I am not arguing with you, but PnS offer lenses as wide as 28mm and long as 300mm. Not to mention extreme lenses for a dSLR are several time more expensive then the camera itself. Unless your shooting for the discovery channel no one needs more then a 300mm and anything wider then 28mm.

I do agree that dSLR have less noise in the high iso, but the average indoor shot on a good PnS is with in a iso range that is rather noise free.

The best PnS is around $350 versus the $800+ for a entry-level dSLR, plus the PnS come with a better lenses range then the default lens on a dSLR any nearly all the common features

 

Maybe he just want to look baller. Nothing wrong with that. I use dSLR because they look cool. My grandma uses a PnS, so I prefer not to.

 

its the main reason people by them in the first place

 

So true, but now photography really interests me and I am learning slowly from some of my friends that are good photographers. Someday, I will also upgrade to a full frame Dslr even though I don't know what the fxck is the difference.

 

I got nothing against expensive cameras, I own a few myself, as skills go up you deserve some proper equipment.
All am saying is the no real reason to buy one, when you still learning, they will not help you learn or limit your ability to learn.

Learning composition and proper techniques with a cheap camera is far more important then wasting money on a camera that has manual settings for everything.

 

MagicPie is correct. While the OP asked about a DLSR, in general, a P&S will suffice.

If you feel the need/ want to change lenses, buy a DSLR. If not, buy a P&S.

 

i don't about you guys, but i'm old fashion...still using my Hasselblad 500c/m with three interchangeable lenses. i can't afford to buy a digital back for the Hassel, last time i heard it was close to 20K$.

 

I love my Rebel Xt, I had a pns before and I made the best out of it. I decided to get the rebel when the pns had nothing else to offer. I love shallow field of depth so I was really happy switching to Dslr.
Some pics from my camera.

 

^^ you did a great job on the car picture, and dog is nice too

 

First of all, start with the brand

Canon all the way. Nikon was ahead back in the day but Canon just swept the digital revolution.



White (fluoride) lens, all canon


2nd question is, are you ready for a Digital SLR camera or is a point and shoot camera convinient for you.

Best bang in the back DSLR would be the Canon Rebel XT (350D)
Best compact point and shoot I've seen Canon SD900ti

The quality of the Rebel XT has so much potential, it just depends on the guy behind the lens.


SD900 Sample shots. Yes, this is point and shoot quality.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canonsd900_samples/

They will have some grainy shots at the gallery but thats because the iso setting was set high. Try to observe pics shot at iso 80. Its wonderful lil camera.

 

Swept the digital revolution? I guess it depends on where you point your lens when taking your photo of photographers.

Canon may lead in Sports Photography, but that's only because they've ALWAYS led in Sports Photography (although I don't know why... perhaps it was because they were first to market with faster fps cameras). When photogs switched to digital backs, they were obviously going to choose a body that their lenses fit on.... not necessarily because they were better than Nikon. Note, I'm not saying it's not better, just that your photo example is slightly misleading. Not to mention, that many of those cameras are WAY more than the OP would be willing to spend.

Take a photo of a group of nature photographers and I think you may find more Nikon, but that doesn't mean much in the scope of this thread.

 

p&s cameras have puny sensors so the noise at higher ISOs is ridiculous, even if you use noise ninja or any noise removing software. a situation such as indoor sports will require a large aperture and high iso to capture shutter speeds of 1/250 or 1/500 to prevent motion blur. There's no way you'll get that with a p&s camera. for indoor sports like basketball, a dslr would require shooting at f/1.8 or f/2.0, iso 1600 or iso 3200 to get shutter speeds around 1/250. those settings aren't possible on a p&s since the aperture gets smaller as the focal length increases, plus most p&s cameras aren't capable of 1600 or 3200 iso.

there are tons of other advantages an slr has over p&s. don't forget sharpness (lens dependent), dynamic range, autofocus speed & accuracy, lower shutter lag, etc.

 

what I'm about to type won't really matter much to the average photographer.

the bokeh/out of focus highlights on the f/1.8II isn't as good as the 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.2L. take a night shot with the 1.8 and have some lights in the background and you'll notice pentagons. with the 1.4, the bokeh is more along the lines of an octagon because the 1.4 uses 8 diaphragm blades; the 1.8 uses 5.

the lens flare on the 1.8 is ridiculous when compared against the 1.4. you can google this and see image comparisons that show how the 1.8 gets washed out compared to the 1.4.

there are a few other minor things such as the color blending in the 1.8 bokeh, plus light fall off.

as far as your last question - have you ever shot a wedding? if not, having a Canon lens with USM goes a long way.

 

i thought you were talking about the car

 

Have owned, Olympus, Cannon AE1, Sony, Kodak, Minolta, and now back to Cannon (Rebel XT). Done family portraits, special kid's parties, weddings, and now just what I want to do. Cannon Rebel XT is an excellent choice, not to mention the many multiple lenses you can use with it. Anybody's camera is his favorite. I started in the military blackroom doing black and white shots (pictures) back in the early 70's with a "Miranda" 35 mm camera, which was big back then, and yes I was doing this in Japan (Okinawa), 13 years there. And of course now the "Miranda", I don't think even exists anymore. But it's to each, his own. My friend does landscape shots from the air and he uses the Cannon also. Buy what you want though, not what somebody else likes, after all it will be your camer and your investment. James (moderator) on this forum also has the Rebel XT, in fact, I do remember he bought his approximately 1-2 weeks after I had bought mine. On a run a group of us had been discussing this very issue, and another Zer has a very nice Sony digital with him, which he also was getting ready to buy a Rebel XT. Also check the camera magaizines to get a good idea of the cameras and what they do, this way you'll know what fits your needs.

 

i am new to the whole digital thing, just bought a digital rebel xti and i am completely lost!...lol. i bought a book called "understanding exposure" that has helped me a little bit, but i don't have the time to devote to learning the camera completely. i was contemplating just downgrading to a p&s but i will feel like i'm giving up if i do. hopefully, i'll have a chance sometime soon to sit down and spend time with it.

 

I said 50mm f1.8 is a good portrait lens for the money. Why are you talking about night shots? I don't take portraits at night... And I don't need to google it to know how many blades it has... I know it has less blades and halos around lights will look more edged (but still cool) Again, don't see how it makes portraits less... portraity

I said it's an amazing portrait lens for the money, with good bokeh. And that's true. Visit photography forums, like fredmirnada, and ask what's the best lens to have under $400 and people will say 50mm f1.8.

Yes I shot the weddings, but again that not a "portrait" situation... Don't see why you'd mention a 50 mm prime for a weddings... And my 85mm f1.8 (USM) is my favorite portrait lens, so I use it when I have enough space. Still it doesn't make 50mm bad. If I need I can get a good portrait with 50mm EVERY time, (and I never had problems with glare). And it amazes me that it costed <$100 new. If you can't take a good portrait with it - that's very strange...

 

Register at fredmiranda.com - you'll find a lot of useful information shared and see people's work and an explanations how they did it.

 

Here is what quick search of my archives gave me on 50mm lens. Can you find any glare, pentagons or light fallout you were talking about?

 

If you read your response to mine, you made no mention about it being a portrait lens:
"What are you talking about? When used on a body with crop censor it's on par with 85mm 1.8 and 1.2L. I've tried them all.

Yes it's loud... First time I've hear it I thought it's broken. But what it has to do with quality of pictures?"