Reading mode: Light Dark

Which budget DSLR?

Go to last post
N

noddydog

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
279
Reaction score
0
Location
London, UK
Forgive me if this has been asked/discussed a few times before. If so can somebody point me at the right thread(s) to read.

Basically I am thinking about buying a budget DSLR. I currently own a Sony H5. Below are some examples of what I have achieved on it so far, but many times I have missed the shot because of it's limitations.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/noddydog/

I am considering the following three cameras as a replacement:

Nikon D80
Canon EOS 400D
Sony Alpha A100

For my style of shooting I need something that is fast and will shoot in low light conditions (often internally). I do not like to use a flash and prefer to shoot my subjects from a distance with a high shutter speed taking multiple shots in quick succession. I prefer to compose shots with a zoom (rather than moving physically) and therefore I will need a decent zoom lens for whatever camera I choose. As such good image stabilisation is a must. Having owned a H5 I also appreciate a large LCD screen since I rarely use the eyepiece. I am generally careful with my cameras and they do not incur a lot of wear and tear. I also have relatively small hands so a big grip is not essential.

My budget is about £1000 (US$2000, but remember you get a lot more for your money in the States than you do in the UK). Out of this I will need to buy a standard lens and a zoom lens with about x10 capability (not sure what that relates to in mm's, 200?)

With this all in mind can anyone suggest which camera and lens' would best suit me? It does not have to be one of the above.

Thanks in advance.
 
I don't like most of the abstracts, repeating patterns shots, but 'Nothing but blue skies' was good. Besides that, the only photo in there that I thought was pretty good was 'Painting with light?', but that one wasn't just good, it was breath-taking. I just stared at it for awhile.

I guess the problem is that any dSLR you can afford that is new is still out of your price-range because you can't afford good glass for it & you have to have good glass or you won't experience what you think a dSLR can do for you as you have high expectations. ANd those expectations can be met, but you really need to have good glass. Then you can shoot low light all you want. So my suggestion is that you buy a very good zoom lens to use as your primary lens & then buy a dSLR that's a few generations old. Then, by the time you can buy a new body, the price will have gone down considerably.

So here's what I'm saying. I think you have a style that is growing and becoming something interesting. But I think you need to work on your technical skills more. So instead of buying the most body quality you can buy, purchase the most lens quality you can buy instead because that will depreciate slower & you can use it on a body that's not exactly current but is quite cheap.
 
noddydog said:
I am considering the following three cameras as a replacement:

Nikon D80
Canon EOS 400D
Sony Alpha A100
Click to expand...
Not really a budget choice. Budget choice would be Pentax K100D/K110D, Nikon D40, D50.

Also I would strongly recommend to include Pentax K10D into your consideration -- it's excellent camera.
noddydog said:
For my style of shooting I need something that is fast and will
shoot in low light conditions (often internally). I do not like to
use a flash and prefer to shoot my subjects from a distance with a
high shutter speed taking multiple shots in quick succession. I
prefer to compose shots with a zoom (rather than moving
physically) and therefore I will need a decent zoom lens for
whatever camera I choose. As such good image stabilisation is a
must.
Click to expand...
With Sony and Pentax you'll get in-body stabilisation. With Nikon and Canon you'll need to buy pricey stabilised lenses.
noddydog said:
Having owned a H5 I also appreciate a large LCD screen since
I rarely use the eyepiece.
Click to expand...
Then it will be surprise for you... With DSLR you won't be able to take pictures looking at LCD. the only way to do that -- look through viewfinder.
noddydog said:
I also have
relatively small hands so a big grip is not essential.
Click to expand...
I also have small hands. Nevertheless, Canon 400D grip sucks.

--
Edvinas
 
The light goes to the viewfinder, not the imaging sensor. ( ) Therefore, there's no live preview at ANY resolution. ( ) Even if the mirror is locked up, the sensors use a different design that maximizes area for gathering photons instead of using some area for the circuitry used to support live video.

( ) Well, some gets diverted for metering and autofocus.

( ) The E-330 has a second imaging sensor meant for live preview. This is a rather unusual design, 'tho.
 
I would go with the canon, especially for the low light.

Even with the standard lens it will outperform the camera you have now, eventually you could get it with the tamron 18-200 lens.
 
Hmmm that might cause me a problem on occassion. As stated above I often enjoy taking candid photos at a distance when the subject is oblivious to the proceedings. I imagine that will prove much harder (more obvious) with a camera stuck to my face. Damn!
--
Is email Post Modern?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noddydog/
 
It basically depends on what model works best for you. Go into a shop and try the feel of the bodies. Change some settings, which model is more intuitive / faster.

Also check prices, range and reputation of the lenses for your options. In the long run you might end op spending more money on glass than on the camera body itself.

I personally would stay with Canon or Nikon, due to the large experience and availability of accessories. However, if every single $ counts, you might also want to look at the Pentax / Sony.

Feel free to check my blog on camera and lens selection:

http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/buying-digital-slr-camera-canon-or.html

http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-lenses-glass-to-choose-for-canon.html
 
noddydog said:
Right now I'm leaning towards the Canon EOS400D. Apart from the
lack of image stabilisation in the body and the body shape, are
there any other drawbacks I've missed.
Click to expand...
Well yes. You will miss loads of $ on each lens u buy. Actually I suggest buying A100 body with couple of good lens to suit ur demands. Equivalent money spent on lens without IS will buy u much better lens. Anyway for outdoor shoots, don't worry unduely about high ISO noise, as IS will take care of it (assuming u r not in action photography). However if u do want to shoot raw in burst than 400D will be recommended. For jpgs, A100 will be good enough.
noddydog said:
Is email Post Modern?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noddydog/
Click to expand...
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
 
Thanks for the advice. Without me doing the research right now (I realise I will have to do at some point) what are some ball park figures for equivalent lens on both cameras with and without IS. I'd like to get an idea of just how much this is likely to cost me further down the road.

Also somehow the high ISO values on the Canon feel very comforting since I've often desired more than 1000 on the H5 without the noise. Also with a small child in the family shot opportunities often happen very quick so again I'd like to ramp up the shutter speed, most likely at the expense of the ISO.
--
Is email Post Modern?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noddydog/
 
noddydog said:
Thanks for the advice. Without me doing the research right now (I
realise I will have to do at some point) what are some ball park
figures for equivalent lens on both cameras with and without IS.
Click to expand...
The Sony dSLR system has some potential, but their pricing is a total joke. A lot of their lenses cost a lot more than their Canon counterparts. Why? Who knows. But it sort of defeats the purpose of in-body I.S., doesn't it? I don't know how an unproven newcomer could have the audacity to price their lenses beyond market leaders Canon and Nikon. It's corporate suicide. To give you an idea:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=21392058&page=1

If you want to play it safe, I suggest you stick with Canon or Nikon. They've been leaders in SLR photography for decades, and their status is unlikely to change for a long, long time.

For your budget, I suggest the EOS 400D with one of these combinations:

For 12X zoom, with image quality at priority:
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
EF 70-200 f4L

For 18X zoom, with usability and convenience at priority:
EF 17-85 I.S.
EF 70-300 I.S.

visit http://www.photozone.de or http://www.the-digital-picture.com or http://www.slrgear.com for reviews of various Canon and Nikon lenses.
 
I stepped-up from my Sony H5 a month ago, to the Sony Alpha. I wanted to go with the Canon 30D, but all I would have been able to afford was the body and kit lens. So I handled all the sub-$1,000 cameras and the Sony won for me hands-down. So I bought it. I've since bought three more Minolta lenses off of Ebay and they are cheap and GREAT! I now have a whole decent set-up for less than what I would have spent on the 30D and it's one kit lens.

Handle the cameras in the store. And then decide which one you like best. Don't get caught-up in worrying about brands. I started down the road and now realize how silly it is. Like I said, I wanted to go Canon. My brother is a Canon shooter. And so many people on these forums talk about Canon's extensive lens catalog. That's a good thing, but HOW MANY lenses are you going to buy? There are more than enough lenses in any brand's catalog to suit most photographers. 99.9% of shooters could easily get by with 3-7 lenses (depending on their preferred genres). So having 100+ lenses in a catalog is not as important as it may appear to be for most. Just pick the system that feels right to you and shoot away. It's what I've been doing. I've managed to shoot 1200+ pics in the past three weeks on the Alpha in just a few minutes a day. Gaining experience is what will make me a better photographer... not the brand name on my camera. ;-)
 
Red_Label wrote:
So having 100+ lenses
Red_Label said:
in a catalog is not as important as it may appear to be for most.
Just pick the system that feels right to you and shoot away. It's
what I've been doing. I've managed to shoot 1200+ pics in the past
three weeks on the Alpha in just a few minutes a day. Gaining
experience is what will make me a better photographer... not the
brand name on my camera. ;-)
Click to expand...
Rightly said. But everybody will not be as rational as u r. It is extremely difficult to buck the trend.
Best wishes.

--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
 
1. If you hate flash, and primes, and want to do low-light shooting at "high shutter speeds" anyway, you're going to need a fast zoom (as zooms go), high ISO, AND a lot of luck.

Fast zooms aren't cheap. To take an example, if you're looking at a constant f/2.8 zoom in the 17-55 or 18-55mm range, third-party lenses run around $400 to $500 each (Tamron, Sigma), while manufacturer lenses run around $1100 each (Canon, Nikon).

2. Lens-based image stabilization isn't cheap. Any lens that has both good low-light capabilities and IS/VR will probably set you back $1000 or more. Not that there are many

3. If you insist on a zoom lens with a 10x range (e.g., 18-200mm), the chances that you're going to find a lens that has the requisite light-gathering capability at the requisite price go down considerably. The longer you go on the telephoto end, the larger, heavier, and more expensive the lens is (to gather the needed light from the narrower field of view).
 
Nice pictures, however I would stay away from the Rebel (or equivalents from other manufactures) and go with the Canon 30D or equivalents with a 50mm f1.8 lens to start. Compare the two cameras side by side, view finders (one of the main reasons to get a DSLR) and build quality.

You have an eye for composition, get equipment which will help you grow.
 
Nikon D50 has as good performance as the D80 period and both are better cameras than the 350D or 400D from Canon.

This in my opinion is largely to do with cost and the fantastic kit lens 18-55mm with the D50. You don't need any more than 6MP's unless you want to print beyond A3.

If live LCD view is important to you in an SLR, there is always the Olympus EVOLT E330 is the only dSLR to give you that functionality.

David
--
Nikon D50 + 18 - 55mm, Fuijfilm F30, Epson R245, Canon CP400
iMac C2D 2.0Ghz, MacBook CD, Powerbook G4, iPod 5.5G 30GB.
http://www.davidjearly.com

 
If you need to use high ISO, then get a Pentax K100D. The Canon 5D would be the next step up but is a few times more in price. A Sigma 17-70 would be a good lens for it instead of the kit lens. It is a lot better optically and gives it much faster AF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top