dSLR - how/what to buy

[ChristianG]

We periodically get asked for the "best" camera to buy when considering a first dSLR.

This is an attempt to provide some thoughts on what to look out for in this rather vexing question and I hope that others will also contribute and that GLOCK, or someone, makes it a sticky for others to read in future.

Let me add some parameters here (contributors please note), we are

1.a: not necessarily talking cameras that can be taken underwater
1.b: not, except in general terms, talking cameras of specific manufacturers, personal choice is specifically excluded
1.c: talking dSLRs at the "reasonable" end of the market. If you're thinking of a Leica S-System, just buy the wretched thing but please don't tell me because I'll come over all jealous. Note that the projected price of that one is about the same as a small to medium sized quality car

and some generalisations, some of which are simplistic, but we're actually talking simplistic here

2.a: The camera is, largely, a box for the lenses
2.b: the lenses, largely, do the work of getting the best photograph - it's the glass that counts
2.c: the "translation engine", that which converts the raw bits into something we can see (jpeg/jpg, tiff, eps, whatever) is also a significant factor in this. All the manufacturers have their proprietary engines, and there are others such as PhotoShop. All such engines can have a significant influence on the end product (and there's largely zero that you can do to influence that)
2.e: you might have a Leica S-System in your claw but if you can't take a photograph for nuts you might as well have a Box Brownie there instead. The camera (and lenses) has not been, will never be, built that can compensate for a photographer that doesn't know "the business". Don't know how to use the camera? Don't understand the controls? Don't RTFM? Don't bother. That is exacerbated by the fact that today's cameras have a huge range of electronic options available to make the average snapper's (me) head seriously ache.

OK, here we go:

LENSES:

3.a: are the bugbear of the photographer. Why? Because as soon as you buy them for a particular system you have what is called "legacy lenses" on your hands. This means that unless you now go to the considerable expense of changing everything on your upgrade you are locked into the next upgrade from that particular camera body manufacturer when you may have decided you'd now prefer the offering of another. Note also that some bodies from a particular manufacturer are not exchangeable, even that is a "horses for courses" thing
3.b: you are not limited to just the lenses of that particular manufacturer, in fact you should think outside the square, of the likes of (alpha order) Olympus, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, the list goes on. Some of these after market manufacturers actually produce superlative lenses which (mostly on an individual basis but it can happen, and often) can be better than those of the "mainstream". Well, unless you're talking Schneider, now there's a lens and a half.

CAMERA BODIES:

4.a: just as in P&S cameras I really wouldn't go for anything other than the offerings of the established players. If you use the offerings of the likes of "Messrs Yum and Cha" it is possible that support might fall by the wayside
4.b: go for a "series" model camera, such as the Canon 250 to (now) 500 series because they offer great value for money and, just like with the top-of-the-line Mercedes or BMW, what used to be exclusive to the big boys sickers down. My own Sigma SD 14 started with the SD8 (IIRC) and has just metamorphosed into the SD15 yet I can take advantage of the latest "translation engine", my lenses are still perfectly capable, the camera has not changed radically enough to make me want to get the new body and so, I'm a happy bunny.
4.c: The other camera manufacturers, Olympus for certain, would also have series lenses but don't discount the 4/3rds series of cameras from various manufacturers. This is the only size where a number of manufacturers have got together to support a standard, including some serious players and mostly these systems are within the reasonable range with assorted lenses from assorted manufacturers available for all of them.

I welcome contributions to this thread, I'm sure and certain that I've not thought of everything, but I remind you again to restrict it to generalities, rather than "this is the best". Nothing is the best.

I'll also point out, in a very general way, that much of what I've said above will just as well apply to housings, eg legacy lenses = legacy ports.

But I feel that is another subject, which I might address if and when I feel like it. Anyone want to get in before me? Please?

[Tim Ingmire]

I will add just one thing Christian which may seem a little trite:

The best camera is the one you use and the worst the one you do not.

What this means is that for 80% of people one DSLR will give the same results as another. The key thing is ergonomics, what fit in your hand, what camera / housing design fits the way you take pictures.

This is relevant for digicams as well as DSLR's. A great big bulky DSLR rig is of no use if you don't like to carry it and a suitably equipped digicam meets your needs and is small and compact enough that yuo will always take it on a dive.

[Snapper]

The best camera is the one you use and the worst the one you do not.

What this means is that for 80% of people one DSLR will give the same results as another. The key thing is ergonomics, what fit in your hand, what camera / housing design fits the way you take pictures.

I completely agree - when I got my dSLR I tried out several - some I really could not get on with - just the way they handled, the menu set up etc. The one I eventually bought, I took to straight away.

It also matters what you are going to do with the camera - if you think you may eventually dive with it, get a model there are housings for (otherwise going into the underwater world will be very expensive!). Likewise if, for example, you do a lot of walking, robustness and light weight will be included in your criteria.

Totally agree regarding the quality of the lenses being critical. Provided the body does what you need it to do, invest in the lenses - thats where the quality pic comes from!!

[incapete]

I'd support what's been said above and say to please try not to fall into the trap of thinking a dSLR will automatically improve your photography.... it's a tool which does require some learning to use properly but once you do it then allows much more creativity and scope than a compact.

Since the prosumer dSLR's don't change all that much between models you can pick up the version before the current one (ie the Canon 450d when they released the 500d) second hand quite cheaply. Also, for most people anything over about 8mp isn't actually needed so the newer models often don't have many more features to attract you.
You'll also find a fair number of this type of camera body for sale since a lot of people fall into the trap mentioned above and then sell it since they don't use it.

If you don't fancy ebay then check out a forum like Talk Photography for the advice and for-sale sections. There's already a couple of YDers on there.

[ChristianG]

The best camera is the one you use and the worst the one you do not.

Yes, quite true for the average "happy snapper" but not necessarily true for the average analogue SLR user who is now going digital.

I've been lucky in that the digital revolution in my line of work made sure that I learned, if you will, the hard way and in fact learned several years, maybe more, before the first digital camera poked its head up. To my knowledge that was the Canon RC-250 Xapshot in 1988 but the possible first really practical camera was the Fuji DS-1P also of 1988. Against that the first consumer camera with a (tiny by today's standards) LCD display on the back was the Casio QV-10 of 1995. Me? I doubt that I had even heard of Digital Cameras, consumer or not, until perhaps 1995 and maybe later. Most development in this technology was then driven by newspaper demand, newspapers were able to amortize the extreme costs of these systems when the ordinary punter certainly could not.

So, taken from my background in graphics/computer (read digital) graphics it may be useful for some to look at this from my way of thinking - which was to look at the sensor (and the technology behind it) first and work up from there. After all, these sensors were nothing less than adaptations of scanning sensors which, in turn, were adaptations of photocopier sensors.

All sensors used by the conventional companies, from Kodak to Casio, use technology that sticks Red (R), Green (G), Blue (B) and Green (again) dots of colour into a plate and these, mixed together because your unaided eye can't see them individually) represent one pixel (picture element). Now this happens to be in direct contradiction to how colour actually works; colour works (as in your TV if it's a halfway modern one) by sticking R, G and B mmediately behind each other to represent the gamut of colours available to the unaided eye. It also happens to be how the eye/brain combination largely "sees" colour.

Now that seems a logical approach to me and it happens that an Americal company, Foveon, thought the same to the extent that they decided that three "sheets" of silicone immediately behind each other, each representing one of R, G and B should be able to do the same. After many years of trying they perfected (nothing made by man is perfect) the process and came out with the Foveon chip, which Sigma adopted and were so impressed by that they have now, a couple of years down the track, bought the company.

Aided and abetted by a Canadian friend of mine who'd already gone through this whole thought process and who has forgotten more about this photography lark than I will ever know, I then bought the Sigma SD14 as my first dSLR following on from the Nikonos RS AF which was undoubtedly the best (and most expensive!!!) analogue SLR camera ever made for underwater use. It was also the most flawed but I'll forgive it for that because it was that good. Incidentally, that link will get you onto Charles' website, it's worth it.

So it follows that I bought that Sigma without virtually any attention to the way it handles or, indeed, whether I can handle its controls. The SD14, and its lenses is heavy, it's all metal after all and the camera body, three lenses and all the other bits and pieces comes to some serious weight. I guess that I'm already used to weight because nothing in the SLR field does now or will anytime soon weigh as much as the RS AF but I do have a carbon fibre trolley to trundle the camera case around on. Consider that a sop to my increasingly advancing years, which, if truth be known, means increasing frailty.

Actually I bought the SD 14 without ever having held it in my claw (yes, I do trust Charles), it's not exactly thick on the ground locally.

Caveat/Beware: these are my thoughts on my camera. Yours are likely to be much different. If you want to know more about my camera, PM me.