Good starter Digital SLR?

[Megan]

I'm a new amateur looking to get my first digital slr. I've been playing with a point and shoot for a few years and am now wanting to get more serious about my photography hobby and obviously need an slr.

So I'm looking for recommendations for a good camera to get started. I will be taking both indoor and outdoor shots, probably a fair amount of action shots as well. I don't think I'll be making many large prints so that isn't a concern.

[Marko]

Hi Megan and welcome!

Key question here - What is your budget and are you willing to buy used?

Thanks,

Marko

[tegan]

Also be aware that the kit lens that comes with a new camera might be limited in both functionality and quality to meet your purposes. This may mean adding the cost of a new lens or two to the projected total cost.

Tegan

[Megan]

Would be looking at spending between 1000-1200, used is fine.

[Marko]

I think that's a nice budget and you'll have no problem finding a very good camera. Tegan is right, normally the lens that comes with the camera is, well, crappy.

If you already have lenses for a particular camera, then you probably want to see if those lenses will work on the camera that you buy and buy that brand. If you are starting from scratch I would see if I could get a Canon 20D or Canon 30D used. I can vouch for the 30D since I own it and the 20D is very similar.

The Nikon D-40 has also gotten good reviews and would be a good camera to start with to get the feel of an SLR. What I would AVOID doing is spending too much money to get bells and whistles at this point.

Hope that helps!

Marko

[Megan]

Thanks, that does help. If I buy a Canon, what would be a good lens to start with?

[arbie]

Thanks, that does help. If I buy a Canon, what would be a good lens to start with?

A good starter lens to go with either the 20D or 30D is the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS. It's got a big zoom range and image stabilization, so it's great for all situations. The image quality is reasonable for the price: at $600 it won't break the bank.

When you get around to looking at prices, I suggest checking out http://www.photoprice.ca. It's a very useful price comparison website for Canadians.

[Marko]

Hey that's an interesting price comparison site arbie, Thanks!

The lens I started with is the Tamron AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

It's a wicked good lens that I believe cost me about 400 dollars US. I still use it often.

Hope that helps!

Marko

[Lovin]

The Nikon D-40 has also gotten good reviews and would be a good camera to start with to get the feel of an SLR.


So Nikon D40 is still a good one?

Is it true, that Nikon cameras come with good lens comparing with Canon, that you have to buy, because what comes with the body are crappy ?
One of my friends told me that, for Nikon you don't have to buy new ones, only if you need also different lens(depends on each person what they need - but in generally Nikon lens that comes with the body are ok).
I was thinking that for me, Nikon D40 is good and I can't find it at a good price.
D80 is too science fiction for me now :)

[tegan]

So Nikon D40 is still a good one?

Is it true, that Nikon cameras come with good lens comparing with Canon, that you have to buy, because what comes with the body are crappy ? :)

Yes according to the mags that test such things, Canon provides the worst quality kit lenses with the camera, despite the fact that they make excellent high quality lenses. Nikon, Sony and the others provide better quality kit lenses.

So, if you are buying Canon, buy body only, and then choose the lens you want rather than taking the one that comes with the camera.

Tegan

[Lovin]

I'll go for Nikon D40.

[tegan]

Well, Marko and I take different points of view. He says: Don't buy more than what you need at the present time and upgrade later if you need to. (That is paraphrasing.) He is not necessarily wrong. It is more a matter of approach. He saves money by not buying features he may not use.

I tend to go with: Buy more than what you need, so that you will not have to upgrade so quickly. I save money by not upgrading quite as fast.

Most consumer DSLRs are at the 10 megapixel level and will be at 12 megapixels and higher before the end of the year. Impossible to keep up, but nevertheless I would not recommend that anyone purchase a DSLR at under 10 megapixels.

Just my view.

Tegan

[Lovin]

Both of you are right.
Now, Nikon D40 is not a nexpensive one, and also not a professional one.
There is a D40 with 10 megapixels, and is not so expensive. For me expensive goes from $1000-1200 and up.
Now I have to check if D40 have auto-focus, not that I want to rely on autofocus, but for start it will help me.
Anyway I want a Nikon.

Thanks for the advice Tegan.

[tegan]

Both of you are right.
Now, Nikon D40 is not a nexpensive one, and also not a professional one.
There is a D40 with 10 megapixels, and is not so expensive. For me expensive goes from $1000-1200 and up.
Now I have to check if D40 have auto-focus, not that I want to rely on autofocus, but for start it will help me.
Anyway I want a Nikon.

Thanks for the advice Tegan.

All digital cameras have autofocus but in low lighting conditions it is often necessary to focus manually.

Tegan

[Marko]

Well, Marko and I take different points of view. He says: Don't buy more than what you need at the present time and upgrade later if you need to. (That is paraphrasing.) He is not necessarily wrong. It is more a matter of approach. He saves money by not buying features he may not use.

I tend to go with: Buy more than what you need, so that you will not have to upgrade so quickly. I save money by not upgrading quite as fast.

Most consumer DSLRs are at the 10 megapixel level and will be at 12 megapixels and higher before the end of the year. Impossible to keep up, but nevertheless I would not recommend that anyone purchase a DSLR at under 10 megapixels.

Just my view.

Tegan

Just to explain the reason for my reasoning... is that MOST people get into photography not as a lifetime hobby but rather as a temporary hobby. It's very similar to a short lived new year's resolution to get to the gym. People get all lit up about photography and then 3 months later, their desire wanes. So in good conscience I can't advise most people to go spend thousands on their first camera.

On another level, for those people that DO indeed become advanced amateurs or pros..there is a learning curve to producing great photography. And in that curve, current technology is changing too rapidly to suggest that a first 'good' camera be a several thousand dollar one.

Get comfortable with photography first. Practise. Learn about light. Then by the time you are ready to buy that first amazing camera that may well cost$ 2,000+ for just the body, you'll know what to do with the bells and whistles that you would otherwise never use.

An expensive top of the line camera is a fairly useless tool if you have no idea how to use it. Yes a bazooka can kill a fly. But if you are only going to kill 2 flies a month, a fly swatter does the same trick for much cheaper. :D

Just my 2 cents again...

Thx!
Marko

[tegan]

Good points, Marko. Come to think of it, some newbies think the camera takes the great photos and when they discover that it takes a lot of knowledge and work from the photographer, they give up.

When you grow up with photography as I did, the challenge, effort and work necessary is not even thought about.

Tegan

[Lovin]

Ok, ok , I know that the photographer is taking the picture, but can I do a good practice with a Nikon Coolpix L5 with 5x optical zoom (http://techgage.com/article/nikon_coolpix_l5_72mp_digital_camera/) ? ...or I can learn more on a Nikon D40 ?
That's my question.
I think that I can learn more about exposure, light, etc etc with a entry lvl camera such as Nikon D40 (or D40x).
And is not so expensive.
Am I right ?

I know what are you talking about : $2000 only the body : Nikon D300 or D3 :) or Canon Mark.

Thank you for your advices, I really appreciate it .
Lovin

[Marko]

To learn about photography your camera in my opinion NEEDS to be able to do the following:

Adjust the ISO
ADjust the aperture
adjust shutter
change lenses and manually focus the lens

ANY camera that cannot do this, is in my opinion a waste of money for LEARNING photography.

ANY camera that works, that can do this (Even the non digital pentax k-1000 which is a 100 dollar camera) is a PERFECT camera for learning photography.

I'd recommend any digital SLR that does the 4 things above over ANY point and shoot that cannot for the purposes of LEARNING photography.


Hope that helps,

Marko

[tegan]

I am not the average photographer so I would not recommend what I do.

Nevertheless I like a good quality adjustable pocket camera to carry around where cameras are not allowed or where there is some danger involved in carrying cameras around.

I like a compact super zoom with a fast lens such as 28mm to 200mm f. 2.8 to f 4.5 which allows me to travel light for some projects as well as the ability to switch to high res. video at 800 X 600 or greater for the length of the card. I have mixed stills and video for legal related work.

DSLR is of course great for low light, extreme telephoto, macro, portrait and other work where quality is necessary for publication or printing and I am currently working in that area.

So, I make a broad use of all 3 types of cameras.

Tegan

[w3rk5]

You can learn more about photography with any D-SLR than a point and shoot. Just set everything to manual mode until you can take properly exposed pictures consistently.

Taking better pictures because you're using a D-SLR is debatable (http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651) . :p

Since you're favoring Nikon, I'd get the D40 instead of the D40x. Why is more mega pixels better for you? How will the extra mega pixels benefit you? Is it worth the extra $$$? If you can answer those questions, then maybe the D40x is better for you. :o

I hope this helps a bit.

[tegan]

You can learn more about photography with any D-SLR than a point and shoot. Just set everything to manual mode until you can take properly exposed pictures consistently.

Taking better pictures because you're using a D-SLR is debatable (http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651) . :p

Since you're favoring Nikon, I'd get the D40 instead of the D40x. Why is more mega pixels better for you? How will the extra mega pixels benefit you? Is it worth the extra $$$? If you can answer those questions, then maybe the D40x is better for you. :o

I hope this helps a bit.

I know that we all tend to generalize from our own experience but we have to realize that not everyone has the same approach.

Granted you do not learn much from a point and shoot but a compact camera with manual settings for shutter speed, flash, ISO, contrast, exposure and several other areas can teach some people a lot.

A super zoom with a fixed 28mm to 200mm of 2.8 to 4.5 and a built in flash can help a beginner learn a lot as well.

A lot of DSLRs have as many advantages as they have disadvantages. An experienced photographer knows what features are necessary for his/her kind of shooting, what features are not necessary and what disadvantages are either serious or minor. A beginner does not have that background to fall back on in choosing a DSLR and if money is an issue, then that is a serious problem.

It is easy to tell a beginner to upgrade when the first DSLR no longer meets your needs but that is easier said than done for some newbies with limited funds.

I would tend to think that for some newbies, they perhaps should consider a pocket camera or a superzoom with a good fixed lens to start off with. For those who wish to go to a DSLR, they should purchase a little more than what they need, so that they do not have to upgrade too quickly. They may find also that resolution or megapixels is more important than they thought.

Tegan

[w3rk5]

Megan.........Lovin........did you guys buy anything yet?

[JoeMezz]

The Nikon D-40 has also gotten good reviews and would be a good camera to start with to get the feel of an SLR. What I would AVOID doing is spending too much money to get bells and whistles at this point.

Marko

Doesn't the D40 lack an internal motor for auto focus?
I think that is the case.

Wouldn't that limit lens for the D40 ??

[JoeMezz]

I'm a new amateur looking to get my first digital slr. I've been playing with a point and shoot for a few years and am now wanting to get more serious about my photography hobby and obviously need an slr.

So I'm looking for recommendations for a good camera to get started. I will be taking both indoor and outdoor shots, probably a fair amount of action shots as well. I don't think I'll be making many large prints so that isn't a concern.

I suggest the D80. i spoke with 3 Nikon dealers today and they said the D80 will have a substantial price cut within 10-14 days (I am buying 3 for work) .. I own a D80 and love it.

As far as the D40(x) I would avoid them (auto focus motor is NOT in the camera) so you have to get a lens with the motor in the lens. Maybe someone else can elaborate on that ... (I am no expert with the D40's)

[JoeMezz]

D80 is too science fiction for me now :)

What makes you say that ?

[mindforge]

Even though they get a bad rap with pros Sony puts out a great camera. They are priced right too due to the fact that Sony is trying to compete with entrenched Canon and Nikon. They have plenty of lenses due to the fact that you can use the Minolta lenses. Now, personally they are great for teh low to mid end. I have a Sony A200 DSLR and it takes great shots, I am not afraid to get in crazy situations, I carry it on my back everywhere without the thought that I have a few thousand dollars.

As a beginner I think it is important for us to be able to take pictures every day and at any time. The fear of losing my camera really isn't as prevalent as if I had a thousand dollar body and two expensive lenses... this camera is lightweight, has low cost lenses in the used autofocus Minoltas (you can get an 80-200mm mint lens for $50). I have spent barely a thousand and I have two great lenses, a tripod, my camera backpack, a couple filters to protect my lenses, a remote for the shutter, a couple batteries, a car charger and a couple 4 gig cards. The Sony software is pretty good - comes with asset management, raw file editing, and a good preview program.

If ultra high quality is your goal then look elsewhere, but if you want to really learn without fear get a entry level DSLR. This Sony a200 isn't bad at all. I mean people pay me for shots and their friends come running. It isn't really the camera anyway. If you are just learning get something you are not afraid of damaging. That way when the learning is all done and you are ready to step up, you can lay down the big bucks for a full frame.

My .02.

[ret]

on Aug 31st, the Sony A200 was going for $399 with the 18-70mm kit lens at Black's Pro in Woodbridge .... i guess thats a good price!!!

[mindforge]

on Aug 31st, the Sony A200 was going for $399 with the 18-70mm kit lens at Black's Pro in Woodbridge .... i guess thats a good price!!!

I got mine for that. I also picked up a new Kodak printer after some research on ink and all that -- I love the new printer. I get a lot of high quality prints from it. When I thought, I have about a thousand bucks I want to get a new D-SLR. I did research and it brought me to the final decision on the a200, extra lens, printer, etc. I still spent less than $1k and I have a great camera to learn on and some gear to play with. I wouldn't drop 1k for a body and a single lens with no supporting gear like a tripod, some sort of case, extra memory... I wouldn't just think about the camera...

My views are all from an amateur's perspective though, as I am an amateur. But, I am hungry for learning and I want to do so without worrying about a $1k camera body. By the way, my used zoom was $60, and you can get it on ebay for 1/2 that but I like the camera shop and the feeling you get when you talk to pros. The guys in the shop know what I want and they know that I don't want top of the line, I want used and I want to learn on it. Once I am better and have learned then I will pick up that high end full frame. Mind you, I could have got a Canon 5D (which is what I think I will go to when I am done with this Sony) right off the bat. I don't want to worry about my camera while I am learning, I want to experiment, I want to be able to fumble around and get a little more crazy than I would with a several thousand dollar camera body.

[mindforge]

I wanted to add one thing. I am not a Sony enthusiast. I want a Canon 5D or better but I know that it would just be too much. I sounded like a Sony hardcore in the above posts. Sony is just priced really good for competition and they are solid. Just buy the body and a used lens. Don't stock up on lenses or when you chose to upgrade you will find that you have invested too much in your camera.

That was the one drawback to my purchase. I am going to upgrade in a couple years to a full frame and my current equipment will be basically useless on that camera. You might want to step back and decide what you want later and perhaps purchase a model of camera that will let you take your other gear forward to other cameras you like.

[tegan]

I wanted to add one thing. I am not a Sony enthusiast. I want a Canon 5D or better but I know that it would just be too much. I sounded like a Sony hardcore in the above posts. Sony is just priced really good for competition and they are solid. Just buy the body and a used lens. Don't stock up on lenses or when you chose to upgrade you will find that you have invested too much in your camera.

That was the one drawback to my purchase. I am going to upgrade in a couple years to a full frame and my current equipment will be basically useless on that camera. You might want to step back and decide what you want later and perhaps purchase a model of camera that will let you take your other gear forward to other cameras you like.

You could always wait and see what the Sony 24 megapixel full frame camera offers in terms of design. It is expected out this year.

Tegan

[mindforge]

Yeah. The a900 is supposed to be one nice camera and rumors of a sub $2000 price in order to grab market share are spreading. If it lands at $2k I will wait for a few months and see what reviews say and glitches. I might even get that above the Canon 5D because I already have the a200.... anyone know if the lenses and flashes would be compatible?

[ret]

I got mine for that. I also picked up a new Kodak printer after some research on ink and all that -- I love the new printer. I get a lot of high quality prints from it. When I thought, I have about a thousand bucks I want to get a new D-SLR. I did research and it brought me to the final decision on the a200, extra lens, printer, etc. I still spent less than $1k and I have a great camera to learn on and some gear to play with. I wouldn't drop 1k for a body and a single lens with no supporting gear like a tripod, some sort of case, extra memory... I wouldn't just think about the camera...

My views are all from an amateur's perspective though, as I am an amateur. But, I am hungry for learning and I want to do so without worrying about a $1k camera body. By the way, my used zoom was $60, and you can get it on ebay for 1/2 that but I like the camera shop and the feeling you get when you talk to pros. The guys in the shop know what I want and they know that I don't want top of the line, I want used and I want to learn on it. Once I am better and have learned then I will pick up that high end full frame. Mind you, I could have got a Canon 5D (which is what I think I will go to when I am done with this Sony) right off the bat. I don't want to worry about my camera while I am learning, I want to experiment, I want to be able to fumble around and get a little more crazy than I would with a several thousand dollar camera body.

good luck with your purchase!!!!

I too got my first D-SLR some time back and I did check out Sony, Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Finally settled for the Olympus E520 which I got with 14-42mm and 40-150mm kit lenses :D

[sweetoblivion]

Hello! I'm starting off and am going to purchase a dSLR very soon. I've been eyeing the Nikon D60. Does anyone have any feedback on this one? :cool:

[PaulaLynn]

:twocents:My thoughts on a starter DSLR....go for what you feel comfortable with. Go to the store, hold them in your hands... see how easy the features are to access... etc etc...

For me, it was the Rebel Xti. It didn't feel as nice in the hands as the rest, but it was the easiest to learn. I can pretty much access all features in the dark now...

In the future I will prob upgrade to something a little heavier, I will need 2 bodies for wedding photography anyway, but for now, it was the best choice for me do to the functunality.

Hope that helped :)

[tegan]

Yeah. The a900 is supposed to be one nice camera and rumors of a sub $2000 price in order to grab market share are spreading. If it lands at $2k I will wait for a few months and see what reviews say and glitches. I might even get that above the Canon 5D because I already have the a200.... anyone know if the lenses and flashes would be compatible?

Yes, flashes would be compatible. Obviously, lenses designed for full frame digital would work best as well as any of the Minolta Maxxum lenses. Some Sony lenses are full frame compatible including the 75 to 300mm kit lens. Whether all are, it is difficult to find out.

Tegan