Best camera to buy in the $750.00 - $1500.00 range.

[zaja]

Getting ready to buy a camera this year, wondering what is going to be the best in the $750.00 to $1500.00 range. Nothing exceedingly bulky, (although most digital SLR's seem to be OK). Lots of zoom and obviously great picture quality. Thanks for any suggestions.

 

[Master Mason]

In that Price range, most of all of the entry level dSLR's are avaible to you. After that, best becomes very subjective.

In the Cannon line, look at the Rebel XTi and possibly the 30D (the 30D replacement is rumored on the horizon though)

In Nikon line there is the D50, D70, D80 that would all be in the price range

In Pentax line there is the K100, K110, and K10, that would all be in the price range

There are also the sony and olympus lines that would fit as well, but I know nothing about them.

Read the reviews at dpreview, and go to a good shop and play with them, see which one feels better to you. All are good cameras, each has things they do better or worse than the other.

Remember to save some of your budget for lenses and other items you'll need to get the most out of a good camera.

 

[YEKCIM]

Some dSLR suggestions:

Canon Rebel XTi
Nikon D50
Pentax K100D

Some "superzoom" suggestions:

Canon S2-IS or S3-IS
Sony H2 or H5
Fuji S6000fd

You can get a lot of camera for what you state your budget is. Best bet is to first determine exactly what features are important to you (ISO, zoom range, LCD size, movie capability...which eliminates dSLR's, etc) and then research those models that best meet your needs.

A couple of good "review" sites are www.dpreview.com and www.steves-digicams.com, although there are others.

~YEKCIM

 

[handicap18]

Others have stated it, but to emphasize it more. You can get a camera in that price range, but its not just about the camera (looking at dSLR's now). You have to include a lens and/or lenses and possibly a speedlight flash.

You can spend as low as about $400-500 on the camera body, but you have to have a lens to go with. In that body price range and your stated budget, you can get some pretty good lenses. OR, you can spend more money, $800-1200 on a camera body and get 1 lens.

Personally, I went with a very good and inexpensive body (Nikon D50) and now have 4 different lenses and a speedlight flash to go with it. That body is currently going for about $500-550, with that you can get the 18-135mm lens for $350 (now at $900), you can also find a 70-300mm lens for $200 (or more if you went with Nikon's version that has VR) and also add in the 50mm f/1.8 lens for $120 or the SB-600 speedlight flash for $200.

So it all depends on your needs and wants. Canon's 30D with an 18-55mm lens goes for around $1200. Nikon's D80 with an 18-135mm lens goes for around $1200. Pentax K10D with 18-55mm lens goes for about $1000. You can spend more on a body and get less lenses or less on the body and get better/more lenses. IMO, any of the entry level dSLR's are going to give you outstanding results (with the right technique and practice), but a better lens will make more of a difference.

 

[foto202]

PIck up a Canon 30D. Add the 50mm 1.4 and you have a great set for 1500.

 

[gruZ]

Before making a suggestion, it would be useful to know what types of pictures you plan on taking. General use, landscape, portrait, etc. etc. Depending on the answer, you might want to take the above advice of going with a less expensive body and spending more on glass.

The other thought is Canon should be coming out with some new models in about 5 weeks - if you can wait and see what they are offering it might allow you to make a more informed decision. I'm not necessarily advocating you go Canon, but their newest offerings will allow for easier comparisons with other manufacturers, and might also push down prices of current models.

 

[ukcatfan]

I would go with the Pentax K10D with the following lenses and still have some funds to spare for memory, extra batteries, etc. I would also go for the grip, but that gets on the bulky side, so you probably would not want that. It would also put you over $1,500.

DA 18-55 (kit lens)
DA 50-200mm
FA 50mm F/1.4


Kevin

 

[mabas9395]

Nothing exceedingly bulky. Lots of zoom and obviously great picture quality.

It would help if you could be more specific on what you are looking for and what you want to do with it.

You are correct that most dSLR's are pretty bulky but bulky is relative. Most photographers say that the Canon Rebel XT is way too small in their hands but if your old camera was a slim point and shoot it may seem bulky to you.

Lots of zoom is also relative. The "super zooms" mentioned by YEKCICM will give you a lot of zoom in one camera. The kit lenses that come with most dSLRs don't have nearly as much reach by comparison but you can add on lenses that will give you a ton of reach.

As far as great picture quality, your only option is to go with a Canon (just kidding, not meaning to start a brand war here). But if you are upgrading from a P&S, any dSLR will give you great picture quality by comparison, if you take the time to learn how to use it.

Lastly, I'll echo handicap18 and say that when you budget for a dSLR, remember that you are not just investing in a camera, but in a camera SYSTEM. If you just get a camera body and kit lens, you are really missing out on what a dSLR system can do.

If you are like me, be prepared to compensate for a lack of artistic talent with lots and lots of expensive gear which may include but is not limited to:

Camera body
kit lens
memory card
small bag
walk around lens
extra battery
50mm prime lens
another memory card
another battery
bigger bag
speedlight flash
remote control shutter release
protective UV filter
longer prime
tripod
long telephoto zoom
bigger memory card
sensor cleaning kit
flash difuser
monopod
ultra wide angle lens
polarizing filter
and the list goes on
and on
and on
and on

 

[extreme8]

Two things you can be certain of;

1 - Which ever camera you buy in that price range will be adequate for 95% of the amateur photographers in the world,

and

2 - Which ever camera you buy you can be guaranteed that 95% of the people here will tell you it was the wrong decision and you should have bought the camera they have!

 

[zaja]

Thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

As far as what is important in the camera system - super zoom capabilities, (previously had a $150.00 cheapo digital camera with horrible zooming capabilty), and a crisp, sharp colorful picture.

Hadn't thought about whether I would need landscape, portrait, general use, ect. I'd say more general use but, wouldn't complain with portrait or landscape capablities.

Right now I'm leaning more toward a 'cheaper' body and then adding some super zoom lenses and extras.

 

[Groucho]

IMHO, the Pentax K10D is easily the best camera in that price range.

Of course, "best" is subjective, this isn't 2+2!

But I think you're making a big mistake if you're saying "I want a good camera, the more I spend the better it'll be, so I want to spend at least $750".

You'd be much better off deciding what you want from the camera, see what cameras fit the bill (and especially decide if you want a PnS or DSLR), then make sure that's in your price range. If it's less than you have budgeted, great, that's more money for lenses.

From what you're said so far, it sounds like you'd probably be best with an advanced long-zoom PnS like the Sony H5, Canon S3, or similar.

 

[ukcatfan]

For portraits, the 50mm prime lenses are good. If you need it a little wider, then a prime around the mid 20mm to mid 30mm would be nice. They are usually more $ than the 50mm though. To make sure you have something wide enough, I would make sure I had something at least as wide as 18mm. I cannot speak for other brands, but the Pentax kit lens (18mm-55mm) is a pretty sharp and relatively fast lens for the price.

Side note: are you aware of the digital cropping/digital crop factor/many other names? It is usually around 1.5-1.6X on this range of camera. It basically means that you multiply the focal length by the factor and that is what you really get in terms of 35mm film days.

Because of this crop factor, a 200mm lens becomes a 300mm lens and that might be all that you need for tele.

Kevin

 

[gruZ]

Zaja,

Here are a couple more thoughts on this issue. You are after a general use, crisp, clear, saturated image with some significant lens zoom capabilities. Here are some generalities on the two type of cameras available:

P&S: Generally images will require little post processing. Most of these cameras are set up to do in-camera image processing (sharpening, saturation, etc.), and therefore need little "tweaking" on your computer before printing.

DSLR: While most DSLR's have some type of in-camera processing that will emulate the P&S, right "out of the box" these cameras will need a bit more setup and fine tuning. Granted, they are far more flexible and generally provide excellent images, but do you really need all these options etc. Some people simply don't want to do the post processing that often (not always) accompanies a DSLR.

I'm not trying to steer you away from a DSLR, just to think about what you need the camera to do, and then go from there. Groucho is right in his comment about more money does not necessarily mean better pictures.

 

[mabas9395]

In addition to thinking about what you want OUT of the camera, you need to think about what you are willing to put INTO it, in terms of time and effort to learn about all the different settings and function to use it properly.

There is a reason why dSLR cameras are not called "point and shoot" cameras, because in order to get the best out of them you cannot simply point and shoot. A P&S does the thinking for you, with a dSLR YOU must do the thinking. What ISO should you use? What aperture should you use? Which shutter speed? Should you adjust the white balance? Which metering mode? Which AF mode? Should you use a flash? Should you adjust the flash power output? Should you bounce the flash?

Actually, you can set a dSLR on full automatic mode and it will do the thinking for you, but then you have just spent $800 too much on an overgrown P&S when a nice P&S would give you better results.

In other words, using a fancy camera won't make you a better photographer any more than using Julia Child's pots will make you a better cook.

 

[MissionMouse]

Thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

As far as what is important in the camera system - super zoom capabilities, (previously had a $150.00 cheapo digital camera with horrible zooming capabilty), and a crisp, sharp colorful picture.

Hadn't thought about whether I would need landscape, portrait, general use, ect. I'd say more general use but, wouldn't complain with portrait or landscape capablities.

Right now I'm leaning more toward a 'cheaper' body and then adding some super zoom lenses and extras.

I'm not convienced a DSLR is for you based upon the limited information provided, but currently owning a $150 camera would lean mean to say no. Don't be misled by digital zoom...this provides worthless zoom capability. Best advice is take some of the models mentioned here and go to a good camera store (sell to professionals) and try them out. It is like buying a baseball glove...it has to feel right, talk to the knowledgable salesperson. Identify what you want and then shop around for the price.

 

[YEKCIM]

From all I've heard, the Fuji S6000fd is a very capable "superzoom" camera, and considerably less money than a dSLR, although by definition not as flexible.

~YEKCIM

 

[zaja]

Just searched for the fuji s600fd and saw it only has 11 x optical and 2 x digital. This doesn't seem like any more than my $150.00 camera. (Very camera challenged, so please bare with me.) One of the main irritations with my current camera is it won't get in close enough for some pictures.

Also wondering why a DSLR camera is (possibly) not what I need? I'm mainly just looking for something that's great for casual pictures - vacations, family shots for scrapbooking, ect.

 

[ukcatfan]

Just searched for the fuji s600fd and saw it only has 11 x optical and 2 x digital. This doesn't seem like any more than my $150.00 camera. (Very camera challenged, so please bare with me.) One of the main irritations with my current camera is it won't get in close enough for some pictures.

Also wondering why a DSLR camera is (possibly) not what I need? I'm mainly just looking for something that's great for casual pictures - vacations, family shots for scrapbooking, ect.

First, ignore the digital zoom. It is worthless. You can do the same thing more accurately by cropping at home.

Actually 11x zoom is alot of zoom. What you might need to look closer at is the acual focal lengths. Let me give you an example. All of the following would be considered an 11x zoom: 38mm - 418mm, 28mm - 308mm, 10mm - 110mm. Obviously these would be extremely different focal lengths, but all still 11x.

Also, the more zoom there is, the less quality the lens is. It is just an engineering constraint that you cannot avoid. That is why you do not see too many DSLR lenses that are 10x and higher. The quality of the lens will just not be good enough for the image sensor.

There is a p&s Olympus coming out soon that is 18x that you might want to check out.

If you end up DSLR, you will probably want a lens that goes to at least 300mm if your 11x p&s does not give you enough reach. With the crop factor considered, this would be ~450mm. This lens might start to stretch your budget, so you might want to consider an entry level camera like the K100D, D50, or Rebel XT to save a little there.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

By and large (excepting the upcoming Olympus that I'm very wary of), 12x is as long as you can get in a point-n-shoot digital camera. 12x is a HUGE amount of zoom; your current cheapie camera probably has 3x zoom (like others said - optical zoom is the only thing that matters, digital zoom is lousy and should be ignored.)

To get that much zoom on a DSLR, you'll need somewhere around a 300mm lens. (To be exact, 12x zoom is equivalent to 432mm on a 35mm camera, and most DLSRs have somewhere around a 1.5 crop factor - so a 300mm zoom would be about 450mm.) You'd probably be looking at a 70-300mm zoom lens plus the kit lens, which is usually around 18-55mm. You would, of course, have to change lenses when going between those ranges, and carry around the unused lens. If you want to use a tripod, you'll need a bigger one because your setup will weigh a good bit more than a PnS camera.

If you're mainly interested in getting good pictures without having to fiddle much and are not interested in learning about the technical side of photography, a nice PnS is definitely the way to go. A DSLR is more of a "tool" that, yes, can definitely produce much better photos, but it requires more effort and more equipment and will have a steeper learning curve (especially if you haven't used an SLR, film or digital, before.)

A nice 12x zoom, image stabilized PnS camera can be had for under $400... feel free to send some of the money you'll save my way.

 

[YEKCIM]

Based on my personal experience, a decent two-lens dslr solution might be a Nikon D50 body plus either the Nikon 18-70 or Sigma 17-70 and the Sigma 70-300 APO. You can get all of the above, online, for around $1K at present, and the focal length range would be 28mm to 450mm in 35mm film equivalence. The D50 is not the newest thing on the market, but produces very nice out-of-camera JPEG's, and has excellent ergonomics.

~YEKCIM