Art and Photography

Starter DSLR Choice

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 27th, 2015 9:46 pm
Tags:
None
Newbie
Dec 21, 2010
24 posts
7 upvotes
Orillia

Starter DSLR Choice

Looking at a couple of inexpensive DSLR cameras.

I've was considering the Pentax KS-1, and possibly the Canon Rebel SL1.
The Pentax seems to hover around $499, and I may purchase the 50mm-200mm lens
The Canon will be coming up on the Home Shopping Channel this Sunday, should be around $350, I think.

My photo needs will mostly be vacation pics, family shots, and the occasional video. I doubt I'll take the camera off of AUTO mode very often.

Any advice from the local photo experts would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.
18 replies
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
Pentax is a dead system. Go with the Canon. Remember that you buy the system, not the camera. Even if you plan on just having this camera for the next little while.
Newbie
Dec 21, 2010
24 posts
7 upvotes
Orillia
Looks like the Canon SL1 should be my choice .... thanks to all for your feedback!
Deal Fanatic
Jun 13, 2010
8552 posts
11762 upvotes
GTA
+1 for Canon SL1. But even the SL1 will be big carrying it around all day on vacation. I use my DSLR all the time but not on vacation. A mirrorless camera is much more portable.
Newbie
Aug 17, 2006
95 posts
28 upvotes
Please keep that opinion to yourself. I've been shooting with my K5II for a good three years, K3 is a fantastic and well-reviewed camera, and they've *finally* announced their FF camera. Many lens options, plus you can choose to use practically any lens they've ever made in K-mount. And most Pentaxians will go out of their way to help their own.

In the end, OP needs to think about what they plan to do with this camera. If this is something they're going to use occasionally, and take family photos (which it sounds like) it really doesn't matter much *which* route they go ... find a decent deal, something with a two-lens kit so that you can go wide-ish and long-ish, pony in some extra cash for a flash and call it a day. If you're planning on buying proper lenses instead of the kit stuff, that's a whole different ballgame and you need to figure out what you're going to use the camera for.
thericyip wrote: Pentax is a dead system. Go with the Canon. Remember that you buy the system, not the camera. Even if you plan on just having this camera for the next little while.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
19712 posts
13576 upvotes
Ottawa
I like the Nikon D3300, that would be my choice.
Jr. Member
Aug 2, 2008
106 posts
23 upvotes
St Catharines
warpdrive wrote: I like the Nikon D3300, that would be my choice.
+1 I am a Canon shooter but for a starter I like the Nikon line
Deal Expert
Jun 15, 2012
15662 posts
10440 upvotes
Southern Ontario
Whichever you choose will influence your future preference by virtue of familiarity, and future purchase decisions as you enter a "brand" system, that is if you become a more serious hobbyist.
(eg; acquire lenses makes it harder to switch to a different brand body as your original lenses will not be compatible)

If you mainly shoot in AUTO and change nothing else, you may find the pics are not much different than your smartphone pics except they can be enlarged. I remember I had that moment when I first used a more expensive camera, I felt like I just wasted money, lol.

If you have the desire and time, you can step it up a few notches by learning composition, taking it out of AUTO, for example, to isolate (blur the background), get everything in focus (landscapes) or perhaps freeze motion (action), and by doing some minor post processing.

When people see a nice image I got out of my Canon, they don't realize there may be several similar crappy ones I've deleted. Or when they say I've got an eye, that no, my eyes suck, I've actually learned and deliberately applied certain principles and used specific settings on my dslr. Also, the original photo itself may look very plain out of camera and gone through some Lightroom and layering in Photoshop which will significantly change it. Of course, that's in contrast to everyday photos taken with my cell phone, instantly uploaded, and shared on tiny screens... albeit I'm always composing and looking at light whatever camera I use.
Newbie
Dec 21, 2010
24 posts
7 upvotes
Orillia
Ancaster, you make a valid point regarding expectations of a decent DSLR always in an auto mode.

My old camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7. I go to a lot of shows at Casino Rama and like shooting a few minutes of video. The old Panasonic cannot control light balance in video mode, and really cannot zoom or focus in a dark room in video mode. I'm always disappointed in the video results.
I have a couple of old cars, and would love to take a few pics where I blur the background and focus on the subject.
When I see it done correctly, the car jumps out in a 3D effect, and the paint almost looks "wet".
I don't believe I can achieve these results with my old Panasonic camera.

So, I believe I may experiment a bit with a new DSLR and take it off AUTO occasionally.

Thank you for some solid advice.
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
louis123 wrote: Ancaster, you make a valid point regarding expectations of a decent DSLR always in an auto mode.

My old camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7. I go to a lot of shows at Casino Rama and like shooting a few minutes of video. The old Panasonic cannot control light balance in video mode, and really cannot zoom or focus in a dark room in video mode. I'm always disappointed in the video results.
I have a couple of old cars, and would love to take a few pics where I blur the background and focus on the subject.
When I see it done correctly, the car jumps out in a 3D effect, and the paint almost looks "wet".
I don't believe I can achieve these results with my old Panasonic camera.

So, I believe I may experiment a bit with a new DSLR and take it off AUTO occasionally.

Thank you for some solid advice.
You definitely won't get the car photo results just by getting an DSLR. Video wise, it's a lot more work with a DSLR than you might think. I suggest mirrorless like a Sony a6000.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 23, 2015
1386 posts
1101 upvotes
Woodbridge, ON
louis123 wrote: I have a couple of old cars, and would love to take a few pics where I blur the background and focus on the subject.
When I see it done correctly, the car jumps out in a 3D effect, and the paint almost looks "wet".
You mean something like this?
Image
Deal Expert
Jun 15, 2012
15662 posts
10440 upvotes
Southern Ontario
Old cars are awesome. Depending on how old, I'd park it on a vintage looking street, perhaps in front of an old theatre, or use it in a rural area in a field or in the country where the road stretches into a sunset a la Jake Olson.

You can tell if artificial lighting is used by looking at the extreme highlights in an image. Sometimes those wet warehouse/showroom photos are accomplished by several monolights. A behind the scenes will show a giant softbox above the the roof. If the car isn't moving, you can also take multiple exposures on a tripod and combine/layer paint the dynamic range. Lastly as a budgeted beginner, you can just apply an HDR effect in Lightroom or some other software if you want something beyond the straight out of camera look.

Note Jake uses only natural light and heavy Photoshop, sometimes combining two different images. Learning layers and brushing is his key. He also uses a pricey 85mm f/1.2 on his 5D in case you're wondering how those dreamy images are done, extreme DoF. On the other hand, someone like Douglas Sonders uses high powered WLs (Paul C Buff monolights), pretty cool images in his portfolio.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 19, 2005
3116 posts
2251 upvotes
Canadia
thericyip wrote: You definitely won't get the car photo results just by getting an DSLR. Video wise, it's a lot more work with a DSLR than you might think. I suggest mirrorless like a Sony a6000.
It's really simple to shoot shallow depth of field shots with a DSLR. I'm not sure why a mirrorless camera would be better, because they also have to obey exactly the same laws of physics. :)

What louis123 is describing is shallow depth of field -- basically, you open the aperture of the lens to shorten the distance that's in focus. Just grab your camera's user guide and figure out how to set it for "aperture priority" mode. Then make the aperture f-stop number as small as possible (opening the lens aperture *more*).

Here's an example I shot with a bottom-of-the-range Nikon D40 with the standard 18-55mm kit lens. I bought this camera used for about $250 and shot with it for five years. *Every* DSLR on the market now is far better:

[IMG]http://retrothing.typepad.com/james/showshine.jpg[/IMG]
Deal Expert
Jun 15, 2012
15662 posts
10440 upvotes
Southern Ontario
thericyip has a great portfolio to support his knowledge base, to be fair, I read his post as 3 exclusive statements, not combined. I too would recommend the A6000 as a nice starter.

You are also correct retro, decent thin DoF is not hard these days with many modern cameras and a wide open aperture.
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
I read the OP's statement as if he wanted to get a blurry background with the entire car in the photo, then it would be much more difficult to obtain. Both examples given by the other users are car details and of course, shallow DoF is easy to obtain.
Newbie
Dec 21, 2010
24 posts
7 upvotes
Orillia
Ended up purchasing the Canon SL1.

I'm hopeful that it will be a nice entry level camera to start off in the DSLR world.

Thanks for everyone's helpful advice!
Deal Expert
Jun 15, 2012
15662 posts
10440 upvotes
Southern Ontario
Option a 24mmSTM pancake and makes it a nice small package. It's a prime, no zoom, so you'll have to move your feet.

Lots of lens support, new and used, Canon/Sigma/Tamron/etc, enjoy!

Top