DSLR entry level camera suggestions

muncybob

I think I'm letting the Mrs have my point & shoot digital camera. I'm thinking about getting my feet wet in a quality DSLR. May even look into some classes if I feel I need them. I still own a nice Minolta 35mm camera but I love digital for almost instant gratification and ease of sharing with friends and family.

From those that have DSLR experience...if you were about to buy your first one(may go used) what features would you def be looking to get or for that matter what camera would you be looking for if your budget was around $700 max.?

tommyt21

I have an EOS Rebel and love it got it on sale for 499, However you need to get multiple lenses I picked up a 18-250mm lens for 199.

pstrev

I used to shoot Minolta film too. Then they were the last company to switch to digital- went belly up, and were bought out by Sony. Some of your Minolta lenses MAY work with current Sony DSLR's. However, I switched to Canon after doing my research. Canon prices are general cheaper than Nikon across the board and Canon has better lens selections. Therefore, I would recommend the current Rebel model T3i or the 60D (if you can get one on sale). Sony has good equipment but has very limited lens selection when compared to Canon and Nikon. Good luck.

Pat

Face

The Nikon D3100 takes excellent photos. It's a little smaller than the average DSLR, making it more portable. But choose carefully when purchasing new lenses, not all Nikon lenses will allow you to autofocus.

maximillian

Many options. I would stick to either Canon or Nikon. Both have excellent products.

BTW, do you want video abilities too? Some Nikon DSLR's aren't great for video. For example the D90 is an excellent DSLR but it cannot auto-focus while shooting video. Some other DSLR's have video wobble when panning the camera quickly.

If you aren't sure what type of camera body you want you could always buy a basic body for now then upgrade later. Spend money on good lenses instead. You could also try the used market just to get your feet wet and try some cameras out. Then when you are more informed of the nuances of this hobby you can spend the real money.

Don't forget to save money for accessories down the road... flash units (bounce flash is great), tripods, other lighting accessories, macro lenses, camera bags, better straps, etc.

The important thing is to get shooting to make sure you like using a DSLR and to get into training your eye to take good photos. The later is what will get you the best photos.

billbillw

Everyone always points to Nikon or Canon, but Pentax makes a great entry level DSLR as well. A major selling point for Pentax is that they work with all the older K-mount lenses. Pentax has stuck with the same mount for years. If you get any K-AF mount (auto focus), they will work just like a new lens. Full autofocus, full metering. The manual focus "A" (auto aperture) lenses are also compatible with the metering modes. The older fully manual (no auto aperture) lenses can also be used with a 'stop down' metering approach.

Oh, all the Pentax bodies have built in shake reduction. That means all those old lenses will benefit from that technology. Nikon and Canon only get that benefit if you buy the newest lenses that have the shake reduction in them.

billbillw

DSkip wrote: »

I know some people like Pentax, but I just can't get into them. They feel cheap and plasticy to me. Sony, Nikon, and Canon were really the only models I was interested in after doing a lot of research. I think all of their entry-models are great products and it really just comes down to preference.

Cheap and plasticy? What models were you looking at? I've had the K10D and now I have the K20D. I've spent time with the K7 as well. All of them have very high fit/finish and feel semi-professional. To me, the entry level Canons and Nikons were plasticy.

shawn474

billbillw wrote: »

Everyone always points to Nikon or Canon, but Pentax makes a great entry level DSLR as well. A major selling point for Pentax is that they work with all the older K-mount lenses. Pentax has stuck with the same mount for years. If you get any K-AF mount (auto focus), they will work just like a new lens. Full autofocus, full metering. The manual focus "A" (auto aperture) lenses are also compatible with the metering modes. The older fully manual (no auto aperture) lenses can also be used with a 'stop down' metering approach.

Oh, all the Pentax bodies have built in shake reduction. That means all those old lenses will benefit from that technology. Nikon and Canon only get that benefit if you buy the newest lenses that have the shake reduction in them.

+1. i have an older model pentax (*ist Dl) and it takes great pictures. It has proven to be a quality entry level camera to get my feet wet. I work at a university and can take classes for free. Once i get the time i plan to attend classes and see what more i can learn. I got a great book (i will look up the title and post later) from a member on the forum here. It was very easy to follow and i learned a lot from it. Good luck with your search

muncybob

Good info...thanks.

I've read some online reviews but I'm the kind of person that would rather hear from the average Joe user than a pro...but the reviews will help me narrow them down once I get a short list created. I would like to be able to handle any camera before purchasing but they may not be possible if I buy used and the seller is not local.

Question....is the antishake feature more important to be a part of the camera or the lense...or does it really make any difference?

maximillian

Personally I have found using a higher ISO (need a good sensor), shutter speed, proper camera holding, and taking multiple shots more effective than antishake.

billbillw

maximillian wrote: »

Personally I have found using a higher ISO (need a good sensor), shutter speed, proper camera holding, and taking multiple shots more effective than antishake.

Yes, this may be true, but the anti-shake feature will give you greater flexibility when conditions are less than ideal. In general, its a great feature to have in your 'tool box'.

To answer Bob's question, the key difference is with antishake in the body, it will work with any lens. Canon and Nikon want you to buy their new lenses to get anti-shake. Sony (Minolta) and Pentax are happy to give that feature with any lens that will work with the mount.

For instance, after I picked up my K100D (I goofed earlier when I said K10D), I found a guy on Craigslist that was selling a 20 year old autofocus 100-300 zoom. I think I picked up the lens for $50 or less. Hooked it to my modern K10D. Shake reduction works, AF works, metering works, etc.

Took this hand held photo, full 300mm zoom. Tack sharp.

Can't get that without antishake or a monopod/tripod. Heck, with my older film cameras, I couldn't always get that even on a tripod. BTW, that photos is mostly untouched. No photoshop magic there. I'm not saying that lens is the best (bad chromatic aberation), but for $50, it was a great addition to my bag.

del44

Last week I purchased the Canon T3 bundle from Sam's club for under $700 including tax. It came with 2 lenses 18-55 and 75-300. Case and charger is included also. I haven't had a chance to really test it out, but it's way better than my old point and shoot.

shack

Canon or Nikon.

Pentax, Sony and Olympus make fine cameras...but there are two gorillas in the room when it comes to DSLRs. More lenses, more flashes, more accessories, more everything, etc. are made for them...giving the amateur photographer more choices and flexibility as they progress in the hobby. I have friends that use some of the "other" brands and they take perfectly good photographs. But they have found there are limitations as they want to expand their gear. Some are happy with what they have as it meets all of their requirements for many years.

IMO the image stablization (or anti shake) mechanisims built into the camera bodies is simply not as good as lens based stabilization. When built into the body it is a "generalized" function trying to work with all lenses and focal lengths. Lens specific IS better "tunes" the parameters for that lens. Again for the photographer that is just looking for something better than a P&S, body based IS is probably fine. It all depends on what you need (want) and the level of performance you seek.

shack

maximillian wrote:

Personally I have found using a higher ISO (need a good sensor), shutter speed, proper camera holding, and taking multiple shots more effective than antishake.

Then you either have gear with very poor IS or poor technique. The IS in most of the Canon or Nikon lenses will give up to 4 full stops over non IS lenses. That is huge in terms of sharpness or light. Higher ISO is absolutely the last resort and only means image quality will suffer all things being equal....even with the advanced sensors that will allow ISOs of 6,000 to 18,000. Other than a tripod or placing the camera on a solid surface one simply cannot have a "holding" technique that will improve the image by 3-4 stops. Multiple shots may mean you end up with lots of blurry images. Anytime you are shooting without a tripod, virtually all of todays image stabilization technology is a vast improvement over non IS gear in terms of sharpness or low light situations.

In great light, where you can use high shutter speeds and low ISO...or if you use a tripod...image stabilization is not that important or necessary. In all other instances...it is.

Fireman32

What I was told when I went to buy my DSLR was to go and see how they feel in your hand. Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what brand to buy. I looked at Nikon, Cannon and Sony and I liked the way the Nikon felt in my hands the best. Take some time and go to the store and demo all the models.

billbillw

shack wrote: »

Canon or Nikon.

Pentax, Sony and Olympus make fine cameras...but there are two gorillas in the room when it comes to DSLRs. More lenses, more flashes, more accessories, more everything, etc. are made for them...giving the amateur photographer more choices and flexibility as they progress in the hobby. I have friends that use some of the "other" brands and they take perfectly good photographs. But they have found there are limitations as they want to expand their gear. Some are happy with what they have as it meets all of their requirements for many years.

IMO the image stablization (or anti shake) mechanisims built into the camera bodies is simply not as good as lens based stabilization. When built into the body it is a "generalized" function trying to work with all lenses and focal lengths. Lens specific IS better "tunes" the parameters for that lens. Again for the photographer that is just looking for something better than a P&S, body based IS is probably fine. It all depends on what you need (want) and the level of performance you seek.

Regarding image stabilization. Of course, you are spouting what Canon and Nikon want you to believe. Yes, you may get an additional stop of hand held with the really long lenses (more than 150mm), but with shorter focal lengths, there really isn't a clear advantage with lens based IS. In fact, body/sensor based IS sometimes has an additional axis of control that lenses don't have.

Regarding accessories and lenses, I don't see how anyone could be limited with Pentax. There are tons of choices out there at garage sales, Ebay, and used camera shops. I don't know what systems your friends have that are limited (Maybe Olympus 4/3?), but I have 6 lenses and two flashes for my Pentax and I haven't had to pay more than $60 for any of them on the used market. Two of the lenses were free.

AsSiMiLaTeD

When it comes to camera advice I would take shack's opinion over most. There have been numerous camera threads on here, including some started by me, and his advice has always been spot on.

if you're just wanting a walking around camera and don't plan on adding things down the line, then I'd start by questioning that assumption going in. That's the way I started and ultimately it's just not true for alot of people, cameras are like audio where you find yourself wanting to tweak and add things down the road to get better performance. If you're SURE that you won't want to expand in the future, then a dSLR by any reputable brand will take at least decent pictures in most situations.

If you're ruling out adding new accessories down the line then what it really comes down to is ergonomics of each camera. Nikon and Canon are both very good cameras, and while there are some technical difference, I think most people prefer one over the other based on ergonomics. I'm a Nikon guy myself, but I know that the Canon takes equally good pictures.

I didn't really add much, other than to second what shack said above.

shack

billbillw wrote:

Regarding image stabilization. Of course, you are spouting what Canon and Nikon want you to believe. Yes, you may get an additional stop of hand held with the really long lenses (more than 150mm), but with shorter focal lengths, there really isn't a clear advantage with lens based IS. In fact, body/sensor based IS sometimes has an additional axis of control that lenses don't have.

Nope...real world observations of lens based and body based IS. In some instances the lens based will provide as much as 2 (maybe 3) stops. Even 1 stop is significant depending on the situation. Plus body IS is newer technology that just has not caught up to the lens based systems. It may...but its not there yet.

billbillw wrote:

Regarding accessories and lenses, I don't see how anyone could be limited with Pentax. There are tons of choices out there at garage sales, Ebay, and used camera shops. I don't know what systems your friends have that are limited (Maybe Olympus 4/3?), but I have 6 lenses and two flashes for my Pentax and I haven't had to pay more than $60 for any of them on the used market. Two of the lenses were free.

As I said...for the amateur and casual photographer, Sony, Pentax, Olympus DSLRs can "easily" cover their needs. Once you start looking for something more the range and quality of the Canon and Nikon TOL lenses is better. Pentax cannot match the Canon L or Nikkor "pro" level lenses in terms of IQ, focus speeds and build quality. I'm not sure Sony or Olympus can either even though have some "pro level" gear. Nikon flash systems are the best in the industry.

As an old Minolta shooter, I had hoped that when Sony purchased them, they would continue the line and keep the quality. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

I'm glad you like your camera kit and got it at really good prices. My last lens purchase was significantly more than all your lenses and flashes combined. Does that make me a better photographer? No. But there is a certain level of performance and quality that I desire and I am willing to pay for it. Canon and Nikon aren't the industry leaders because they market well. They both make excellent products and put tons of research and technology into those products. At the entry level all of the mfgs. have good products that will meet most of the buyers needs and deliver good images. As with anything, it is as you advance that the choices become more differentiated.

Fireman32

I have many photographers tell me don't worry about the body and invest in good lenses. I currently have the Nikon D60 that I bought used at a camera shop. It's a great entry level camera that I got with a 18-70 mm Nikkor lens and I spend less then 500 on it. That might be a good way to go for you on your budget get a good used camera. The next lens I want to buy will cost more than the camera and 2 lenses i have now.

Face

Fireman32 wrote: »

I have many photographers tell me don't worry about the body and invest in good lenses.

Using the same lenses, the difference in photos between my old D50 and new D3100 is significant, so I would gather that is very wrong.

cheezeitz51

Get a cheaper body so you can buy more lenses, and all that stuff. Maybe even buy used to save even more money. Just make sure you they tell you the shutter count if you do go that way and make sure it's not too high.

maximillian

shack wrote: »

even with the advanced sensors that will allow ISOs of 6,000 to 18,000.

I don't bump the ISO that high. However, going from 200 to 800 is a decent benefit and doesn't hurt image clarity that much, at least for the photo sizes I am interested in. With advanced sensors you can get to 1600 or 3200 before noticing too much grain.

mystik610

Definitely go for a Canon or Nikon. The vast array of gear available for canon and nikon bodies will go a long way in the long run.

Image stabilization goes a long way IMO. My primary lens is a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC/IS...I had the non-Image Stabilized version for a while, but occasionally ran into situations where I'm trying to shoot at a slow shutter speed and lose sharpness because of camera shake. I rarely shoot at a slow shutter speed (I almost always have a speed light on my body), but in the instances when its appropriate image stabilization goes a low way. This was not a low light shot, but even at 50mm, with a 1 second shutter speed (to capture reflections in the water), I would not have been able to take this shot without a stable surface or tripod had I been using a non image stabilized lens:

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5266/5750650884_7ae75dc17e.jpg&quot; width="500" height="333" alt="disneyland 8"></a>

jbooker82

I started out looking at the rebels at best buy. Ended up going to a camera shop and bought a Canon EOS 60D 18-135mm and 70-300mm lenses. I really like the fold out pcs screen.

In lens image stabilized is the way to go.

dcmartinpc

I would stick with Canon or Nikon. They tend to hold there value much better. If it were me, I would be looking for something used. I tend be a little more on the "Prosumer" side myself, but you can get a really nice body that takes killer pictures for a heck of a deal.

I am a Canon guy. A nice used 40D or 50D, heck even a 30D isn't terrible if it doesn't have too many clicks on it. I would probably land at the 40D. They can be had for good prices on eBay and take amazing pictures. I have a 7D and a 40D. Another great new option would be the Canon T3i. It uses the same sensor as the Canon 7D and shoots AMAZING pictures for the money.

I can tell you from experience that glass makes a MUCH bigger difference typically than the body. Put junk glass on a 5D MKII and you will get crap pictures. The sensor is only as good as the glass in front of it. At least IMHO.

With the money you are looking at, if you don't want video, I would find a used 40D on eBay with a 28-135mm lens. If video is a need, then I would stretch your budget a little bit and pickup a T3i body and the lens of your choice.

Don

billbillw

shack wrote: »

As I said...for the amateur and casual photographer, Sony, Pentax, Olympus DSLRs can "easily" cover their needs. Once you start looking for something more the range and quality of the Canon and Nikon TOL lenses is better. Pentax cannot match the Canon L or Nikkor "pro" level lenses in terms of IQ, focus speeds and build quality. I'm not sure Sony or Olympus can either even though have some "pro level" gear. Nikon flash systems are the best in the industry.

As an old Minolta shooter, I had hoped that when Sony purchased them, they would continue the line and keep the quality. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

The argument over lens or body IS goes on to this day, even in the highest ranks of photo pros and experts. You've made up your mind which you prefer, but there are clear advantages to both systems.

As far as lens/accessory systems, the Pentax * and Limited lenses have every bit as good a quality as the Nikon and Canon pro lenses. Now, Nikon and Canon may have more pro lenses available, but it seems to me, the original poster was talking about an entry level system. It would be a far fetch to think he would ever need a full on Pro setup, but chances are, he could still find what he needs in a Pentax system.

BTW, I'm not just a Pentax owner. I had a full out Canon film system back about 10 years ago, complete with a couple of L lenses, flashes, etc. I sold that whole system and spent several years with a Minolta A1 while waiting for the DSLR prices to become affordable. When I made the move back to SLR, I compared all 5 major companies (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, and Sony). That was about 2 years ago and for my needs, the Pentax seemed to have the best bang for the buck, especially when used with all the classic Pentax glass. I consider myself an advanced amateur photographer, not just a casual user, and I haven't felt limited with Pentax as of yet.

cokewithvanilla

Buy something that has a lot of lens options that are interchangeable with higher end bodies. I know Nikon has some bodies without AF, so it's on the lenses... I wouldn't recommend this.

Nikon/Canon whatever feels best in your hands. Lenses are more permanent than bodies.

muncybob

OK, so now this newbie inquires as to why folks seem to think AF is so important!? Relating to my 35mm days with the trusty old Minolta, nothing was auto for me. Seems it would be a great feture to have but would it be a deal beaker? I see some have AF in movie mode and others do not...again, why is this apparently a deal breaker for some?

billbillw

muncybob wrote: »

OK, so now this newbie inquires as to why folks seem to think AF is so important!? Relating to my 35mm days with the trusty old Minolta, nothing was auto for me. Seems it would be a great feture to have but would it be a deal beaker? I see some have AF in movie mode and others do not...again, why is this apparently a deal breaker for some?

Well, I don't use my DSLR for movies for a couple reasons. First, my K20D doesn't have it! 2nd, even if it did, the SLR is bulky and seems like overkill for video. Since the video quality from most modern point and shoots is very good, I have my wife take video with our CoolPix P&S and I use the SLR for photos.

From a pure photography sense, I don't get caught up with AF. Most of my lenses are manual focus primes. Much, much better image quality compared to the entry level auto-zooms.

Face

muncybob wrote: »

OK, so now this newbie inquires as to why folks seem to think AF is so important!?

Once you get used to it, you never want to go without it.

dcmartinpc

AF is pretty standard these days. I use it because it is quick, and if you have a quality body and lens, it is very accurate. Some people don't like AF because technically you can be more accurate with MF, but you have to be good. In regard to AF during video, I am fine without it. The cameras that are doing it use Contrast based AF and it is slow and inaccurate! I would rather focus it myself.

Don