# Digital SLR Advice



## robotsatemygma (Apr 19, 2010)

Figured some of you guys here might have an opinion on this. 

Well long story short, falling in love with photography. I took a semester in photography and really liked it (got an A), and never had time nor money for a decent camera. After this past X-Mas I purchased a Nikon L100 that takes pretty decent pictures, but I find myself wanting a SLR, as I'd like to see if I can make this more then a hobby. I already have my girlfriend and a few other girls willing to "model" for me to help build my portfolio. 

I'm looking at the Sony A330, after playing with a friends, I really like it. I'd like to stay under $600, as I'm ok with the 10.2 megapixels, and that way I can spend more on a few lenses I've spotted online. 

Question is... is there any other models I should look into. Any preferences and reasons why I shouldn't go with the Sony?

Also are there any other lens manufacturers other then Sigma and Tamron making lenses for Sony/Canon/Nikon/etc?


----------



## thraxil (Apr 19, 2010)

The situation with SLRs is frustrating due to the proprietary competing standards. If you're getting started, you pretty much need to think in terms of entire product lines more than individual cameras. If you buy a Sony body and a couple Sony lenses, eventually you'll upgrade the body, get more lenses, etc. but you'll be stuck on the Sony track rather than the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Hasselblad, whatever track. So the question is whether that's the right track for you and that will depend on where you think both you and Sony will go in the future.

You've got the right attitude as far as being ok with lower megapixels so you can spend more on quality lenses. Firstly because you'll end up keeping the lenses much longer than an individual body and secondly because megapixel ratings are only one factor in image quality and are often deceptive (they usually just push up the megapixels by making the individual pixel sensors smaller, which increases the noise). 

So what kind of stuff do you want to do and how much of an investment do you plan on (eventually) making? 

If you're doing wedding/event photography, your only two options, realistically are Canon and Nikon. For weddings, you need a pretty good range of lenses to cover the different kinds of shots that will be expected and, since you only get one chance at it, you NEED to have backups of every piece of gear (if you're playing a gig and break a string and don't have a backup guitar, maybe you can stop for a minute between songs and quickly put another one on and it's not the end of the world, but you can't pull that kind of move as a photographer at a wedding). Unless you can afford the up-front investment in duplicates of your full photo rig, you'll probably do what most pros do and rent extra equipment on a per-job basis from a local photo store. To have any guarantee that they'll have what you need, that means you're stuck with Canon and Nikon. 

If you are doing something less time-sensitive like studio, commercial still-life, or art photography, you obviously have a bit more freedom. But the ubiquity of Canon and Nikon gear is still a major consideration (used market, repairs, etc). I'm not very familiar with Sony's line so I can't really say much about it. I'm sure they have the basics covered. You'll need to figure out for yourself whether they have you covered for whatever kind of work you want to do.

Canon vs Nikon is a religious war. If you have a friend with a good collection of lenses for either that you can borrow occasionally, that's probably a good enough reason to pick one or the other.

My girlfriend was a professional photographer for years (she recently quit to get a nursing degree instead because it's really tough to make a living at photography) doing weddings/events, and commercial still-life work and a lot of our friends are still in the business. Every single one of them sticks to Nikon or Canon for the basics though some of them also have Leicas or Hasselblads that they bring along for "icing". Actually, at the moment, they're all on Canon, while about two years ago they were all on Nikon and each made a massive switch (my gf sold off $18k of Nikon gear and replaced it with Canon; one of her friends did the same thing with $100k of gear). (their complaints are with not liking the color calibration on Nikon sensors and with Nikon recently focusing more of their energy on capturing the amateurs entering the DSLR market rather than putting out the lenses that pros need)

It's annoying though. We have it much better as guitarists where we can really mix and match our equipment. The equivalent situation would be if there were "Marshall" and "Fender" and "Mesa" standards and if you had a Marshall amp you also had to use a Marshall guitar and Marshall cabinets and Marshall effects and there was no way to use a Fender guitar with another brand's amps or vice versa.


----------



## BigPhi84 (Apr 19, 2010)

Thraxil speaks the truth. Everything he said was spot on.


----------



## robotsatemygma (Apr 19, 2010)

Thraxil, you really hit the nail on the head, friggin A!

Photography wise, I really have no interest doing weddings, but have a preference for more art, portraiture, landscape (day and night), macro, and commercial work (I'm a freelance graphic designer). Although, if a friend were to approach me to photograph a wedding I'd still do it. But I'd still bring a backup (it is a gig after all) and probably a friend as well. 

I'll have to do some more investigating, as I never really thought it as making a dedicated commitment to one camera maker. I'm still very impressed with the Sony line, being able to use Kinoca Minolta AF lenses as well, which seems like a huge palette of options. But I'll really look into the Nikon/Canon lines as well, and see if they're worth my investment.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 20, 2010)

I'd go with Canon myself, you can find a 350D/400D used fairly cheap and they are pretty solid cameras. Imo the operating system is easier to use than that of Nikons.


----------



## robotsatemygma (Apr 26, 2010)

I thought I'd give you guys an update...

After Thraxil's awesome advice, I did quite a bit of thinking. A lot of price matching, number crunching, and feature comparison... I still went with the Sony A330. Believe me, I compared vs the Nikon D3000, D5000, and the Canon Eos Rebel XSi. 

A few factors sent me the Sony route... one was being the in body image stabilization, the 2nd was DRO, third being excellent reviews. As a person with shaky hands, I often blurred all shots I took. Well with the in body stabilization, it's barely a concern to me now. With Canon or Nikon I would have to specifically look into lenses with a built in IS. Sony won me there. 

I was able to scrounge up the A330 for $490 locally (brand new too) which was icing on the cake. It left me enough for a telephoto lens, a bag, and a SDHD card. The market for used Minolta/Sony AF lenses is pretty decent, not as big as Canon or Nikon, but enough to keep me satisified and planning my next purchase.  Hello wide angle and tripod!


----------



## ralphy1976 (Apr 26, 2010)

well, as long as you are happy with your gear, that's all that matters.

I am Nikon fan-boi myself.

So we are eager to check out your "models" pictures...and anything else too.

ross (vampiregenocide) does some pretty bad ass pictures and i think Tiger too (look in art section)


----------



## Bevo (Apr 28, 2010)

Right on!

I got my D90 a few months ago and am still trying to understand it.
Take some time to read the manual, it will pay you back later.


----------



## Soopahmahn (Apr 28, 2010)

Love my Nikon D40. Whatever the entry level Nikon is these days, I wouldn't have anything bad to say about it from my experience. (D80?)

At $600 you're not looking for pro gear, and they make a very easy to use DSLR IMHO. Many relatively inexpensive but high quality lenses from which to choose. Easy point-and-shoot or many flexible options to nail the shots you need.

Just my


----------

