Choosing a digital SLR camera

[Promomx2]

Dh says I can move up to a dslr. Yea!! I currently have a sony dsc-h7. I like it but I feel it's slow when at baseball games, etc. I have some leftover lenses from my old 35mm minolta camers. So I"m seeking suggestions on which dslr I should get, keeping it under $1000. And if I get a minolta, can I use my old 35mm lenses?

[dpmfloyd]

i got a canon t1i just before my disney trip - total novice, but after i figured it out, good god i loved it. i just picked up a low light 1.8f lense for $100 off amazon too (prime, but still wicked awesome).

i know canon just put out a t2i that might be a hair under what you'd like to spend. either way. whatever you get, have fun with it!
www.flickr.com/dpmfloyd if you want to see what the t1i can do :)

[JoeDif]

Actually Sony took over the Minolta dslr business. I believe that the current Sony dslr's are able to use some the the old legacy Minolta lenses.

We have quite a few Sony users on here, so I'm sure they can be more specific about which lenses are usable than me.

[KAT4DISNEY]

If your Minolta lenses are autofocus AF or Maxxum lenses then they will work on Sony DSLR's. If they are manual focus or MD lenses then the mount is different and would require an adapter.

If the lenses will work and you are looking for speed for baseball games etc. then I would suggest looking at either the Sony A500 or A550. :thumbsup2 The A500 shoots up to 5 fps and the A550 will shoot up to 7 fps (autofocus held from the first frame) or 5 fps with continuous auto focus. They both have excellent high ISO, great live view operation if that is of interest and articulating screens for getting interesting angles without getting on hands and knees.

[zackiedawg]

Indeed current Sony DSLR cameras are compatible with Minolta A-mount lenses - that is, any Minolta lenses which were 'autofocus', from the Maxxum line, will work on current Sony bodies with full, normal autofocus and exposure control.

Currently Sony has entry-level DSLR cameras in the A200 & A300 lines, midlevel DSLRs in the A500 lines, and full-frame DSLRs in the A800 and 900 lines. For your budget, you could look at the entry level or mid level cameras - all are within your budget.

[foolishmortal]

I have an a330l and love it! right now I have seen it for under 500 on sale some places

[Promomx2]

Thanks for all the help. I just dug out my old minolta maxxium 2xl but of course the battery is dead. How can I tell if the lens is autofocus? It says Quantaray for minolta af 70-210 mm. It would be great if I could use this lens with a dslr.

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thanks for all the help. I just dug out my old minolta maxxium 2xl but of course the battery is dead. How can I tell if the lens is autofocus? It says Quantaray for minolta af 70-210 mm. It would be great if I could use this lens with a dslr.

the AF listed before 70-210mm means it's auto focus. Also, since you used it on a maxxum it has the same mount as the new Sony's.

[Toxic!]

I'm in love with my Nikon D80 :) So easy to use and learn. A great first step for DSLR's.

[ukcatfan]

Thanks for all the help. I just dug out my old minolta maxxium 2xl but of course the battery is dead. How can I tell if the lens is autofocus? It says Quantaray for minolta af 70-210 mm. It would be great if I could use this lens with a dslr.

If this is your only lens that you plan to use, I would not let that limit the brand choice. Nothing against Sony at all, but that lens does not sound like anything more than a standard tele zoom that only runs about $100 more when bought new in a two lens kit package from about any brand. The new ones are probably better lenses as well.

[zackiedawg]

That's at least a start...if you picked up the basic kit lens with the camera purchase, usually an 18-70 or something similar, then the 70-210 will give you some extra range. You said you had a few lenses from Minolta...do you have any others? That lens is just a basic telezoom - it's a starter though. Maybe you have some other lenses too that might really be worthwhile (like a nice 50mm F1.7, always a solid low light little prime lens). Any lens for 'Maxxum' or likely any lenses with 'AF' in the name will be compatible.

[Duchie]

We're outgrowing our point-and-shoot and are now considering a DSLR. To help narrow down the search I was hoping a few of you here could give me some good recommendations.

The primary use will be casual - parents taking pictures of their kids doing stuff. The "stuff" our kids do includes volleyball, Scouts, band, gymnastics, and just normal being kid stuff. And since we'll be hauling it around to all of these activities, lightweight would be a definite plus. We'll be careful with it, obviously, but it would still need to be sturdy and durable. I'd like something that's good in both indoor and outdoor light and that can take action shots without them being blury. And of course I'd like all of this with the lowest price tag possible.

So for all you experts out there... is there a particular camera you would recommend? Is a DSLR even the right choice for me, or is there something in between a point-and-shoot and a full-featured DSLR? What features would be the best to have? What things might I have missed? Any other helpful advice?

[Frantasmic]

First, read the thread called "The Ultimate Upgrade" on page 1 of this forum.

Second, are you prepared to become a better photographer, even if it means sticking with your current camera?

To answer your questions, yes there are cameras known as bridge cameras that offer higher control over the photo-taking experience.

Canon just recently announced two new bridge cameras that are worth a look, but you will need to want to learn to take better pictures. The equipment helps, but you have to know what to do with it.

If you decide a high-end point and shoot still doesn't fit your requirements (and from your list of potential photo taking events, it might not), you should check out the pentax line of dslrs (most bang for the buck currently), the new nikon 3100, and the canon t2i.

These three sets will help you improve your skills as inexpensively as possible. But, be warned, you will almost already need more specialized lenses since you are wanting to take action shots in less than ideal light conditions.

[MarkBarbieri]

I'd recommend an entry level DSLR from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, or Olympus. They are all a lot more similar then they are different and all work amazingly well. Some things that I would consider include:

1) What do people you know shoot with? It's great to have people to share knowledge and gear with and that is much easier when you use the same camera or at least the same brand.

2) Try each one. See how it feels in your hand. They are different sizes and shapes and the control layouts are different. Some people are much more comfortable with some brands then others.

Think through the cost of really getting started. It's more than just the camera and the lens. I started this thread (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2549532) on stuff to consider beyond the initial purchase of a DSLR.

[Duchie]

Sorry to respond so late to you guys. I forgot to turn on notification of replies to this thread so I didn't realize there were answers.

I'll definitely take a look at the threads you both suggested.

A while ago, I actually did know what to do with the settings on a good camera. I took a couple of photography classes back in college, but over the years I just got lazy with point-and-shoots (just easier with kids) and have just forgotten a lot of it. A refresher definitely wouldn't hurt.

[Gianna'sPapa]

I know I'm committing heresy, but (IMHO) its probably a good thing to forget 'some' of the old film days. Digital DSLR's are a different animal from the film SLR's. My DW was a very good film photographer and could do amazing things with our Pentax LX. She has struggled converting to digital. She tends to think "in film" and then has to convert everything to digital. By the time this conversion process has occurred, she has missed the shot! When she has time for setup, she still does well, but its the off the cuff, make quick adjustments to the camera and shoot that she struggles. Whereas I shot the LX in mostly automatic mode, I had less to unlearn. I really don't care that my 200mm lens on my APS-C is 300 mm in 35mm format! As far as I am concerned, I shoot what I see in the viewfinder. Its made my conversion much easier.

[photo_chick]

I disagree that film and digital are all that different. The exposure is made the same way. The same 4 variables. DSLR's just have a lot more bells and whistles. And the rules of composition are the same no matter what the format.

But maybe the change was easier for me because I didn't just use a single 35mm SLR when I shot film, but a variety of cameras.


As to which camera... IMO all the DSLR's on the market are good. Find the one with the features you want, for a price you can afford, that feels good in your hands.

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm with Danielle on this. Film and digital are very similar. Aperture (f-stop) works the same. Shutter speed works the same. Sensitivity (ASA/ISO) works the same. With film, you still had to deal with lenses having different fields of view depending on your film size. The same is true of digital. If it really bothers you, just buy a digital camera with a sensor the same size as the film that you used. If you shot 35mm, Canon, Nikon, and Sony will all be happy to sell you cameras with sensors that are sized to match 35mm film. Then all of your 35mm film lenses will work exactly the same as the did with film.

[Gianna'sPapa]

I told you I was committing heresy!:rotfl2: The DW has struggled with the conversion. While she totally understands the triangle, composition, etc., She is just more comfortable with film. In digital, you can sometimes just spray and pray and get good results. In film, she had to really think about the setup and the limited number of shots on a roll of film. After shooting, it could take several days to get the results. Trust me when I say, I'M NOT PROFESSING TO BE AN EXPERT PHOTOGRAPHER! Far from it. I am just relating a personal experience. And Mark, I don't have your resources to throw away my Pentax glass and switch to a FF system. I am very happy with APS-C.

[CandyHead09]

We're outgrowing our point-and-shoot and are now considering a DSLR. To help narrow down the search I was hoping a few of you here could give me some good recommendations.

The primary use will be casual - parents taking pictures of their kids doing stuff. The "stuff" our kids do includes volleyball, Scouts, band, gymnastics, and just normal being kid stuff. And since we'll be hauling it around to all of these activities, lightweight would be a definite plus. We'll be careful with it, obviously, but it would still need to be sturdy and durable. I'd like something that's good in both indoor and outdoor light and that can take action shots without them being blury. And of course I'd like all of this with the lowest price tag possible.

So for all you experts out there... is there a particular camera you would recommend? Is a DSLR even the right choice for me, or is there something in between a point-and-shoot and a full-featured DSLR? What features would be the best to have? What things might I have missed? Any other helpful advice?

I really reccomend my camera it's an olympus evolt 520 it takes fantastic pictures of the many children in my family for example here's a totally unedited picture of my cousin's soccer game:

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx304/abbiedisney/soccer018.jpg

my niece eating her birthday cupcake

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx304/abbiedisney/oklahomabirthday477.jpg

(little too much light in that one but I want to show you the unedited photos and how great they come out)

Easter Egg hunting

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx304/abbiedisney/Abbiespictures303.jpg:lovestruc

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx304/abbiedisney/Abbiespictures322.jpg :rotfl::lmao::rotfl2:

[Golf4food]

Pentax K-x

[ukcatfan]

As long as Pentax continues to make them, the K-x is getting to a price point where it is one incredible deal. With the K-r out, but more expensive, I think they will keep it in the lineup. But, with the K-r being around, the K-x should continue to drop in price.

[left210]

I have had several bridge cameras but honestly have not taken the time to learn how to use the manual settings. I have had a lot going on in the past year or so with taking care of a loved one. I am tired of not getting great shots though. So my question is - if I get a DSLR are the standard point and shoot pictures on it going to be better than the p/s on a regular camera? I know if I learn how to use it I will get even better pictures but I just dont know when I will get around to learning what mode/setting to use when. I dont want to spend the money on a DSLR if it isnt going to give me better pictures right out of the box. Thanks.

[Golf4food]

If you don't want to do the time, don't spend the dime.

dSLRs are not magic. You still have to know how to use them - more so than with a point-n-shoot in many cases. There are some basics you can learn that will help, but if you want the truly good photos, you must be willing to learn the rules of photography and the settings of the camera.

[ukcatfan]

I agree. It does not sound like a DSLR is right choice for you at this time.

[MarkBarbieri]

You should see a significant improvement in your pictures, depending on the circumstances. In low light, the improvement will be dramatic. Even in moderate light (typical indoor setting), you should see less noise and have fewer problems with blurring.

My wife has very little photo training. She uses my DSLR in full auto mode much of the time. People at school rave about her pictures. Some of that is because she has learned better composition and some basic post processing in Lightroom. A lot of it is because she has much better gear than they do.

Getting a DSLR won't make you a great photographer. Even on full auto, it will make your pictures significantly better than a p&s on full auto.

[left210]

I love taking pictures and scrapbooking and would love to learn more about photography but just do not have the time to devote to it right now. I was just wondering if going ahead and getting the DSLR would allow me to get better full auto mode pictures for the time being with the hopes that some day or along the way I learn more. I may borrow a friends to see if that will help me make a decision. You are right in that I dont want to spend the money and use full auto if it isnt going to be any better than I am getting right now on full auto on p/s. Thanks.

[boBQuincy]

I agree with Mark, even on full Auto a dSLR will provide better photos than a P&S under most conditions. I leave my Canon Xsi in Program mode most of the time unless I have a good reason to set it otherwise.

Of course like any good tool a dSLR will provide you with more rewards the more you learn how to use it, but today's dSLRs are very good in Auto and really good photos are no longer exclusive to those who only use manual settings.

[Bstanley]

Speaking as a new DSLR owner (less than a year) and as someone who really doesn't aspire to be a 'photographer'* I have found that my DSLR allows me to 'Point and Shoot' more easily, more successfully and in a much wider variety of lighting conditions than my Point and Shoot cameras ever did. However as mentioned it has NOT made me a photographer, 99% of the time I still take snapshots ;)

If you're OK with that - enjoy.


*According to Mr. Elliot Erwitt "To me, photography is an art of observation. It’s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place… I’ve found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.”

[mrodgers]

What most said is true.

There are two different results.

A dSLR camera is simply better quality than a P&S or bridge camera. They have better lens, better sensors, better, well, everything.

Thus, auto mode on a dSLR will get better results than auto mode on a P&S camera.

That said, my $200 Fuji superzoom takes better photos than my coworker's $1500 worth (at the time) of dSLR equipment. The difference is the operator. I learned about photography and shoot in manual mode where he takes snapshots in auto mode.

It's not very difficult to learn how to manually use a camera. It's like riding a bicycle. With practice and learning, one day it just "clicks" in the mind and everything falls in place and it's so easy to understand.

[zackiedawg]

I generally agree, though I'd want to modify the above statements just a bit...a DSLR on Auto mode "CAN" get better results than a P&S on auto, in some situations. I don't like the idea of saying it 'will' do better, because there are too many variables. First, a DSLR on auto still should be set up optimally - some DSLRs tend to overexpose by default, some have flat color in standard JPEG mode, some are undersharp for typical consumer use, etc. Setting the color mode, contrast, and sharpness modes in the camera can make the output more 'P&S' like or consumer friendly without additional processing needed. Also, note that not all P&S cameras are alike. A person accustomed to an ultrazoom may find disappointment trying to match the lens range with a DSLR - realizing that the kit lens in auto mode isn't going to match a 520mm optical lens on a small sensor P&S model, no matter how good the resolution. And some P&S models have larger sensors and very good lenses, which deliver pretty snazzy optical quality, and can shoot at equivalents of F2.0, which no kit lens will come close to - so in good light conditions and low ISOs, the P&S may be indistinguishable or even better. Then there's the depth of field - while DSLR afficianados love shallow DOF, some P&Sers who don't really know how to control it may find it challenging with a DSLR when they are used to shooting a scene and having everything in focus, and suddenly with the DSLR, that's no longer the case. Moreover, in 'Auto' mode they have no control over where the camera focuses since most default to a wide focus mode with no user override, leaving many first-time DSLR auto users confounded by the odd focus choices and often out of focus results.

When it comes to focusing in low light, controlling depth of field, shooting at high ISOs, maintaining maximum resolution and cropping ability, editability and recoverability of photos, action shooting, speed shooting, and more - DSLRs will crush P&S cameras, and with the versatility to choose any lens for any situation, they're better in any given situation as long as the budget can afford. But I'd be a little careful to use a blanket statement that a DSLR on auto will always deliver better results for an unskilled user than a P&S in auto mode.

[Ilivetogo]

My DD16 is going to go off to college next fall to major in photography. We have started looking for a DSLR for her "first one". She currently uses a Nikon Coolpix. She wants to get a Nikon or possibly a Canon, but hasn't really had the chance to use either one in order to get an idea of which one "suits" her better. :confused3
There is a camera store near us that rents, but it's very expensive to do.

Keeping in mind this is a starting camera, we would like advice about which models would be suggested and what specific lenses or additional items she would need. (we know she will need a tripod) She definitely would like to get something with live view, and she also likes to work a lot with macro settings.

Also, any suggestions about the best places to purchase in order to keep our costs down would be greatly appreciated--just PM me.

Please & thank you! :)

.

[poeticeclipse]

Making my first dSLR purchase and I'm quite excited to move up from a rather nice P&S. I'm looking to spend no more than $1000 including accessories, lenses, bag, etc. I'm going to be primarily shooting portraits of family and friends as well as some detail shots and travel stuff. I'd like to eventually delve into night photography as well once I get the hang of shooting with a "fancy" camera. ;) Shooting video would be cool but getting the "best" quality video isn't important to me since I will end up probably just shooting family event and vacations.

After doing some research I've decided it comes down to the Nikon 3100, Canon T1i, and T2i. I really don't know the primary differences between Nikons and Canons. It seems that everyone I talk to says without hesitation to get the Canon T2i. But no one can give me a reason of why that is so much better for ME and MY needs.

Thanks to all who respond and help me out! All input is welcome!

[ukcatfan]

In terms of specs and end results, almost all current entry level DSLRs are going to be similar. The thing you need to do is dig into the details to see which one has the particulars that are important to you. For example, is a fast burst rate important? Different models will vary slightly. Or, is the live view capability important. Compare them both online and in person when possible. If I had not done this, I might not have been as happy with my original DSLR purchase. Since it seems that you have not done the comparisons yet, I personally suggest taking a step back and considering all options from all brands instead of somewhat arbitrarily narrowing it down.

[Frantasmic]

You should look at Pentax also as an entry level camera. They are a good bargain for the results they give.

If you have decided the 3 you have listed, the T2i is very similar to the Canon EOS 7D that came out. That's why people discuss its value. It is a good camera that you could grow into very easily. Video is a bonus in that one. All three will shoot decent video though.

I'd review the Nikon 3100, the Pentax K-X, and the Canon T2i, if I were in your shoes. The Canon T1i is good too, but I'd bump up to the T2i just because its offerings would suffice for a long while.

[ukcatfan]

You should look at Pentax also as an entry level camera. They are a good bargain for the results they give.

If you have decided the 3 you have listed, the T2i is very similar to the Canon EOS 7D that came out. That's why people discuss its value. It is a good camera that you could grow into very easily. Video is a bonus in that one. All three will shoot decent video though.

I'd review the Nikon 3100, the Pentax K-X, and the Canon T2i, if I were in your shoes. The Canon T1i is good too, but I'd bump up to the T2i just because its offerings would suffice for a long while.

Pentax also offers the new K-r in the price range.

[poeticeclipse]

I really don't know anything about Pentax. Can someone explain the benefits of Pentax over the "other" brands that I mentioned?

[ukcatfan]

I really don't know anything about Pentax. Can someone explain the benefits of Pentax over the "other" brands that I mentioned?

Typically the benefit is how much you get for the money. For example, the K-x is significantly cheaper than the Canon models but still has some better specs such as faster burst rate, in-body IS, faster max shutter speed, and wireless flash. The Canon is going to always have more MPs, but I can honestly tell you that much of that is overkill. I was very happy with only 6MP, so cannot believe that the difference between 18MP and 12MP would make much difference. If it came down to it, I would say that the K-x and T1i are fairly equal then the T2i and K-r are fairly equal. The bang for the buck is currently in the Pentax corner. Plus they come in a variety of colors! :thumbsup2

One thing to think about is if you plan to stick with the kit lenses for a while. If that is the case, then the Pentax offers an advantage. They intentionally offer a kit lens with better build quality than Canon or Nikon.

One last thing to consider is if you plan on making photography a career. If so, then Canon and Nikon are probably the best bet. If you just want to be a hobby photographer (i.e. 99.99% of people) then you should consider all brands. To be fair, you should also look at Sony and Olympus before making a decision.

[KAT4DISNEY]

Sony has several options that would fall under the $1,000 budget. If you don't need video then the A500 or A550 are very nice or if you do want video the new A560 and A580's are going to be available soon. The A5xx's have very functional live view, in body IS, they shoot 5-7 fps depending on the model and have comparable high ISO capabilities to other camera's. You can use Minolta autofocus lenses on the Sony A mount as well.

Sony also has the A33 and A55 which are slightly smaller and use a translucent mirror as well as A Mount lenses or the Nex3 or Nex5 are their mirrorless options similar to the Olympus PEN's and all of those do video also. The NEX camera's are positively tiny.

If you're going into it as a hobby I also would worry less about the brand and more about what is comfortable and intuitive for you to use.

[bob100]

You should look at Pentax also as an entry level camera. They are a good bargain for the results they give.

If you have decided the 3 you have listed, the T2i is very similar to the Canon EOS 7D that came out. That's why people discuss its value. It is a good camera that you could grow into very easily. Video is a bonus in that one. All three will shoot decent video though.

I'd review the Nikon 3100, the Pentax K-X, and the Canon T2i, if I were in your shoes. The Canon T1i is good too, but I'd bump up to the T2i just because its offerings would suffice for a long while.

I too would consider the newer T2i/550D or the 60D for the Canon line-up, especially if video is important

[photo_chick]

If it's just a matter of specs... the new Pentax K-r wins easily on paper. It's pretty impressive and as usual Pentax has left me wondering if I should have gone that way instead of with a Canon.

Stay away from the Canon 60D. You'll get a better deal with the T2i... if you go Canon.

[OKW Lover]

OK, so here is some background on what I'm after:
First of all, I'm fairly knowledgable about photography in general, although most of my more sophisticated experience was many years ago using film! For many years I had Pentax SLR's and was very familiar with the intricacies and interaction of shutter speed, f-stop, depth of field, etc.

Second, I got tired of hauling all that stuff around when heading to a park. So I "graduated" to a simple, very small, point and shoot that went in my pocket.

Now, however, I'm back to wanting the features that are offered by the new DSLR's. I'm interested in something beyond a basic entry level DSLR, but certainly don't need (or can afford) one of the top end cameras.

As far as brands go, although I had Pentax cameras in the past, I'm not wedded to them. I'm seriously considering Cannon and Nikon, but not Sony.

My ideal package would include the body and at least one zoom lens that would cover something equivalent to 35-150mm, or perhaps something "longer", but in a relatively compact design. I remember the 85-205 zoom that I used to have in my old SLR days and I'm not interested in something that long/heavy.

OK - I know that some (many?) of those things are in conflict with each other. I'm ready to make some trade-offs.

So, lets hear some suggestions. Thanks!

[ukcatfan]

Do you still have any of your Pentax lenses? If so, they will work on the Pentax DSLRs. Besides that, the Pentax K-x and K-r are incredible entry level models, especially for the money. Check out the packages that include a 50-200mm or 55-300mm. Because they are made for the smaller size sensor in an APS-C DSLR (i.e. not full frame), they are not as big and heavy as the telephoto lenses made for film. Also, all lenses are stabilized on these cameras because the IS is in the body. Stabilization in the lens adds weight and costs more (i.e. Canon and Nikon).

Just noticed that you said you want beyond entry level. You might want to consider the Kx- and K-r though. There is not much they cannot do. Beyond them, check the K-7 and K-5 in the Pentax line.

[DVC Mike]

The DSLR market leaders are Nikon and Canon, and you can't go wrong picking either brand. Debating between Nikon and Canon is like debating between Mercedes and BMW.

I'd take a look at the Nikon D3100 or Canon T2i.

[photo_chick]

Pentax makes some awesome DSLRs and if you are accustomed to their film cameras that would definitely be where I'd start my search. Canon and Nikon are only the leaders because they spend the most on advertising, not because their cameras are any better. And I say that as a Canon user.

As far as which specific camera... make a list of the features that are most important to you then go to dpreview.com and look at the specs and reviews. That should make it pretty easy to narrow it down to one from each brand that fits your budget and has what you want. Then go to the store and see which one of those fits well in your hands.

[OKW Lover]

Pentax makes some awesome DSLRs and if you are accustomed to their film cameras that would definitely be where I'd start my search. Canon and Nikon are only the leaders because they spend the most on advertising, not because their cameras are any better. And I say that as a Canon user.

As far as which specific camera... make a list of the features that are most important to you then go to dpreview.com and look at the specs and reviews. That should make it pretty easy to narrow it down to one from each brand that fits your budget and has what you want. Then go to the store and see which one of those fits well in your hands.

Thanks for the link!

And thanks to the others for the suggestions. I'm going to have to look around to see if I do still have any camera stuff left. We're talking really old here. Like when auto-focusing lenses were just coming out and Pentax switched from screw-mount to bayonet mount lenses.

[ukcatfan]

Thanks for the link!

And thanks to the others for the suggestions. I'm going to have to look around to see if I do still have any camera stuff left. We're talking really old here. Like when auto-focusing lenses were just coming out and Pentax switched from screw-mount to bayonet mount lenses.

They will still work. Even screw mount ones will with an adapter.

[AlbertZeroK]

Have you considered a Mirrorless DSLR, commonly refrered to as EVIL?

My Sony NEX-3 has all the features of my DSLR with a sensor just as big, but in a VERY small package. You can look at Panasonic and Olympus as both make EVIL as well. I love my sony, but would look seriously at the Panasonic, although the Olympus and Panasonic have a smaller sensor.

For DSLR, Pentax gets alot of recomendations on this board because a few Pentax lovers chime in alot, not saying it's bad. I love Canon and would consider Nikon. The real question is:

1.) How much are you willing to spend now?

2.) Do you have any plans on going with higher end lenses (above $1000) in the future?

Most importantly, goto the store and put the cameras in your hand. One that feels good is more important than the features inside the camera.

[Gianna'sPapa]

1.) How much are you willing to spend now?

With your experience, my question, as quoted above by the PP, is how much do you want to spend? If you haven't been following what has been happening in the digital camera world, there was a recent large photography show in Germany, Photokina. The manufacturers released a slew of new equipment, Nikon 7000, Canon 60D, and Pentax Kr and K5. I only mention these three manufacturers because of your original post. This seemingly caused some of the older model camera prices to drop slightly. As has been stated Nikon and Canon are the two largest, offering a full range of cameras from entry level APS-C to professional FF (full frame). Pentax has shied away from the FF and has concentrated its efforts in APS-C. Nikon and Canon have stablization in their lenses and Pentax has it in the body. There are pros and cons to both. The Nikon and Canon lenses tend to be more expensive because of stablization in the lens (some say the optics are better also, but that is another whole discussion that I'm not getting into). Because of APS-C, the Pentax lenses tend to be smaller and lighter, but can be somewhat slower. This is being offset by the high usable ISO of Pentax' recent camera body offerings. This is just a brief overview of what is happening out there. So my question, again, is how much do you want to spend? IMHO, all the manufacturer's cameras will produce excellent images, so its a matter of cost and personal feel for the camera.

[AlbertZeroK]

With your experience, my question, as quoted above by the PP, is how much do you want to spend? If you haven't been following what has been happening in the digital camera world, there was a recent large photography show in Germany, Photokina. The manufacturers released a slew of new equipment, Nikon 7000, Canon 60D, and Pentax Kr and K5. I only mention these three manufacturers because of your original post. This seemingly caused some of the older model camera prices to drop slightly. As has been stated Nikon and Canon are the two largest, offering a full range of cameras from entry level APS-C to professional FF (full frame). Pentax has shied away from the FF and has concentrated its efforts in APS-C. Nikon and Canon have stablization in their lenses and Pentax has it in the body. There are pros and cons to both. The Nikon and Canon lenses tend to be more expensive because of stablization in the lens (some say the optics are better also, but that is another whole discussion that I'm not getting into). Because of APS-C, the Pentax lenses tend to be smaller and lighter, but can be somewhat slower. This is being offset by the high usable ISO of Pentax' recent camera body offerings. This is just a brief overview of what is happening out there. So my question, again, is how much do you want to spend? IMHO, all the manufacturer's cameras will produce excellent images, so its a matter of cost and personal feel for the camera.

I agree. Although I do feel Pentax tends to be geared more towards consumers, while Nikon and Canon are more professional brands. If you plan on buying one or two lenses for your camera and never look to go beyond that, any of the brands would be fine. And with the new features of Lightroom 3 and it's ISO noise reduction, I think most of these cameras would be usable at 1600 ISO.

But if you are looking to ever expand to more professional lenses (greater than $1000) like the gold standard 70-200 f/2.8 with IS or VR from Canon or Nikon, a lens that is by far one of the most popular in both Canon and Nikon relms, then Pentax isn't somewhere you should look.

Lastly, you need to hold the camera you are going to buy before purchasing. I know Canon and Nikon are readily available, but Pentax isn't something you typically buy at Best Buy.

[ukcatfan]

For DSLR, Pentax gets alot of recomendations on this board because a few Pentax lovers chime in alot, not saying it's bad.

If you had been here longer than a few months, you would know more about what you are commenting about here. We are currently recommending the current lineup of Pentax cameras because they simply are very good cameras that often out spec their Canon and Nikon equivalents and for less money. That sounds like a win/win if you ask me. Again, because you are a newbie here yourself, you do not know that before the K-x was introduced there was a couple year stretch where we did not do too much promoting of Pentax because they were not the best bang for the buck. After the K100d got old, Pentax came out with a string of nice cameras, but none were better or significantly cheaper than the Canons or Nikons available at the time. That all changed with the introduction of the K-x last year. It is an incredible camera that pretty much beats the T1i and D5000 in most features. The new K-r has not been reviewed yet, but from what I understand, it takes the great things about the K-x and only improves on them.

So, it is for valid reason that we are recommending them and not just that we post a lot.

[Gianna'sPapa]

OKW Lover states...
I'm interested in something beyond a basic entry level DSLR, but certainly don't need (or can afford) one of the top end cameras.

My ideal package would include the body and at least one zoom lens that would cover something equivalent to 35-150mm, or perhaps something "longer", but in a relatively compact design.

All the manufacturers make good cameras that take great images, but if we read the OP's statements he is describing the niche that is the Pentax business model. Even though it has yet to be reviewed, the real world tests on the Kr have been very positive. The real world tests on the K5 have been better than that. Of course there is a significant price difference between the K5 and the Kr. At Photokina, Pentax also introduced a new lens, 18-135mm variable aperture. Again, by looking at the OP's statements this is a lens worth looking at that fits his description of what he is looking for. Can he find something similar in the Canon or Nikon? Probably but it will be larger. Pentax has chosen to manufacture more compact models. If the OP was looking to professionally photograph sports, I would wholeheartedly recommend Canon/ Nikon, but that is not what he was requesting. There is no question that Pentax was late to the table in converting to the digital world, but with the support of the new Hoya management team, its a company that looks to be heading in the right direction with great products.

PS It doesn't hurt that they have kept the same lens mount (excluding the screw mount that needs an adaptor) all these years that can be affixed to the new cameras and are imaged stabilized!

[photo_chick]

The term mirrorless DSLR always makes me laugh. It's such an oxymoron.

I'll suggest camera to look at that seem like they might fit what the poster needs. But I'm an equal opportunity shooter.. I've got Pentax, Canon, Olympus, Holga, Kodak, Sony, Minolta, Fuji and even a Nikon in my gear stash. If it makes some kind of image I'll probably use it.

[OKW Lover]

Thanks to everybody for all the interesting comments here.

In answer to some of the questions, I seriously doubt I'll ever go beyond a basic set of lenses. Say something equivalent to a 35-90, and something in the 75-200+. I really don't want to be in the position of having to lug a lot of lenses around. I'd be really happy to just head out in the morning for a day of shooting pictures in the parks, or out in the real world, with only the one lens on my camera.

Should have also mentioned that performance in low-light conditions is important. I love to take pictures at night of lights reflecting off of water and of fireworks in the parks.

How much do I wan to spend? Under $1k. Preferably significantly under.

Thanks for the suggestions about particular camera models. I'll be studying the spec's carefully.

[ukcatfan]

Thanks to everybody for all the interesting comments here.

In answer to some of the questions, I seriously doubt I'll ever go beyond a basic set of lenses. Say something equivalent to a 35-90, and something in the 75-200+. I really don't want to be in the position of having to lug a lot of lenses around. I'd be really happy to just head out in the morning for a day of shooting pictures in the parks, or out in the real world, with only the one lens on my camera.

Should have also mentioned that performance in low-light conditions is important. I love to take pictures at night of lights reflecting off of water and of fireworks in the parks.

How much do I wan to spend? Under $1k. Preferably significantly under.

Thanks for the suggestions about particular camera models. I'll be studying the spec's carefully.

There is something worth noting given your comments on what lenses you will want. This is another plus to Pentax. Their kit lenses are made to a higher standard in terms of build compared to Canon and Nikon. Optically all are pretty much equivalent. This is not a knock on Canon and Nikon as they do this on purpose to encourage lens upgrades. That is where they really make a lot of money. That is not Pentax's business model, so they sell kit lenses that you might be happy with for a long time. After four years with a DSLR, I am still using the kit 18-55mm and 50-200mm. For the low light shots you mention, a tripod and remote shutter release are the best solution. The kit lenses would work just fine.

[AlbertZeroK]

For the low light shots you mention, a tripod and remote shutter release are the best solution. The kit lenses would work just fine.

You may also look into an IR Remote, make sure your camera supports it. Or you can use the Timer Feature of the camera, in fact, some cameras will even take a number of pictures after the timer expires. For example the T2i and d90 take up to 9 pictures after the timer expires. Not sure about other brands or models, you'd have to check their manuals. I am a huge fan of the timer when doing night shots even though I have shutter release cables.

Also, if you plan on doing alot of tripod shots, you should invest into a tripod with a removable plate or a quick connect system. This will allow you to screw a small plate to the bottom of the camera so when you want to put the camera on your tripod, you just slip it into the mount and it locks in. For cheap tripods you'll actually have to screw the camera to the tripod each time you want to use your tripod and every time you want to take it down.

[photo_chick]

If you really want really good low light performance you may need to look beyond the entry level glass when it comes to zooms or invest in a couple of primes. I think pretty much across the boad the entry level zooms are slow.. especially the tele zooms.

[ukcatfan]

If you really want really good low light performance you may need to look beyond the entry level glass when it comes to zooms or invest in a couple of primes. I think pretty much across the boad the entry level zooms are slow.. especially the tele zooms.

For many low light situations I would totally agree, but the situations the OP mentions call for smaller apertures anyway. The benefits of the prime lenses diminish when you are going to be shooting at f/8 or smaller anyway. Reflections on the water and fireworks are probably creeping into the f/12-16 range. Sure, the glass is going to be a little bit optically better, but it would take pixel peeping to notice a difference on an APS-C camera.

[Pea-n-Me]

As far as brands go, although I had Pentax cameras in the past, I'm not wedded to them. I'm seriously considering Cannon and Nikon, but not Sony.
Just curious, why the bolded?

[OKW Lover]

Just curious, why the bolded?

The not Sony part is due to past experience with their proprietary memory card format (yes, I know they now also include SD cards - I hold a grudge) and not really thrilled with their low-light focusing performance.

[Pea-n-Me]

People discussing camera brands is something akin to people discussing their firstborn.

Any and all of the dslr brands are going to yield you very nice pictures once you learn how to use whatever you choose. The rest is personal preference, especially if you're an average photographer who simply wants good shots of family and friends.

The best advice, IMO, is finding one whose ergonomics you like and feel natural to you. That, and knowing it's primarily the photographer that makes the shot (with a given that we're talking dslr/EVIL cameras). Do research into all, go out and see how they feel to you, look and see if any of your old lenses will work with your choice if cost is important to you (because you almost certainly will want more lenses once you get into it), make the best decision you can given your research and then jump in with both feet and don't look back.

[KAT4DISNEY]

The not Sony part is due to past experience with their proprietary memory card format (yes, I know they now also include SD cards - I hold a grudge) and not really thrilled with their low-light focusing performance.

I'm not certain why you feel the low-light focusing performance is poor. Just to clarify I have not found it to be so.

With purchasing a DSLR I firmly believe it is best to go and try all of the brands that you can. I was positive that I wanted a Canon but looked at all of the brands when I was pricing one out. The camera you are comfortable with and that is intuitive to use is what I recommend for personal use since all of the manufacturers make very capable camera's and the difference's between many of them is minimal. If you have any must have features then that can eliminate some models.

The camera I originally had decided on from research was the Canon Xsi. And there are many satisfied users - it's a nice camera. When I held it I could feel my hand cramping up after just playing around with it in the store and knew that would never work for me to take many pictures at one time no matter how much other people liked it or what the specs were.

JMO

[bob100]

The camera I originally had decided on from research was the Canon Xsi. And there are many satisfied users - it's a nice camera. When I held it I could feel my hand cramping up after just playing around with it in the store and knew that would never work for me to take many pictures at one time no matter how much other people liked it or what the specs were.

JMO

right, but compare the smaller models like the Canon XSi and the 35mm film cameras, back then people thought the 35mm cameras were the right size and now in the digital age some want larger and heavier cameras!
For me the smaller models like the XSi, 550D, etc. are a good size, the other larger models like the Canon 1d series seem absurdly large!

[KAT4DISNEY]

right, but compare the smaller models like the Canon XSi and the 35mm film cameras, back then people thought the 35mm cameras were the right size and now in the digital age some want larger and heavier cameras!
For me the smaller models like the XSi, 550D, etc. are a good size, the other larger models like the Canon 1d series seem absurdly large!

I know - isn't it funny! My 35mm film camera compared in size is smaller than many of the bridge camera's - less any big lenses attached of course. It's more comparable to the "small" mirrorless DSLR's. :rotfl:

I'm not for the heavier camera's myself - but the different designs do make a difference in my hands - there's a little arthritis at play so I probably feel the differences more quickly. But thankfully that hasn't always meant the bigger camera's!

[photo_chick]

My 35mm Canon Rebel G is a bit larger than my Canon Rebel XT. And the new Rebels are a little smaller still.

Size does matter. If it doesn't fit well in your hands you're not as likely to use it often.

[AlbertZeroK]

I agree the current Sony offerings are better at low light, likely due to the fact they have picked up Minolta's technology. My nex3 is a dream of a camera for it's size and capabilities.

[LimoFam5]

Going to buy my first DSLR and I wanted everyones opinion.
I have decided on the Canon EOS T2i Rebel however there are two packages that I am considering.

1.Canon EOS T2i Rebel w/15-55mm & 70-300mm
2.Canon EOS T2i Rebel w/ 15-55mm & 55-250mm

Basically the difference is the second lens / 70-300mm or the 55-250mm

Can you please tell me what package you would go with and why?
What is the difference in the two lenses?:surfweb::worship:

[Pea-n-Me]

What are the apertures to each (f numbers) and what type of shooting do you do or plan to do? Are they IS (image stabilized)?

Aside from opinions here, there are lots of reviews online. Reading some of those might help you figure out which will be best for you.

[Frantasmic]

The 2nd package has two Image Stabilized lenses that are pretty good. The 70-300 is a longer lens, but I don't believe it is IS.

Pick two

[ThurlFan]

I have Canon XSi with the 18-55 and 55-250 and am very happy. The reviews I've read for the 70-300 are not as nice as those for the 55-250 FWIW.

[okstate_angel]

I was debating the same thing, I just bought the XS this last week. I believe that the previous poster is correct, the one that goes to 300 does not have the Image Stabilizer, that made the decision for me, my hands are not steady enough to go without.

[LimoFam5]

The 70-300mm does have IS

[ukcatfan]

I agree the current Sony offerings are better at low light, likely due to the fact they have picked up Minolta's technology. My nex3 is a dream of a camera for it's size and capabilities.

:confused: How could they have improved with Minolta's technology now being included when Sony never made a DSLR before they bought Minolta. Unless you are talking about their p&s models, but that would be comparing apples to oranges.

[zackiedawg]

:confused: How could they have improved with Minolta's technology now being included when Sony never made a DSLR before they bought Minolta. Unless you are talking about their p&s models, but that would be comparing apples to oranges.


Point of fact, they actually have improved on Minolta's technology - Minolta had the DSLR experience that gave Sony a good base to start from, then apply their enormous technological knowhow and much larger budget to improve on what Minolta already had. Current Sony DSLRs all focus considerably faster than previous Minolta DSLRs - and Sony DSLRs also have some of the most consistent, reliable, and accurate focus systems among DSLRs, this despite the number of cross-sensors and focus points (more focus points don't often mean better focusing, but better tracking and coverage - Sony's low light focus has always been quite good even since their high-end P&S days). I have in two Sony DSLRs never encountered a situation where the AF system could not achieve focus in low light, and I have extremely extensive experience shooting in low light at both slow shutter and high ISO handheld. In my own personal experience, I find Sony's low light focusing to in fact be better, more accurate, and more reliable than any Canon or Nikon models I tried or which friends have (those being entry or mid level models, NOT pro).

To the OP, I'd say the reasons listed to omit Sony are not really apropos with their DSLRs, which in fact NEVER were Memorystick exclusive - in fact, their first 4 models of DSLR didn't even take memorystick at all...and even now, memorystick remains an additional usable format alongside SD. As for low light focus, that has not ever been an issue with Sony's DSLRs. However, I would by no means try to convince you to get a Sony - people choose what make them happy, and whether you don't like Sony because you hate Playstations, or don't like camera companies with only 4 letters in their name...that's your own right! I just wanted to correct those two issues you mentioned not really applying to Sony's DSLRs.

I'd say honestly choose what you want, what you like the feel of, and what you'll feel good about. Despite some suggestions otherwise from Sony or Pentax fans, it sounds like you would feel a little more confident buying from one of the two 'big' DSLR brands in the market in Canon or Nikon - they've both got plenty of excellent cameras from which to choose, so that would probably be a fine direction for you to be looking in. If you really honestly thought you'd be open-minded to considering one of the smaller players like 3rd place Sony or 4th place Pentax, that'd be fine too as both also have some excellent cameras to offer. But if you're going to have any issues with walking around with one of those names on the front when most people you encounter will have Canon or Nikon badges, then you're probably not a good candidate to buy from the smaller players. Most important is to be happy and feel confident in your decision and enjoy photography!

[AlbertZeroK]

Point of fact, they actually have improved on Minolta's technology - Minolta had the DSLR experience that gave Sony a good base to start from, then apply their enormous technological knowhow and much larger budget to improve on what Minolta already had. Current Sony DSLRs all focus considerably faster than previous Minolta DSLRs - and Sony DSLRs also have some of the most consistent, reliable, and accurate focus systems among DSLRs, this despite the number of cross-sensors and focus points (more focus points don't often mean better focusing, but better tracking and coverage - Sony's low light focus has always been quite good even since their high-end P&S days). I have in two Sony DSLRs never encountered a situation where the AF system could not achieve focus in low light, and I have extremely extensive experience shooting in low light at both slow shutter and high ISO handheld. In my own personal experience, I find Sony's low light focusing to in fact be better, more accurate, and more reliable than any Canon or Nikon models I tried or which friends have (those being entry or mid level models, NOT pro).

To the OP, I'd say the reasons listed to omit Sony are not really apropos with their DSLRs, which in fact NEVER were Memorystick exclusive - in fact, their first 4 models of DSLR didn't even take memorystick at all...and even now, memorystick remains an additional usable format alongside SD. As for low light focus, that has not ever been an issue with Sony's DSLRs. However, I would by no means try to convince you to get a Sony - people choose what make them happy, and whether you don't like Sony because you hate Playstations, or don't like camera companies with only 4 letters in their name...that's your own right! I just wanted to correct those two issues you mentioned not really applying to Sony's DSLRs.

I'd say honestly choose what you want, what you like the feel of, and what you'll feel good about. Despite some suggestions otherwise from Sony or Pentax fans, it sounds like you would feel a little more confident buying from one of the two 'big' DSLR brands in the market in Canon or Nikon - they've both got plenty of excellent cameras from which to choose, so that would probably be a fine direction for you to be looking in. If you really honestly thought you'd be open-minded to considering one of the smaller players like 3rd place Sony or 4th place Pentax, that'd be fine too as both also have some excellent cameras to offer. But if you're going to have any issues with walking around with one of those names on the front when most people you encounter will have Canon or Nikon badges, then you're probably not a good candidate to buy from the smaller players. Most important is to be happy and feel confident in your decision and enjoy photography!

My NEX-3 almost has me convinced to switch to Sony Actually. If the lenses were comparable between their DSLR and NEX, I'd likely switch now.

[jacksmomma]

We are getting a DSLR! :banana: I am scanning the Black Friday ads and have found deals for both the Nikon D3000 and the Canon EOS XS. I have looked at and tried out both; there is a $20 difference (with the Nikon being higher). Which should I get? Suggestions?

[Marlton Mom]

Boy is this a loaded question!

The Nikon People will say Nikon.
The Canon people will say Canon.
The Pentax people will say Pentax.
You get the idea....

The best thing for you to do is learn as much about the cameras and decide which one will fit your needs the best.

Here is a link to the Nikon Digitutor site for the D3000. Digitutor will help you learn more about the 3000's features.

http://www.nikondigitutor.com/eng/d3000/index.html

Good Luck, :thumbsup2

Marlton Mom

[Gianna'sPapa]

Both of these models are not the latest entry level DSLR's from those manufacturers. Do they come with a lens or two? Have you looked at all the manufacturers? What is your budget? What type of photography do you expect to do? Because the ergonomics of each camera is important, you really should try to handle all the manufacturers. Once you find the right one you will know. You really do want this decision to be correct because once you start with a manufacturer/system you are liable to be there for a long time because of the cost of lenses and peripherals.

[photo_chick]

The black friday deals I have seen for these two cameras have not been good deals at all, they've been really close to normal price.

As far as which one.... whichever has the features you want and fits in your hands well.

[Frantasmic]

Both are older sensors; however, I believe the Canon XS has the oldest technology, sensor-wise. Nikon is going to the 3100 as it's base camera, which I think is the 3000 with hd video added.

Based solely on performance of those two cameras, if I didn't prefer one brand over the other already, I'd probably go with the Nikon.

[AlbertZeroK]

Go look at the cameras now, put it in your hand and see how it feels, go through the menus and try taking and looking at a few pictures on the camera.

I am really of the mind that you need an articulating LCD screen. that is a screen that is movable. This has been great on my NEX3, it allows you to shoot from more angles and allow you to be more artistic.

I agree too, I've seen no deals on DSLR's this black friday, everything is just normal pricing. You might check out refurbished cameras at http://www.Adorama.com, I know the canon refurbished comes with a 1 year warrantee just like a new camera. Also, Canon has a loyalty program and sells refurbished gear through that, but only comes with a 90 day warrantee.

[ssanders79]

While I am in Nikon camp, I urge you to read up on each brand and look for the future. You are buying into a brand. You will get your first dSLR then you will start buying accessories... Then sometime down the road you will want to upgrade from an entry level to something else. Now you are invested in the brand you bought years ago.

I also agree that you should choose a camera body based on how it feels in your hands.

[bob100]

We are getting a DSLR! :banana: I am scanning the Black Friday ads and have found deals for both the Nikon D3000 and the Canon EOS XS. I have looked at and tried out both; there is a $20 difference (with the Nikon being higher). Which should I get? Suggestions?


I am in the Canon camp but I would say wait and save a little more. The Canon XS is a stripped down version, the later Canon models like the Canon T1i (500D) and Canon T2i (550D) have additional features like a faster "burst rate" HD video, improved sensor, etc.

[zackiedawg]

I'm not in any camp myself - I think you should consider all cameras, find the one that fits your budget, feels comfortable to you, has the features you need, and go that route. I currently shoot with a Sony DSLR, and have had/have cameras from Pentax, Minolta, and Canon as well. Noone makes a bad DSLR, and though some of the newest models have greater abilities than some of the stripped down older ones, you may not need some of those powerful abilities. Stronger consideration should be given to particular features you may really want/like, and stick with those models that deliver what you most want.

[polkadotminnie]

I am really of the mind that you need an articulating LCD screen. that is a screen that is movable. This has been great on my NEX3, it allows you to shoot from more angles and allow you to be more artistic.

This was one feature I wanted in a camera when I was looking. I shoot at allstar cheer competitions and many times I have to shoot over a crowd so this was important to me. I had a Nikon N65D film camera and when I went to look for a DSLR I thought I would go Nikon. I decided to buy a Sony since it felt big enough for my hand. I have an A500 and a love it.

[OKW Lover]

Just wanted to thank all the folks that offered great suggestions on this thread. After much deliberation, I wound up getting a Nikon D3100 with the 18-55 vr basic lens and a 55-200 vr lens. Bought from Amazon at a package price of ~$730 plus shipping. Should be here tomorrow. :cool1:

[DVC Mike]

Just wanted to thank all the folks that offered great suggestions on this thread. After much deliberation, I wound up getting a Nikon D3100 with the 18-55 vr basic lens and a 55-200 vr lens. Bought from Amazon at a package price of ~$730 plus shipping. Should be here tomorrow. :cool1:

Congrats!

[WriteDisney]

I'd like some advice on choosing my first digital SLR camera! I have a Sony Cybershot point and shoot at the moment that I use all the time (vacations, everyday stuff, concerts, sports, etc).

I'm looking in the 700-800 range and like to just get a basic lens right now to start out. I like the Canon Digital Rebel XSi, but I'm going to check out a bunch this weekend. Any recommendations are greatly appreciated.

[mom2rtk]

I'd like some advice on choosing my first digital SLR camera! I have a Sony Cybershot point and shoot at the moment that I use all the time (vacations, everyday stuff, concerts, sports, etc).

I'm looking in the 700-800 range and like to just get a basic lens right now to start out. I like the Canon Digital Rebel XSi, but I'm going to check out a bunch this weekend. Any recommendations are greatly appreciated.

There are 3 generations of Canon Rebels out since then. The Xsi was a great camera, but you can get so much more for your money now. The T1i came out in 09, the T2i in 08 and the T3i is just out. I would go for the T2i or T3i.

[mikegood2]

I'd agree with mom2rtk and at-least take a look at T2i or T3i. If you keep an eye out, Amazon can have good deals on these camera.

Also, look into the camera with kit lens for $100 more. While the 18-55 IS lens in not a great lens, your not going to find anything close to it for the price. Also, when you are ready to add a lens or two, most people think 50mm 1.8 lens is the best lens under $100.

[Carrieannew]

Sorry if this is a duplicate question but I can't at the moment read back through all 6 pages.

Is there a website that will let me compare the different DSLR's and prices? Like a side by side listing of features between the most popular?

I want to get the best I can for my money. If I could keep a whole package under $500 that would be ideal but if it's a matter of another $200 will be well worth it then I will part with more.

[WriteDisney]

I'd agree with mom2rtk and at-least take a look at T2i or T3i. If you keep an eye out, Amazon can have good deals on these camera.

Also, look into the camera with kit lens for $100 more. While the 18-55 IS lens in not a great lens, your not going to find anything close to it for the price. Also, when you are ready to add a lens or two, most people think 50mm 1.8 lens is the best lens under $100.

I definitely will check Amazon. I think I'll probably end up just buying through them, but I wanted to check out a few at Best Buy or something (just to get an idea of how they feel). It's good to know that the 18-55 is at least decent. If I can get the camera for a good price maybe I'll add a lens.

There are 3 generations of Canon Rebels out since then. The Xsi was a great camera, but you can get so much more for your money now. The T1i came out in 09, the T2i in 08 and the T3i is just out. I would go for the T2i or T3i.

Ahh, already so much to learn! That's for the advice I'll put all those on my list to check out.

[ukcatfan]

Sorry if this is a duplicate question but I can't at the moment read back through all 6 pages.

Is there a website that will let me compare the different DSLR's and prices? Like a side by side listing of features between the most popular?

I want to get the best I can for my money. If I could keep a whole package under $500 that would be ideal but if it's a matter of another $200 will be well worth it then I will part with more.

Check dpreview.com for feature side by side comparisons,but it doesn't really have much on street price. Be sceptical of deals too good to be true. I mainly shop at B&H, Adorama, and Buydig. FWIW, I think the Pentax K-x would be a good fit for you.

[Carrieannew]

Check dpreview.com for feature side by side comparisons,but it doesn't really have much on street price. Be sceptical of deals too good to be true. I mainly shop at B&H, Adorama, and Buydig. FWIW, I think the Pentax K-x would be a good fit for you.

What is your opinion on this one? Is this an example of too good to be true on price?

http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php?refid=279&sku=PENKX1855KWE

[ukcatfan]

What is your opinion on this one? Is this an example of too good to be true on price?

http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php?refid=279&sku=PENKX1855KWE

I believe they are one of the worst. Check Reseller Ratings before buying from someone you are not familiar with.

[Carrieannew]

I believe they are one of the worst. Check Reseller Ratings before buying from someone you are not familiar with.

Yikes! Ok thank you

[ukcatfan]

How in the world did that double post thirty minutes later? Strange

[WriteDisney]

There are 3 generations of Canon Rebels out since then. The Xsi was a great camera, but you can get so much more for your money now. The T1i came out in 09, the T2i in 08 and the T3i is just out. I would go for the T2i or T3i.

I'd agree with mom2rtk and at-least take a look at T2i or T3i. If you keep an eye out, Amazon can have good deals on these camera.

Also, look into the camera with kit lens for $100 more. While the 18-55 IS lens in not a great lens, your not going to find anything close to it for the price. Also, when you are ready to add a lens or two, most people think 50mm 1.8 lens is the best lens under $100.

Thanks again for the advice! I got the Canon Rebel T2i with the kit lens 18-55 (799 at Best Buy!). I think in a month or two I'm going to pick up a better lens but I'll make due with the kit lens for now. I'd rather save up and get the best one. Plus I'm still learning alot of the basics of the camera right now. We have a trip to Disney coming up in May and I'd like to pick a lens up then (and hopefully I'll get more of a handle of this thing by then!)

[mom2rtk]

What is your opinion on this one? Is this an example of too good to be true on price?

http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php?refid=279&sku=PENKX1855KWE

I'm glad you asked here! I know someone who bought what was supposed to be a new lens from them. Turns out it was used and they did nothing about it. She filed with Paypal and they did nothing for her either. :scared1:

Thanks again for the advice! I got the Canon Rebel T2i with the kit lens 18-55 (799 at Best Buy!). I think in a month or two I'm going to pick up a better lens but I'll make due with the kit lens for now. I'd rather save up and get the best one. Plus I'm still learning alot of the basics of the camera right now. We have a trip to Disney coming up in May and I'd like to pick a lens up then (and hopefully I'll get more of a handle of this thing by then!)

Yeah! Congrats and enjoy your camera. I have the T2i and really am enjoying it. Be sure to stop back by with any questions you have!

[WriteDisney]

I'm glad you asked here! I know someone who bought what was supposed to be a new lens from them. Turns out it was used and they did nothing about it. She filed with Paypal and they did nothing for her either. :scared1:



Yeah! Congrats and enjoy your camera. I have the T2i and really am enjoying it. Be sure to stop back by with any questions you have!

Awesome! I certainly will! If I get brave enough I might post some pics over on the Canon thread.

[mom2rtk]

Awesome! I certainly will! If I get brave enough I might post some pics over on the Canon thread.

No bravery needed. We don't bite! ;)

[I loveStitchnippyjon]

Father's Day AND DH's birthday are coming up, and he has been hinting about a DSLR. He used to love his old 35mm Nikon, and a local store has the Nikon D5100 for $650 with a 55-200mm DX VR zoom Nikkor lens for $150.
How do these prices sound to you for the quality of the equipment?
Sorry, I'm pretty clueless myself....:confused3