Recommendation for DSLR

[heatherbelle]

I started out with a Minolta 5000sxi.(?) This was a great camera and I really liked the photo's.

Then digital came along and I got a Nikon coolpix 5600. Not too happy with this. Some of the night time shots look grainy and my firework shots are disappointing. Didn't use a tri-pod, so it could be that. The shots outdoors are nice and the macro takes good shots too. Or could it be the type of card that I use. Don't understand these at all. I just put one in and off I go.

We are thinking of upgrading our camera and wondered what the experts would suggest.

We like to take everyday park touring shots and night time shots too. If needs to be something fairly simple, with not too many buttons and things to worry about.

Price to pay around $800. That's what my Minolta cost over 15 years ago! I loved that camera, but it's broken now, and technology has moved on. (It takes film!)


Forgot to mention my I had add on lenses for my old Minolta, a wide angle one and a zoom one too.

 

[YEKCIM]

Some Nikon options:

Nikon D40 w/18-55mm kit lens @ $460.00

Nikon D40 + 18-135mm kit lens @ $663.00

Nikon D40 + 88-55mm + 55-200mm two lens kit @ $563.00

Nikon 55-200mm VR zoom lens @ $210.00

Nikon 70-300mm VR lens @ $480.00

The D40 is Nikon's current entry level DSLR; you may wish to check the offerings from Olympus, Pentax, Sony, and Canon, as well.

~Y

 

[Frantasmic]

Wolf Camera/Ritz Camera had an ad in the paper today. They are selling the Nikon D80 with a good Nikkor lens and offering a free Quanteray (sp) lens. they have 3 deals (body plus free lens for $799, body, and two other deals $100 apart with different lenses plus the free lens). That was a good deal I thought.

 

[ukcatfan]

You might want to check to see if the lenses will work on a Sony.

 

[MICKEY88]

I started out with a Minolta 5000sxi.(?) This was a great camera and I really liked the photo's.

Then digital came along and I got a Nikon coolpix 5600. Not too happy with this. Some of the night time shots look grainy and my firework shots are disappointing. Didn't use a tri-pod, so it could be that. The shots outdoors are nice and the macro takes good shots too. Or could it be the type of card that I use. Don't understand these at all. I just put one in and off I go.

We are thinking of upgrading our camera and wondered what the experts would suggest.

We like to take everyday park touring shots and night time shots too. If needs to be something fairly simple, with not too many buttons and things to worry about.

Price to pay around $800. That's what my Minolta cost over 15 years ago! I loved that camera, but it's broken now, and technology has moved on. (It takes film!)


Forgot to mention my I had add on lenses for my old Minolta, a wide angle one and a zoom one too.

are you sure that's the right number for your old minolta, I've never heard of an sxi series.


if it was an autofocus slr, your lenses will work on the sony cameras, and I would recommend checking them out since you already have lenses...

 

[heatherbelle]

are you sure that's the right number for your old minolta, I've never heard of an sxi series.


if it was an autofocus slr, your lenses will work on the sony cameras, and I would recommend checking them out since you already have lenses...

Sorry, been to check it's a dynax 5000i. It takes film and I got it around 1990. So will the same lenses work on those new all singing all dancing digital cameras then? The camera was an autofocus, that's what I like, as I am blind as a bat, even with my contacts in!

 

[MICKEY88]

Sorry, been to check it's a dynax 5000i. It takes film and I got it around 1990. So will the same lenses work on those new all singing all dancing digital cameras then? The camera was an autofocus, that's what I like, as I am blind as a bat, even with my contacts in!

yes those lenses will work on the new Sony DSLRs, I went with the
Sony A700 since I have a lot of Minolta lenses, Sony builds the image stabilization into the camera body so it works with all your lenses as well...

the Sony A200 just received a European award for the best camera in it's class, the A300 ansd A350 are very nice cameras also..
then of course there is the A700 and in August they are supposed to release the A900 their pro model...

 

[Troop o' Goofs]

I am a nooblet when it comes to DSLR cameras or cameras in general. I am looking for an entry level (i.e. under $1000) camera that I can eventually purchase different lenses for.

My main goal is to get out of the house and start a photography hobby.

The Sony DSLR-A300 has an offer for DT-18-70 standard zoom and 55-200mm telephoto lens for $899.99 and would be on the high end of my price range.

I was also looking at the Nikon D60.

I have 3 kids under 9, so versatility would be needed as well.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I am not brand loyal at this time.

Thanks.

 

[Groucho]

Under $1000 gives you a wide range of choices. Alphabetically...
Canon XTi & XSi (might still find an XT still floating around)
Nikon D40 & D40x (those may be disappearing) & D60
Olympus E410 (may be going away), E420, E510
Pentax K200D
Sony A200, A300, A350

Each has strengths and weaknesses, none are lousy, and which is the best depends on what someone is looking for. The Pentax models appeal to me the most, that's why I went with them, but that's just me. The only one I'd probably avoid would be the Sony A350, it is basically the same as the A300 but with a higher-megapixel sensor which generates worse noise (worse in low light) - I'd go with the A300 instead if you were going with a Sony.

 

[Hunnypaw]

Make sure your old lenses, if they have autofocus works on a Sony... some might and some might not with a newer body style.

For DSLRs, Canon and Nikon are the two biggest names that have over 85% of the market... if not more. That is why most of the 3rd market lens makers design most of their lenses for those bodies. For under $800, Nikon or Sony probably give more for the money... but if money was no object I would be a Cannon Honk.... Like most, I cannot afford/justify the EOS Mark III or the suitable quiver of glass to go along with it.

Which ever brand you go with, Oly, Pen, (Hasselblad ), it is good to pair it with quality glass (lenses)... if yours current lenses do not mate correctly. You do not have to get professional glass, but just remember, and it seems that you have, that lens can and do, last years/decades with little price reduction. Camera bodies seem to come and go (CCD to CMOS sensors) ever year or so.

If I was starting out, I would really go to the store touch some of them... and go with a body make that feels good in my hands and has an interface (buttons/screen/stuff) that makes sense to me... try it and you can't go wrong.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Olympus E410 (may be going away), E420, E510

The E-520 was also announced and should be available soon. It offers a few improvements over the 510.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I am a nooblet when it comes to DSLR cameras or cameras in general. I am looking for an entry level (i.e. under $1000) camera that I can eventually purchase different lenses for.

My main goal is to get out of the house and start a photography hobby.

The Sony DSLR-A300 has an offer for DT-18-70 standard zoom and 55-200mm telephoto lens for $899.99 and would be on the high end of my price range.

I was also looking at the Nikon D60.

I have 3 kids under 9, so versatility would be needed as well.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I am not brand loyal at this time.

Thanks.

Just been thru all this! I bought the Sony a700 - ran across an incredible closeout - but am absolutely loving it. The A300 was on my short list before that happened along w/the Canon Xsi & Xti. The Sony a200 has also gotten good reviews and would be less. First place I started out was with holding the cameras and seeing if one felt better than the other. I immediately ruled out the Pentax (sorry all you Pentax lovers - I beg your forgiveness!) - it just didn't feel right in my hands compared to the Canon's, Nikons and Sony's. I think that all the cameras that have been mentioned will be able to provide great pics. Sony and Pentax have in body stabilization so that might reduce lens costs later on when you decide to get more. I picked up a couple of Minolta AF lenses for my Sony and they work without a hitch so there's more options out there than might be obvious.

Oops - forgot the Olympus that has been mentioned. I did pick one up but late in the game so I set it back down so I wouldn't confuse myself....more!

Have fun choosing!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Sony and Pentax have in body stabilization so that might reduce lens costs later on when you decide to get more.

The Olympus E-510 and E-520, and the higher end E-3 also have in body Image Stablization.

The 410/420 do not, but are neat cameras in that they are the most compact dSLRs out there if size and weight are an issue.

 

[Troop o' Goofs]

Looks like I can't go wrong with any of the one's I was looking at. Now to head to the store and pick them up and see how they feel. Thanks to everyone who has responded, even though I am not the OP

to everyone!

How important is ISO? The Sony boasts a ISO of 3200 where most others max at 1000 from what I have gathered thus far.

 

[Groucho]

Most max at 1600. 3200 is OK if it's usable - there's a lot of "noise reduction" going on at that level, so you'll see a lot of smearing of details. Generally, noise-wise, they're all very good. If you HAD to rank them, I'd say Canons have a tiny edge (though at least one report - Bob Atkins - indicates that the 12mp XSi has more noise than the 10mp 40d, which should mean more than the 10mp XTi), Nikon and Pentax are virtually identical (same sensor), then Sony, and Olympus is usually last, due to their smaller sensor - though that smaller sensor does allow a smaller camera and smaller lenses.

Just because the camera has it doesn't mean that it's automatically better at that level - look at how many point-n-shoots have unusably-bad 1600 ISO settings now! I'd say that the Canon, Nikon, and Pentax should be able to produce as good or better 3200 ISO shots by using a -1 stop exposure compensation then post-processing +1 stop (which is all the camera is doing anyway, it just does it for you - that sensor maxes out natively at 1600 ISO.) A little more work, but if you want the best low-light image quality, you are probably looking at shooting in raw format and doing some post-processing regardless. Still, 3200 built in can be nice, my 6mp Pentax DSLRs supported 3200 out of the box and it was handy sometimes.

 

[thomas998]

I see many poster tossing the Nikon D40 and D60 into the pot as suitable entry level cameras.

While they are entry level and take perfectly fine pictures, people shouldn't forget that they are not autofocus compatible with all Nikon lenses. They lack a built in motor for focusing and therefore only autofocus with the more expensive AF lenses with built in motors. If someone is looking at entry level it probably means they have a more limited budget, which means they don't have money to throw around on more expensive lenses.

People wanting more cutting edge entry level should look at a D80, or if you are on a tighter budget a used D50 would be the cheapest entry level that would accept all AF nikon lenses and still take very good pictures.

Considering how quickly manufacturers move on to the next generation camera, I can't see spending a lot of money on a new entry level camera. I can see buying a new top of the line camera if your making your living on your pictures but buying a entry level is like buying a Mac... its expensive and sure to be obsolete in less than 18 months.

 

[MICKEY88]

Considering how quickly manufacturers move on to the next generation camera, I can't see spending a lot of money on a new entry level camera. I can see buying a new top of the line camera if your making your living on your pictures but buying a entry level is like buying a Mac... its expensive and sure to be obsolete in less than 18 months.

a DSLR doesn't become obsolete, just because a newer model is released, a DSLR becomes obsolete, when your skills outgrow the capabilities of the camera and it limits what you can do,

many people would be served well by any entry level DSLR for many years , especially if they only use it occassionaly

 

[thomas998]

a DSLR doesn't become obsolete, just because a newer model is released, a DSLR becomes obsolete, when your skills outgrow the capabilities of the camera and it limits what you can do,

many people would be served well by any entry level DSLR for many years , especially if they only use it occassionaly

My point wasn't that the camera would be obsolete in the since that it wouldn't work just that it would be quickly be behind the curve in the latest and greatest category.... which is why quite frankly I would suggest someone on a budget find a used D50 if they were going to go with Nikon and use it... while the camera is no longer made and obsolete, it would serve most people for years to come.

 

[dr_zero]

I see many poster tossing the Nikon D40 and D60 into the pot as suitable entry level cameras.

While they are entry level and take perfectly fine pictures, people shouldn't forget that they are not autofocus compatible with all Nikon lenses. They lack a built in motor for focusing and therefore only autofocus with the more expensive AF lenses with built in motors. If someone is looking at entry level it probably means they have a more limited budget, which means they don't have money to throw around on more expensive lenses.

People wanting more cutting edge entry level should look at a D80, or if you are on a tighter budget a used D50 would be the cheapest entry level that would accept all AF nikon lenses and still take very good pictures.

Considering how quickly manufacturers move on to the next generation camera, I can't see spending a lot of money on a new entry level camera. I can see buying a new top of the line camera if your making your living on your pictures but buying a entry level is like buying a Mac... its expensive and sure to be obsolete in less than 18 months.

Bingo we have a winner!

 

[MICKEY88]

My point wasn't that the camera would be obsolete in the since that it wouldn't work just that it would be quickly be behind the curve in the latest and greatest category.... which is why quite frankly I would suggest someone on a budget find a used D50 if they were going to go with Nikon and use it... while the camera is no longer made and obsolete, it would serve most people for years to come.

I'm confused, why would one of the latest entry level cameras be behind the curve more quickly than a camera that isn't even made anymore..are you just talking within the nikon line... across the board with all brands, some of the new entry level cameras, have better features..../autofocusing/metering, etc, than older midlevel cameras..

I shot for 20 plus years with 2 Minolta 9000s, were they behind the times in terms of autofocus speed and metering..yes,

but they were rugged cameras, I knew them well and knew exactly what adjustments to make to overcome their shortfalls,so although minolta came out with several generations of new cameras in those 20 years, I never saw anything in them that compelled me to spend more money...

as I stated in my other post, for many people who only get the camera out of the bag for birthdays ,holidays, occassional use.. any entry level camera will serve them well for years,,, any money spent above that is money wasted, simply to say you have the latest and best.

when I worked at Ritz camera, we had a sales associate that always upsold slrs, convincing people they needed a modle above the entry level camera..

he had the highest numbers in returns , because within a month or 2 customers realized they had been talked into more than they could handle.. they would return the camera if possible, and many people put them in closets to collect dust..