Dslr

Well I finally plan on taking the splurge into the world of DSLR's. I've taken a few classes with SLR's and have taken up digital photography as a hobby but nothing serious. Only the bare minimum knowledge of Photoshop but that's not the issue. I'm thinking of getting the D5000 just because it fits the budget. Possibly might get the 55-200mm lens as well. Any thoughts and suggestions will be taken into consideration.

The D5000 seems to get good reviews and from reading the feature set it looks like a good camera (I shoot Canon, so can't offer any first-hand experience with it). If you buy the kit it comes with the 18-55 lens, so adding the 55-200 would probably be a good idea for the added reach; I certainly wouldn't want to be without such a longer lens. The 18-55 will most likely be your "go-to" lens for many situations (especially indoors, where you need the wide end to give you room to shoot), but the 55-200 comes in very handy once you move outdoors, for shooting portrait-type shots, etc.

What are you planning on shooting? Know that if you're planning on doing much low-light shooting, a flash unit would be a huge benefit (the pop-up flash built into the camera will cause red-eye and harsh shadows, as well as "burning out" lighter tones close to the camera). If you start getting into shooting indoor or night sports, prepare to break out your wallet and cry...you'll be looking at fast prime lenses and/or f/2.8 zooms, which get very expensive in a real hurry!

As far as Photoshop goes, there are plenty of alternatives if you don't want the learning curve and/or don't need all the power it holds. The "Elements" version is much cheaper (usually around $99) and has about 80% of the functionality of the "full" version (more than enough for the average photographer). There are several shareware/freeware image editing programs such as The Gimp, Picasa, etc. which handle basic editing tasks just fine. If you're not planning on doing a lot of stuff like putting peoples' heads on other peoples' bodies, take a look at Lightroom - it has excellent image editing features as well as a great cataloguing/management system for your photos. If you happen to be on a Mac, iPhoto does a great job at the basic level - Aperture is available for more advanced stuff.

Congratulations - digital photography is a great hobby, but it can get even more expensive than golf if you get addicted!

i like the canon ones. You should look at photo samples of pictures taken with different dslr cameras. Different brands have different colors etc in the pictures, I prefer canons.

What would a Canon equivalent to the D5000 be?

I plan on mostly shooting outdoors for now without the use of a flashlight. Low light situations call for more skill so I'll tackle that later on.

The Canon equivalent of the D5000 is probably the T1i. That's what I've got, and I like it very well. I'd suggest looking in to these in a shop where you can fiddle with both, because the control layouts and menu systems are very different between them. (One note: the Canon's pixel resolution is a bit higher than the Nikon's, but this is emphatically *not* a reason to prefer it---in practice, you're going to be limited by other factors.)

I'd personally wait on a second lens until you determine whether you actually need one and what you want to do with it. The 55-200 VR lens gets pretty good reviews and is cheap, but it's only going to be useful for very well-lit scenes (or with a tripod). The 18-55 is likely to cover most of your needs and you'll find out later whether you actually find yourself wanting longer reach. If instead you realize you'd rather be able to take natural light photos in darker situations, you might be better served by a different lens. Heck, you may find what you need most is a solid tripod. If you're in a budget situation, I think it's best to add gear slowly, because the last thing you want to do is invest in a piece of equipment you're not going to use much.

Finally, I suggest looking into Adobe Lightroom, which was mentioned above. It's great for managing photos and quickly applying the sorts of edits you're likely to want to do as a photographer. IMO it (or Aperture, which I tried briefly and did not like) is essential to really get the most out of your camera. It's amazing what you can do with a RAW image after the fact.

I've owned DSLR's for about 5 years now. Bought the original EOS Rebel XS, and have upgraded since to now a 5D Mark II. I chose Canon because they have high end L lenses if you want to make the investment in high quality glass, but they also have decent consumer level lenses for much lower prices than Nikon. I have a few L lenses, but most of the lenses I use are consumer grade because I couldn't justify the cost of buying the L version.

Beyond cost of lenses, you can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. I believe Nikon has better and faster autofocus. Canon has better video capabilities, and imho better low light images, but overall they both produce excellent images. The brand is more important than the particular camera you're buying now. If you're even slightly serious about the hobby, this won't be your last DLSR body, so it's more important to consider where you want to make your investment in lenses. Lenses will quickly dwarf your investment in the camera body, so it's important to pick the brand you'll want to stick with.

Like golf, it's a great, but expensive hobby, so it's better to do your homework before you make the investment. Most dedicated camera shops will allow you to rent a camera, so you might consider trying both the Nikon and Canon out to see which you like best.

Very, very true. I wasn't going to get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate since it seemed he had already chosen Nikon, but the point made above is valid. There's a very good chance it

won't be your last DSLR body if you really get into the hobby, and if you wrap a bunch of money up in lenses and later decide that you'd prefer to have another brand of camera, the most expensive part by far will be swapping over to a whole new lens collection (lenses for one brand of camera will not fit another brand). The "pro grade" lenses (Canon 'L' series or Nikon's equivalent) hold their resale value extremely well, but the consumer grade and/or third-party lenses (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc.) not so much. As newtogolf said, conventional wisdom is that Canon offers a wider (and cheaper) selection of consumer-grade lenses....even the 'L' lenses are often cheaper than their Nikon counterparts. I also agree that you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon....but you'd be well-served to go into a local store and check both of them out for yourself and see if you like either of them better for any reason (ergonomics, controls, features, etc.). A great review source on the web is Steve's Digicams - he offers unbiased, knowledgeable and informative reviews of most popular cameras.

You are a man of many talents, Iacas!

Thanks for the links guys. Will do a little bit of reading before purchasing. Was reading http://www.dpreview.com but I've heard that the reviews are biased. I don't know if I'll go too crazy with buying a lot of lenses. I loved taking pictures with my SLR and developing them so I'd be out taking pictures with what I have rather than tinkering with lenses probably.

Yeah, just like as golf junkies we say we'll always be satisfied with the clubs we have now!

Regardless of whether you go Canon or Nikon, you'll end up with a similar "kit lens" (Canon's is an 18-55 also), and in either situation I think you'd want a telephoto zoom to cover the long end (Canon's is 55-250). If you're mostly planning on shooting outdoors with good light you'd be fine either way....the "consumer grade" lenses are all variable aperture for both Canon and Nikon, so you'll be looking at something like f/3.5 at the short end to f/5.6 at the long end. Most of them have IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon), which enables you to utilize slower shutter speeds without blur from camera shake affecting your images as much (for non-moving subjects). I can't buy into into fanboy-ism, arguing image quality and "pixel-peeping", as I think there's a lot of hype and marketing jargon going on there....either brand will turn out images of excellent quality for 99% of users who make an effort to be somewhat competent at the fundamentals of photography and post-processing. The best advice I can offer is to do your research, buy what you like best (within your budget), and then stay far, far away from online photography forums....they'll only make you question your decision and inspire gear lust beyond your wildest dreams! [EDIT] If you're not already familiar with the basic principles of photography (or if you want/need a refresher), buy the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson - it's the single best investment you can make toward grasping the "Exposure Triangle" (aperture, shutter speed and ISO). Definitely a very helpful read.

For that purpose, I wouldn't get hung up on any of it. Go play with a few, and it's hard to go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Even the smaller brands (Olympus, Pentax, etc) are pretty solid. The review sites are fun, but it's easy to get hung up on little details...

Okay, now let's

really screw him up and introduce the micro 4/3 format cameras into the picture! I agree that it's easy to get hung up on the little details....none of which matter to the vast majority of amateur/casual photographers. DSLRs have evolved to the point that there are no real stinkers out there anymore (at least amongst the major brands). Any camera you buy is capable of capturing great images. Much like golf equipment, the results have a lot more to do with the person holding it than the gear itself! I'm partial to Canon because it's what I shoot and what I've invested myself in, but I have no doubt that I could shoot equally good images with a Nikon or whatever other brand, once I set it up to my liking and got familiar with the controls.

I said the same thing when I bought my Rebel XS, now 4 bodies, and 8 lenses later I'm still looking at lenses to add. My advice is stick with Canon or Nikon, they have the majority of market share. Also as others have said, avoid many of the dpreview forums until you make your selection as the fanboys from Canon and Nikon will have your head spinning. I chose Canon because of their wider selection of lenses but I really like Nikon cameras too.

The kit lenses are okay, but if the kit lens isn't going to meet your initial needs, opt for the body only and put the difference towards the lens you want. One other thing to remember when selecting a new lens is to make sure you know the size of the CCD/CMOS in the body you purchase. My 5D is a full frame sensor so an 18-55 is a true 18-55, but on my 50D it was really a 28-88 (multiply by 1.6) for 1/3 sensor. Only the top end DSLR's have full frame CCD's so you'll need to know the CCD/CMOS size in order to make sure you get the lens coverage you want.

The D5000 would be a good choice as a started DSLR. I went with the D40 last year but wish I would have spent a little extra and got the D5000 because of the better high ISO performance.

As far as lenses I guess it depends on what you are planning to shoot? I have the 55-200mm VR (By far my most use lens), the kit lens and a 35mm AF-S F/1.8.

Any of you guys with DSLRs have a flickr?

Decided to go with a DSLR from Nikon with their stock 18-55mm lens. The choices and prices are:

D3000 $390
D3100 $550
D5000 $560

The D3000 is much cheaper compared to the D3100/5000 but does not have video capability. The mega pixels on all 3 are more than enough since they are all 10+ MP's. Conflicted because I really doubt I'd be shooting video with the DSLR but you never know.

I don't have any experience with Nikon, but here are a couple thoughts from specs and reviews. I'd probably go with the D3100 or D5000. The D3000 has gotten some pretty poor reviews, so I'd be a bit wary of it. In particular, it gets very poor reviews for high-ISO performance.

I think it's a bit of a tough call between the D3100 and D5000. The D3100 has more pixels, but at 12 vs 14 MP it's a don't-care factor. The D5000 is slightly faster for rapid-fire shooting, which could be important if you're trying to shoot kids playing or other action, but is otherwise minor. I don't think either will be a wrong choice.

Regarding video: it's certainly not a must-have feature, but it's occasionally convenient. The SLRs are simply not very good video cameras, but if something unique comes up and you want a video, having the option is nice. I put it in the category of features that if all else is equal, I'd opt for the camera that offers it, but I wouldn't really pay more for it or give up other features for it.

I would disagree with your opinion on DLSR's shooting video. Currently some television shows and movies are now using Canon 5D's and 7D's in place or addition to their professional cameras. Video has come a long way on DSLR's and it's eventually going to kill the high end consumer video camera market. While I have a dedicated Sony HD video camera, I do find having the capability on my 5D is convenient when I don't want to carry both. I only take the 5D to my sons wrestling tournaments so I can take stills and video so I don't have to carry both.

If it's within your budget go for the D5000, there's nothing worse than buyers remorse if there's any potential to want to shoot video too.