First DSLR

[sirrith]

The 600D would be perfect for a beginner and should last you at least a few years.
I started out with the 450D a while back, and its served me very well. I don't really see any reason to upgrade besides maybe higher ISO (450D only goes to 1600) and video.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by sirrith

The 600D would be perfect for a beginner and should last you at least a few years.
I started out with the 450D a while back, and its served me very well. I don't really see any reason to upgrade besides maybe higher ISO (450D only goes to 1600) and video.

Cool. Hopefully I can get one after exams (in a few weeks). Now Ill just spend my time reading up about everything photography. One question though, why do they call it a Rebel is the states? It sounds lame! EOS 600d sounds way better than rebel t3i if you ask me.

[kanej2007]

Originally Posted by sirrith

The 600D would be perfect for a beginner and should last you at least a few years.
I started out with the 450D a while back, and its served me very well. I don't really see any reason to upgrade besides maybe higher ISO (450D only goes to 1600) and video.

Yeah, a 60D is a good and affordable beginner camera. Has a mix of everything you need on a camera.

[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by kanej2007

Yeah, a 60D is a good and affordable beginner camera. Has a mix of everything you need on a camera.

600d, not 60d. The 60d is about $600 more, my mate actually has it, I haven't compared the two however.

[sirrith]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Cool. Hopefully I can get one after exams (in a few weeks). Now Ill just spend my time reading up about everything photography. One question though, why do they call it a Rebel is the states? It sounds lame! EOS 600d sounds way better than rebel t3i if you ask me.

Cool Good luck. Mine are this week!

Yes, do a lot of reading, it will definitely help you out. Check out digital photography school, they have some great articles on there, just google it.

I guess its just marketing, I agree that the numbers sound better. In japan its worse, they call it the Kiss x5 which just sounds plain stupid.

[kanej2007]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

600d, not 60d. The 60d is about $600 more, my mate actually has it, I haven't compared the two however.

Actually, no, both are the SAME price, around $1000.

The 600d is for the australian market, 60d is for the uk/europe market.

[sirrith]

Originally Posted by kanej2007

The 600d is for the australian market, 60d is for the uk/europe market.

Actually, no, 600D is the upgrade to the 550D, the 60D is the upgrade to the 50D, different cameras. One is consumer level, one is "prosumer"

[kanej2007]

Originally Posted by sirrith

Actually, no, 600D is the upgrade to the 550D, the 60D is the upgrade to the 50D, different cameras. One is consumer level, one is "prosumer"

Correct, however both are priced very similarly. It's like comparing a D300s and a D7000, both are different cameras but not a big difference in price, $100 or $200 dollar difference...

The 60D is the one that is slightly more expensive.

Out of the two, i would go for the 600d, GREAT cost considering it's specification, around $500

[trdi]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Do camera hold their value well if kept in good condition?

They don't hold value and even the lenses don't unless they are top Canon/Nikon/other top brands. The top lenses however hold value amazingly well.

That's the reason why I suggest taking a look at used good cameras, their value is lowered enough and you get a lot. One thing to think about is, that if you decide to go full frame later, you will have to buy some new lenses if you intend to buy "small" frame lenses only now. So why not go full frame? Just saw some 600-700 USD 5D I bodies on ebay, which should serve you well for some time (once 5D III is released, you can either go for that one or buy a used 5D II cheap again).

If you are certain that photography will never be an important part of your life, have you considered the 4/3 systems? The quality of photos is way above compacts and it might be just what you are looking for. Sure, big DSLR is better, but to carry that weight around is not piece of cake. I would say that weight and size of the DSLR system is surely underrated by people who haven't been using them before. Micro 4/3 system you can put in your pocket.

BTW, someone said that for National Geographic compact is enough. Well, not true, although there are always exceptions. The photos must be technically superb (and I mean PERFECT) and such photographs can never be taken with compacts. One of the guys who has been published in NG said that he travels with an assistant, just so that 80 kilos of the photo equipment is divided in two parts. All gear he owns is the absolute top you can get. Apart from that... he is of course a very talented photographer. The gear is not enough, but it is a prerequisite for NG type of photography. That extra chance of getting the perfect shot means a lot.

Originally Posted by kanej2007

Actually, no, both are the SAME price, around $1000.
The 600d is for the australian market, 60d is for the uk/europe market.

You have been wrong, those two are not the same cameras .The price is also not the same, 60D in same shop is exactly 200 EUR/USD more expensive and the price difference is in my opinion appropriate.

[kanej2007]

You have been wrong, those two are not the same cameras .The price is also not the same, 60D in same shop is exactly 200 EUR/USD more expensive and the price difference is in my opinion appropriate.[/QUOTE]

Well, in the UK there is less than £200 difference in price, not a great deal difference for us

[sirrith]

Originally Posted by trdi

That's the reason why I suggest taking a look at used good cameras, their value is lowered enough and you get a lot. One thing to think about is, that if you decide to go full frame later, you will have to buy some new lenses if you intend to buy "small" frame lenses only now. So why not go full frame? Just saw some 600-700 USD 5D I bodies on ebay, which should serve you well for some time (once 5D III is released, you can either go for that one or buy a used 5D II cheap again).

Thats pretty much like recommending a Ferrari Daytona over, say, a 2010 Golf GTI, to someone who just got their driving license. It makes no sense, because while the Ferrari is awesome in every way imaginable, the Golf beats it in every possible category related to driveability, comfort, features, safety etc...

BTW, someone said that for National Geographic compact is enough. Well, not true, although there are always exceptions. The photos must be technically superb (and I mean PERFECT) and such photographs can never be taken with compacts. One of the guys who has been published in NG said that he travels with an assistant, just so that 80 kilos of the photo equipment is divided in two parts. All gear he owns is the absolute top you can get. Apart from that... he is of course a very talented photographer. The gear is not enough, but it is a prerequisite for NG type of photography. That extra chance of getting the perfect shot means a lot.

What you're saying is that its impossible to get a perfect photograph with a compact. I'm afraid that just shows you don't know what makes a good photograph. Its not all about shallow DOF and bokeh-ness and full-frame snobbery. Its about composition, points of interest, catching the eye of the viewer, holding their interest, evoking an emotion. All this has NOTHING to do with the camera.
By your logic, it would have been impossible to take great photographs without having one's own weight worth of camera equipment with you at all times. Yet one of the greatest photographers of all time did just that, with a small rangefinder and a 35mm lens. His first name was Henri. I'm sure you don't need me to mention his last name as you should no doubt know it.

[eclap]

hilarious...

[trdi]

Originally Posted by sirrith

Thats pretty much like recommending a Ferrari Daytona over, say, a 2010 Golf GTI, to someone who just got their driving license. It makes no sense, because while the Ferrari is awesome in every way imaginable, the Golf beats it in every possible category related to driveability, comfort, features, safety etc...

That comparison is completely wrong in my opinion. I would kindly ask you to explain how do you translate "driveability, comfort, features, safety" into photographic features of Canon 600D...
A better comparison IMO would be Nissan Skyline R35 (5D I) vs. Nissan Micra (600D).

One more thing - I did suggest one of the mirrorless systems to be a better choice for a beginner.

What you're saying is that its impossible to get a perfect photograph with a compact. I'm afraid that just shows you don't know what makes a good photograph. Its not all about shallow DOF and bokeh-ness and full-frame snobbery. Its about composition, points of interest, catching the eye of the viewer, holding their interest, evoking an emotion. All this has NOTHING to do with the camera.
By your logic, it would have been impossible to take great photographs without having one's own weight worth of camera equipment with you at all times. Yet one of the greatest photographers of all time did just that, with a small rangefinder and a 35mm lens. His first name was Henri. I'm sure you don't need me to mention his last name as you should no doubt know it.

Thank you very much for the lecture, but I can assure you I know all that. I could dissect each one of your statements here but instead I will try with a more simplistic approach and trust your intelligence and positive attitude to realize your post was misplaced:
- When I mentioned National Geographic I literally meant National Geographic. So make it even clearer (although I would expect that simply reading my comment one more time without adding anything that I didn't write should have been enough): you can not take National Geographic photos with a compact. Your photos taken by a compact will not be accepted today. If you disagree with that, I will be glad to explain in detail why exactly is that true.
- When I talked about "technical perfection" I literally meant both of those words. Everything that you mention is prerequisite, correct. However it's not adequate when we talk about National Geographic.
- When I write "The gear is not enough, but it is a prerequisite for NG type of photography." I literally mean that. Gear plus everything that you mentioned.
- When I write " That extra chance..." I literally mean that there is a nonzero chance that even with "bad" equipment one can get lucky.

It's all there. One just has to read all of it. Please don't claim that I said something which I didn't and please don't deny that I said something which I did. Let's have a positive attitude and open mind before engaging in a flame war.

Oh, I almost forgot - HCB... No offense, by now you must think I'm trying to humiliate you, which I'm most definitely not. But I have to say I think you gave a bad example again... You should realize that his equipment was absolutely TOP one in his era and for his TYPE of shooting. Even today Leica rangefinders are used by some of the best photo journalists who engage in similar type of photography. His camera (he had more of them of course, sometimes he carried two or even three at the same time) was worth 4-5k in today's currency - 7x 600D. His range of lenses was also a bit wider, he didn't have one lens only. Many of his most known photographs are obviously made by a 90mm Leica for example, he had couple of 35mm, 50mm by Leica and Zeiss and so on. He was a genius and he used top equipment of his time.

[sirrith]

Originally Posted by trdi

That comparison is completely wrong in my opinion. I would kindly ask you to explain how do you translate "driveability, comfort, features, safety" into photographic features of Canon 600D...
A better comparison IMO would be Nissan Skyline R35 (5D I) vs. Nissan Micra (600D).

I translated them in terms of they being features useful to a beginner. The r35 would not be an appropriate comparison, because it is not "last generation", which the 5D I is. It has all the features of the Micra (horrible little car, I hate it, but it is quite reliable...) and more, which the 5D I does not. I suppose if you want to stick with Nissan, you could compare it to the NSX (old generation, top of the line) vs. a 370Z (new generation, not so top) or something of the sort (I don't know Nissan stuff very well). I'd rather have the NSX, but out of the 2, it wouldn't be the one to recommend to a beginner. I'd say the Micra would be more like the s95.

One more thing - I did suggest one of the mirrorless systems to be a better choice for a beginner.

I didn't say that was a bad recommendation I was merely responding to recommending a last generation "pro" body over a current-gen entry level body

Thank you very much for the lecture, but I can assure you I know all that. I could dissect each one of your statements here but instead I will try with a more simplistic approach and trust your intelligence and positive attitude to realize your post was misplaced:
- When I mentioned National Geographic I literally meant National Geographic. So make it even clearer (although I would expect that simply reading my comment one more time without adding anything that I didn't write should have been enough): you can not take National Geographic photos with a compact. Your photos taken by a compact will not be accepted today. If you disagree with that, I will be glad to explain in detail why exactly is that true.
- When I talked about "technical perfection" I literally meant both of those words. Everything that you mention is prerequisite, correct. However it's not adequate when we talk about National Geographic.
- When I write "The gear is not enough, but it is a prerequisite for NG type of photography." I literally mean that. Gear plus everything that you mentioned.
- When I write " That extra chance..." I literally mean that there is a nonzero chance that even with "bad" equipment one can get lucky.

Actually, Natgeo is known for going on flickr and picking out photos from there for their use (after contacting the photographer of course).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/machinp...n/photostream/
This one for example.

And this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/3341866182/

I fail to see how a compact would not be able to take those 2 photos?
Now maybe you're perfectly right that Natgeo wouldn't accept photos taken with a compact, maybe if those photos had been taken with compacts, and Natgeo had seen that, they wouldn't have considered using them, but that wouldn't mean that the quality of the photo was not good enough.

It's all there. One just has to read all of it. Please don't claim that I said something which I didn't and please don't deny that I said something which I did. Let's have a positive attitude and open mind before engaging in a flame war.

I don't intend to start a flame war. I just get annoyed reading tons of recommendations (not just on here) that a complete beginner should go and get the best gear possible because its "pro" and therefore must be better than entry level/consumer level, and your recommendation seemed to fall in line with the rest of those.

Oh, I almost forgot - HCB... No offense, by now you must think I'm trying to humiliate you, which I'm most definitely not.

Actually, no, I don't

But I have to say I think you gave a bad example again... You should realize that his equipment was absolutely TOP one in his era and for his TYPE of shooting. Even today Leica rangefinders are used by some of the best photo journalists who engage in similar type of photography. His camera (he had more of them of course, sometimes he carried two or even three at the same time) was worth 4-5k in today's currency - 7x 600D. His range of lenses was also a bit wider, he didn't have one lens only. Many of his most known photographs are obviously made by a 90mm Leica for example, he had couple of 35mm, 50mm by Leica and Zeiss and so on. He was a genius and he used top equipment of his time.

His most photographs were actually taken with the 50mm Summicron or the Sonnar, he used a 35mm and a 90mm as well, but only sparingly.
I'll give you some credit and not going to read into your statement that you think he couldn't have done the same with lesser equipment. His photos were great because of him, not because of the Leica. If you look at his work, you'll see many of the photographs are actually not perfectly in focus, or perfectly sharp, or perfectly processed. He could have gotten the same results from a FED or a Zorki, or any other 35mm rangefinder.
In fact, its been said that in his later years, his camera was a Leica Minilux, or a Contax T. In other words, a film point & shoot. Or, if you will, a compact.

Out of curiosity, where did you read that he carried more than one body at a time? That seems highly unlikely, knowing the nature and style of his shooting, as more cameras would inevitably mean more attention drawn to him. But I don't know this for a fact.

[trdi]

Originally Posted by sirrith

I translated them in terms of they being features useful to a beginner.

Ok, I see. I rate features based on how good are they for photography, to take photographs. Different views I guess and it's all very subjective. If someone wants to enter the DSLR world I assume (perhaps incorrectly in some cases) they want to get a bit more serious about photography. If not, I advise mirrorless system every day of the week. In fact I suggest a mirrorless system as a backup to DSLR as well. HCB is a good example what means to simply have a camera with you all the time.

Actually, Natgeo is known for going on flickr and picking out photos from there for their use (after contacting the photographer of course).

I fail to see how a compact would not be able to take those 2 photos?
Now maybe you're perfectly right that Natgeo wouldn't accept photos taken with a compact, maybe if those photos had been taken with compacts, and Natgeo had seen that, they wouldn't have considered using them, but that wouldn't mean that the quality of the photo was not good enough.

They have different features of course, but I was mostly talking about the photojournalistic work. Not that long ago, NG was publishing only slide film photos. I know a professional photographer who was carrying a top of the line Nikon DSLR, worth 5k, and he was using it only to take test shots. All the real work he did with slide film camera, because that was the only thing accepted by major magazines and major stock agencies. Not only that, but they even had to send original films to be scanned by those agencies, own scans not accepted. Even today if you look at some crappy stock agencies, they require huge resolutions and people are simply forced to interpolate 12MB photos to meet the requirement. Such interpolated photo will not be ok for a particularly delicate editors of some of the magazines.

So you see, big part of "why" in this case is a bit irrational policy of the photo editors in important places. Those editors are top experts with trained eye though and if you try to send them a compact made photo and present it as real deal, they will not only reject it after 2 seconds but also throw everything else to garbage.

Maybe a bit off topic, but could be interesting to someone. There are other reasons why NG is pretty strict here. NG is a nonprofit organization but an organization which has huge revenues. They need to make 0 profit so what they do is they invest money in superb production. Nothing short of perfect is good enough. I can't find the photo in question, but there was a photo of some lions or monkeys, whatever, on some mountain in Kenya, which shows best what I mean. The initial photo was rejected so they sent the photographer from New York to Kenya with a plane, took him to the mountain with a helicopter, the guy took the photos, the helicopter took him back, plane to New York, scanning of the photos. Not good enough, they sent him back to Kenya. Back New York, scanning, not good enough. Repeat the drill. They accepted the photo after fifth or sixth trip to that Kenyan mountain. And NG paid all expenses. Another interesting story was told me by a guy who was published in NG (the main international version), had the main feature in that issue. He explained how he made one of the photos that perhaps looked simple stuff to most people. However it was technically one of the hardest shots he ever took in his 30 year old career. He showed the photos of the whole scene, they literally had to set up almost a studio out there in the wilderness.
National Geographic is simply looking for such stuff, has to be perfect, moving the borders of what is possible to do. Since they are nonprofit organization, they don't care about production cost.

I don't intend to start a flame war. I just get annoyed reading tons of recommendations (not just on here) that a complete beginner should go and get the best gear possible because its "pro" and therefore must be better than entry level/consumer level, and your recommendation seemed to fall in line with the rest of those.

5D I don't really see as pro (actually even 5D II has many "problems") however it does allow someone to take perfect photos, IMO more so than 600D. The reason I suggested is, because the price is almost the same at the moment (used) and it allows you to build a lens collection that can be used on all models. Sure, you can buy only EF lenses on EF-s camera as well, but it's a bit irrational imo, because lately there are some superb EF-S lenses options out there.

His most photographs were actually taken with the 50mm Summicron or the Sonnar, he used a 35mm and a 90mm as well, but only sparingly.
I'll give you some credit and not going to read into your statement that you think he couldn't have done the same with lesser equipment. His photos were great because of him, not because of the Leica. If you look at his work, you'll see many of the photographs are actually not perfectly in focus, or perfectly sharp, or perfectly processed. He could have gotten the same results from a FED or a Zorki, or any other 35mm rangefinder.

For sure, he could have. But he still chose Leica M3 and a nice lens. Well he did tape the rangefinder window, so there you have one useless feature.

In fact, its been said that in his later years, his camera was a Leica Minilux, or a Contax T. In other words, a film point & shoot. Or, if you will, a compact.

Yeah, I think he said he got bored and wanted to change something. However he got a bit strange in later years, didn't really communicate a lot. Well, that is nothing strange even for other photographers with top equipment. They like experimenting with 50 bucks lenses, made in USSR right after the war. Some of those are real jewels and their deficiencies (compared to today's lenses) make the photos magical. Some other photographers intentionally break their lenses, such lenses help them expressing their artistic vision. You can take photographs with anything.

Out of curiosity, where did you read that he carried more than one body at a time? That seems highly unlikely, knowing the nature and style of his shooting, as more cameras would inevitably mean more attention drawn to him. But I don't know this for a fact.

I didn't read, I saw it in a documentary, don't remember the title. That was probably a special occasion, since he was out there with one body 99% of the time. However it shows that he spent quite a fortune for his whole photographic equipment (unless Leica sponsored him of course, which I doubt)

[sirrith]

Originally Posted by trdi

Ok, I see. I rate features based on how good are they for photography, to take photographs. Different views I guess and it's all very subjective. If someone wants to enter the DSLR world I assume (perhaps incorrectly in some cases) they want to get a bit more serious about photography. If not, I advise mirrorless system every day of the week. In fact I suggest a mirrorless system as a backup to DSLR as well. HCB is a good example what means to simply have a camera with you all the time.

I think a lot of people go in with the intent or at least some subconscious desire to become "pro" but then get bored and revert to snapshots, only with a bigger camera :p
I've got an E-P1 myself, as well as my DSLR, but I find even thats a bit too big to carry around every day, so I'm considering selling it and getting an s95 or something of the sort.

5D I don't really see as pro (actually even 5D II has many "problems") however it does allow someone to take perfect photos, IMO more so than 600D. The reason I suggested is, because the price is almost the same at the moment (used) and it allows you to build a lens collection that can be used on all models. Sure, you can buy only EF lenses on EF-s camera as well, but it's a bit irrational imo, because lately there are some superb EF-S lenses options out there.

Canon see it as a pro body though I think And yes, it does have issues as does the 5D II. Fair point about the lenses, personally I think I'm going to be staying crop because as a hobby, I can't justify spending crazy amounts on a body (I'd rather buy new when it comes to bodies) so until FF comes down in price...
I completely agree with you on the availability of great EF-s lenses. In fact, I don't factor FF compatibility into my decision when choosing lenses, unlike some people who are adamant they will be upgrading in the "near" future and refuse to buy EF-s.

Yeah, I think he said he got bored and wanted to change something. However he got a bit strange in later years, didn't really communicate a lot. Well, that is nothing strange even for other photographers with top equipment. They like experimenting with 50 bucks lenses, made in USSR right after the war. Some of those are real jewels and their deficiencies (compared to today's lenses) make the photos magical. Some other photographers intentionally break their lenses, such lenses help them expressing their artistic vision. You can take photographs with anything.

I thought he was always quite strange?
I do love the soviet lenses, I've got a few myself, and a few of their rangefinders. Lovely things. Amazingly cheap. Make my modern equipment feel like toys by comparison...

I didn't read, I saw it in a documentary, don't remember the title. That was probably a special occasion, since he was out there with one body 99% of the time. However it shows that he spent quite a fortune for his whole photographic equipment (unless Leica sponsored him of course, which I doubt)

I wish Leica would sponsor me...