need advice on new camera

I got the camera bug when I was young and learned everything I know about photography with a 35mm SLR Canon AE-1, but that was many years ago.  About 5 years ago I bought my first digital camera - a Canon Power Shot G9.  That was my first introduction to digital photography and I learned a lot from that little camera because it has many of the same features of larger cameras.  Now I've got the bug again and want to upgrade. 

The camera I'm getting ready to order is a new Canon Rebel t4i body only.  The lens I'm interested in is the Canon EF-S IS 18-135mm.  I'd rather buy camera and lens individually rather than buying the bundle packages that are out there.  Any opinions on the camera, lens, and my decision to buy individually would be appreciated.  Also, what memory card should I get?  Shoud I get a 32 GB memory card?  Does it need to be a high speed memory card?  There is a huge difference in price on these cards.   

Good choice for a camera. You didn't say if you have some Canon lenses from your 35mm days--those lenses should work on the new one. (auto aperture, autofocus & shake control won't) I still use a 100mm macro that's 20+ years old on my DSLR Pentax (Pentax has shake control in the body so it works with any lens.)
Yes, with 18MP files and 5 fps you should use a big, fast card especially if you are going to shoot RAW--that doesn't mean naked .
BTW, B & H Camera has a 'kit' with 18-135 for $999. More searching may find you a better deal.
Good luck, Harry

So what is your reason for upgrading? The Rebel is not going to have many features that the G9 doesn't have except the ability to change lenses. Carrying lenses with you and changing lenses is a royal pain. The G9 goes from 35mm to 210mm so unless you want to shoot little birds far away you already have a great lens. The G9 gets great reviews and it is a great camera. You aren't going to notice any difference in image quality with the Rebel or any other DSLR unless you plan on printing billboards.

The vast majority of people who own DSLRs would have been better off saving their money and buying an advanced P&S like the G9 or a bridge camera. Buying a more expensive camera will not make you a better photographer. So tell me, what is your reasons for wanting to upgrade?

The vast majority of people who own DSLRs would have been better off saving their money and buying an advanced P&S like the G9 or a bridge camera.

Click to expand...

It took me only a few weeks after buying my DSLR to buy a bridge camera. The DSLR has been out of the closet maybe once or twice since then.

With todays digital cameras, you really can't go wrong. They all do a good job.

While point and shoots would serve most people, heck even camera phones will do for most, you do loose the flexibility of a DSLR. I have a older P&S that is a wonderful vacation camera if we are not expecting to be birding or whaling. It even does a pretty decent job at macro. Anything that requires telephoto, ultra wide or extreme macro means that I will use my pro set up and lenses.
With the DSLR I can use older manual lenses like Harry mentioned. My favorites are a really old OM 20mm F2 that will shoot 16x life and a 1000mm mirror lens.
The downside is size and weight. We carried 25 lb back packs up and down the pyramids in Mexico because they were likely to be stolen if left in a car. Those ruins are extremely steep and a few times I had to catch myself because the weight was pulling me backwards and that's a fall you don't want to take.
What  ever set up you get, take the time to really read the manual and understand the functions of the camera. Spend some time at sites like dpreview and you'll find you can pretty much learn much about basic photography and there if you have a question about the model you chose, there will be others that use it too. Other than that, the best advise is to start shooting and just keep going.
I look forward to your photos.

With the advent of the newest long length point and shoots like the Canon or Nikon coolpix P510 it is blast becoming unecessary to carry a bunch of lenses around unless your a hard core or professional photographer.

donn said:

With the advent of the newest long length point and shoots like the Canon or Nikon coolpix P510 it is blast becoming unecessary to carry a bunch of lenses around unless your a hard core or professional photographer.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

SeilerBird said:

So what is your reason for upgrading? The Rebel is not going to have many features that the G9 doesn't have except the ability to change lenses. Carrying lenses with you and changing lenses is a royal pain. The G9 goes from 35mm to 210mm so unless you want to shoot little birds far away you already have a great lens. The G9 gets great reviews and it is a great camera. You aren't going to notice any difference in image quality with the Rebel or any other DSLR unless you plan on printing billboards.

The vast majority of people who own DSLRs would have been better off saving their money and buying an advanced P&S like the G9 or a bridge camera. Buying a more expensive camera will not make you a better photographer. So tell me, what is your reasons for wanting to upgrade?

Click to expand...

I see where you're going here, so let me ask a few questions that will help me understand digital photography better.  My G9 is 12.1MP.  The Canon Rebel is 18MP.  Can you help me understand how the quality of my G9 images will be the same quality as a 18MP camera?  Also, what about lens quality?  My G9 has a pretty good lens but wouldn't the lens I mentioned in my OP give better quality images?

Keeper said:

I see where you're going here, so let me ask a few questions that will help me understand digital photography better.  My G9 is 12.1MP.  The Canon Rebel is 18MP.  Can you help me understand how the quality of my G9 images will be the same quality as a 18MP camera?  Also, what about lens quality?  My G9 has a pretty good lens but wouldn't the lens I mentioned in my OP give better quality images?

Click to expand...

The number of megapixels has absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Here is why. If you have a really good modern monitor then it has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels. Do the math and it turns out your monitor has a resolution of 2 megapixels. So therefore if you display a full screen 18 megapixel image you must throw out 16 megapixels to do so. If you display a 12 megapixel image you throw away 10 megapixels.

As far as the lens goes there really hasn't been much improvement in lens quality in the last 80 years. Look at any Ansel Adams photo from the 30s. Now you are not going to find any image taken today with any camera that will have better image quality. Yes lenses have improved in the last 80 years but the improvements have been in making the lenses lighter, cheaper, longer zooms, less vignetting, less chromatic aberration, less lens flare and built in image stabilization.

Let me demonstrate both points very dramatically. Here is an album of photos I took 7 years ago with a $400, 8 megapixel Panasonic Lumix FX-30. Go ahead and push the Slideshow button and then F11 to look at the image full screens.

https://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/2006?authuser=0&feat=directlink

The camera companies keep adding megapixels to make you think your camera is obsolete. If you want to take better photos then take a photography course at your local community college or start reading about how to take better photos online. The 12 inches behind the camera is light years more important than the camera you are using. If Ansel Adams were alive today and you gave him a P&S his photos would be a whole lot better than any amateur with a $10,000 camera and lens. It is natural to think that a more expensive camera takes much better photos, but they do not. DLSRs can be used in a wider range of conditions and have more options but 99% of the amateurs today won't need or won't use those options. In fact a recent unscientific survey discovered that something like 80% of all DSLR users used the camera on Auto 95% of the time.

Tom is right, years ago when Digital first came out, MP was a big issue. The images were so small that you couldn't crop or print at a decent size because there wasn't enough info to do it. My first digital took 1.3 MP images and that was good for a 4x6 but anything larger just looked bad.
Once the 5 MP sensors came out, you could print larger, 8x 10 easily. Still you couldn't crop all that much without degrading the image. With todays cameras running 12 MP and more, there is a ton of info for cropping and printing huge prints even though most users will never print larger than a 8 x 10.

I don't know a lot about other brands but I do know the kit lenses that came with my first DSLR were no match for the Pro-sumer point and shoot I mentioned above. The Pro-sumer class was for people that wanted the high quality of image from a DSLR but didn't want to pay the price, so the glass was outstanding. The equivalent lens on DSLR was mid grade and cost $500, while the camera was only $800 to start with.

When I got my first DSLR I was so disappointed with it. Shooting side by side with the point and shoot, it was not faring well. The thing is that it was a entry level DSLR with kit lenses and the point and shoot was the best of its class with a high grade lens and pro level proccessing. It wasn't until I bought a $800 lens for the DSLR that I saw the same quality in images. The advantage the DSLR had was faster focusing, higher ISO and a bigger buffer so I could take more shots at once.
So it is a balance of your needs really. My professional grade DSLR has 12 MP and I'll never be able to print higher than what its resolution will allow. I can crop 100% and still have a sharp image.  I have only one pro level lens in the bag because they start at $2000 and go up to $6500. They are stunning lenses with f 2 apertures but they are big and heavy.


So yes you might be better off with a higher quality point and shoot than with a entry level DSLR. I still use my point and shoot when its abilities will fill the need. I'd rather carry it around than the big set up with the bag of lenses that go with it.

JiminDenver said:

When I got my first DSLR I was so disappointed with it. Shooting side by side with the point and shoot, it was not faring well.

Click to expand...

This is a very common problem. I spend a lot of time on a camera forum and several times a month someone starts a thread complaining that their brand new DSLR was giving them lousy results. DSLR lenses look impressive because they are so large, so they must be better, right? No, they are larger because a DSLR uses a much bigger sensor therefore it takes more glass. A larger lens is much harder to build without faults and much more expensive. A high level P&S like the G9 has really good glass, much better than the 18-135 you are looking at.

I have a Tamrom 200-500mm lens I use for birds and nature. It cost $750. Here is a shot I took hand held with this lens. The lens is wide open at f/6.3, which is the softest aperture that lens has, and it was taken at 500mm, which is the softest focal length, and it is at 400 ISO which is not the sharpest ISO. The camera was a Sony a330, which is a 10 megapixel camera. It is a heavy crop so it is probably a 5 megapixel image. When you look at it press the Full Screen button in the upper left and then push the F11 button on your computer to see the image full screen. Check out the incredible detail in the wings. And remember that is a 5 megapixel image you are looking at. Just doesn't get any better than that.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/yy8zIyDX7Zm3eDYA6OBatNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

As every one is saying, Unless you are a pro and printing huge prints, any thing over 10 MP is pretty much wasted. I often heavily crop 18 MP images and print them 16x 20 or larger on a large format printer. But my wife is a pro and sells prints.

I'm glad I started this thread before buying the equipment mentioned in the OP.  You all just saved me lots of $$$.  I decided to upgrade my G9 by getting a speedlite and a lens adapter which will enable me to add a polarizer.  I hadn't realized that my Canon G9 was considered a top rated bridge camera.  There is also a wide-converter and a tele-converter available, but I don't know how they work and if image quality would be lost using converters - advise on these converters would be appreciated.

I was asked early in the thread why I wanted to upgrade.  The reason why is that I've been shooting a lot and my photos are getting better and better.  I thought I'd move up from someone who just shoots vacation photos to someone a little more serious about photography.   

One bridge I would recommend is the Canon SX50.  SX40 if on a sale, the 50 replaced it this year.  I have a friend that shoots Nokon and is a pro, but she also carries the little Canon.  Effective zoom of 800mm, and lots of features built in.  Under $500.

Then again, the cool factor of a body and long lens....

I occasionally use a wide angle converter on my old Sony "bridge" camera (an H1) and it works adequately. The main problem is barrel distortion, but that's an issue with any wide angle lens and not really related to it being a converter.  It's probably worse on a converter than an alternate wide angle lens, though.  I also see some purple fringing at times, but it's a really cheap lens. I just wasn't sure if I wanted to invest  bigger bucks in something I had such a limited need for.  I actually bought it to take pictures of the interior of my new (at the time) coach to send to some friends, so high quality wasn't really a concern anyway. If you have a real need for wide angle shooting, you would undoubtedly be better off with an alternate wide angle lens, but if you just need a bit wider view once in awhile, the converter should work ok for you.

Lenses that attach to the front of an existing lens will always degrade the image quite a bit. If you have very limited use for those lenses, like Gary, then they are a bargain. Otherwise they are not worth the money.

Yes, the Canon G series is one of the best bridge cameras out there. It was not designed for the average everyday shooter. It was designed as a backup or second camera for the professionals and advanced amateurs. This is why it includes the ability to shoot RAW, which is a feature only pros and advanced amateurs use. And that is why the lens is so high quality.

The best way to improve your photography is not with more gear, but more knowledge. Start with the rules of composition:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6426089447/compositional-rules

But remember the First rule of photography is; there are no rules. The Second rule of photography is; the rule of Thirds. The Third rule of photography is; if the the Second rule does not apply, deffer to the First rule.

The best upgrade to your photography is to the gear behind the eye piece (you). The best time to upgrade your gear is when your current gear isn't meeting your needs.
The reason we upgraded from the P&S was because we got into shooting wildlife and the 8080 was limited to 100mm and low ISOs. My film gear went up to 400mm and I wanted that ability in digital. All in all it was a very expensive upgrade in the end because there is always more to buy. Luckily for us, Olympus is getting out of the DSLR lines and going to mirrorless and there will be no more lenses or bodies coming out because as it is my camera bag is worth more than our RV and Honey has a matching set.
Like camping you can learn a enormous amount about photography and the gear from forums and the net. For about 6 years I was on DPreview and a few other forums daily. I don't show the work I'm paid for but still we birded, shot macro and traveled to far away places just to have the ability to shoot there. Even after shooting for 25 years, I learned a lot off of those forums and there is still more out there.
I still visit and in the summer time I run a thread on the Oly DSLR forum called the weekly close up. It's a macro thread that is open to any brand gear. We post our images and discuss them, gear and technique. I can tell you that point and shoots with their smaller sensors and increased depth of field make excellent macro shooters. Here is one of my shots with a really old film macro lens. It's the face of a jumping spider that in total is 3/8s of a inch legs and all.

Keeper,

My first DSLR was the original Canon Digital Rebel with 6mpx. I have a photo I took in Moab that I enlarged to about 13X22. It is perfectly focused and no sign of degradation in the photo. I think it took photos as well as my Canon 40D, and better than my 7D!!

You have chosen a very good camera, I think if price is the concern here 8 GB memory card will be sufficient for your camera no need to purchase high speed memory card.

The best camera to buy is one you will use alot. Make sure you are comfortable with it and carry it often.
Point & Shoot, Bridge or DSLR or Hybrid doesn't matter if you don't use it. The main advantage of digital is the fact there is no film or processing costs so shoot a bunch and you will get good pictures.

I think you have made a great choice, now go take a picture!!

Jim