Choosing a DSLR

[I Vtec, do you?]

I want to get a new camera, but I'm not sure where to start. I really have no idea what are good cameras and what aren't, but I keep seeing how good DSLR(?) cameras are, so I suppose that's a good one to go for.

I'm not a huge picture taker, but I do enjoy taking them and I don't like the crap I have now. Is it possible get a decent camera with basic lenses and whatnot for ~$500? I'm talking everything I need to take a picture. I don't want to be piecing stuff together since I don't know what to pic and all that. Ideas?

[Izzy]

Canon XTs and Nikon D40's are sub-500 with a kit lens that should get you started off nicely. You'd need to buy a memory card, but that's about it.

Then again, with shipping, it's at slightly over $500. But the XT and D40 are great cameras to start off with. Provided you know that a dSLR is a money sink because of lenses and other equipment that you may feel you need down the road.

[I Vtec, do you?]

If you had to choose, which would you pick between the Canon and Nikon?

[e60.deluxe]

well first off, the lens is most important than the camera. if your serious i would look into finding which lens system suits you better. youll find good stuff in both companies, but they do differ. Canon has some nicer telephoto, and Nikon the wide angle. i think right now with Nikons excellent all round lens the 18-200 VR although pricey, is good for people who arent deadly serious and are not willing to pack 3 lenses with them every where they go.

on the other hand, Canon has more mid-lower end stuff than Nikon. what i mean is, if you want a nice wide angle, like a 17-35 or 40, the Nikon version is like $1300 while canon has a $7 or $800 version. sure the Nikon is better, but sometimes you just dont need that expensive of a lens. Nikon tends to make good bargain lenses like the above mentioned 18-200, as well as the Kit 18-55 is fantastic, but then you kind of jump to really high end. however, you can just buy a third party, like a Tokina or something. thats always an option.

out of the D40 and Rebel XT, based solely on the camera itself and not lenses, the D40 anyday. with the Kit lens, (both come with 18-55) the D40 still.

[I Vtec, do you?]

Ah thanks for that, that helps. I'm not into picture taking enough that I want to be lugging around several lenses each time. 1, maybe two, along with the camera and tripod. I played around with a D80 at best buy (at 2+ thousand, obviously I'd never get that) and it had so many complicated features on it. I don't want anything overwhelming, just something that takes good pictures that has good features with a good price. I"ll look into the D40, though, I'm seeing the D40x for around $600 on ebay.

[Exeon]

i'd ask brdhouse, he has a canon and some lens i believe, his pictures are amazing

Minnesota 8th Gen Summer Meet

Twin cities, MN -- November meet

[e60.deluxe]

if you buy the D40 for lets say $500-$600 and take the kit lens. then save up about another $750-$800 and get this baby, youll be set and wont need another lens unless you want to get serious:

Amazon.com: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens: Camera & Photo

[I Vtec, do you?]

Do you think it's worth getting the D40x over the D40?

[e60.deluxe]

not at all. you get a couple more megapixels, but its not really important; the biggest impact youll see from it is that you get less pictures per GB. the D40 actually has a better flash sync than the D40x (not important unless your a pro really, even then its iffy)
and the D40x is a tiny bit faster in its continuous shots. (holding down the shutter and shooting as fast as the camera can go)

[I Vtec, do you?]

Damnit I'm such a newb lol, having a higher MP camera won't make much of a difference in the shots?

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by I Vtec, do you?

Damnit I'm such a newb lol, having a higher MP camera won't make much of a difference in the shots?

No, because the image sensor is the same size. More megapixels = more crop area if you like cropping down your pictures. But in all, that same sensor will just increase noise per set area with more megapixels.

Man, that Nikon 18-200 seems like a BARGAIN. Aperture doesn't close up much, even with that wide range, and you get as close to wide without breaking the bank.

In the end, I chose Canon because I'm familiar with the Canon body, ergonomics, and overall layout.

On IQ and such, I'd probably go with the D40 over the XT.

[I Vtec, do you?]

Ok well that just confuses the crap out of me now. I always equated higher MP = sharper picture. I'll look into the D40 then, thanks guys. Probably won't be buying one of those $700 lenses for a while though ahha

[Izzy]

There's *some* truth to that, because you generally turn that large picture into a smaller picture if you want to show it on the web. Those details get squeezed in, and the picture looks better.

Here's an article on it:
The Megapixel Myth

[shadedream]

The difference between Canon and Nikon really just comes down to preference most of the time. I love Nikons, but I know a ton of people who live by Canon.

Another thought you may consider, if you dont really plan on investing in multiple lenses for the thing, why not consider a slightly cheaper non-swappable lense camera like this one:

Nikon | Imaging Products | COOLPIX P80

I may be missing some details, but as far as digital goes, most of the traditional benefits of an SLR camera are basically gone other than the swappable lenses. It really comes down to the quality of the optics and CCD of the camera that make the biggest impact on the photo. If you're not going to use different lenses or many of the more advanced and manual functionality of the more expensive DSLRs, cameras like the one I linked above might be a better hobby option. Just a thought :)

[e60.deluxe]

Originally Posted by shadedream

Another thought you may consider, if you dont really plan on investing in multiple lenses for the thing, why not consider a slightly cheaper non-swappable lense camera like this one:

Nikon | Imaging Products | COOLPIX P80

I may be missing some details, but as far as digital goes, most of the traditional benefits of an SLR camera are basically gone other than the swappable lenses. It really comes down to the quality of the optics and CCD of the camera that make the biggest impact on the photo. If you're not going to use different lenses or many of the more advanced and manual functionality of the more expensive DSLRs, cameras like the one I linked above might be a better hobby option. Just a thought :)

while additional lenses is a BIG advantage, even without it, a D40 with an 18-55 and then the $200 55-200 will run circles around even the most expensive P+S cameras, even those $1100 Leicas. and it comes down to the sensor and the internal computer which is too small and too slow.

[SiNISTER SiNDY]

I know all of the talk in this thread has been SLR based, but honestly if you're learning, may I suggest what I did.... buy the Canon G9 or Canon S5-IS... or any other comparable model. They have the features of an SLR, but no lenses, they are a very good learning experience.

[e60.deluxe]

P+S cameras dont help you learn at all. the D40 and Rebel XT have practically all the dummy modes that P+S cameras have. there are only a few true advantages to them:

-start out cheaper, but dont spend more than $250 if your aiming to save money.
-smaller, lighter. makes a decent pocket camera.
-camcorder feature

thats basically it. everything else can be worked around, or isnt really important.

however, they inhibit learning in a few ways:
-controls are non existant in cheaper models or are hidden deep in menus. the cameras basically force you to use dummy modes by means of reducing frustration.
-electronic viewfinders. these are crap. and they inhibit proper framing and timing. even though this is the thing that people like about P+S's MOST, its really the worst thing as far as learning

[shadedream]

Originally Posted by SiNISTER SiNDY

I know all of the talk in this thread has been SLR based, but honestly if you're learning, may I suggest what I did.... buy the Canon G9 or Canon S5-IS... or any other comparable model. They have the features of an SLR, but no lenses, they are a very good learning experience.

Thats's basically what I was suggesting. I higher end camera like the Canon or Nikon I suggested above is going to be more limited by the ability of the user than the hardware in the camera for someone newer to photography or learning. Hell most people think I shot with a DSLR in college because I retouched my photos a bit with photoshop and knew a little bit about what I was doing. I was using a 2mp Canon Powershot A40...

[SiNISTER SiNDY]

Originally Posted by shadedream

Thats's basically what I was suggesting. I higher end camera like the Canon or Nikon I suggested above is going to be more limited by the ability of the user than the hardware in the camera for someone newer to photography or learning. Hell most people think I shot with a DSLR in college because I retouched my photos a bit with photoshop and knew a little bit about what I was doing. I was using a 2mp Canon Powershot A40...

Nice, I totally agree! The a40 is what my mother used to have.

[shadedream]

I still have mine. I prefer SLRs but didnt have the money for a digital one back then (they were damn expensive if I remember right). Still have (and occasionally use) my Nikon N65 35mm too :) 35-80mm and a... 70-200mm on that one.