HikeArizona.COM

I'm thinking about getting into level DSLR, hopefully around Christmas. Because I have a BestBuy credit card that allows zero interest for the first few months, I'm kind of limited to what they have in stock. I'd prefer to not spend more than $600, but would be willing to spend up to $800 for a worthwhile camera. So basically, at this point I've narrowed it down to the Canon Rebel XS and the Nikon D3000. Both cameras have great reviews on the BestBuy website, and elsewhere it seems. Any thoughts, opinions, other ideas (Joel, Nick, Joe, et. al)?

Both cameras should suit you quite well. A camera body is a camera body... Both brands have little high and low points but nothing that makes too huge of a difference. The time to really start researching options is when you can afford to buy some good lenses. Any lens upgrades for Nikon will be more expensive if you get Nikon brand lenses (Canon wideangles tend to be cheaper), but if you go third party (Tokina!!!) it shouldn't matter either way. And, if you find yourself really getting into taking photos (to the point of wanting to spend even more money), you'll most likely want to upgrade lenses at some point, probably to an ultrawideangle.

Some things to consider when you're shopping...

The ability to attach a polarizing filter is one of the greatest advantages to an slr. The filters you can get at Best Buy are completely useless, though, so best to buy that online. But, don't get one of the top dogs like B+W or Singh-Ray until you've got some high quality glass to put it on. For now, you can get a Hoya polarizer for about 50 bucks on Ebay (make sure you check the filter size on the lens before buying the filter). If you're getting a package with two lenses, buy a filter that will fit the wider one.

If you want to capture the sweet light in early morning or late evening you may start to feel creatively stifled without a tripod that will allow you longer exposures. One of the cheap 30-40 dollar ones from Best Buy should be fine for now unless you abuse the heck out of it. By the time it breaks you'll probably know whether or not it's worth it to you to invest in a good one.

If you can only afford polarizing filter OR tripod, I would definitely go polarizer. You can always ghetto rig a pile of rocks if you need stability ;) (I did that for a while).

Have fun man! DSLRs are a blast.

check out the info (lots to read)
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

kits lenses generally stink, so as quick as you can upgrade the lens ("glass") the better. Prime lenses rock, but it's tough to beat the functionality of the zoom (especially when you are on some precipice and can't 'foot zoom').

Maybe we should have Joel schedule a HAZ meetup and share his photo skillz : king : ...

azpride wrote:If you can only afford polarizing filter OR tripod, I would definitely go polarizer. You can always ghetto rig a pile of rocks if you need stability ;) (I did that for a while).

I have a tripod, although it's a cheapo "travel-size" so I probably need an upgrade. I've done the "rock pile" method as well as the "log in the middle of the creek" method... A polarizer as well as GND filter are both on the list. I'll most likely go with the Canon as I would look into getting a wide-angle lens and would prefer to not pay an arm and a leg. Upon further reading, I might try to go for the Canon Rebel XSi. I'll see how my funds look in the next couple months. Thanks for the info guys...still waiting on Joe's two cents...

Hard to beat either body, IMO it ends up being two things that are determiners...

1) what you have glass for (not an issue for you at this point)
2) what you're used to (also probably not an issue, after 20 years of shooting with Nikons though, Canons just feel WRONG as a dSLR, I do have a Canon PAS though )

i echo joel's sentiments exactly.

i carried the cheapo tripod until it fell apart, then went for the upgrade. i still use the pile of rocks and logs when the need calls for it...who doesn't?

my personal experience is with the Rebel, which I love and would never change...though I'm sure I would say the same about Nikon if that's what I started with. really it's just the fun of the DSLR itself. speaking of that, maybe it's time to upgrade myself...

I agree, let's schedule a joel-a-palooza.

have fun HPP, i can't wait to see you throw your pirate hat into the ring

hippiepunkpirate wrote:I have a tripod, although it's a cheapo "travel-size" so I probably need an upgrade. I've done the "rock pile" method as well as the "log in the middle of the creek" method... A polarizer as well as GND filter are both on the list. I'll most likely go with the Canon as I would look into getting a wide-angle lens and would prefer to not pay an arm and a leg. Upon further reading, I might try to go for the Canon Rebel XSi. I'll see how my funds look in the next couple months. Thanks for the info guys...still waiting on Joe's two cents...

Ahh...the "log in the middle of the creek" method, another old favorite.

What kind of GND setup are you thinking? In my experiences (although I've since quit using grads) the Cokin P system (the "p" is just the size of the filters) is the best, most affordable option. A Cokin P holder and maybe HiTech P series GNDs. Whatever you do, just don't get a round GND that screws on to the front of your lens like a polarizing filter. You'll end up having to place the horizon in the middle of every shot to get the gradient at the right spot.

hippiepunkpirate wrote:still waiting on Joe's two cents...

Whatever you do you can't really go wrong, sometimes you just have to live and learn. Personally I wouldn't recommend spending too much. Joel and Nick are living proof beautiful results come with a reasonable investment. A majority of Lety's photos are point and shoot. Preston uses a Kodak 2005 Easyshare that you can get for $135 on ebay. (don't buy his, he's beat the hell out it...lol)

Personally I think you'd find a lot of enjoyment out of a basic setup and yes even with a kit lens. If you can afford a mid level lens (like Joel's Tamaron? or Nicks 10-20mm?) it would be best to get it from the beginning as you will never use your kit lens once you upgrade. Also, it has a virtual-zero resell-value.

Your biggest investment is commitment in finding light. A two thousand dollar lens is only fractions better, finding the right light is at least a ten fold jump. If you hate waking up early and have to work evenings a kit camera is your ticket, all the money in the world is only going to make your photos a fraction better.

When you have the money. A Canon lens is an investment. Treated well you can resell for about 80% value one to two years later. I highly recommend the $30 to $50 insurance contract through BH photo video when investing over a grand on a lens.

I'm not much of a filter guy. Most effects can be achieved through subtle processing. The polarizer seems necessary... until you go ultra wide. Then you'll be wishing you knew the basics. Same is true for full frame. Your life will not be instantly better by going ultra wide nor full frame. Unless you have the basics down it will probably be very disappointing in fact.

joe bartels wrote:Your biggest investment is commitment in finding light. A two thousand dollar lens is only fractions better, finding the right light is at least a ten fold jump. If you hate waking up early and have to work evenings a kit camera is your ticket, all the money in the world is only going to make your photos a fraction better.

Spot on.

Great advice from Joe

Most people are extremely satisfied with a kit lens for as long as they own a camera. I would recommend starting with that no matter what, even if you think you may want to upgrade in the future. The 18-55 that comes with the kit is worth like 40 bucks. I think the extra 40 bucks is worth the time it allows you to decide whether or not investing several hundred more dollars is worth it.

My lens is a Tokina 12-24 mkII, which runs $500-600 new on ebay. Nick has the Canon 10-22 which runs about $700-800 new. The other two major third party ultra-wides are the Tamron 10-24 ($500-600) and Sigma 10-20 ($400-500). They're all fine options in my opinion.

joe bartels wrote:Your biggest investment is commitment in finding light. A two thousand dollar lens is only fractions better, finding the right light is at least a ten fold jump. If you hate waking up early and have to work evenings a kit camera is your ticket, all the money in the world is only going to make your photos a fraction better.

so bleepin' true.

joe bartels wrote:The polarizer seems necessary... until you go ultra wide. Then you'll be wishing you knew the basics. Same is true for full frame. Your life will not be instantly better by going ultra wide nor full frame. Unless you have the basics down it will probably be very disappointing in fact.

also very true. it took me a while to get comfortable with the ultra wide.

as you can see, joel and I have similar lenses. he takes (much) better photos. you could argue we go to equally cool places. this is where understanding basics & light, and the willingness to chase it come into play. joel's nailed it and i'm still working on it...and loving every second of it.

joe bartels wrote:Personally I wouldn't recommend spending too much. Joel and Nick are living proof beautiful results come with a reasonable investment. A majority of Lety's photos are point and shoot. Preston uses a Kodak 2005 Easyshare that you can get for $135 on ebay.

My camera is a $250.00 Canon SX110 IS. I am not saying that to brag but rather to emphasize that cost does not always guarantee quality. Please do not read into that comment. I love photography and am learning more and more every year. I heavily believe in taking a great photo in the field rather than making one after you get home. A photo that starts out good typically needs only minimal enhancing. I only just recently began photo processing, however I keep it to an absolute minimal level. I do it to enhance, not alter.

Have you considered a Canon G11? It would sure make a better hiking companion then a large DSLR. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Just how good of a picture do you want to take? Upper end point & shoots are capable of taking spectacular photos.

the S90 is the same sensor and processor as the G11, and with a 'faster' lens... and both have improved ISO noise performance... I'm drooling over the S90 as a replacement for my sennsor-goobered G9 which is always on my daypack.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

Eric- i love your photos, your images certainly show that a point and shoot can really produce. Out of curiosity... Do you shoot in jpeg or RAW format? if you shoot in jpeg, the camera does a lot of processing for you before you even upload. Images shot in RAW always require processing, at least for sharpening. I would hope that anyone with a DSLR shoots in RAW...

Re: tripods. Don't they still make a hiking stick with a camera attachment in the top? Or a unipod?

There's the plethora of responses I was looking for!

ssk44 wrote:Have you considered a Canon G11? It would sure make a better hiking companion then a large DSLR. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Just how good of a picture do you want to take? Upper end point & shoots are capable of taking spectacular photos.

I have a Canon A590IS right now, so my basic plan is to get a DSLR to carry most of the time, but just take my point and shoot when I don't want to lug the DLSR.

azpride wrote:What kind of GND setup are you thinking? In my experiences (although I've since quit using grads) the Cokin P system (the "p" is just the size of the filters) is the best, most affordable option. A Cokin P holder and maybe HiTech P series GNDs. Whatever you do, just don't get a round GND that screws on to the front of your lens like a polarizing filter. You'll end up having to place the horizon in the middle of every shot to get the gradient at the right spot.

I hadn't thought about that...I'll probably try out a P system first. I'd just prefer not to be blending two images.

joe bartels wrote:Personally I think you'd find a lot of enjoyment out of a basic setup and yes even with a kit lens. If you can afford a mid level lens (like Joel's Tamaron? or Nicks 10-20mm?) it would be best to get it from the beginning as you will never use your kit lens once you upgrade. Also, it has a virtual-zero resell-value.

I'll be going with a kit lens first just because $800 is about the absolute uppermost end of my budget!

hippiepunkpirate wrote:but just take my point and shoot when I don't want to lug the DLSR.

i've been carrying mine for so long now, i don't even notice. carrying the tripod can be a little more annoying, hence the pile of rocks and creek logs.

Eric is proof you can take a point and shoot pretty darn far. i remember when i first asked joe about DSLR's he told me my photos would probably be worse at first when i made the transition and he was right.

Thanks guys. Seriously, thanks...

hippiepunkpirate wrote:I have a Canon A590IS right now, so my basic plan is to get a DSLR to carry most of the time, but just take my point and shoot when I don't want to lug the DLSR.

Thanks for the post HPP. That is exactly what I was wondering. I see many locations that would possibly produce great images based on sun direction and soft morning/evening light. I am right with you on the two-camera concept. Many of the places I go almost require a compact setup. Some off-trail locations are murder on gear. Apache Peaks is a good example. I have been considering buying a DSLR for returning to special locations after the fact. My mind is almost always seeing things from the perspective of a camera lenses. Sometimes that can be a nuisance. If I see something cool, I am always pulling out the camera. I almost have to make myself just sit there and enjoy the view without my camera in my hand. Can anyone relate to that? I love revisiting a location because I usually leave my camera in its case. I can relax.

azpride wrote:Out of curiosity... Do you shoot in jpeg or RAW format? if you shoot in jpeg, the camera does a lot of processing for you before you even upload.

My camera only shoots in jpeg. Raw format is something I have heard of but really have little understanding of. That is very interesting to hear that raw format needs more processing. My initial response was that it would probably be the best “out of the camera” image you could achieve. There is so much to learn. This is a little off the main focus of this topic, but something I have recently discovered to be a critical aspect of photography is monitor calibration/setup. I have taken this for granted. Mine is set up correctly so everyone else’s must also be set up correct, or so I thought. Before you can really do anything with your camera, your monitor must be balanced for the majority of photography conditions and locations. If your monitor is way out of wack, you could easily be overcompensating with your processing software. It’s kind of scary that everyone likely views our photos differently. Overall exposure and color could look “spot on” on my computer and be way off on another. I did not consider this until showing some friends my HAZ photos on their work computers. Yikes!! I am very picky and what I saw on there computers did not even look like my photos. I wanted to crawl under the desk. Their monitors were on “document” settings and as far as they knew, what they were viewing was normal. That setting trashes photos. Ha! It’s funny that they liked what they saw. I guess it is all in what your familiar with. I have been paying more and more attention to others monitors and have been seeing similar issues. I suspect that most of the good photographers on this site likely have their monitors properly calibrated. I take comfort in that.
:bigth:


Eric (ssk44)

azbackpackr wrote:Re: tripods. Don't they still make a hiking stick with a camera attachment in the top? Or a unipod?

yes - some hiking poles have a 1/4-20 mounting nut underneath the handle, and you can also buy monopods like tripods. Or for P&S you can get the flexible 'gorilla-pod' which can bend an fix to any surface, branch ( I used a mini tripod with the 20D and 28mm prime for our trip to Havasupai)

I've also fabbed up a couple of large hand-clamps with 1/4-20 bolts so I can clamp the camera to anything >1" (railing, branch, table, etc)

and to add fuel to the Raw vs jpg discussion
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

azbackpackr wrote:Re: tripods. Don't they still make a hiking stick with a camera attachment in the top? Or a unipod?

My Tracks Sherlock travel staff has a camera attachment on top.