My first DSLR!

pabberz !

pabberz !

pabberz !

Associate
Joined
17 Nov 2008
Posts
19
So after viewing this forum for months and toying with the idea of getting a camera, I finally took the plunge and upgraded from my 10 year old Olympus C-2500L to a 450D. Ordered and paid for and hopefully it'll be in my hands tomorrow.

I got a 450D + 18-55mm, tripod, UV filter and an 8gb SDHC card. I was tempted to buy the body only and buy a seperate lense but I figured that it'd be good to have the stock one to play with anyway.

This thread is just to announce my excitement, but also is it worth getting any other lense/addon/equipment? It's like xmas eve! :D
 
nice one, decent camera, same one as I've got. The kit lens will allow you to play around with things and get some decent photos from it. The tripod, great for assisting with landscape / longer exposure shots. Not sure you'll actually need the UV filter as all it does is reduce the quality of the image (and possibly save the glass getting broken if you knock your camera against anything but I guess thats what insurance is for!)

Depending on what you want to shoot will determine what folk might suggest in terms of future lens investment. So let us all know and we'll see what we can recommend (please note you will have to specify a budget!) :)
 
Something for xmas would be the 50mm f1.8. It's like £80 or something and has an aperture of f1.8 so it's great for low light situations. On the 450D it makes a great portrait lens.

After that I would look at getting something more specialised. Such as something really wide to capture landscapes. (10-22mm or along those lines). Or if you want to look at sports get something like a 70-200mm. Or perhaps if you enjoy using the 50mm and need that sort of speed. You could get the 30mm f1.4 or 24mm f1.8.

What do you want to take pictures of?

Derek W said:
...please note you will have to specify a budget...
Click to expand...

You'll learn photography gets very expensive very fast :D
 
Congrats on the purchase :D

You got the basis to get started and get some good shots, I would get used to the kit you got now before buying more :)
 
p0ss3s3d said:
You'll learn photography gets very expensive very fast :D
Click to expand...

I dont really like that attitude from photographers and I dont mean you p0ss. I read that a lot in threads and sometimes it annoys me a bit.

It doesnt have to get expensive very fast even when youre in your first year of photography (this depends how quick you grasp hold of having a good eye for photography). I think you have to learn how to utilize the equipment you have in hand first before jumping on to getting anything else, even if that means your 18-55.

I used/practiced with my 18-55 for a good 2+ years when I got my first DSLR, and it taught me a lot of stuff from that lens itself. The pros and cons, what conditions the lens was good for, what metering to use, what metering works with what exposure etc. It might seem like common sense (or maybe Im slow) it took me a while before I even got the 17-50 it was then I started to get to grip with my camera.

Like I said its nothing against you p0ss, but I just think that most people jump the gun and buy expensive equipment when they havent a clue on what potential their stuff has and always saying (complaining) that their glass isnt fast enough, or sharp enough (in which some cases is true) but then when you see their photos they take or what they take and I think to myself, so you spent £600 on a nice glass and thats the kinda photos you take and youre happy and content with?! It just shocks and amazes me

/rant
 
tbs said:
I dont really like that attitude from photographers and I dont mean you p0ss. I read that a lot in threads and sometimes it annoys me a bit.

It doesnt have to get expensive very fast even when youre in your first year of photography (this depends how quick you grasp hold of having a good eye for photography). I think you have to learn how to utilize the equipment you have in hand first before jumping on to getting anything else, even if that means your 18-55.

I used/practiced with my 18-55 for a good 2+ years when I got my first DSLR, and it taught me a lot of stuff from that lens itself. The pros and cons, what conditions the lens was good for, what metering to use, what metering works with what exposure etc. It might seem like common sense (or maybe Im slow) it took me a while before I even got the 17-50 it was then I started to get to grip with my camera.

Like I said its nothing against you p0ss, but I just think that most people jump the gun and buy expensive equipment when they havent a clue on what potential their stuff has and always saying (complaining) that their glass isnt fast enough, or sharp enough (in which some cases is true) but then when you see their photos they take or what they take and I think to myself, so you spent £600 on a nice glass and thats the kinda photos you take and youre happy and content with?! It just shocks and amazes me

/rant
Click to expand...

I think what P0ss3s3d was getting at rather than its expensive not cos the current equipment isn't up to job (in terms of speed and sharpness) but rather in terms of flexibility / accessorizing. My 450D isn't a year old yet but I've already bought a macro lens and a zoom lens along with a nifty fifty (not expensive) because these are areas I would have liked to get into. Macro, just cos I've been amazed by some images shown here (famas being one) and a zoom because i wanted to get some sports photography. Its only now with the limited light levels that I'm wishing to upgrade to cope with the darker days but thats going to cost me the best part of £3k.

Certain things like landscapes, its preferable to have a decent tripod and some filters to allow for better landscape shots rather than handheld. It all depends on what the OP wants to shoot, as with yourself or anyone else.
 
It doesn't have to be expensive. There are lots of cheap lenses that still get excellent results. But i can see why it can get very expensive once you start to get better results and want better glass to get the best possible pictures.

For me its just a hobby and i doubt I'll ever take it any further than that so I'm not going to splash out thousands on lenses. If you're going into portraits or weddings then it would be worth it as they would pay for themselves after a while.

I'm going to get a Tamron 90mm macro, 17-50mm and a 50mm 1.8 in the next year or so. Should be better than my kit lens and not break the bank.

One thing you could get is a decent bag to put your kit in, if you haven't already got one.
 
tbs said:
I dont really like that attitude from photographers and I dont mean you p0ss. I read that a lot in threads and sometimes it annoys me a bit.

It doesnt have to get expensive very fast even when youre in your first year of photography (this depends how quick you grasp hold of having a good eye for photography). I think you have to learn how to utilize the equipment you have in hand first before jumping on to getting anything else, even if that means your 18-55.

I used/practiced with my 18-55 for a good 2+ years when I got my first DSLR, and it taught me a lot of stuff from that lens itself. The pros and cons, what conditions the lens was good for, what metering to use, what metering works with what exposure etc. It might seem like common sense (or maybe Im slow) it took me a while before I even got the 17-50 it was then I started to get to grip with my camera.

Like I said its nothing against you p0ss, but I just think that most people jump the gun and buy expensive equipment when they havent a clue on what potential their stuff has and always saying (complaining) that their glass isnt fast enough, or sharp enough (in which some cases is true) but then when you see their photos they take or what they take and I think to myself, so you spent £600 on a nice glass and thats the kinda photos you take and youre happy and content with?! It just shocks and amazes me

/rant
Click to expand...
:eek:

I agree with a lot said there, some people do buy great equipment and never seem to get much from it. Good equipment only increases your chances of getting 'the' shot. Theres no reason you couldn't nab a great shot of a bird with the really inexpensive 75-300 lens at f5.6 and a film camera. But your more likley to get the shot with a 1 series and 600mm f4 prime (I wish :( - heck I've never even tried bird photography, but it's the best example)!!

On the otherhand some people have a simple 50mm prime and camera then get some outstanding shots.

I think theres only so much you can milk from one cow...

Oha dn I'm skint, so my only digital camera is a 450d, and a beat-up 350d I have as a back-up. But I occasionaly use the EOS 5, yeah the EOS 5 was the plasticy model :rolleyes:. Mostly for black and white fun.
 
tbs said:
snip
Click to expand...

Depends what people take as expensive, doesn't have to mean buying all the top L glass etc, just means you end up buying a lot more. I was good with my kit lens and a telephoto for a good while, but ended up buying accessories, and all the other stuff that I felt I needed/wanted, it does get expensive either way really.
 
Derek W said:
I think what P0ss3s3d was getting at rather than its expensive not cos the current equipment isn't up to job (in terms of speed and sharpness) but rather in terms of flexibility / accessorizing. My 450D isn't a year old yet but I've already bought a macro lens and a zoom lens along with a nifty fifty (not expensive) because these are areas I would have liked to get into. Macro, just cos I've been amazed by some images shown here (famas being one) and a zoom because i wanted to get some sports photography. Its only now with the limited light levels that I'm wishing to upgrade to cope with the darker days but thats going to cost me the best part of £3k.

Certain things like landscapes, its preferable to have a decent tripod and some filters to allow for better landscape shots rather than handheld. It all depends on what the OP wants to shoot, as with yourself or anyone else.
Click to expand...

As I said, I know what P0ss meant by it could get expensive, its just the OP just got his new camera and he hasnt even figured what the camera can do and before he does, hes already told hes in for some hands in deep pocket situation which it shouldnt, it should be "enjoy your kit and learn it well". The OP will eventually find out that its going to be expensive once he moves on from his kit lens.

What you said here

"Its only now with the limited light levels that I'm wishing to upgrade to cope with the darker days but thats going to cost me the best part of £3k."

Why would it cost you £3K to shoot night shots?

I know Im probably coming off as a total grumpy old man, but this is probably why people say its going to be "expensive" :p

p0ss3s3d said:
:eek:

I agree with a lot said there, some people do buy great equipment and never seem to get much from it. Good equipment only increases your chances of getting 'the' shot. Theres no reason you couldn't nab a great shot of a bird with the really inexpensive 75-300 lens at f5.6 and a film camera. But your more likley to get the shot with a 1 series and 600mm f4 prime (I wish :( - heck I've never even tried bird photography, but it's the best example)!!

On the otherhand some people have a simple 50mm prime and camera then get some outstanding shots.

I think theres only so much you can milk from one cow...

Oha dn I'm skint, so my only digital camera is a 450d, and a beat-up 350d I have as a back-up. But I occasionaly use the EOS 5, yeah the EOS 5 was the plasticy model :rolleyes:. Mostly for black and white fun.
Click to expand...

I agree, sometimes you need the right equipment for the job thats totally acceptable, but if youre a learner those things shouldnt concern you that much until you know what level youre at, unless you are pushing them to their limits then, an upgrade is inevitable :)
 
syke said:
Depends what people take as expensive, doesn't have to mean buying all the top L glass etc, just means you end up buying a lot more. I was good with my kit lens and a telephoto for a good while, but ended up buying accessories, and all the other stuff that I felt I needed/wanted, it does get expensive either way really.
Click to expand...

If youre talking about accessories then yea, they do cost a bit ie bags, cards, straps, tripods etc but all the talk about "I NEED this glass!..." and when they post their "best" (using the term lightly) shots of a close up of a flower, or their dog to show off their new glass that costed them £600, I would at least go out and shot something worthwhile to show off that your money was well spent instead of posting a 21MP picture of a flower in your garden :p
 
tbs said:
What you said here

"Its only now with the limited light levels that I'm wishing to upgrade to cope with the darker days but thats going to cost me the best part of £3k."

Why would it cost you £3K to shoot night shots?
Click to expand...

Its not night shots specifically, its freezing action shots in low light. At the moment I'm shooting floodlit football with a 450D with 70 - 300 f4 - 5.6 and this last weekend, the first half was ok I could shoot with ISO 800 at around 1/640th and got some good shots. but into the second half I was at ISO 1600 (top rating) at 1/250th / 1/320th but my images were underexposed and blurry in places because the camera / lens couldn't cope with the conditions.

I am looking to upgrade to a 7D (upISO 6400) and a 70 - 200 f2.8 which will cost around £2700. Hope that explains things :D
 
Derek W said:
Its not night shots specifically, its freezing action shots in low light. At the moment I'm shooting floodlit football with a 450D with 70 - 300 f4 - 5.6 and this last weekend, the first half was ok I could shoot with ISO 800 at around 1/640th and got some good shots. but into the second half I was at ISO 1600 (top rating) at 1/250th / 1/320th but my images were underexposed and blurry in places because the camera / lens couldn't cope with the conditions.

I am looking to upgrade to a 7D (upISO 6400) and a 70 - 200 f2.8 which will cost around £2700. Hope that explains things :D
Click to expand...

I see, so youre into sports photography :) a fast lens is must, but the camera will still be able to get the shots you want unless youre after the MP as well. Its just finding the right settings.

This is why I never upgraded to anything for 2+ years, cus I knew that if i didnt know how to use a kit lens, a better and faster lens wouldnt help me get good pictures it would just have made things easier getting crappy pictures lol.

Theres a astroturf footy pitch near me with floodlights, have always wanted to go there and take some night shots myself. Maybe one day we'll both take some night shots of some game, you with your 450D and me with my 350D and see how it compares :D:p;)
 
tbs said:
Theres a astroturf footy pitch near me with floodlights, have always wanted to go there and take some night shots myself. Maybe one day we'll both take some night shots of some game, you with your 450D and me with my 350D and see how it compares :D:p;)
Click to expand...

I've already had some night shots in the paper as I cover the away games but they're nothing spectacular. not when i see the club photographers stuff in using a D3 with 300 mm f2.8 :eek: ISO 3200 at 1/1000th of a second in the pitch black! ok slight exaggeration there.
 
Derek W said:
I've already had some night shots in the paper as I cover the away games but they're nothing spectacular. not when i see the club photographers stuff in using a D3 with 300 mm f2.8 :eek: ISO 3200 at 1/1000th of a second in the pitch black! ok slight exaggeration there.
Click to expand...

Haha. Clubbing photography isnt my thing, only thing I do like about clubbing photography are the chicks who wear not too much :p
 
Derek W said:
I've already had some night shots in the paper as I cover the away games but they're nothing spectacular. not when i see the club photographers stuff in using a D3 with 300 mm f2.8 :eek: ISO 3200 at 1/1000th of a second in the pitch black! ok slight exaggeration there.
Click to expand...

No kidding, with a 300mm he'll be photographing nothing but eye lashes :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom