Want to buy a digital SLR

[87e30]

I honestly don't think you can go wrong. The nikon vs canon argument can get tiresome. Both have an awesome lineup and you'll find pros on both sides of the fence I'd bet. Different products exist for a reason, if one was flat out better then there wouldn't be such a loyal following on both sides.

My friend has a sony a700 (entry prosumer dslr) that he got as a kit for like 1200 bucks. Sony is new but they are trying to get their foot in the door and when talking it over with my friend their whole lineup is getting competitive, and well priced. Problem of course, imo, is the availability of aftermarket lenses.

I personally hate lower end Canon cameras, sure they can take great pictures but lower end nikons just feel better to me. So my vote would go to the d40, used, as that's what I had. I'd bet you can get a used d40 and lens for 300 bucks. Learn a lot with it, get more into the scene then see what your ultimate goals are.

Edit: Just saw that your'e likely getting this as a gift. Hmmm... not sure what I'd get then. I hate to pay full price for a lower end camera like this, imo it's simply not worth the price of 600 bucks or so when you can a slightly older higher end camera for a similar amount used. Just go to the store and try them all out, you can't go wrong.

[speedminded]

Who care if they are, with Canon or Nikon you have a HUGE selection of quality lenses and have background.

Obviously Minolta has no background in producing lenses :facepalm:

The Sony-Minolta products are just so freaking expensive!!

[speedminded]

If you can't take a good picture with a point and shoot then you can't take a good picture with a DSLR. How's that to stir the pot?

The debate between Canon and Nikon is pointless and comes down to what fits in your hand better and how much you are willing to spend on lenses. Nikon's high end lenses are more expensive than Canon's but if you're not looking at investing $1200-2,500+ on each lens than that doesn't matter. If you're shooting moving cars during daylight or on a tripod at night a f/2.8 isn't needed...so getting an f/4.0 will save you hundreds.

People think a DSLR is the magic answer to amazing photos. Until they start printing posters they couldn't be more wrong. I will take a $200 P&S over a D40 kit ANY day.

[yberther]

I personally hate lower end Canon cameras, sure they can take great pictures but lower end nikons just feel better to me. So my vote would go to the d40, used, as that's what I had. I'd bet you can get a used d40 and lens for 300 bucks. Learn a lot with it, get more into the scene then see what your ultimate goals are.

I started with a rebel xt, and I agree 100% with Clayton :D

[ubernasty]

I dunno if anymore mentioned this yet but definitely check out craigslist. You can find amazing deals on there most with a few lens' included. GL

[Pscheoverdrive]

2nd Speedminded... The whole 'skip entry level' thing only applies if you know what you're doing. Never took an art class? Don't know what ISO is? Then don't spend $2000 on a camera so you can go around and pretend you know what you're doing.

I made it almost the whole way through my art degree with a Canon G7... And I had some pretty nifty projects from it. Only recently did I step up to a 5D MkI, and that was due to my starting to shoot weddings/engagements/portraits. The G7 wasn't making the cut, but I found its limits. It's kind of a *really* big peeve of mine to see all these guys with their $3000 setups dicking around with a DSLR when they a) have nothing interesting to shoot and b) have no idea what they're doing. It's like buying a Ferrari to drive around and show off when you're still on a provisional license.

Rant aside... From a practical standpoint, here's what I suggest. Get a used XT/XTi/D40/whatever and spend the rest of the money on good glass. Look at the company lineups for glass and higher-end model cameras. If you like Canon's higher end stuff (I'm a Canon guy, along w/two other guys I shoot with, but my other talented friend sticks by Nikon), then get a cheap *used* Rebel/T1i/D40, and pay for a quality lens you can transfer to a better camera (24-105 for example).

If you really get into it (which a lot of ppl DON'T), then you can sell the body for about what you paid for it and upgrade... Or just keep it as a secondary if you're shooting events and stuff. Never sell a good lens.

If you don't really get into it... You'll still have a decent camera, and you won't have 'lost' too much money on an interest that didn't really pan out.

So, in short... Just try to match your spending to your actual interest/use of photography equipment. Don't be one of those dorks who whip out their 5D MkIIs with 16-35s and 580EXIIs at every social gathering and leave the camera on full-auto just to take P&S pictures. They look really ridiculous. Really ridiculous. My 5D stays at home unless either money or my portfolio are involved...

[Stephen]

Ill second that while sony is new, its really just a continuation of minnolta.


I think the used argument is a good one, or honestly if you can find a blowout on deal so you can get a nicer camera for the money. Thats what got me the sony. I was going to have to spend an extra 100 AND give up the 55-200mm for an entry level cannon. And my sony isnt even the entry level one

[speedminded]

2nd Speedminded... The whole 'skip entry level' thing only applies if you know what you're doing. Never took an art class? Don't know what ISO is? Then don't spend $2000 on a camera so you can go around and pretend you know what you're doing.

I made it almost the whole way through my art degree with a Canon G7... And I had some pretty nifty projects from it. Only recently did I step up to a 5D MkI, and that was due to my starting to shoot weddings/engagements/portraits. The G7 wasn't making the cut, but I found its limits. It's kind of a *really* big peeve of mine to see all these guys with their $3000 setups dicking around with a DSLR when they a) have nothing interesting to shoot and b) have no idea what they're doing. It's like buying a Ferrari to drive around and show off when you're still on a provisional license.

Rant aside... From a practical standpoint, here's what I suggest. Get a used XT/XTi/D40/whatever and spend the rest of the money on good glass. Look at the company lineups for glass and higher-end model cameras. If you like Canon's higher end stuff (I'm a Canon guy, along w/two other guys I shoot with, but my other talented friend sticks by Nikon), then get a cheap *used* Rebel/T1i/D40, and pay for a quality lens you can transfer to a better camera (24-105 for example).

If you really get into it (which a lot of ppl DON'T), then you can sell the body for about what you paid for it and upgrade... Or just keep it as a secondary if you're shooting events and stuff. Never sell a good lens.

If you don't really get into it... You'll still have a decent camera, and you won't have 'lost' too much money on an interest that didn't really pan out.

So, in short... Just try to match your spending to your actual interest/use of photography equipment. Don't be one of those dorks who whip out their 5D MkIIs with 16-35s and 580EXIIs at every social gathering and leave the camera on full-auto just to take P&S pictures. They look really ridiculous. Really ridiculous. My 5D stays at home unless either money or my portfolio are involved...

Someone finally making sense. Other than one car shoot and a few of the latest concerts everything in my portfolio was shot with a Canon XTI. I bought it used from someone that didn't have a clue how to use it and after a few hundred shots they put it on craigslist for 40% less than retail...I now have over 125,000 shots on it. I alternate between it and a D200 & D700 on a weekly basis and a 5D Mk1 when I get the chance. Canon vs. Nikon? It doesn't matter, it's no different than between a Snap-On or Mac wrench....people have their preference on how they feel but both yield the same end result.

Most people aren't capable of pushing the limits of a fully manual capable point & shoot and until they do it's pointless to get any grade DSLR, unless they just like blowing money that is. If they happen to outgrow it then they have a handy P&S to carry around.

[dinanm3atl]

I agree with what is said BUT if you are going to get a used camera I think a 20D/30D is a better use of your couple hundred bucks over a used XT.

[dinanm3atl]

Someone finally making sense. Other than one car shoot and a few of the latest concerts everything in my portfolio was shot with a Canon XTI. I bought it used from someone that didn't have a clue how to use it and after a few hundred shots they put it on craigslist for 40% less than retail...I now have over 125,000 shots on it. I alternate between it and a D200 & D700 on a weekly basis and a 5D Mk1 when I get the chance. Canon vs. Nikon? It doesn't matter, it's no different than between a Snap-On or Mac wrench....people have their preference on how they feel but both yield the same end result.

Most people aren't capable of pushing the limits of a fully manual capable point & shoot and until they do it's pointless to get any grade DSLR, unless they just like blowing money that is. If they happen to outgrow it then they have a handy P&S to carry around.

Going to disagree with you a bit here... It really depends on what you are shooting or what you want to shoot. If you are at a car meet, during the day and the cars are parked then playing with menus and manual setting on your P&S but it is limiting. The shutter is slow and most of the ones I have used have a horrible menu system to change settings.

Shooting the Dragon*Con parade this year was drizzling and overcast. A Point and Shoot would just have been an uphill battle. Instead I was quickly changing settings and blasting away at each person that went by.

There are PLENTY of warranted reasons to get a dSLR. Most are jumping on the bandwagon because they see a dSLR car pic thread and want to copy that 'style' but to tell everyone to get a P&S and learn that to the limit is just a little bit behind the times in my opinion.

Grab a used dSLR and start shooting. You will find out quickly if it is for you.

[Pscheoverdrive]

Going to disagree with you a bit here... It really depends on what you are shooting or what you want to shoot. If you are at a car meet, during the day and the cars are parked then playing with menus and manual setting on your P&S but it is limiting. The shutter is slow and most of the ones I have used have a horrible menu system to change settings.

Shooting the Dragon*Con parade this year was drizzling and overcast. A Point and Shoot would just have been an uphill battle. Instead I was quickly changing settings and blasting away at each person that went by.

There are PLENTY of warranted reasons to get a dSLR. Most are jumping on the bandwagon because they see a dSLR car pic thread and want to copy that 'style' but to tell everyone to get a P&S and learn that to the limit is just a little bit behind the times in my opinion.

Grab a used dSLR and start shooting. You will find out quickly if it is for you.

...Sort of. The point isn't to get a P&S, THEN get a cheap DSLR, then upgrade again. It's to know how to use your investment. A used XTi is cheaper than a high end P&S, and that's what we're recommending. But, they serve different functions. I still use my G7 more often than I use my 5D. They don't have overlapping utilities...

For what the OP asked about, I'm simply recommending spending a little money at first, and making that little money go a long ways. Nobody's saying he should get a P&S... He just shouldn't go get the 'step-up' just because he can. If you follow my argument, I said he should get a high-quality lens rather than a higher-end body b/c it could be used with a better body if he finds that he actually needs a better body.

And actually, the shutter speeds on P&Ss are nothing to scoff at... You just have to use flash, skillfully, to compensate for a small sensor.

[speedminded]

I agree with what is said BUT if you are going to get a used camera I think a 20D/30D is a better use of your couple hundred bucks over a used XT.

oh definitely...if I could do it over again I wouldn't even bother with a base consumer DSLR. In the P&S stage you pretty much know if you want to pursue it seriously. I got what I could afford at the time, a used XTI, a few weeks later a 50mm f/1.8, then saved up several months to get a $1,400 piece of glass.

Point blank, it all comes down to the budget and what the buyers goals are. I would hate my camera if the only thing I had was the kit lens. I would seriously rather use a point & shoot lol!

[speedminded]

Going to disagree with you a bit here... It really depends on what you are shooting or what you want to shoot. If you are at a car meet, during the day and the cars are parked then playing with menus and manual setting on your P&S but it is limiting. The shutter is slow and most of the ones I have used have a horrible menu system to change settings.

Shooting the Dragon*Con parade this year was drizzling and overcast. A Point and Shoot would just have been an uphill battle. Instead I was quickly changing settings and blasting away at each person that went by.

There are PLENTY of warranted reasons to get a dSLR. Most are jumping on the bandwagon because they see a dSLR car pic thread and want to copy that 'style' but to tell everyone to get a P&S and learn that to the limit is just a little bit behind the times in my opinion.

Grab a used dSLR and start shooting. You will find out quickly if it is for you.

What lenses were you using? The L's? ;)

Unless someone has mastered the manual settings already they're gonna be shooting in auto modes anyways, and it's gonna be just as slow as a P&S...especially with the slower kit lenses. But hey, if someone has the money to blow then sure start off with a DSLR and decent lens! The body is disposable but you'll always get your money back on a lens.

[87e30]

Grab a used dSLR and start shooting. You will find out quickly if it is for you.

Agreed.

Having seen a lot of your guys' work I'm going to have to jump in and say I fall under that novice category with a nice(ish) camera, because I'm not good enough to be paid and I don't typically have interesting subjects to shoot. (However, I'd argue, I do know how to use/adjust all of the settings)

But I'm going to say that getting a DSLR is still better than mastering a point and shoot. Mostly b/c the DSLR makes it a lot easier (imo) to learn and understand what your camera is doing, how it works, and what functions do what. Not to mention DSLRs are just so much sharper than most point and shoots I've seen/used. The picture quality, even on full auto, DOES look better in most situations.

[Jean]

Obviously Minolta has no background in producing lenses :facepalm:

The Sony-Minolta products are just so freaking expensive!!

Are you fucking retarded? I was saying you can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. Going with one of those gives you room to grow.

He didn't say

Canon OR Nikon OR Minolta did he?