looking for a good DSLR ... Any suggestions?

[FreshLikeSushi]

make sure it works
take your laptop and do a LONG exposure and check for hot pixles

[Withers]

I do agree that a used 40D is a great option if you can find one for a decent price. I think they came with the 28-135 as their kit lens which is also a fantastic lens (feels cheap as hell though). You ought to be able to find a setup like that for around $800. The button layout is atrocious though. The XSi I have as my backup body is nice too and has a much better layout for a beginner, but it's small as hell. Even with the battery grip it's hard to handle.

I've always shot Canon so I can't really help with the Nikon equivalent :P

[1badg35]

personally i am a canon guy.. i say this all the time and it was probably already said. the camera body means little when it comes to great pics. it is the glass.

spend a little money on a used canon XTI as it has a great amount of features and can be found cheap. It also has a decent sized screen so you can view pics when you are out at a shoot. The XT has a tiny screen and is horrible for viewing pictures when away from a computer. I have had both of these and think the XTI is a good starter

Here is the important part. then go spend some money on good quality lenses. this makes all the difference

[Dane]

^^ exactly what i've always told people. i shoot an XTI, and have been doing so since 2007. i'd LOVE to upgrade to a 7D or 5D like a handful of my friends have begun to do. but i don't have the cash, nor can i justify spending that kind of money on a camera at this point in my life. it would be much wiser to start collecting nicer glass and continue to shoot my rebel for the time being.

as for XT vs XTI, i'd go with the XT simply because of the price and performance. being that the two bodies share the same size sensor, and the XT has fewer megapixels, it has better noise performance. my biggest complaint with my xti is its poor noise performance. to combat it, i spent some extra cash on a tripod. but get a cheap body and a nice lens for sure.

[broadwayline]

Fuck, post a pic of a n00b using an entry level DSLR and a pic from a higher end DSLR. Wont be able to tell a diffence, except maybe in the sheer size of the turd.jpg.

Now, post a pic from an experienced user with a entry level DSLR and a n00b with a 40d. We all know what would look better.


Agreeing with 87e30, don't get too hung up on the gear, the camera is the just the tool for the art, not the art itself. Use what fits your needs and you feel comfortable with.

This is the best advice in this entire thread.

[FreshLikeSushi]

i have an xt sitting here. anything over 800iso is shit. maybe you got a magical camera dane

[Bimmerteck]

My wife's XT is fine at 1600 as long as you expose correctly. Using the wrong metering for the enviroment can wreck an exposure in a hurry as DSLRs don't handle under exposure well. Many don't meter correctly with the XT b/c it doesn't support spot metering but if you know your enviroment well you won't need it. Plus I've never had a photo turned down for an assignment b/c of noise even when pushing the exposure. I.E. "faking" ISO 3200 on an XT. I don't enjoy the XT b/c I've outgrown it but I wouldn't say it isn't capable of capturing great images with some decent glass.

[Dane]

^^ i call BS. i can spot noise from a mile away. :lol:

i have an xt sitting here. anything over 800iso is shit. maybe you got a magical camera dane

your XT is shit, you should see my XTI over 400, its garbage. what i was saying is that the XT is BETTER than the XTI. doesn't mean it's good.

anyhow, i got fed up with it and got a manfrotto 488RC2 and 190XPROB tripod about 3 years ago. its been through hell and back, but works flawlessly. it was the cheap alternative to dealing with noise. if you really want something that performs well with high ISO, you need to go full frame. even the new 7D is less than impressive. a couple friends just picked them up, and they're not quite as happy as they thought they'd be. lol.

[Withers]

Ooh I thought of something. If you have budget to spare you might actually want to look into getting Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture instead of extra glass right from the start. I know some people don't agree with this, but post processing is just as big a part of photography as actually taking the picture for me.

[FreshLikeSushi]

Ooh I thought of something. If you have budget to spare you might actually want to look into getting Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture instead of extra glass right from the start. I know some people don't agree with this, but post processing is just as big a part of photography as actually taking the picture for me.

heh. nothign is wrong with being a digital artist. just dont call yourself a photographer as well

[Withers]

Have you looked at any of my pictures? I'm not talking about major alterations, but I don't know of any professional photographers who don't enhance their pictures in post.

[Stephen]

Sushi, you're on a roll today

lol

Get it guys? Sushi.. roll... nevermind.

[Dane]

lol. i will be the first to admit that my shots go through lightroom 2 before they hit my flickr. i find non PP'd shots extremely boring in most cases.

snapped this one yesterday, and yes, it's been edited a bit.

[87e30]

I know one guy who I'd consider pro (paid for his work?) and he only uses color balance on his shots. Nothing else, and I'm damn impressed! He might be one of my favorite photogs.

But yeah, almost all of the work I look at I notice it is altered in some way. I've recently given up on my quest for amazing out of cam shots and started editing more.

[FreshLikeSushi]

Have you looked at any of my pictures? I'm not talking about major alterations, but I don't know of any professional photographers who don't enhance their pictures in post.

you know one

ILl post up some of the stuff i actually get paid for when i get home.
Model shoots i never PP. i do take a little longer when shooting though, but it makes up for itself on the backend.