Comments on: The best DSLR for a beginner professional photographer

By: PaulM

PaulM — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:26:39 +0000

I too was thinking of the 400D against the D80, as oppose to the D40X.
Despite lots of things in favour of the D40X and a good deal on the D80, I’ve gone for the Canon. I got dust on the sensor on my Sony CyberShot. If that can happen, anything can!
Any opinions on flashguns?

By: james

james — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:57:04 +0000

I just wanted to leave another option,for those that are looking for an entry level DLSR. For the most bang for your buck,your going to want to research the Olympus E510. It costs less than the two mentioned above, and has as many features and more. I personally don’t think you’ll be disapointed.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:23:22 +0000

Beginner pro sounds alot like me; I also came up on an all-manual camera, in my case, the Asahi-Pentax k1000 (which took GREAT pictures), and decided on a Sony DSC-V3 over the G6 for a number of reasons, related closely to personal preference. Among other things, it was nice to have a CF slot for semi-permanent backup on-board memory, with a memory stick slot to transfer pics to view on my PSP.

‘ DO NOT choose your camera based on a brand preference’ Taking this beyond the usual CaNikon exclusitivity, I would not hesitate in putting a vote for Pentax or Sony (such as the Alpha A700) as well. With anti-shake, weather-resist mag alloy hull, dual memory, and a big CMOS sensor, it certainly fits the bill for me. I decided I needed these lenses for now:

A700: 1400 USD
50-150mm f2.8 (Sigma A-mount)- indoor action 820 USD
16-80mm f3.5 (Zeiss for Sony)- general zoom 700 USD
50mm f1.4 (like the K1000 kit lens)- low light 350 USD

I concede the A700’s bulkiness, but at least it’s light enough…the total price is under $3300 USD, a bit above beginner pro’s high option, but since you have to live with the body you choose…

By: Art

Art — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:10:41 +0000

One thing that can be very misleading for people coming to DSLR ( and a Lot of writers innocnetly do this) from 35 mm are statements like a zoom range of 17-300mm in 35mm in digital will be a “Zoom range 28 – 480mm equivalent”. This implies to people that you get the “magnification” or “reach” of 28-480mm. You don’t. You get the same “reach” of a 17-300mm in 35mm, but you only get the narrower field of view that would be what you’d get equivalent to 28-480mm in 35 mm. In other words, to get the same image frame you’d get at 200mm in 35mm format, you’d have to back the zoom out to 125mm if the lens was used on a digital camera with a 1.6x sensor. Try it yourself, by taking a good 35mm zoom lens and select a subject. Then, without changing the zoom setting, but it on a digital camera and compose on the same subject. The subject in the will be the same “size” and “distance”, but a good portion of the picture you framed will be gone. This will also be true with a “digital” lens on a DSLR compared with a regular lens at the same setting on a 35mm.

This is not unique to any brand of DSLR, and can be quite disconcerting when first encountered, especial with fixed focal length lenses. It’s just something you have to get used to and kept in mind in composing if you shoot both digital and film. There are “full frame” DSLRs with larger 35mm equivalent sensors, but they are very expensive.

Long story short it would be clearer to people moving to DSLR to describe the range as “!7-300mm with a field of view equivalent to 28-480mm”. Thanks.

By: Deborah Dowdy

Deborah Dowdy — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:50:48 +0000

I chose the canon rebel xti with a 70-300 zoom lens (Quantaray) came with awsome macro! Received 18-55 regular lens with it. I heard the new 18-55 canon lens with i/s is much better. I still need a wide angle lens. xti is not good in low light unless you have at least a 600.00 lens. Just to let you know unless you choose to do night or sunrise shots.