Dear friends (you know who you are...)
My lovely bride wants to know what we need to buy to get a camera that can take still photos of moving objects without having them come out like modern art. Specifically, the kids swim. I quickly surmised that all it takes is enough money.
Film or digital? Recommendations? TIA.
Digital SLR. The Rebel XT is pretty nice... and it's got a setting for sports photography, so it will choose everything for you. Of course, that's a fair amount of money, and a fairly complex camera, especially if she's used to little bitty cameras. On the other hand, my wife adores ours.
Any of the Cannon (Mark
)or Nikon SLRs will work great.
Keep your shutter speed at a 60th or more.
For fast moving sports? I would say up more in the hundreds. 60's the lowest I can go without seeing my hand shake on still shots.
hi
here is a link to a good website. it's got all the information you need on purchasing a good camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp.
they have reviews and ratings on the top cameras.
I own the panasonic lumix. It was rated top 4 last year, but now has dropped to 10 spot. i think you should decide how big of a camera you want. my neighbor has a very small pocket size camera and it is very functional for travel, etc. Most of the higher-end cameras are big and may not be too great for travelling, etc...
i would definately go with digital. there is just so much you can do with photoshop, etc.... film are outdated.
Ditto what Ken said (btw, Ken, I have either totally forgotten or didn't know you got the XT - nice choice!). It is a nice chunk of change, but cheap in the dSLR world. The Nikon D70 or D50 would also work well for your purposes. However, any SLR will quickly lead into the world of buying extra lenses ($$$) that you may not want to head down. If that's the case, I'd check out the Canon Powershot S2 IS - it's consistently reviewed well, and is very reasonably priced for the features, too ($400).
Would these swimmers be in an indoor pool? If so, you'd be surprised at how little light there is inside, especially if you’re sitting up in the stands trying to zoom in on them. I’ve been taking pictures of my daughter at baton competitions which are typically in high school gymnasiums, and have had difficulty getting good shots. The Rebel XT is a good choice (I’m pretty happy with mine), but just remember not to skimp on the lens – it’s really the most important part of the equation. If you intend to take pictures like I’ve described, then consider a fixed focal length zoom lens for its larger aperture and higher light gathering capabilities which will allow you keep your shutter speed fast and still allow plenty of light for the pictures.
I don’t know that digital or not really matters, but I like my digital camera. It’s nice to be able to take literally hundreds of shots and not worry that you’re burning film. Plus, it’s nice to be able to “develop” them when you get home that evening, rather than waiting for the local photo-mart to develop the film.
Here’s another good link.
photo.net
Thanks for the counsel, gentlemen. I appreciate it very much.
I *thought* film was dead, but I don't know much about such things. We've very much enjoyed a couple of Canon digital elph cameras we've had, but they are hopelessly inadequate for the task; Wegiz has my situation ascertained. They mostly swim indoors. I think there is still a need for a point-and-shoot for parties, etc. but I figured I would need a big hurkin' lens for what I have in mind.
Digital camcorders seem to have pretty high zoom rates - does that help my task at all? I suspect the resolution would not be adequate, and there is still a part of me that wants the room for interpretation afforded by a still shot rather than the often ugly reality of a movie.
Thanks again for the leads on the research. I really appreciate your time.
In reply to:
Digital camcorders seem to have pretty high zoom rates - does that help my task at all? I suspect the resolution would not be adequate, and there is still a part of me that wants the room for interpretation afforded by a still shot rather than the often ugly reality of a movie.
Camcorder zoom numbers are very VERY often misleading. Usually they'll be marketed as "WOW! 40x ZOOM!" then in one micron high type "4x optical, 40x digital"... so the actual lens will "go out" 4 times... then after that, it starts interpolating smaller and smaller areas of the CCD as a "full image" (imagine blowing up your avatar to full your screen - welcome to their "40x". Since a broadcast camera's 50x lens is usually a 120lb box bigger than my torso, that should give you an idea how much BS is involved.
As for resolution, you'll get 0.3megapixels out of a digital camcorder (640x480). Good enough for a 2" x 1.5" print. Bliss.
Bren R.
Hey Tom:
Sorry about the late response.... I was gone this weekend.
I would agree with everyone else regarding a digital SLR... though you didn't mention budget. How big is your room? Will this be for movies or music? What type of music do you.....ummmmm....crap. Hold on. More coffee.
If your budget allows it, the Canon Rebel XT or Nikon D50 or D70 would be my choice. Of course, they're not inexpensive as snapshot cameras.
I'll also reiterate that size does matter. Sometimes having a small camera that slips in your shirt pocket means not missing shots..... but it'll mean "less capability and my fingers are too damn big for these little menu buttons" to other people. See what's comfortable at a B&M.
There are several factors that'll help with "sports photography" if that's your singular goal:
Any camera will likely automatically increase the ISO (I STILL want to say ASA!) when the situation warrants it....such as when shooting sports or under lower light situations. This means that the camera, not receiving enough light because of ambient conditions or because of a short shutter speed, will "boost" the output of the sensor chip. This can be done well or poorly depending upon the quality of the chip and the electronics/software algorithm.
A big factor in the number of missed shots will be the speed and accuracy of auto-focusing. As would be expected, the more expensive cameras are, by and large, MUCH faster at "locking in" on a focus (even on a moving subject) than the less expensive models.
Oooops- I'm running a bit short on time here this morning, Tom! I can write more later (I'll let you digest this part) or, you can feel free to call me. My schedule today will open up after 11AM EST or so….!
Mark and other kind, patient souls -
Thank you. My wife didn't give me a budget yet. There WILL be one, I'm sure. It is possible that the expense of competently doing this task well will prevent us from doing anything.
I did some reading on the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel XT. They seem to be the right idea. The Nikon D70 is considerably more expensive - why?
Should I be concerned about the D50 being "only" 6.0 megapixels?
It seems like the Nikon lenses are somewhat more affordable than Canon lenses. Should I even consider lenses by companies like Sigma or Tamron?
How zoomy do I need to be? There is a kit at
Abe's of Maine that has the D50, and 18-55mm and 55-200mm Nikkor lenses for about $750. Will that much lens get me - for instance - a person filling a frame from about 75 feet? Or do I need one of those too expensive howitzer lens things that Dennis Rodman kicks on TV?
I guess I need many massive memory modules, too. And probably an extra battery. And filters. Is Abe's the sort of place I should be shopping? Where else?
And thereby went the HDTV budget.
Thanks again.
I wanted to know which Canon do you guys like in the powershot line. Originally I was going to get the Rebel XT but I think that camera is overkill for me.
In reply to:
Should I be concerned about the D50 being "only" 6.0 megapixels?
No….. unless you're planning on making big, honkin' 16x20s!
The megapixel race is coming to end. There really is sufficient resolution in a six megapixel camera for almost anyone short of pros or advanced amateurs.
In reply to:
Should I even consider lenses by companies like Sigma or Tamron?
Definitely. Add Tokina to the list as well. In my opinion, the lenses made by the camera manufacturers are really only best suited for professionals and a few advanced amateurs. The better lenses from the independent manufacturers (there are often a few "lines" within a manufacturers' line) typically offer 95-100% of the quality of the camera manufacturer's lenses at 50% of the price. Economies of scale; Sigma and Tokina can sell cross-platform while the Canons and Nikons cannot, offering them 2~4X the total sales per lens design.
In reply to:
How zoomy do I need to be? There is a kit at Abe's of Maine that has the D50, and 18-55mm and 55-200mm Nikkor lenses for about $750. Will that much lens get me - for instance - a person filling a frame from about 75 feet? Or do I need one of those too expensive howitzer lens things that Dennis Rodman kicks on TV?
If Rodman even did that to one of my lenses, I'd rip one of his piercings out. Then I'd run like hell, crying like a little girl.
I would be looking for a lens such as this
Sigma. It'll do well for you at 75'. One of the major benefits of buying a more expensive lens (within a manufacturer's line) is getting a 'faster' lens. This primarily means the lens lets more light through it, so you can get the proper exposure with a faster shutter speed. The faster lens also makes for easier focusing in low-light. But, a faster lens is generally much larger and heavier in addition to being more expensive. Really, it's a matter of weighing your needs.
I wouldn't
recommend Abe's…. I've been reading of troubles with them for 25 years. Instead, I'd
recommend B&H for excellent reliability AND prices!
Newegg is worth checking out for some of the stuff, too.
In reply to:
I guess I need many massive memory modules, too. And probably an extra battery. And filters. Is Abe's the sort of place I should be shopping? Where else?
Memory is getting cheap when you keep your eye out for sales. Another battery for the Canon will cost about $30; not sure about the Nikons. I'd hold off on filters for now.
In reply to:
It seems like the Nikon lenses are somewhat more affordable than Canon lenses. Should I even consider lenses by companies like Sigma or Tamron?
3rd party lenses are often the best way to go unless you're shooting for National Geographic spreads... I have a few Nikkor and Tamron lenses for my 35mms. For most things, they're nearly identical.
As for "only" 6 megapixel, that'll get you a pretty good 8x10... better than APS, and maybe a smidge softer than 35mm.
Another thing you haven't mentioned (or I breezed through) was flash... onboard pop up flashes are there for looks and a little assist now and then. You may find that in a "dark" (it looks like to you but not to the CCD in your camera) swimming pool, that without a dedicated flash, you'll either be shooting at hideously low shutter speeds ("this smear on the left is my daughter") or the camera will "gain up" by multiplying voltage from the CCD, which gets grainy in the luminence and noisy in the colour channels ("this speckled multicolour blob over here is my daughter")
Bren R.
Mark and Bren, thank you very much.
I really appreciate not only your time, but also your ability to explain this stuff to me in a way I understand without making me feel like The VIllage Idiot.
I've always had good luck with Canon products. I've read reviews of the D50 and the Canon; they both seem very highly regarded. I guess I need to go and hold them. Maybe smoke a cigarette afterwards. Are there good reasons for me to NOT like the Nikon? It is less expensive.
I've read widely varying reports about the importance of a lens focusing quickly. Any comments?
I notice that there are about three different flavors of Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Autofocus Lenses at B&H (DG, APO and APO DG). What the heck?
If I get something like that, would I also want to have another lens for general purpose use? I've read mixed reviews about the "kit lenses" that come stock with both of those cameras, with some people suggesting to just get a body and an 18-70mm lens instead of the standard one.
As to the blob/blur pool thing, flashes are a non-issue. I simply can't use them, so will have to do my best with whatever light and technology is available. Part of what is driving me on this project is that we really have an excellent club, but we lost the one coach who was at all inclined to capture photographic evidence of the excellence. Plus, it's a new toy with buttons that I don't have.
Thank you again for so patiently suffering my dumb questions.
I forgot one other thing - sometimes I see references to "faster" SD or CF memory cards. Is that something I should pay any attention to? Do I care deeply about the format if I have no significant prior investment?
The faster SD cards can write data faster. You'll want one if you're taking many high-res shots in rapid succession -- which is common in sports photography. You don't want your camera's image buffer to fill up because it's waiting to dump data to the card and then miss a good shot.
In reply to:
If I get something like that, would I also want to have another lens for general purpose use? I've read mixed reviews about the "kit lenses" that come stock with both of those cameras, with some people suggesting to just get a body and an 18-70mm lens instead of the standard one.
I actually think the kit lenses you describe are pretty darn good. Sure there are better ones out there. But I think that line of thinking mostly comes from people who are looking for a single lens that will work for any possible shot. Of course, that lens just doesn't exist. The key here is that photography is a complex subject (much like speaker design, I'm sure), but I find it’s a rewarding one.
My suggestion is just to purchase a good digital camera so that you can take lots of pictures and get instant feedback on how you’re doing without worrying about wasting film. Either the Canon or Nikon will serve you well here. My main reason for choosing Canon was their impressive variety of lenses. The main investment in this hobby isn’t the camera, but the lenses. Still, Nikon has great stuff as well; go with what feels good in your hand. The Rebel XT fit that bill for me. It might also be a good idea to just get one lens with the camera and a good photography book. Spend some time figuring out how changing the various settings like aperture, white balance, and shutter speed affect the shot. This will go a long ways towards teaching you what you should look for in your next lens.
Also, to get really good action shots in mediocre light conditions takes really big lenses. Watch the sidelines at a NFL game sometime. Those guys are holding on to some pretty serious pieces of glass!
One final thought, I was recently getting my picture taken for a work thing, and they brought in a professional photographer. I asked him what sort of equipment you need to take great photographs. He replied, “An art degree.” Wise words indeed.
In reply to:
I'd recommend B&H for excellent reliability AND prices!
I'll second that recommendation. I've bought a few things from them and have always been satisfied.
Frank, thanks very much for your advice. I do appreciate it.
When I told the missus about the price tag on even a modest setup like we've been discussing, she said "they know we're not submitting these to Sports Illustrated or National Geographic, right?"
I'm sure I'd be happy with either one of those cameras. I just have to go check them out in person. Thanks again.
In reply to:
When I told the missus about the price tag on even a modest setup like we've been discussing, she said "they know we're not submitting these to Sports Illustrated or National Geographic, right?"
"Me? I was thinking of all the wonderful moments I'll capture of our children. I forgot about the swimming thing honey; it was about remembering the smile on our child's face. That feeling, which just warms my heart, is why I recommended a camera capable of capturing those beautiful children we've had together. I love you".
Try that. If it works, let me know and I'll try it with an EP500:
"Me? I was thinking of all the wonderful moments we'll hear in War of the Worlds. I forgot about that silly "upright bass in a jazz combo thing"; it was about remembering the explosions and the dinosaur's first footsteps. That feeling, which just warms my heart, is why I recommended a sub capable of capturing those beautiful frequencies we've missed together. I love you".
Damn you're good Mark.
In reply to:
When I told the missus about the price tag on even a modest setup like we've been discussing, she said "they know we're not submitting these to Sports Illustrated or National Geographic, right?"
True enough. Another good option is something like a
Sony Cyber Shot. It's not going to give you the flexibility of the digital SLR's, but then again it costs less then most of the accessories on the bigger cameras. A friend has something similar to the Sony Cyber Shot, and he's quite happy. It might be a nice way to get your feet wet.
Thanks.
It's really just an updated variation on the classic "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?" theme.....
Yeah, Mark you're not just an artist, you're a stylist. My wife sees right through that stuff. She cuts to the chase faster than Jon Stewart.
Thanks for the link, Frank. I like the looks of that (and the Canon that Adam mentioned). My concern is that the ISO and f-stop range on those models will not be adequate for me to campture the sort of action that I want to.
I mean, it's clearly time to step up from our P/S Canon (which has been great), but I don't want to spend good money and then be disappointed. You know, it will be easier to swing the Rebel or the D50 if I haven't already pissed away $400 on something else that wasn't satisfactory.
So, do you guys think the Canon S2 or S3 or the Sony H1 (at only 400 ISO) would be fast enough to get me usable shots of swimmers without so much noise that they are unusable? Remember - most of the time we're talking about inside with no flash in a big room. Sometimes the lighting is pretty good (to my untrained eye).
Muchas gracias!!
In reply to:
So, do you guys think the Canon S2 or S3 or the Sony H1 (at only 400 ISO) would be fast enough to get me usable shots of swimmers without so much noise that they are unusable? Remember - most of the time we're talking about inside with no flash in a big room. Sometimes the lighting is pretty good (to my untrained eye).
I guess that it depends on what you mean by usable. In my opinion though, no. Lighting is pretty variable indoors. Basically, camera lenses aren’t nearly as good at compensating for light conditions as the human eye. For example, awhile ago I was attempting to take some shots indoors with my Rebel XT and a friends Sigma 18-200mm lens using the sport mode on my camera which increases the shutter speed to freeze the baton twirling action. I was up in the stands and tried to zoom all the way in to fill as much of the frame as possible with my daughter, but the pictures were very dark. So I took my camera outside to play with the settings. It was one of the typical Michigan winter days where the sky is so overcast that the sun doesn’t even try to peek through the clouds. Anyway, outside the shots looked great so there was obviously a bunch more light. I guess that it really depends on the lighting because UofM basketball games seem to be lit pretty well.
Btw, I’ve later learned that even with the Sigma 18-200mm lens, I can compensate for poor lighting somewhat by switching to manual mode on the camera and adjusting the ISO and aperture settings. Still, there’s no substitute for good lighting or big lenses.
This is the lens that I now covet for those indoor action shots from the stands.
Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. It is *very* expensive though – at least to me. You can get some nice 200mm Sigmas for half the price that would probably do a nice job too.
Frank, Thank You. That is exactly the kind of guidance I'm looking for.
In reply to:
I’ve later learned that even with the Sigma 18-200mm lens, I can compensate for poor lighting somewhat by switching to manual mode on the camera and adjusting the ISO and aperture settings. Still, there’s no substitute for good lighting or big lenses.
Very interesting, indeed. Do you find that you get "acceptable" results this way, or just "better"? What aperture/ISO do you use? Is it a PITA to make these adjustments on the Canon?
That Canon lens you linked to is nuts. I'd never get the value out of it. I don't want to spend the money on prime lenses, but it is beginning to sound like that might be the only strategy to get the results I want.
In reply to:
It was one of the typical Michigan winter days where the sky is so overcast that the sun doesn’t even try to peek through the clouds.
From what I remember from my years spent in photo classes in college, I loved shooting outdoors on overcast days. Some of the best diffused lighting one can find.
Yeah, I think I get pretty good results as long as I take my time to set things up properly. I can't remember off the top of my head what ISO/Aperture settings I use, typically, I just switch to manual mode and increase the ISO level until the photos are bright enough. I don't find it too cumbersome to switch either, it's just taken me a little while to get used to it.
Yeah, those lenses are expensive, it's just that the primes let in *way* more light. I bought a 50mm prime and it's great for indoor portraits. Of course, for that I just could have bought a bigger flash. I doubt that I'll ever buy that lens that I linked because I'd have a hard time justifying the cost. Still, it's nice knowing that if I ever did get that serious, my camera's compatible with it.
There are certainly less expensive Canon lenses of similar caliber. I'm looking into the Canon F4.0 70-200 L lens, myself. That's only about $600.
Heh.
Only.
I think one issue overlooked is the fact that going with a prime lens rather than a combo lens, you lose a lot of your ability to compose a shot. Sure you can "enlarge" the file (crop and resize) but that loses some of the effective area of the CCD. For instance a 28-70 combo lens (35mm, I'm not good at figuring out digital lenses in mm, sorry!) may only get you a step back to a step forward in framing over a 50mm prime, but sometimes that's enough to keep you from falling into the pool, or backing into some steroid monkey.
Bren R.
I have that lens (70-200mm f/4) and it's fantastic. Sharp, sharp, sharp! Of course, I'd love to get the f/2.8 IS version, but it's twice as expensive, plus a lot heavier.
That said, for indoor sports you would have to hope for either a really well lit place, bump the ISO up to at least 800 and/or use flash for f/4 to be fast enough at 200mm.
That is a disadvantage, but at the same time you usual gain noticeably in image quality and light gathering capability. And digital makes it a lot easier to crop pics how you'd like them.
Well lit, as in industrial spotlights used as ambient lighting...
I'm trying to see if a friend of mine will let his 70-200 go. He wants a Sigma 50-500 (!)
This Sigma is a recently updated version of one that I have been extremely happy with. Actually, at the moment, I have
three Sigmas that I'm extremely happy with: The linked 70-200F/2.8 above, a 24-70 F/2.8, and a 12-24mm.
Gentlemen, again, thank you. I am learning a lot, and you are making that process both efficient and enjoyable.
What I hear you saying is, if one of my primary goals is to adequately photograph indoor sports, I need a $700 camera and an $850 lens. Ouch. Not gonna happen at this time.
Could I get away with something like an
85mm f/1.8 and then cropping virtually everything I shoot? Or is that lens overly specialized to have as an investment? Does adding a tele-converter to something like that make any sense?
Is the downside to using something like the f/4 200mm and stepping up the ISO to 800 (or even 1600) that I will get unacceptably higher amounts of noise?
It sounds like buying the best 70-200mm zoom I can afford is a practical approach, but I'm concerned that getting something like the inexpensive f/4-5.6 that Mark linked earlier may not help me at all.
You guys weren't kidding about the lenses being the expensive part. Photography makes Home Theatre look like a cheap hobby.
Pity that some of us are cursed with both as hobbies...
Have you considered sitting at the bottom of the pool with an underwater camera?
at Hef's place?
I paid a nice chunk of change for my dSLR (Canon 20D - big brother to the XT), but the lenses are definitely the expensive part. Right now I have about $1700 in lenses, but there are a couple lenses on my wishlist that are over $1k each....so yeah, top quality lenses are expensive. But oooohhh so nice to use.
Though there is definitely a lot to be said for getting a nice lens with a nice big max aperture (2.8 or lower), I should mention that the Canon Rebel XT has very good noise characteristics, and even at 1600 the picture is definitely usable (and with a little noise reduction can even be enlarged fairly well). I shot a friend's wedding almost entirely at ISO 1600 (indoors, fairly low light with a rented Canon 24-70 f/2.8L lens - what an amazing lens!) and the results were actually surprisingly good (shameless
link ).
ISO 800 is even better (in terms of noise), so you
may be able to get away with the zoom Mark suggested and never straying below ISO 800. But in many cases even ISO 800 at f/4 or f/5.6 will only give you shutter speeds around 1/60 indoors, which should be enough to get a decently sharp shot with a little motion blur, but only if you've got steady hands and are shooting at the short end of the zoom. if you're shooting at the long end of that zoom, then it's going to take statue-like steadiness to get sharp shots - or you'll have to shoot from a tripod.
I would actually highly recommend the 85mm f/1.8 - I have it myself and it is really a fantastic lens - one of the best deals out there for Canon in terms of image quality for the buck. It's very sharp, focuses quickly and silently, and the f/1.8 is just fantastic for low light shooting. For the price it really can't be beat, and if you can get moderately close to the pool you should be able to get enough reach to not have to crop away too much of the shot. The effective focal range would actually be about 136mm and assuming you're not in a huge aquatic center that should get you fairly close (the XT's sensor is smaller than a regular 35mm frame, so the field of view we get on the picture is about 1.6x the focal length of the lens).
Adam, those shots you linked to are beautiful. Their quality has much more to do with your skill and creativity than with the equipment. I have always liked your work very much.
Warmest thanks for the ongoing tutelage and recommendations. You have greatly helped and inspired me.
Wow, those really are some great photos, Adam! I have much to learn.
I was especially impressed by the picture of the bride backlit by the glass door behind her. Did you use a seperate flash to fill in the shadows? Those shots are always tough for me to get right.
Keep up the great work!
Oh yeah, without flash she would've been almost a complete silhouette. I used flash (usually bounced) on nearly every indoor shot, actually.
First, thank you again to all of you who took the time to help.
Here's my story. I learned, analyzed and agonized. I shopped. I repeated the process ad infinitum. I consulted with and exasperated my wife. She ultimately said some version of "just buy the damn thing". Astutely, she pointed out that if she was not fully aware of my innate obsession on details, she might conclude that my behaviour constituted a strategy to that end. I honestly had never thought about it that way before. An epiphany in conjunction with an electronics purchase process.
Anyway, Canon started a rebate program on 4/1 - $100 on the Rebel XT plus $10-50 on some lenses. That was enough to get me. So, I ordered up (from B&H) the 350D, 50mm f/1.8, and the Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 with a hood. I know that zoom is NOT going to get me the performance I need indoors, but long course (outdoor) season is approaching, and using it will be a good learning experience to help me figure out which prime(s) to get. And it will still be a fine lens for outdoor stuff, or until I can justify the expense of 70-200mm f/2.8. I concluded that this package with the extra pixels and future purchase of fast primes was probably the best approach for me. Smaller bites.
Unfortunately, I think that the next thing will be to look for a new camera for the missus. I'd be surprised if she became enthused about this level of complexity and form factor. Our current Canon is only 2MP, and hideously thicker than a deck of cards. She's enamored of some Casio 7MP tiny thing at the moment. Form over function for her.
It's been an excellent learning experience. I'll let you know about my future exploits. Again, particularly to Adam, Mark, Frank, Ken and other friends - thank you very much for your gracious tutelage.
Congratulations Tom!
Sounds like a very nice setup and a good step-by-step approach to the lenses. I have a 50mm f/1.4 as part of my Nikon kit and really like it for low light and night photography. I’m now lusting after the recently released but still-hard-to-get Nikon D200 as my first DSLR.
Have fun! We look forward to seeing pictures.
I was at office depot the other day and they had a couple cannon dSLR cameras. I was surprised how crisp and quickly the cameras focused.
I was like, woah, how did it do that. I still am confused of how it does that. My $400 ish Kodak camera, almost as good as a non SLR can get with an integrated lens system, takes forever to focus right, or doesnt to it right.
Be happy with your purchase Tom! Don't let your axioms get jealous of the new "family" member. :-P
Hey, congrats! Oh, I wouldn't count on your wife not being interested in the dSLR, though...
Congrats on the purchase, Tom! The XT should serve you quite well. Don't be afraid to look at third party lenses when you decide to upgrade/expand your collection. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all have quality offerings, often at significant discounts to their Canon counterparts (the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 might interest you further down the line). But I'll let you recover from this purchase before aiming your wallet towards other things.
Be sure to share your pics!
I feel like the last all-Canon hold out...
I bought a Fuji 3800 couple years ago, liked it at first, not so crazy about it now, not built very well.
Oh, yeah, Adam. I like the looks of that Sigma a lot. I'm not so crazy about the $850 price tag, although I do recognize it is a couple hundred less than the comparable Canon.
Thanks for the encouragement, guys. I've never thought of myself as creative or artistic, so I tend to approach these kinds of things as craft (constructing a series of pictures to document an event) rather than art. I've certainly had a keen appreciation for photography as an art form for as long as I can remember. Perhaps I will develop some sensibility along the way. I certainly enjoy the learning process.
I know I have lots of things to learn before it becomes relevant, but what do you say about tripods and heads? Remember, I'm cheap, so don't send me to Really Right Stuff or anything. I am thinking that something like
this Bogen might be a good compromise between cheap crap and pro gear. Seems to me like quick release and a ball-head would be better than cumbersome attachment and a bunch of levers to poke me in the eye. What say you?
Heh. Don't worry Ken, my sights are set on Canon lenses. But not everyone wants/needs the very best.
That Bogen should be a great choice, Tom (and you're thinking is dead on re: quick release). It's relatively light, can handle enough weight to satisfy your needs and Bogen/Manfrotto is a top quality manufacturer - it should last you a good long time. I recently got one of their carbon fiber tripods (055MF3) that is just awesome. It's actually lighter than the 3001, but is taller and can support more weight. Of course, it's also twice as expensive. But for me it was worth it, as I need a tall tripod and don't want to lug around a heavy tripod while hiking.
Speaking of which, I recommend you get into landscape photography. You have some amazing scenery up in the PNW to take advantage of!
Gee, I feel so pitiful with my $20 Fred Meyer-sourced tripod...
I would give you my old one, but one of the leg locks broke. Not very stable if the leg falls off on it's own.
Thanks, but I just bought it. It should do fine...
just another ploy to make me buy more lenses.