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. 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 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! 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:

my niece eating her birthday cupcake

(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