To recap the previous articles, a) buy a digital camera, b) buy an SLR, c) don”t pay much attention to megapixels. The two most important considerations for the camera are the quality of the optics, and the quality of the CCD (image sensor) . . . and there is no standard measure or marketing term for these factors.

For optics quality, the best cameras are Canons and Nikons – they”ve been the best for years, and continue to outperform other cameras. Between the two brands, optic quality goes back and forth depending on who”s released the latest upgrade. Canon had a better platform for awhile (they”ve been placing the focus motor in the lens rather than the camera body for years, which speeds up the performance among other things), but Nikon recently switched over to a similar platform which is holding its own.

For image sensor quality, Canon and Nikon have also historically lead the pack. Again, quality between the two of them tends to go back and forth model to model. Recently, several new players, most notably Sony, have entered the arena of high quality image sensors. In fact Sony”s CCD is good enough that they teamed up with Carl Zeiss (a microscope and precision optics manufacturer) to try and bring their optics into a competitive range with Canon and Nikon. Sony has been successful in developing a line of SLRs that have Canon and Nikon nervous, but in my opinion they are still playing outside their core competancy and have some work ahead of them before I would recommend one of their cameras.

Between Canon and Nikon as I mentioned, it”s sort of a toss-up on which brand you buy. So why do I buy Canon? Because they have more experience with in-lens motors, because I used to shoot with a 35mm Canon Rebel and got used to the controls, and because all my old lenses are compatable with my new cameras! That”s it.

Canon Rebel XSi

Ok, Canon still has a wide range of SLRs though. So which to buy? I would honestly go with the Rebel XSi to the left. “But that”s the cheap one!” you might say. Right. It”s probably all you need. Even if you”re a budding professional, it”s probably all you need. I shot with the precursor of this model for years, and I upgraded for 1 reason only – I need a faster shooting rate (frames/second) to capture multiple exposures of moving subjects and a larger burst shot capacity (number of photos that can be taken before the memory card write speed slows down the shooting rate). If you don”t need to shoot lots of exposures quickly, there is almost no reason to buy anything more expensive than the Rebel XSi.

Canon 40D

If, on the other hand, you do need high speed shooting capability (for example to minimize blur for HDR photos, or if you are heavy into sports photography), then the Canon 40D is your best value. I know, it”s not Canon”s most expensive model either. I”m trying to save you some money – the new 50D doesn”t add much other than some more megapixels, and a moderately increased useful range for low light photography. That”s it. And the 5D (the next step up) almost triples the price.

By the way, the product links above include both the camera body and a lens. Both cameras are fully compatible with the entire EOS line of lenses, so if you don”t need a lens here is the Rebel Body Only or the 40D Body Only. The 40D actually has a couple options for the lens that comes with it if you buy as a kit, but the 28-135mm included in the above link is probably your best bet quality-wise.

That”s all you should need! Time to get shooting Ok, if you want to browse around Canon”s other offerings by all means go ahead. Or if you want to try your hand with a Nikon, look for cameras with similar price points and features as one of the Canons I mention above. You really can”t go wrong.

Artists will tell you that photos taken with a daguerreotype can still be beautiful, so focus less on the camera you buy and more on what you do with it!

That said, a camera of some sort is still a prerequisite for taking pictures, so a discussion of your options is probably justified. First choice: film or digital. As much as some purists might insist otherwise, a modern digital camera give you so much more flexability and so many more learning opportunities that there is very little reason to buy a film camera anymore. If you like the aesthetics of a film camera, then by all means buy one. But as a beginner I would highly recommend digital so that you can instantly review the impact of setting changes, you don”t have to worry about “wasting” film, and there are no film developing variations to confound the camera changes you made intentionally.

Next choice: SLR or point-and-shoot. Personally I would always suggest an SLR – nearly all models now have point and shoot capability, but as you learn and grow you will appreciate the additional flexibility that the SLR provides. If you just want to be able to take snapshots . . . well, then I”m not sure why you”re reading this blog. Go buy a point-and-shoot, and stop reading about photography. The two advantages that point-and-shoots have are 1) compact size (sometimes), and 2) less expensive. Before you argue that there are some really expensive point-and-shoots out there, let me just say that the really expensive models offer similar lens performance to an SLR plus two lenses, which definitely makes them cheaper.

So why buy and SLR afterall? Oldschool photographers will tell you that the field you see in the viewfinds matches what shows up in the final picture better, but this is rarely even a consideration anymore due to the ability to digitally crop. And the difference is usually a 90% field of view on a really cheap model to a 95% field of view on a standard SLRto a 98% field of view on a top of the line camera. Think you can really tell the difference? Take a look at the example below:

field of view differences

You can probably tell that the white area around the images changes, but can you really tell the difference in the field of view? From left to right the images represent 98%, 95% and 90% field of view. By the way, that”s an HDR image taken in the Adirondack Mountains (Avalanche Lake to be precise in case you were interested).

So it”s not field of view . . . what makes SLRs so special? The two biggest advantages are the target audience (serious photographers), and the ability to change lenses. Changing lenses is self explanatory, and I will leave a discussion of lenses for another post. But don”t look at me like I”m crazy when I say target audience is important! The camera manufacturer had *you* in mind when (s)he designed the SLR, which means there is no compromise in accessability of truely powerful functions. In layman”s terms, this means it”s easy to screw up a photo. In photographer”s terms, it”s the difference between capturing a great photo and missing it. Point-and-shoot manufacturers hide the powerful features – the ones that were often the *only* controls on film cameras – buried in layers and layers of menus. You will never manage to dig out the shutter speed control in time to capture a hummingbird hovering or the ferrari tearing up your suburban street. The reason is to prevent people who don”t know what they”re doing from accidentally setting these controls incorrectly. But you”re not one of those people. You want to take *really* good photos, not just better snapshots. Right?

Stay tuned, details on specific SLRs is coming tomorrow . . . or maybe later today