wrong" with them ?

and between:
200£ : Canon EF 75-300 III F4-5,6 USM
160£ : Canon Telezoom EF 75-300 III F4-5,6

Same numbers..

Sorry to ask so many questions.
PS: I'm keeping my P&S for holiday/party/family pictures

PS: this is now more of a " IF I get 350D , what lense(s) should I get then? " -thread.

 

the 17-85mm is an ideal walkaround lens. the focal length range is very useful, and the optics aren't too shabby. buying the two sigmas on the surface seems like a lot of lens for the money, but they're not image stabilised (it is very useful) and not as well built. (also, no USM focussing - sigma calls it HSM). you also have two lenses, split in the middle at a rather annoying number. you'll be crossing the 50mm length a lot, and switching lenses is irritating to say the least (i generally pick a lens and go out with it, with my 50mm prime as a backup for low light). Of course, this all depends on your shooting style, though. I don't really like long lenses too much, prefer to stick to sub-100mm lengths.

Really, go to jessops with a CF card, ask to try the cam and the lenses, take a load of pics, take the card home and look at them. that's probably the best thing to do for you. you get a feel for the lens and cam, and you have sample pics to make a decision by.

as for the two canon lenses, one has USM, one doesnt. That's the difference. I'd stay away from it though - it's not that great. Neither are those sigma lenses tbh.

at the end of the day, nobody can tell you what lens with what focal length to buy - you have to decide what range you yourself want, and then we can make recommendations based on that.

 

I know no one will agree with me on this, but...

if you're going to buy one lens, get a Tamron 28-300mm. I forget what the lower number, is, but it's an f6.3 at 300mm which is a bit slow, but respectable. The huge zoom range means that you'll seldom need another lens for much of anything. I've used one on film and then digital Minolta bodies and I seldom wish I had anything else. They're also not that expensive.

Just my $.02 worth

 

28mm on a 1.6 body? that starts you out at 45mm.

i had a 28-135mm for a few months. i got rid of it as soon as possible. The 'wide' end, just isn't, on the smaller sensors.

if you really want a one lens solution, sigma make a 18-200mm lense which is pretty decent. well, for a lens with such a massive range, anyway.

 

Ok. I assume Jessops is a store wich we don't have. But I will be going to a big store nearby to get a feel from the camera's in my price range and the available lenses they have for them.

So the Canon 17/85 with ISM and USM is something I should definatly look at and consider. It seems to be what I will need mostly.

Thanks for the information, I know it has to bother you to explain everything, so thanks aswell for your patience.

I've also found a Sigma Objectief 18-125 F/3.5-5.6 DC for 160£. But as you sed, It does not have USM or IS. It's weird how that makes such a huge price difference though. You really need to know alot about it before you can go out and buy a lens.


Thanks again Fod and others!
You've been a great help.

L

PS: Plus since this 350D has a 1.6x sensor.. my lenses will 'improve' if I switch to a full (1x) sensor later on? (like a 20D?)

 

I'm in nearly the same position as Lovah.
Narrowed down to the 350D with 17-85, the kit EOS-350D 17-85 IS USM + BG-E3 costs 1.173,61 euro (distributor price without tax ).
Maybe i'll shop for a second hand 17-85 and get the body only, though i understand the battery grip can be quite handy.

 

actually, the 20D is also a 1.6x cam. as is the 30D. and, most likely, the images your lenses give will get worse when you switch to full frame

smaller sensors don't use the edges of the image circle the lense produces. The edge of the image is the hardest to keep sharp due to the nature of the design of the lens, and thus all but the most expensive lenses tend to have vignetting/softness towards the edge of the frame.

this is really why i believe full frame is dong to be dropped - it places HUGE demands on the quality of the lens, and really considering the resolution of sensors these days, there isn't a need for that size with the exception of large format printing.

 

Ok, great. So no worries then

coorz:
I was thinking about either getting the body here in europe (Belgium or The Netherlands) for about 690Euro and then getting a new lens from America (Ebay) for about 380Euro.

Or just getting the whole package + some extra's from the same seller on Ebay for 900Euro (Body + Lens + bag + 2th battery ..)

PM me if you want the link.
Too bad you live so far in The Netherlands, else we could have ordered toghether for an extra discount.

L