| Author | Message | ||
     Xl1200r |
I'm thinking I want a better camera, Digital SLR. I know we have a ton of avid photographers on here. So let's here it. Only constraint is I would like to be under $500, used doesn't bother me. I don't care about video. I don't need a ton of features - I'm coming off of using point-n-shoots... On my last trip I just always felt like my camera could do more for some reason (I'm using a Panasonic TZ3 right now - wide angle, 10x optical zoom). | ||
| Steveford |
Nikon D50 is a good one and you should be able to get a used one for around that price. | ||
| Rah7777777 |
I just bought my wife a nikon D3000 for her birthday this weekend. It was $499 and I added the 4 year super warranty for another $130, then taxes and BS. (bought at best buy) She's been hinting at one for a while now, we will see how much she likes it tomorrow when she gets it. | ||
| Brijasher |
http://dpreview.com/ First and last place I head to research digital cameras. Very thorough and helpful. | ||
| Delta_one |
if you want total control do NOT get an "advanced camera" my dad has one and he hates that he can not manual focus you will inevetably come to the Nikon vs Canon argument and all I can say is try both and see what feels better to you. go to a dedicated camera shop and play with the menus and see what one seems more intuitive to you. ask lots of questions and when you have them all answered to your satisfaction go home, mull it over for a day or so and let it all sink in. if after that you have more questions ask them, when you are satisfied patron the camera shop that helped you out, they will be a valuable resource as you continue to own your camera. Nikon and Canon they are both great manufacturers and I would recommend sticking with one or the other, especially if you want to farkle it up later due to the fact that availability of accessories and third party lenses for these two brands surpasses the others. (sony and some others may not be far behind but support at most camera shops is not as great because they are less familiar with them) | ||
| Ourdee |
Nikon vs. Canon and don't forget the third choice Pentax kx. I was looking at the big 2 when a camera guy let me look at the kx. The real thing to do is see which one fits your hands. Kx had what I wanted. | ||
| Court |
Like oils . . . there really aren't any "bad" ones . . . it's a pretty well developed technology. One thing that Mike and I like about Nikon is that New York City, home to the fashion modeling industry and PR firms, is a "Nikon City" and we can get any parts, accessories or repairs about 24/7. Nice to be able to walk into Nikon's HQ and wait while the camera is serviced. I once had a tripod tip over and the camera landed right on the lens. Went to Photo-Tech (East 13th) and had it rebuilt in an hour. I'm using the D700 I bought from Mike and it's amazing . . . I have a lot of catching up to do! Like bikes, guitars and cars . . half the fun is looking and you'll learn a great deal. I really enjoy reading Ken Rockwell. www.kenrockwell.com Enjoy ! | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
I have been a Canon Guy since the digital thing started. Before that, I was Nikon since the sixties. I think the best buy right now might be the previous version of the Canon Rebel, doesn't really matter which one. Lots of people just upgrade as soon as the new one comes out, which is frequently, so there are a lot of used cameras out there that are almost like new. Anything over 8 megapixels is fine. I am also a big fan of the Canon G11. I have shown 20x30" landscapes taken with this camera at local art galleries. I prefer a small camera that I have with me, to a big one that I left back at the studio!  just my .02¢ www.photomorse.com | ||
| Xl1200r |
I just bought my wife a nikon D3000 for her birthday this weekend. This one caught my eye as well. I know people have been talking up the D40 on here before, but at 6.2 MP, it seems rather limited. The D3000 is 10.2 (or thereabouts). This whole started when my neighbor just got a D5000 and the shots look incredible, but I don't know if the "live view" is worth the extra cost. Are there certain features I should be on the lookout for? There are so many out-of-production models now it's hard to keep them straight. Can I assume that everything is pretty much going to have auto focus? What about lenses? What kind of "zoom" is an 18-55mm lens? What about a 55-200mm? I really enjoy taking telephoto macro shots with a wide angle lens, but obviously I don't want to back myself into a corner with something that specialized (kind of the boat I'm in right now with my TZ3 - I love the wide angle most of the time, but sometimes wish I didn't have it). Jon, my dad has a Rebel, though it's a 35mm film jobber. He's had it for at least 15 years at this point and as far as I know is holding up great. | ||
| Dynasport |
There are better photographers on here than me, but I do really enjoy photography. It is my second hobby after motorcycles. So, I will give you my opinion. I use an OLD Canon D-SLR and am very happy with it. I am just an amateur, but I have done a little bit of sports photography, a wedding or two, some engagement photos, and things of that sort. With a bit of knowledge and understanding, most any of the cameras on the market can do a fine job. The newer ones handle high ISOs better than the older cameras, but that is only an issue if you take many photos in low light situations without a flash. If you get caught up in photography you will see that you can spend as much as your budget will allow on gear and still want more. Especially lenses. As far as the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses go, they are usually the cheapest consumer grade lenses available that are made to be sold inexpensively, often as a kit with the camera, to get the camera in your hands and able to take pictures. Some of them are not bad at all, but they do come with limitations. They generally are not fast lenses (how much light the lens can let in) so they are not suitable for low light photography of moving objects nor are they good at blurring the background, which is an effect many people like. There is certainly more to be said than I can put in a post here, and besides many people may disagree on specific recommendations, but here is mine anyway. I like Canon. I am familiar with them and have used them for a long time. If you can find a 40D used for a good price, I can highly recommend it. I am not as big a fan of the Rebel line as I don't like the handling of them nearly as much and they feel much cheaper to me. Having said that, the quality of photos from the Rebel cameras is just as good. Their autofocus system is not as good for action photos and they can't take as many photos in a burst, but if those areas aren't important to you, they are just as capable a camera. If it comes with a kit lens, all the better. Use it until you find things you want to take photos of that it won't do for whatever reason. Then it is time to buy a new lens. Enjoy. | ||
| Ourdee |
Here is a little of what I've been looking at lately and it is good info. Just search youtube for "DSLR", and watch the bald guy's flics.; Next thing to contemplate seeing how you think you only want a DSLR, is that there are some EVFs out there with smaller bodies & lenses, that are quite capable cameras. If you use your DSLR in live veiw the auto focus will probably not be any faster than the auto focus on an EVF. The DSLR will work a little better in low light conditions. In case you were wondering, EVF is Electronic View Finder. | ||
| Greg_e |
Olympus PEN seems interesting, but I haven't really looked at it enough to know if it is worth having. Sony Alpha (Minolta Maxxum) has some nice things too, my old film cameras were Maxxums and I did really like them. Fuji makes some nice SLRs and the Panasonic Lumix with the hacked firmware to get higher bit rate video is becoming a favorite for some people (might be out of your range though). | ||
| Xl1200r |
Well, as some have guessed, I've read reviews and come down to the Nikon D3000 or the Canon Rebel XS. The only real big thing the Canon has over the Nikon is Live View, but I think overall I like the Nikon better. | ||
| Greg_e |
They are both fine systems, check out some lenses and let the other goodies be your guide. | ||
| Slowride |
I was in Target the other day and they had the Canon Rebel Ti1 on sale with kit glass for $600. An outstanding price to get into a good quality camera. 15.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor, DIGIC 4 Image Processor, a 3.0-inch Clear View LCD with anti-reflective and scratch-resistant coating, compatibility with the EOS System of lenses and flashes. T1i adds Full HD video capture at resolutions up to 1920x1080 That being said, I am a Nikon junkie... | ||
| Xl1200r |
I can get a Nikon D3000, which is what I'm leaning towards, for $412 with the kit 18-55mm VR lens (I have a $75 gift certificate for Amazon.com that's included in that price). However, now I'm a bit confused... Obviously on a D-SLR you can swap lenses. Are there any other advantages to these compared to a high-end compact like the Canon Powershot SX20? 12 MP, 20x optical zoom and about $100 less... After watching a review on one, I'm not sure I NEED an SLR... | ||
| Xl1200r |
Ok, nevermind - the D-SLR's do MUCH better in higher sensitivity which is important to me as I really enjoy low-light photography. So now my questions is on lenses... Do I go with an 18-55? 55-200? One of each? Or something that covers both? Are teleconvertors a good option for the non-professional? | ||
| Slowride |
12-24 Tokina F4 17-70 Sigma 2.8 55-200vr Nikkor 3.5-5.6 Those are my suggestions.... or you can just buy one (18-200VRII Nikkor) | ||
| Xl1200r |
Nikon D3000 on the way with the 18-55mm VR kit lens to get me started. Slow - I've been reading lens reviews and I think the 18-200mm VR Nikkor is going to be the next lens I buy, and likely the only one I'll ever use 99.9% of the time. I'm really excited to have a camera that "clicks: becuase something is happening and not becuase a speaker is reproducing the sound. | ||
| Wbrisett |
I finally bite the bullet last year and bought a digital SLR. I have a very nice Nikon SLR, but decided that since almost none of my older lenses were of any real use on a DSLR, I was free to choose whatever brand I wanted. I used both friends and DPReview to gather information. In the end, I found a great deal on the Sony's A700 (they were cleaning out the channel to get the next version into the channel). Sony is really Minolta's stuff, but Sony bought them out. As Court mentioned, there really isn't a bad one in the bunch. Some of the non-Nikon/Canon options you may want to consider is Olympus, Pentax, and Sony. All of them have their own weaknesses and strengths. Wayne | ||
| Court |
>>>55-200vr Nikkor 3.5-5.6 I've got a 55-200vr Nikkor 4.0-5.6 I bought and never used. If anyone has any interest I'd sell it for $125.00. | ||
| Slowride |
>>>I've got a 55-200vr Nikkor 4.0-5.6<<< Thanks for the subtle correction. Mine is also a 4.0-5.6. I'm not sure they made it in 3.5. | ||
| Dynasport |
Of you want to take low light photos of moving objects, you may find that neither the kit lens nor the 18-200vr are fast enough (let enough light in) unless you use a flash, which has it's own drawbacks. Then again, the newer cameras handle high ISOs better than mine, so maybe they will be fine. I have personally become addicted to fast glass. | ||
| Wbrisett |
I have personally become addicted to fast glass. The only problem with that is $$$! Most fast lenses cost more than the camera bodies themselves and more than the OP wanted to spend. Wayne | ||
| Rkc00 |
I have personally become addicted to fast glass. Me to: Nikon 85mm f1.4 Nikon 50mm f1,8 Nikon 14-24 f2.8 Nikon 24-70 f2.8 Nikon 70-200 VR2 f2.8 Nikon 300mm f2.8 Nikon 600mm f4.0 | ||
| Court |
Nikon 50mm f1.4 Nikon 24-95 F.28-4.0 Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 | ||
| Court |
>>>>Thanks for the subtle correction. Mine is also a 4.0-5.6. I'm not sure they made it in 3.5. Not sure . . . I just happened to have it sitting here on my desk as I was reading that. I bought it about the time I cooked the Nikon D100 and only used the lens once. It's an inexpensive and slow lens but it has great "one size fits all" flexibility as a walking around lens. In addition . . it doesn't look like you're carrying a shoulder fired mortar and it reaches out very nicely. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Yes, I know I'll be giving up some low-light performance, but I'm also coming off of a compact super-zoom that had a 35mm equivalent of a 28-280mm range and I really enjoy using that feature - back to back telephoto and wide-angle shots - so swapping lenses around on the fly just isn't a favorable option for me. I do a fiar bit of nighttime photography where a fast lens would be preferable, but I have to keep in mind that while the lenses I'm considering are by no means fast, the lens I have on my current camera is a 28-280mm f3.3-11. Yes, eleven. So I'm a good bit faster than where I'm starting from (and that actually explains a lot of my frustrations with the current camera). I also chose the Nikon over the Canon or Sony because, while it's not as good as a nicer dslr, it was much less noisy than the other two at higher ISOs - this was pretty much the deciding factor for me. It's supposed to show up today - I'm not going to get any work done. | ||
| Delta_one |
if you want a low budget fast lens the nikon 35mm 1.8 is only 200 bucks new, I may be selling mine and going wider. very soon I may be getting the 50mm 1.4 but I haven't decided yet if it is the focal length I want, I use 50mm focal length a lot at in home getting pictures of my kids but not sure if Ill use it elsewhere. this week I will be picking up the 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR II for some big zoom, very exited about it. | ||
| Delta_one |
my 18-105 kit lens will be out the door too as soon as I can find a decent replacement or two that replace the range with a moderate overlap plastic mounts are not for me |
