Advice on DSLR's appreciated

[meanie]

I've decided to buy a digital slr.
I used to be pretty reasonable with the 35mm slr's, but the more research that I do, the more I tie myself up in knots.
As a step in, & as a question of economics, it'll be an entry level for now.
I've more or less ruled out the Nikon D3000, leaving me with a shoot out between the Canon EOS 1000D & the Sony A230.
The idea will be to add a decent macro lense once I get the hang of it, & they seem to be a fair bit dearer in Sony fit.
The camera will mostly be used for plant photography.
I'll be interested to hear your thoughts, plus any reliability woes anyone may have suffered.
I've decided that I'll be buying from the local camera specialist, as they have a very good reputation for customer service/care. He tends to lean towards the Canon. He's also regarded as offering good trade-in prices to existing customers if/when they want to trade up.
Thanks for reading.

[PhalNewbie89]

What I have is a little different then what u are talking about here but it has done rgeat for plant pics and many other things. I have a CoolPix p90 I believe. Veyr nice camera and you dont have to buy different lenses.

[koshki]

Hi, Meanie! I'm sure I would be in just the same quandry you're in now if my DH hadn't stepped in and surprised me with a DSLR for Christmas, making the decision for me. He chose the Sony A230. I used it for a few weeks before deciding to upgrade it to the A330 for one reason: the Live View LCD view screen. But I need it for a very particular reason...being in a wheelchair, I often found it difficult to get my eye to the small viewfinder to see the shot. The LCD screen on the A330 swivels up or down so I can see the shot even though I'm holding the camera at arms' length.

The rest of the features are the same as the A230, and I was quite happy with it. I like being able to use regular SD cards (it also allows an HDMI card of some sort, but I don't have one). Also, I really like the USB cable that allows me to transfer photos directly from the camera to the computer via the cable.

I don't know about the comparative prices of lenses, since I was only checking for those that fit my Sony. The package I got has a DT18-55 zoom, and he bought a DT55-200 zoom as well.

After selling a bunch of stuff on eBay and Amazon, I also got the 100mm macro used (the listing said used once, and it really seems like it). That's the lens I used to take the photo in my February photo below.

All in all, I'm really happy with what I got, even though I have nothing to compare it to, really.

Whatever decision you make, I would definitely recommend getting a book written specifically for your camera (the author of my book is David Busch...I think he writes for just about every make of camera). It is well worth the ~$20. I read it with camera in hand. Not everything makes sense to me yet, but as I use it, I understand more and more.

I was a little shocked (and frankly, almost annoyed) that DH made this choice for me without any input, but it took about 2 minutes to get over that and just start enjoying the camera without agonizing over my decision.

Oh, and I went ahead and bought an extended warranty from the camera shop. In my situation, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before I drop it or bang it into my chair and cause damage. The manufacturer's warranty only covers manufacturing defects, but this one covers anything I might accidently do to it (lens included). These digital cameras are not bullet proof like my old SLR.

Good luck!

[mayres]

I'm sure BOTH of the options would work well. If you go with Canon I'd consider going with the 450D instead of the 1000D - note link Canon XSi / 450D vs Canon XS / 1000D | Digital Photography Notes
I"ve used them both, but currently use the 450D and find it more than satisfactory for taking orchid pics. Look forward to seeing some great orchid pics in YOUR (and therefor our) FUTURE!!!!

[Anton]

You can't go wrong with Canon, I have always had them and haven't had any issues, except wearing them out from over use, but, that is not something the average user would experience.

It was expensive getting them repaired, but haven't missed a beat since. They were purchased in 1989 (1 body) and 1990 (2 bodies). lenses are cheaper than Nikon, but same quality.

Alternatively if you don't want to change lenses, but want a high quality point and shoot style camera you can't go past the Canon Powershot G11. I recently trialled one of these for a friend and it is brilliant, so much so, I want to replace my Olympus P&S with a G11, or soon to be released G12 (shhh not widely known yet).

These are very high quality cameras and you can also shoot in RAW format if required.

[Hummer344]

I have used Canon for a long time now and have a point and shoot and a Rebel Xt dslr. I bought a Sigma 20-70 Macro zoom to go with the Xt. Its an all glass lens and has great optics. I carry my point and shoot in my truck all the time and it gets dropped, bumped around a lot, & dusty but keeps on shooting. For major trips I take the Rebel because I can put different len's on it.

[terra_australis]

I use Canon myself and I love the versatility of the EOS system. Sony has some great lenses but there are very few of them compared to what is available for Canon. Have you considered maybe picking up a second-hand 30D or 40D? These are much more capable cameras than the entry level units. I started with a 350D back in 2006 and honestly couldn't wait to upgrade to a mid-range body. After a few upgrades I'm now using a combination of 40D and 1DMk3. The 1D I use for everyday shooting but I prefer the higher pixel density of the 40D for macro work.

[Leathal]

I'm the odd one out, I have always had Nikon. Just upgraded from a D200 to a D700. Fantastic pics

[Shannara]

Originally Posted by Leathal

I'm the odd one out, I have always had Nikon. Just upgraded from a D200 to a D700. Fantastic pics

Not so odd, I have had my Nikon D300 since last year and am totally in love with it. Eventually I want a D700 or possibly whatever Nikon has up their sleeve next for full frame.

To meanie, if you have a local store and they carry the cameras in the store I would try them out....get the feel of it in your hand. Check out the ease of use of the camera options and see if it works for you. Each person is different and has different tastes. I know there are hard core Canon and Nikon lovers because both are great cameras, but from personal experience I just can't say enough great things about my D300. I use my Nikon 35mm and Tamron 90mm lenses the most for orchid pics.

HTH

Shann~

[tangers40]

i've had my canon rebel xsi for about a year and a half now. still the best purchase i've ever made. took quite a bit of learning to upgrade from my old point-n-shoot, and i am still a horrible photographer, but if you're familiar with slr in any form, the transition would be much smoother. i had to learn all about aperture and whatnot.

i couldn't be happier with my camera. my entire family has always had canons and nobody has been disappointed yet. my uncle still uses a 30+ yr old canon slr and it's still going strong. they're reliable, reasonably priced, and take wonderful pictures (if you know what you're doing that is...which leaves me out lol).

[meanie]

Thanks to you all for your thoughts & advice.

In the end I opted for a Nikon D40, secondhand but unused (unwanted gift). Despite the lower pixel count, it came with the 18/55mm lense, a 55/200mm lense, external flash gun, tripod & bag for the cost of a D3000! As it was just to be a stepping stone to get my hand in again it was a no brainer!
I've posted a couple of pics elsewhere, but here is another example of the difference that a decent camera makes........

Picture 026.jpg

[Shannara]

So happy for you! Stepping into the world of DSLR's is a lot of fun. I got my D300 last year and couldn't believe what I had been missing out on. If you can get your hands on the newer nikon 35mm 1.8 lens you should get it. They are fairly inexpensive for a lens. For macro look into the Tamron 90mm 2.8.

Looking forward to seeing more of your pics.

Shann~

[meanie]

Originally Posted by Shannara

So happy for you! Stepping into the world of DSLR's is a lot of fun. I got my D300 last year and couldn't believe what I had been missing out on. If you can get your hands on the newer nikon 35mm 1.8 lens you should get it. They are fairly inexpensive for a lens. For macro look into the Tamron 90mm 2.8.

Looking forward to seeing more of your pics.

Shann~

Thanks for the tip - I was going to take a look today, but I'm stuck at home with concussion.
I'm really enjoying the rediscovery of it all again.

[Shannara]

Originally Posted by meanie

Thanks for the tip - I was going to take a look today, but I'm stuck at home with concussion.

OMG...I didn't realize. Hope you are okay....

Shann~

[meanie]

Originally Posted by Shannara

OMG...I didn't realize. Hope you are okay....

Shann~

Mega headache subsiding thankfully!
Here's another one that came out quite well........

Picture 161.jpg

[Shannara]

That looks like an eyeball in the middle! Kinda scary and pretty at the same time.

Shann~

[meanie]

It's just a Hollyhock seed pod!

[JLu]

meanie, unfortunately you run into the "get one like mine" syndrome every time this issue comes up on any kind of internet forum. I will make every effort to avoid any bias if I can.

What's a camera? Is it an optical device or an electronic device? A little of both? No matter how you capture the image (film, digital array, or other) the camera is an optical device whose most important part is the lens. The capture section can only degrade the lens product, it can't improve the image it sees. You need a brand with a good line of lens. Canon or Nikon.

The next most important issue is the user interface. Does it help you take good pictures or confuse you? Are the controls in the position that makes them nearly intuitive? Are they the expected controls (remember that digital offers some new control features), but as much as possible controls should look traditional offering mechanical interfaces and not requiring that the user enter menus for basic features. You need a brand that has experience with still photography. Canon or Nikon.

Third, leading edge development. Two companies lead the field in digital development, Canon and Nikon.

You will not go wrong with a Canon or Nikon. I've owned both for 50 years and prefer Nikon but that's personal. Many others prefer Canon. Canon is the better marketing company offering more models through more retailers. Canon is also an excellent engineering company across a wide array of products, not just cameras. Nikon is an engineering oriented company whose marketing efforts are more geeky. It's an excellent optics company.

One interesting thing is that Nikon offers a macro lens in the correct focal length for flower photography at a reasonable price. It's just serendipity, not because they like flowers, but it does exist...the 60mm f2.8 macro for slightly over $300.

Get the best Canon or Nikon you can afford and figure out which lens are best for your use. I'll post a link to my Flickr album for you. All the pics are from a Nikon D200. I'm afraid to leave the forum to get the link for fear my post will disappear. I''ll put the link in another post.

[JLu]

I hope this link works.
Flickr: kentucky4's Photostream

[meanie]

Jlu - Thank you for the up on the lenses.
Thank you also for the link. I always find it interesting reading the EXIF info to see how others achieve their shots.

Here's a link to a reasonable effort on my Flickr page........
Flickr Photo Download: Aeschynanthus - Mona Lisa

[shellbell75]

I have to agree with JLu on all points. I just wanted to add a quick note - you've made the Nikon plunge - I would stick with Nikon for the lenses as well. There are a number of other lens makers that will become very appealing because of price. As JLu said, though, Nikon has a reputation for great lens quality, and when you're doing macro-work this is all the more important - any lens aberation or quality issue becomes much more apparent.
IMHO, even a used Nikon lens (as long as the glass is clean) is better than a new one by another maker.

Congrats on the new camera - the colors in your pic of the Mona Lisa are gorgeous - can't wait to see what else you will do with your new setup

[Shannara]

Originally Posted by shellbell75

I have to agree with JLu on all points. I just wanted to add a quick note - you've made the Nikon plunge - I would stick with Nikon for the lenses as well. There are a number of other lens makers that will become very appealing because of price. As JLu said, though, Nikon has a reputation for great lens quality, and when you're doing macro-work this is all the more important - any lens aberation or quality issue becomes much more apparent.
IMHO, even a used Nikon lens (as long as the glass is clean) is better than a new one by another maker.

Congrats on the new camera - the colors in your pic of the Mona Lisa are gorgeous - can't wait to see what else you will do with your new setup

For the most part I agree with this. But I do have one lense that is macro from Tamron that is absolutely fantastic. I use it for all of the photo's I have posted that are bloom shots. Most of the reviews I researched prior to it's purchase showed that it performed as well, if not better, than the comparable Nikon lense. That said, you will always have better resale value with a Nikon lense. But when you want quality, and can get it at half the price, it is definately worth considering.

HTH

Shann~

[shellbell75]

Originally Posted by Shannara

For the most part I agree with this. But I do have one lense that is macro from Tamron that is absolutely fantastic. I use it for all of the photo's I have posted that are bloom shots. Most of the reviews I researched prior to it's purchase showed that it performed as well, if not better, than the comparable Nikon lense. That said, you will always have better resale value with a Nikon lense. But when you want quality, and can get it at half the price, it is definately worth considering.

HTH

Shann~

Shann - you bring up a great brand in Tamron. Many of my pro-photographer colleagues have Tamron lenses, especially larger zooms - it has been my experience, though, that most, not all, typically switch back to their Nikon lenses for pro jobs. Tamron has consistently made good lenses - some outstanding ones, too - for Nikon outfits for a long time and has a great following, both amatuer and professional. However, some lenses are better than others, and this goes for both Nikon and Tamron. Both brands also make versions of lenses at different price points - cheaper lenses typically mean cheaper construction materials, like plastic vs. metal components. Lenses with more plastic in their construction are typically lighter and many people like this especially for handheld work when you're moving around a lot. Those with more metal are obviously heavier - this helps with stability and makes the lens a bit more durable. Again, these differences exist in both the Nikon and Tamron families of lenses.

That being said, I think the best option for anyone who is looking to invest in a lens is to go to your local photo equipment shop and actually hold and shoot with each lens you're considering. Most shops are very accomodating in this way because photographers expect it - similar to what JLu said above about user interfaces, you want to see how it feels in your hand, ease of shooting, image quality, weight, etc. - lenses are no exception to this, in fact most would say the glass you put on the front of the camera is the most important part. And don't just try out any Tamron or Nikon lens, try the exact focal length or zoom range you are considering purchasing, as quality can differ between say a fixed 85mm and a 70-300mm zoom @ 85mm. Also, fixed lenses will typically be faster than zoom lenses, meaning you will have a lower f-stop on a fixed lens (1.4 vs 5.6). This can be especially useful for macro shots as you can create a very small depth-of-field. Other areas to look out for are corner vigneting or sharpness, contrast, and color reproduction - Take a picture of the same thing with both lenses and then compare - most shops will allow you to do this on their computer.

Whoa - rambling I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is it's worth taking the time to do some homework and make sure you end up with exactly what you want at the price you're willing to pay. I know what I like, but I've been doing this for 15 years and my subjects, likes/dislikes, and needs may be different than your's. Sometimes it is better to save up for the more expensive lens, sometimes it isn't - either way it's an investment and it's always best to buy once than buy, sell, and then buy what you really want.

Just my two cents (maybe more like 10 cents ) - hope it helps in your quest.

[JLu]

Thanks shellbell. It's nice and rare to run into someone on the internet who actually knows what they are talking about.

Incidentally, I opted to buy the Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro VR for $850 and find that the $300 60mm f2.8 macro gives me better pictures every time. I think it's mostly a depth of field issue. The DOF for the 105 is just too short for my flower shots. Sometimes more is less, but not usually.

[shellbell75]

Thank you, JLu, for the kind words. I can't yet offer much in the way of advice on orchids yet , but photos and equipment are in my comfort zone

I typically love telephotos for the compression and short DOF, but I can see how the shorter focal length's DOF would produce better macro results. I don't have a true macro lens yet as I typically shoot more in the way of landscapes, portraits and documentary stuff, but I've been doing research and saving my pennies to take the plunge Thank you for the info and recommendation.

[meanie]

Thanks for the replies - I do continue to read with interest!