[iron]

i know this topic is scattered on other threads here, but i thought i'd start a fresh one (i'm selfish)... let's see: 1. this will be my first dslr, but i'd like to be satisfied with it for awhile, like 5-10 years. 2. want it to be weather-suitable for the pacific northwest so i'm not worried about actually using it. 3. ideally looking for something that'll come with a nice lens with a good range. i've read the 28-200 is the way to go to only carry one lens. 4. i'm probably okay with spending $1200, maybe up to $1500 for camera plus lens. thoughts? thanks a ton!

[Karen²]

This is a broad question, it depends on many personal factors. If you really want to get into photography, make sure you budget for all the other items you will need, memory cards, tripod, filters, spare batteries and don't forget good post processing software if you don't already own one. One thing that sticks out as a red flag to me is that you seem to only want one lens. One of the main advantages of owning a DSLR is the versatility of being able to exchange lenses. If you only want one do it all lens, perhaps you should look at a point and shoots, they are a lot smaller and have all the manual settings you get with a DSLR. DSLRs have become a bit of a fad because the initial cost of bodies + kit lens are a fraction of what they used to be. Many of the people buying them are only interested in taking better photos, but are not willing to spend the time developing an eye and working at the skills involved in taking better photos, they want them perfect out of the camera. That doesn't happen unless you know how to use the tools properly (which takes a lot of practice). So I always suggest to first time DSLR buyers to read up and make sure DSLR is the route you really want to take. The difference between DSLR and P&S is becoming more of a thin line these days. http://digital-photography-school.com/should-you-buy-a-dslr-or-point-and-shoot-digital-camera If you have already done your homework and have decided DSLR is the way to go for you and you want to invest a lot of time and money in photography, then you need to determine what your personal shooting preferences are. Your first choice is the family you want to buy into. Canon tends to be cheaper and has a great assortment of lenses, but Nikon is far superior when it comes to ISO and shooting in low light. Also check out Olympus and Sony, and go put some in your hands, see how they feel. Some people have big or smaller hands and feel is important to them. As far as body selection goes everyone in every "which camera should I buy" thread will tell you, invest in the glass as the body will be obsolete the moment you buy it. The technology changes so fast, be happy with your choice of family and glass first and foremost. I always recommend the Canon Rebels to first time buyers (based on personal experience), they are hardy and inexpensive (comparatively). If you are interested in photography and devote time to developing your skills, you will likely outgrow the Rebel before the end of your 5-10 year criteria however. I've gone through bodies every 2-3 years because the technology changes so fast. Do some more research on what is available, read reviews on Fred Miranda or dpreview to see what people like and don't like about each one, this should help you narrow down your choices to your needs. Best of luck on your search, if you have more specific questions feel free to pm me.

[mike]

[bertman]

2. You're going to have a really hard time finding a weather resistant DSLR at the price range you're looking for. 3. Most kit lenses are not 28-200mm but 18-55mm. A 55-200mm lens can be had for $200+. If you go with a high zoom lens, I recommend VR/IR lenses. VR is vibration reduction. IS is image stabilization. The 28-200mm lenses are probably $400+. 4. Don't forget to budget for a good case and additional memory cards. A spare battery and flash also expands your options. Also, if they offer it, a remote shutter is highly, highly useful. Other than that, a tripod of some sort, even a Joby Gorillapod, is a necessity. Hate him or love him, Ken Rockwell has a few things to say about cameras. http://kenrockwell.com/ I went and bought a used DSLR about 2 years ago. I chose a Nikon D40 mainly because I had other Nikon lenses for the FE2. Take your time and do a lot of research. Borrow a friend's camera if you can to get the feel of it. Still, for most day hikes, I just bring a P&S. Mine is a Canon A590IS. Good luck finding a bargain. Bertman

[ASBrauer]

[iron]

okay, how about a revised question? what should my setup be for someone just getting started in dslr-land that wants to learn, wants to shoot nice photos in most conditions, and has money to do so? i'd still like to try and keep the bulk down, but if it's not possible, then so be it.

[Quark]

Iron – Go to a local camera shop and tell them you want to get started. That’s what I did, and the salesmen steered me toward a camera kit (2 lenses) that was perfect for the beginner. They steered me away from the expensive stuff with features I’m not ready to use – it’d be a waste of money, they said. And they were right; I spent less than a thousand for that purchase, I’ve been happy with my camera for 4 years, and am just now looking at upgrading. Last year, I purchased Photoshop Elements for $20. You don’t get IT support with these cheapie ones, but how often have you called IT support for software anyway? I can’t recall the name of the company I got it from; JimK told me about it. So you don’t have to freak out about having to buy this, that & the other. Just buy something simple and get going.

[ASBrauer]

Body + Lens = $1205 + Accessories. The body will do just fine for the vast majority of situations and be rugged enough for years of less than gentle care. The lens at 15-85 will cover your lands scape and close-range shots along with all your candid shots off-trail. I've no personal experience with this lens but reviews look rather good for it. My bias is obviously toward Canon (and my opinion isn't worth much ), but brand is up to you. You could spend weeks agonizing over all the different brands and never find a definitive answer, so I say just go with your gut on that.

[mike]

I agree ASB. Take away the water proof requirement and it opens up the possibilities. Personally I'm not fond of the Rebel ergonomics, fit and finish. Lenses too big and bulky, but that's a personal thing. YMMV Also no in body IS. I do like the E620 + 12-60mm for small size and weather sealed lens (not body) Cost $1100 used which leaves enough for a 70-300 zoom and change left over from $1500. The 12-60mm (24-120eq) really is great glass for the size and price. The two kit lenses available are some of the best starter glass around and no big loss if trashed or lost. As you can see I think the 4/3rds system really is ideal for backpacking. I don't care about high ISO performance nor flash for outdoor shooting. If high ISO is important to you look at the Nikons.

[David¹]

Be careful about being penny wise & pound foolish. The idea of an 'all in one' lens solution for an SLR is short sighted. Glass is a lifetime investment. If you buy a $500 all purpose zoom that's f5.6 you won't get sharp images like the better photographers on this board. The reality is that you are better having f2.8 glass and a bottom of the line body than the other way around. You will have to upgrade the body anyway so why commit the majority of your budget on that? Also quality lenses can take more punishment & be economically repaired - the body is more likely to break down and more costly to repair. The whole point of SLR are to have better photos than a point & shoot. That means using the lens that best fits the composition and using a tripod every single time. There are some excellent high quality point & shoot cameras out there - unless you are really serious about photography and are ready to commit several thousand dollars to the hobby (not all at once) stick to point & shoots.

[GaliWalker]

It seems you want to improve your photography. My advice: try salami tactics...slice by slice. Or in your case incremental purchases. 1- Get a basic DSLR with a kit lens. At this stage choose whichever camera manufacturer you would like to use in future and select their basic offering. (Karen²'s advice is very good.) 2- Switch to shooting in full manual mode, after first understanding how aperture/shutter-speed/ISO affect exposure and depth-of-field, and how focal length affects depth-of-field and compresses/distorts distances. Sharpness and exposure control are things which will come with time, but you need to have a grasp of good photographic practices first. I'd suggest a book or going out with a friend. In any case you should buy a book for reference. 3- When you are comfortable with the above, invest in a better lens and/or DSLR, depending on finances. At this stage I'd suggest only getting a high quality lens; if you can't afford it wait until you can. My switch to DSLRs (from film SLRs) took the path above, with the exception of step-2, which I was already quite comfortable with. One final point: Composition techniques cannot be bought (though understanding your equipment will allow more versatility), they will come by critiquing your own photos, having others critique them, and by seeing what others do.

[NikonHiker]

[iron]

is the general consensus that nikon offers better low light shooting per $ spent? right now i'm seeing some pretty decent deals out there for used d40's, which somewhat seems like a good starting point for the body. what recommendations would you offer for lens f-stop? please keep in mind, this camera will be going with me for all backpacking trips and many golden hours. i know he's a d40 afficionado, but it sure seems like his "dream team" lineup + a used d40 would work awesome: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm quote:"With nothing but these three Dream Team lenses, the 10-24mm DX, 35mm f/1.8 DX and 55-200mm VR DX, you'll be prepared for any serious assignment."

[kite]

might i recommend that you rent or barrow both a Canon or Nikon for a weekend, that way you can check out the fit and feel and see if the viewfinder info and such works for you. http://www.lensrentals.com or http://www.borrowlenses.com I use Nikon my self, the controls fit my hand a little better than the Canon did. As far as image quality i don't think you can see the differences, yes Nikon is pushing the ISO right now but it just might be cannon next with a killer fast focusing next year. As for durability, both are very good on the high end body's I think Nikon starts using o-rings on the D90 not sure about Canon. but my D2 and D3 get a lot of rain & saltwater spray and seem to hold up well. I use a D700 with 1.4 50MM and 28mm 2.8 as my hiking camera set up (love the new FX format)

dead gear pile

[boot up]

Just to toss in another possibility to ponder.... Albeit its 4/3rds and not full APS/C, How about the Olympus E-620 DSLR combined with their high end, fast, Oly Zuiko f2.8 12-60(24-120 equiv) weather resistant lens. If you stick with that one lens with the 620 body it comes within your budget and at least the lens will hold up to moisture well. The reviews seem to indicate that its "no compromise" glass. According the the reviews the Oly's have the best system for keeping their sensors clean, and the in-body Anti-shake keeps the overall weight down. I have yet to find a negative review of this combo, or find any review that hints at the picture quality being less than a full APS-C setup. In fact the reviews seem to indicate this combo could compete with camera setups costing much more. I came close to buying this setup. I ended up going one step more compact (with only a slight hit on image quality) and bought a Canon G11. Tom the admin has something similar to the Oly setup and seems to like it. Final decision is up to you, but read the reviews and handle some different cameras and weigh the tradeoffs. There are ALWAYS tradeoffs.