Best Digital SLR for the money?

[Scarpozzi]

I'm in the market for a digital SLR. My photographer friend told me a few things to look for...they said to check reviews of the ISO of each camera to see which looks best to me.

I've had a point & shoot Canon PowerShot SD110 for years and have enjoyed its portability and good pictures. I had an ELPH before that too, but it was a 2MP version.

I'm wanting a Digital SLR so I can take more pictures of family and gatherings. I like Canon's customer service and have been told by my photographer friend to stay away from Nikon for whatever reason. I've noticed there are only a few Canon DSLRs out there under $1000. What gives me the most bang for the buck?

I've looked at the XS, XSi, and TSi. Is there something else I should look for? Should I consider buying used?

I'm not that impressed with 18-55mm lenses. What should I look for to get better zoom and some really good close ups with a clear subject? What kind of money are we talking about?

Thanks.

-Scar

 

[rudder]

The tamron 28-75 is an awesome lens for the price. The tamron 18-50 is nice as well and works better for crop cameras... but a little more expensive. Both are f/2.8. The 28-75 competes nicely with Canons L series 24-70... at about a 1/3 the price.

The best value for the money is the Canon 50m f/1.8... but it is limited use.

The kit lens (the 18-55) is not bad... but overall just average.

I have owned both tamrons (as well as some L lenses) and the tamroms stayed on my camera the most.

EDIT: and not sure where the nikon statement came from. I usually hear good things about Nikons. I am a canon guy simply because when I move to digital I had a lot of canon lenses. I do see the used market for canon lenses does have a bit more inventory as well.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
I'm in the market for a digital SLR. My photographer friend told me a few things to look for...they said to check reviews of the ISO of each camera to see which looks best to me.

more often than not when you see a complaint about High ISO it's because of the in camera jpg engine/settings & shooting in RAW & post processing levels the field greatly - of course you may not want that effort.
Pretty much any current production DSLR will have high ISO capabilities that are way beyond what was available on film.

I'm wanting a Digital SLR so I can take more pictures of family and gatherings.

a DSLR doesn't let you take more but it does allow you to take better

[q I like Canon's customer service and have been told by my photographer friend to stay away from Nikon for whatever reason.[/quote]
I would be interested in his justification for this - if I was changing systems I would probably go Nikon ahead of Canon.

I'm not that impressed with 18-55mm lenses.

in what way?
range, quality ...?

What should I look for to get better zoom and some really good close ups with a clear subject?

see above - if you want a wider zoom range e.g. 18-250mm then you may have to give up some on maximum aperture & quality.
Close ups of what, do you mean Macro?

What kind of money are we talking about?

more than your body ...

 

[finbarqs]

Rebel XTi with the factory Kit 18-55 lens is a great combo.
SAMPLE

 

[Scarpozzi]

I'm not that impressed with 18-55mm lenses.

in what way?
range, quality ...?

Just range...I'll probably want to upgrade to something with more optical zoom to really take advantage of close ups without having to move my feet as much.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
Rebel XTi with the factory Kit 18-55 lens is a great combo.
SAMPLE

Nice shot.

I'm going to have to really research this stuff to see if the extra bells and whistles are worth it. I notice as you move up the Canon line, a lot of cameras still take Compact Flash media. I guess they've not refreshed a lot of their stuff.



As for the comments about Nikon, my photographer friend said that Nikon is a good camera, but there are just a lot more Canon accessories and aftermarket items out there. He said if you go with Nikon, things will just be slightly less accessable....not that it's bad. But he said, once you go Nikon, it's hard to go back because of the investments you have to make. He said he has a Canon 5D Mark II.

 

[JDub02]

I have a Nikon D40 with the kit 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm VR lens. I bought everything with a case for under $600. It's hard to beat for a starter camera. You can always build on the Nikon line or sell everything for not much of a loss and move to a more expensive camera that meets your specifications. It's hard to know what you want without alot of experience with it.

Right now, any dSLR you pick up will give you quality shots - Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. If you don't get great shots, the only thing to blame is the photographer.

 

[GoSharks]

Pentax K-x or K-7 are some of the best values in DSLR-land.

 

[troytime]

i'd go with a nikon d90 and the 18-105VR

 

[Tip3r]

I wouldn't exactly call the d90 "best SLR for the money". You can buy a cheaper body and invest in getting quality glass.
First of all, if I you only want to take pictures of family and gatherings why don't you get a good P & S?
If you want to get a SLR though I would recommend starting with a D40 or D60. You can find Nikon accessories anywhere, maybe not as much as Canon, but I don't think it would be an issue.
If you want to get a Canon I would recommend a 450D.
I would recommend starting with the kit lens. Moving up from a P & S I'm sure you will be more than satisfied with the 18-55.
If your fellow photographer has EF-S lenses sitting around waiting to be borrowed then I think you should go for a Canon.

 

[JDub02]

FWIW, my first hand experience with both Nikon and Canon's kit lens (18-55) has been very positive. I have a D40 at home and I have an XSi at work. Both take excellent pictures.

IMO, the XSi is not worth the premium over the D40 .. just my opinion.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
I notice as you move up the Canon line, a lot of cameras still take Compact Flash media. I guess they've not refreshed a lot of their stuff.

pretty much all semi-pro/pro level bodies use CF rather than SD - it's faster & more durable.

 

[Deadtrees]

Best Digital SLR for the money?

Currently, I'd say it's Pentax K-x. It's only $650 including the kit lens.

 

[jpeyton]

I'd say it's the D5000.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: Tip3r
I wouldn't exactly call the d90 "best SLR for the money".

yeah i ignored any direction given after the "my friend said to stay away from nikon" nonsense.

 

[finbarqs]

seriously, i've been down the line of multiple DSLR's. From the shot I posted, that was on a Factory XTi with the kit lens. Then I moved on to a Canon 5D. Then I moved on to a Panasonic DMC-L1 with the Leica 14-50 (Bloody awesome lens). Then I moved on to the D300. Now I have the 5D Mark 2. From my experience, the Nikon D300 had the best built. I trust that camera 100% of the time. My 5D Mark 2, has had its share of problems (dust on screen, focusing screen scratched, dust inside my 24-70 f/2.8L lens, shutter doesn't fire all the time, etc). Not only that, the D300 felt like it was built better than the 5D Mark 2. I'm currently using the 5D Mark 2 because of the full frame abilities, and the video recording.

Anyways, I hope my experience with DSLR's can help you decide on what you use.

 

[ElFenix]

best SLR lens for the money is the canon 70-200 f/4.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Best Digital SLR for the money?

Currently, I'd say it's Pentax K-x. It's only $650 including the kit lens.

Ding Ding. Get a Blue one


IMO I wouldn't bother jumping to another lens until you've really exhausted what the kit lens can do. More expensive glass isn't going to give you 100x improved performance. You'll pay a lot for maybe 20-30% more resolution.

Until you learn to use an SLR decently well, worrying about IQ shouldn't even be on your list. A kit lens should still produce fantastic images and 18-55 (which is what most kit lens cover) is a great walk around focal length.

 

[gar655]

Don't buy cheap. You'll just end up getting something more expensive later anyway.

Best value right now is a used Canon 40D. Put a Tamron 17-50/2.8 on it and if you're planning on shooting indoors get and external flash. The new Canon Ti 5000 something or other is pretty nice. But if your main priority is still photography I would still say used 40D before any of the "entry" level cameras new.

Gene

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: gar655
Don't buy cheap. You'll just end up getting something more expensive later anyway.

Best value right now is a used Canon 40D. Put a Tamron 17-50/2.8 on it and if you're planning on shooting indoors get and external flash. The new Canon Ti 5000 something or other is pretty nice. But if your main priority is still photography I would still say used 40D before any of the "entry" level cameras new.

Gene

Any entry level camera works really well. My only personal hesitation would be that some cams are too entry level in that they won't let you select AF point.

Going to more expensive bodies results in typically the following: faster faster faster, better construction and build, features features features.

IMO IQ differences (until you hit FF, but even then I feel its exaggerated at times) are minimal between APS-C cameras. They are all great and you won't notice a real differences, unless you pixel peep, between the latest cams that are out.

How would getting a 40D over an XSi improve his photography? How would a K-7 improve his photography over a K-X? I'm not seeing it.

What I AM seeing is that until he gets the hang of it, its better to get an entry level cam and spend 1-3 years learning to work around it and discovering how to take photos before featuresfeaturesfeatures and fasterfasterfaster. At this point, I guarantee you that the limiting factor is the user and not the camera, and it will be the user for some time to come. Better to put the extra on glass.

 

[bobdole369]

Just range...I'll probably want to upgrade to something with more optical zoom to really take advantage of close ups without having to move my feet as much.

You really don't want this. You'll catch the lens bug like everyone else before too long.

Long zooms sometimes tend towards blurry pics unless you get into the L line - that 70-200 L f/4 quoted above is the stormtrooper of Canon lenses. It's the workhorse. Just about everyone pro has one - its so useful, its crystal clear, and for the money - you really can't beat it.

You really don't want a lens with a very wide focal range, in order to get that to work, the engineers need to take shortcuts somewhere to make it happen.

28-135 IS kit lens is fairly nice, and gives you a bit more reach, which is always welcome, but the 18-55's compactness, and overall clarity make it my favorite of the non-L zooms.

Once you get started - make sure to pick up a nifty-fifty (50mm prime f/1.8) - its sooo cheap and awesome. Also a decent zoom to get is the 55-250 IS (aka thrifty-two-fifty) - provided you remember to not shoot anywhere near slower than 1/250 at the far end - that lens is really nice.

As always - its pretty much required to pick up "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. Best $20 you'll ever spend on your photography.

thrifty-two-fifty http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3846608493/ almost forgot - http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3166107092/

niftyfifty http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3299038026/ (don't look so at the composition as much as the detail the lens picked up in his face and all the little bits of dust he had on him. )

18-55 kit http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3233376026/ (high-iso detractors note that it was purposely shot at 1600 ISO on a 350d - you can see the noise at original size, but it would make a perfectly sharp and artifact free 8x12 at least)

 

[beatle]

Originally posted by: gar655
Don't buy cheap. You'll just end up getting something more expensive later anyway.

Best value right now is a used Canon 40D. Put a Tamron 17-50/2.8 on it and if you're planning on shooting indoors get and external flash. The new Canon Ti 5000 something or other is pretty nice. But if your main priority is still photography I would still say used 40D before any of the "entry" level cameras new.

Gene

+1 on this advice. While I don't have the 17-50, I hear it's a nice lens. It's great for the money and one of the best picks if you don't mind that it doesn't have IS.

I still shoot with an old 20d and it still takes great pictures. Bodies come and go, but lenses are forever.

 

[jpeyton]

I had a 40D, and it was so...unremarkable. I doubt that's the best bang-for-the-buck DSLR right now.

A D5000 kit is $699. Add a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 and call it a day.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: troytime

Originally posted by: Tip3r
I wouldn't exactly call the d90 "best SLR for the money".

yeah i ignored any direction given after the "my friend said to stay away from nikon" nonsense.

I appreciate it too! I'm seriously doing research and shopping around. I don't want to miss out on a better deal just because soem 2-bit photographer told me to avoid a certain brand.

I like the looks of the D90. I'll throw it on the list.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: troytime

Originally posted by: Tip3r
I wouldn't exactly call the d90 "best SLR for the money".

yeah i ignored any direction given after the "my friend said to stay away from nikon" nonsense.

I appreciate it too! I'm seriously doing research and shopping around. I don't want to miss out on a better deal just because soem 2-bit photographer told me to avoid a certain brand.

I like the looks of the D90. I'll throw it on the list.

Make sure you like the feel...that is a little more important