Entry level dslr?

[Griff01]

Come on then people, lets have some recommendations for an entry level dslr. pretty please.

another complication - is it worth my while spending a bit more on say, a canon 40D or maybe a nikon D90, than opting for the cheaper 450D?

Chris

 

[BryanP]

Come on then people, lets have some recommendations for an entry
level dslr. pretty please.

another complication - is it worth my while spending a bit more on
say, a canon 40D or maybe a nikon D90, than opting for the cheaper
450D?

The IQ between the 450D and 40D will be indistguisable. The 40D allows 1 more full stop of shutter speed (from a max of 1/4000 with the 450D to a max of 1/8000 with the 40D). The 40D's continuous drive shoots 6.5 fps vs. the 450D's 3.5 fps and is also one more full stop of high ISO (3200 vs. 1600). The 40D has a few more custom functions and a few more menu settings, but unless you are shooting low light stuff or action/sports/BIF, the 450D will suite you just fine, and its half the price of the 40D.

Chris

--
Cheers,

Bryan P.

OneDMark3, FortyD, G10
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29386469@N00/
http://blplhp.smugmug.com/

The best thing that could poke you in the eye....is your viewfinder.

 

[Grogly]

from what I can see, there is little to go wrong with any of the DSLR being made now. They are all wonderful tools. The things to consider are ergonomics of the interface, size etc and the overall system. DSLR systems, once you start using them, tend to draw you in for more and more. So try to evaluate the lens and accessory line up from each of the systems you are interested in.

I use Canon but Nikon, Pentax, and the others are all extraordinary alternatives. For me, I prefer a larger camera in my hand, growing up using similar in size film cameras. If you need a smaller camera, there are good ones there too.

I feeling is that if you are starting out, get a used older body or a later model so as to save money for better glass. For example, a refurbished or new 30D is still available at a great price.

Good luck with your decision.
--
Rod,
Photographic hack since 1969.

Samples of my favorite images can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grogley/collections/72157600201558641/

 

[rkhndjr]

What the problem is with any DSLR is price of lenses. If you can afford a 30D I would recommend it over any others but I am prejudiced since I used one for a long time

--. What drove me to sell my DSLR gear over a year ago was the cost of lenses. In order to get best result from any DSLR you need good glass and it costs a lot. Any of them, xti on up will give you a good picture if you use it correctly. Buying a larger format gives features which are nice for advanced and pro shooters but the xti, xsi, etc. will give as good a picture.
Russ

 

[LouieLouie]

I moved from the G9 to the XSi in November mainly to finally take control over depth of field. I love my XSi. I bought the XSi with the 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm f/1.4. With the 50 f/1.4 you can carve out slices of focus in a shot. This just can't be done with the G9.

Keep in mind that a DSLR setup is a money sink. Lens lust is a constant problem. And you will need a much more robust tripod than is required for a point and shoot.

Here's a pic with the focus carved out of the center of the image:



--

My CiG Album: http://www.cig.usa.canon.com/ph/AEG/RequestViewAlbum.do?i=KjawVFKp9q

 

[bw100]

I moved from the G9 to the XSi in November mainly to finally take
control over depth of field. I love my XSi. I bought the XSi with
the 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm f/1.4. With the 50 f/1.4 you can
carve out slices of focus in a shot. This just can't be done with
the G9.

Keep in mind that a DSLR setup is a money sink. Lens lust is a
constant problem. And you will need a much more robust tripod than
is required for a point and shoot.

Here's a pic with the focus carved out of the center of the image:

nice but you can get that same control over DOF through photoshop without the "money sink"

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/w-photos/

 

[jedcrocker]

Canon and Nikon are certainly the market leaders, but it would also be worth it to look at the others out there (Pentax, Olympus, Sony, etc....) if you haven't already. In my opinion, the "real world" photo quality for most shooting is so similar, it may come down to overall system cost (e.g. lenses), features, lens options and how the camera feels in your hand.

-Jed

 

[rsalles]

Come on then people, lets have some recommendations for an entry
level dslr. pretty please.
Chris

Hi Chris,

You don´t need to spend on a high priced body, a XSi is very good. I used to use a film SLR, but waited a little to get a DSLR. I don´t like to change lens and i use a XSi with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I suggest that you buy a good fast lens these 3 are good priced:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8;
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, and
Sigma 18-70mm f/2.8-4.0.

If you prefer a Nikon they are very good too, but at the bugget DSLR I think canon is better.

The Pentax and Sony will give you a stabilized sensor in the body and that is nice to have because all your lenses will be stabilized.
Suggest that you post this question in the DSLR forums.
Regards
Renato



Live a honourable life, and in the future, when you look back you can be proud twice.

 

[Cedarhill]

No, but you can get a very phoney looking imitation of it.

 

[lwiley]

I agree with most of what has been said here but I would stick with Canon or Nikon.

With SLRs or DSLRS the lenses are the thing. With Canon and Nikon you get a lot of choice - you have budget choices and pro choices at most all focal lengths, including zooms and some in between choices (semi-pro?). The other manufacturers make some good cameras but I would get frustrated at the lens selections.

I'm partial to Nikon so I would strongly recommend a D90 - better IQ than the D300 (which I have) and a step up from entry level with some nice features.

Leroy

 

[GeraldW]

I recently switched from Canon (30D) to the Nikon D90. The D90 is a big step up from the D40 or D60, but the Canon 40D isn't that much different than the XSi in function or features.

I will say that the D90 is a lot more to learn than the 30D (and probably the 40D) was in terms of setings and set up. However, the results are quite a bit better, so all the fiddling with control settings has been worth the effort. The Nikon menus go on forever, there are 41 custom functions in the D90.
--
Jerry

 

[BryanP]

graduated background blur without it looking fake. Sorry, no dice.
--
Cheers,

Bryan P.

OneDMark3, FortyD, G10
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29386469@N00/
http://blplhp.smugmug.com/

The best thing that could poke you in the eye....is your viewfinder.

 

[Peter Shute]

Come on then people, lets have some recommendations for an entry
level dslr. pretty please.

Pardon me for hijacking the thread, but can anyone advise about the same question if I wanted a long lens as well, at least 400mm?

DSLR seems to be so superior to ultrazoom compacts at high ISO's (which seem to be regularly required for wildlife photography), that I'm wondering whether the cheapest long lenses and cameras would still achieve better results. Or would a cheap lens throw away all the improvements gained through lower noise?

What I want to know is what could I get away with, and still get better long zoom, low light photos than the likes of the S5?

 

[kalniel]

Come on then people, lets have some recommendations for an entry
level dslr. pretty please.

Pardon me for hijacking the thread, but can anyone advise about the
same question if I wanted a long lens as well, at least 400mm?

DSLR seems to be so superior to ultrazoom compacts at high ISO's
(which seem to be regularly required for wildlife photography), that
I'm wondering whether the cheapest long lenses and cameras would
still achieve better results. Or would a cheap lens throw away all
the improvements gained through lower noise?

What I want to know is what could I get away with, and still get
better long zoom, low light photos than the likes of the S5?

I'd say that the result of ANY DSLR at 400mm equivalent would beat that of a P+S 400mm equivalent.

 

[bw100]

Come on then people, lets have some recommendations for an entry
level dslr. pretty please.

Pardon me for hijacking the thread, but can anyone advise about the
same question if I wanted a long lens as well, at least 400mm?

DSLR seems to be so superior to ultrazoom compacts at high ISO's
(which seem to be regularly required for wildlife photography), that
I'm wondering whether the cheapest long lenses and cameras would
still achieve better results. Or would a cheap lens throw away all
the improvements gained through lower noise?

What I want to know is what could I get away with, and still get
better long zoom, low light photos than the likes of the S5?

I'd say that the result of ANY DSLR at 400mm equivalent would beat
that of a P+S 400mm equivalent.

right, except for that little thing called 'cost'.

(and that P&S 400mm equivalent might also have HD video, wide angle, macro intervalometer, small and lightweight etc. -- at less than $300.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/w-photos/

 

[rdlover]

This would depend on you, if you look at those camera's there are some differences. The 40D is for one thing built like a tank, and if I remember correctly it is a faster camera as well. But easily checked out if you go look at the differences in them all. Much depends on what your needs are, but I personally love the 40D although I do not own that camera, I own the XTI and love it. The better the glass, the better the pictures. And they are an investment into the future and it can run into some money, but so can buying new camera's every time a new one comes out, or after every few years. I just buy new glass, and I do also carry a P&S because I can put that in my pocket while out and about, whereas I can't my XTI. They both have a place as far as i'm concerned.

The bokeh is lovely out of them, so nice and creamy.

 

[Dianne W]

I recently switched from Canon (30D) to the Nikon D90. The D90 is a
big step up from the D40 or D60, but the Canon 40D isn't that much
different than the XSi in function or features.

I will say that the D90 is a lot more to learn than the 30D (and
probably the 40D) was in terms of setings and set up. However, the
results are quite a bit better, so all the fiddling with control
settings has been worth the effort. The Nikon menus go on forever,
there are 41 custom functions in the D90.
--
Jerry

I want to get back in the DSLR game. I sold all my equipment a year ago, was tired of lugging around all stuff and downsized to the G9. I really enjoyed that camera and recently sold that and upgraded to the G10. Again, a wonderfull camra, really enjoy it. I think that I have learned a great deal with the G9/G10. So much so that I am once again yearning for a DSLR.

Yesterday I had pretty much made up my mind to purchase the Rebel XSI kit with the 55-250 IS lens and a Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 lens. This decision came after a great deal of research on the web.

Today, I am seriously thinking abut going to "the other side" and getting the Nikon D90 with the 18-105 VR lens. I have never owned a Nikon, have alwasy been faithfull to Canon. But this camera has incredible features.

The Nikon kit with one lens is comparible in price to the Canon kit with the 2 lenses. I am going to stop by my local camera store for a hands on look at the two setups to help with my final decision.

Since I sold my Canon equipment, this will be my opportunity to switch, I am not bound to either brand by any preowned equipment. I will be keeping my G10 as my backup, it is still a awesome camera.

Jerry, if you see this, are you still loving the D90? Any regrets to switching brands?

I feel like such a traitor )
--
Dianne

http://tewmom.smugmug.com/
http://www.pbase.com/tewmom

 

[Peter Shute]

DSLR seems to be so superior to ultrazoom compacts at high ISO's
(which seem to be regularly required for wildlife photography), that
I'm wondering whether the cheapest long lenses and cameras would
still achieve better results. Or would a cheap lens throw away all
the improvements gained through lower noise?

What I want to know is what could I get away with, and still get
better long zoom, low light photos than the likes of the S5?

I'd say that the result of ANY DSLR at 400mm equivalent would beat
that of a P+S 400mm equivalent.

right, except for that little thing called 'cost'.

(and that P&S 400mm equivalent might also have HD video, wide angle,
macro intervalometer, small and lightweight etc. -- at less than
$300.

Yes, of course. But what if I was to buy the cheapest no name brand of long lens, making the cost almost the same? Would the poor optics then reduce the IQ of this DSLR combination to below that of the compact?