Canon 400D (Rebel Xti, Kiss X)

[Master Mason]

I would personally cut out the D40 as it has limitations I wouldn't want to live with as far as lenses you can use.

I also believe the evolt is a 4x3 sensor, which would cut it out for me. I want the larger sensor, I can't justify the cost yet, but at some point there is a FF sensor out there with my name on it, and currently canon is the only one playing in that market.

I would be looking at the following
Canon XT or XTi
Nikon D50 (Still out there but getting harder to find)
Pentax K1000 (If I was just starting this one would be hard to pass up)

 

[ukcatfan]

On a side note, I would stick with your old p&s while actually on the sand at the beach. Even then, I would find a way to protect it. Sand and salt water can really mess up a DSLR.

Kevin

 

[MICKEY88]

the Sony A100 is also a great camera and there are some great deals on ebay, there are also a lot of minolta lenses available that will work on the Sony..

 

[rhiansmom]

Thanks so much for all of your help! I'm off to look at the Pentex as that sounds like the way I will want to go. I know that I can always buy something else if I don't like it but this summer without a job funds are going to be a bit tight.

 

[Groucho]

Between just those two.... even I might have to go for the XTi.

If your budget is under $1k, that gives you a lot of options. The "bang for the buck" deal is the Pentax K100D, about $575 after rebate for the camera + kit lens + 50-200mm lens. The Nikon D40, like it was said, unfortunately has been hobbled by lack of a focus motor; which is a shame as I like their system otherwise. The Sony is a little pricier but another option, but once you're looking at that much, you can get closer to the Pentax K10D, which is a bit more high-end than the others, but might not give enough headroom to get you into the lenses you need and still stay under $1k. The Nikon D80 may squeak under $1k but you'll have even less left to play with for lenses. The Nikon D40x is not that much cheaper than the D80 and not worth considering IMHO, it's a big jump in cost over the D40 for the marginal benefit of more megapixels but still the same focus limitations.

If you can still find a Nikon D50, that may be worth considering, too, but they're out of production and getting difficult to locate. It doesn't have the focus limitations of the D40.

The D40 is probably set up the most to be easy to use for those not familiar with SLRs, but it trades functionality for that. The others are probably all fairly similar in terms of user-friendliness. I wouldn't pay much attention to "scene modes" as hopefully you won't be using them, ideally your time will be spent in program, shutter/aperture priority, or maybe even manual mode.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The rebel [XT] is a better deal than the XTi at the moment.

I'm always a little leery about these sorts of statements. Given the significant weighting the OP has put on price, it probably makes sense. As a general rule, though, whether the XT or the XTi is a better deal depends on lot on how you value the improvements.

For example, to someone that shoots a lot of sports, the difference between a 4 and 10 shot RAW buffer might be worth the entire price difference alone. If you tend to be a "gather the family in front of the big scenic thing and take one shot", the extra buffer size is of little or no value.

To someone shooting flower shots, having an RGB histogram can be indispensible. It's really easy to blow out a particular color channel when shooting saturated colors and with an XT, you wouldn't know it.

Given the discounting on XTs, I agree that most people will find it a better deal, but a significant number will not.

 

[pyrxtc]

I don't know about using an Evolt as a beginners SLR but it's a good camera. You could try the new 500 UZ or the Evolt 400 or 410. They are smaller and easier to hold. They take pictures to fit an exact 8x10 with no cropping but it will crop your 4x6's. you could always just get some 4x5's printed, some places will do that for you and just leave the extra inch white.

I'm just an Olympus lover, one of the very few ones on here.

 

[Anewman]

I don't know about using an Evolt as a beginners SLR but it's a good camera. You could try the new 500 UZ or the Evolt 400 or 410. They are smaller and easier to hold. They take pictures to fit an exact 8x10 with no cropping but it will crop your 4x6's. you could always just get some 4x5's printed, some places will do that for you and just leave the extra inch white.

Maybe I am missing something but dont all the cameras you mention have 4:3 sensor??

Last time I checked that meant cropping to yield a 8x10 print, not as much of a crop as required from a 3:2 sensor but they do not fit an exact 8x10(or 4x5).

 

[poohangel]

I have just bought an Opteka RC-7 wireless remote for my camera and the instructions that came with the remote are non existant. Can you tell me how to program the remote to my camera?

thanks in advance

angela

 

[mikamah]

I am planning on buying my first DSLR camera, and have pretty much decided on the rebel xti, thanks to all the wonderful information I have found on many threads on this board. You all are so helpful and full of knowledge. I have only used a point and shoot camera, so the dslr world is all new to me, and I don't know much about the lenses. The kit lens is a 18mm-55mm/3.5-22, and is about $100 more than the body only camera. Is that a decent lens? or would it be wiser to invest a few hundred dollars more and get a lens that will be good for everyday, but more useful. I take mostly pictures of my son, he's just starting t-ball, and trying to get a pic with my p+s of him in the field was what got me thinking I need another camera with better zoom capability. I would also like to take better night shots at wdw, camping, fireworks, etc. I'm guessing I will need one kind of all around lens, and then a stronger zoom lens for sports and maybe some nature shots.
Thanks.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The most common progression in lenses these days is to start with a wide-to-medium zoom like the 18-55mm. Then most people add a longer range zoom like a 55-200mm, 70-200mm, or 70-300mm. Following that, people sometimes add an ultra-wide zoom like the 10-22mm.

One important consideration is whether or not you want to buy EF-S lenses. These lenses are specifically designed for the Rebel and 30D series of cameras with their relatively smaller sensors. The will not work on a film camera or a 1D, 1Ds, or 5D series camera. For most people, that will never be an issue. The advantage to getting EF-S lenses is that they are smaller, lighter, and cheaper than their EF counterparts.

The next consideration is how much money you are willing to spend. Extra money gets you things like better optics, image stabilization, wider apertures (which let you take pictures in darker conditions), and in one case much smaller size (the 70-300 DO). The cost for improving lens quality and features goes up quite fast.

In addition to zoom lenses, you might also consider prime lenses. These lenses only have one focal length; they can't zoom in and out at all. On the other hand, they are lighter, cheaper, and have wider apertures.

Another thing to look at is third party lenses from companies like Sigma and Tokina. While they typically aren't as good as their Canon counterparts, some are still very good lenses and they can be much cheaper.

A really good source for information about Canon lenses is the Canon EF Lens Work III book. You can order it on Amazon. Even better, you can download it as a series of PDF files at http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp. It's got the complete list of currently offered lenses. Some of the later chapters have good generic information about lenses that even non-Canon owners might find useful.

 

[Lizziejane]

Welcome to the XTi club! We bought ours in January, and love it.

The kit lens isn't terrible, but it is noticeably softer than the 50mm 1.8 prime when I took some test shots. I was perfectly happy with it until I did the comparison! We added the 70-300mm with IS, and I can't imagine that length without the IS - unless you plan on using a tripod all the time.

The 50mm would be great for shots of your son, but be patient - I've had to play with it a lot. Wide open, it can be tricky to get everything in focus unless you're the right distance away. And learning what's the right distance is half the battle! The 1.8 is great for low-light situations.

If I had the money, I'd switch out my kit lens for the 17-85 or 28-135 as my walk-about. Having said that though, I haven't tested either, I'm just thinking it would be nice to have a little more zoom than the kit has. My DH wants the 17-85 because he tends to take wide shots, I want the 28-135 because I tend to want to zoom in on everything. Spend some time looking at photos that are posted, and see if there's a "type" that attracts your eye more than others - wide angle or zoom. Go with the kit until you know which you might get more use out of. The problem with zoom is that now I also want a macro... and so it goes... the list will never end!

 

[boBQuincy]

The much maligned 18-55 kit lens is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and there are many postings of really good photos taken with this lens. For less than $100 it's a decent deal and a good starter lens.

Now then, for sports you will almost certainly want something longer. Canon's 55-200 is ok for bright days but a little slow for night games.

For low light you may want Canon's very good 50mm f/1.8, which is also their least expensive lens.

You gets what you pays for (if you're lucky) and all these lenses are light, plastic, (not the actual lens elements though, they're glass), and feel kinda' flimsy. Even so, I haven't managed to break any of them. Except for the 50, they also do not deliver good performance wide open.

The good thing is they get you into a wide range of lenses for a good price, and even if you get better ones later these can still be your rainy day/camping/beach lenses.

 

[Zeagle]

There is nothing wrong with the standard kit lens especially to learn on. Not knowing your budget makes it a little harder to suggest lens upgrades, so I will take it that the budget is tight.

Here goes, first option drop the kit lens and try the following.

EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM ---- great starter walk around, portrait, landscape lens for ~230 and will easily do fireworks when used with a tripod.

EF 50mm f/1.8 II --- great lens for low light and and night time pics for ~75 or less, also good for portraits and to learn depth of field.

total upgrade ~300
​

If you have more to spend I would keep the kit lens and add the following

EF 50mm f/1.8 II for ~75 again for your low light and night shoots.

EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM --- unbelievable zoom lens for ~530. This lens will give you great pictures for Landscapes, Portraits, Outdoor sports, wildlife, etc...

total upgrade ~600​

Look forward to hear what you decide and posting those first pics!

Cheers,

Jason

 

[JR6ooo4]

yes the kit lens does ok. especialy with good lighting so you can use the 8-11 aperture sweet spot.

This is one of my early shots with it:

Camera Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Exposure Time 0.2s (1/5)
Aperture f/8.0
ISO 400
Focal Length 48mm (76.8mm in 35mm)
Flash flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Exposure Mode manual
White Balance manual


You can see this is f8.0 aperture but far from abundant lighting. even at 400 iso this was shot with a shutter speed of 1/5 of a second. way too long for handheld that is why it has some blurr.

not a bad lens at all.

but my current lenses are canons:
28-135 is
70-300 is
50mm f1.8

I let go of the kit lens when they were selling for $100 on ebay, hhehehehehee

I am interested in a wide mabye prime since I shoot theater and get pretty close on rehersal nights and the stage is about 80 feet wide!

MIkeeee

 

[ukcatfan]

I have a Pentax, so no experience with Canon lenses, but I would like to share a pretty good lens review site. http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

If it's an extra $100 for the kit lens, you may want to look at alternatives. If you want to spend a little more, most of the third-party companies (Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/etc) make similar ranges with F2.8 throughout the range - these will probably be heavier though. They also have basic variations on the kit lens that will probably be similar in price, and quite probably similar optically and likely to have somewhat better construction, perhaps a lens hood (nice to have) and a non-rotating front, so that if you pick up a circular polarizer later, you'll be able to use it with that lens.

Or, if you're really interested in a "walk-around" lens so that you won't have to switch lenses very often, you might be best looking at 18-135mm or 18-200mm-type lenses.

 

[jann1033]

the kit lens like others have said isn't bad but you might check out ebay for a used one. i got a like new one for $60 so that was worth it. i rarely use it since i want something wider or not as wide( that 's just me being weird) i concur with the 70-200 f4, great lens, and the 50mm f1.8, nice as well. the 28-135 can be a decent lens but i have had nothing but trouble with the is with it( waiting for the label from canon to ship it back the 5th time) it seems my problem with it is uncommon, so much so they are sending it to some special place to see whats up with it this time depending on my budget , i'd probably start with an ebay kit, the 70-200( or the 70-300IS, a little cheaper build and probably not as sharp but still a good lens but extra length and is so it's a trade off), the 50 for lower light and planning on replacing the kit sometime, that would be around $700 and you'd have a nice usable selection

recently i read a review that compared the $100 kit to a $1200 l lens....what a fair fight but while naturally the l won, he said the kit was actually probably a good value and starter lens.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout

 

[photo_chick]

I think the kit lens gets knocked because it is not a high end lens, and because digital is not as forgiving as film. I have it and have been happy with it. It is a really great starting point without much of an investment IMO. THe price difference I have seen locally from the XTi body only and the XTi with the kit lens is only about $65. I say for that little bit get the kit lens and use it. Play with it and learn about your camera so you will get a better understanding of how you shoot and what lens will work well for you becasue what works for me might not work for you.

 

[photo_chick]

ON softness of the lens... I have seen on my images at least most of the softness I experence is user error, not the lens. As I said, I think digital is a lot les forgiving in the focus department than film. Here is an image with the kit lens.