Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: gar655
Originally posted by: 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.
A 40D over an Xsi- 40D better AF means better chance for in focus shots which improves the technical aspect of the photos. OOF images are a downer.
40D faster frame rate = better chance to capture "THE" moment, leading to better photos.
40D has dual control wheels which allows the user to shoot in manual exposure mode more easily which leads to a greater understanding of exposure and its affects on the photos which should lead to better photos.
Spend the $200 extra and get the 40D. Better built, a lot faster, nicer size, better AF, proper controls, etc.....
Gene
Sure and go up to an even faster camera. I'd argue 40D AF sucks and he needs a D700 to really get the in focus shots.
All of what you said fell into 'faster faster faster' and better construction and build which I totally acknowledged as what more expensive cameras give you; yet I still don't feel that matters for a beginner. I still do not see how that 'gimps' him as a photographer. A cheaper, entry level camera, will still get the job done
well (not 'somewhat', not 'kinda of'...it will do it very well) and save him a lot of money.
Hey, AF may not be the fastest, but it teaches you to learn to predict, it teaches you to position ahead of time, and all that leads to building up one's technique and one's abilities. That isn't "gimping" yourself at all - because if that were the case, then we should all be shooting 1D Series or D3Xs.
As for a nicer body - I said that is what he will get when he pays more...but is it really worth it for a beginner? Having had an entry level cam, and a prosumer level cam, I hesitate to believe that it matters to the level you have emphasized it as. I have a K20 now, and use my K100 as an availible light backup.
My K100 was very basic - 1 wheel, software driven in many things, dog slow, not weather sealed (although it still felt solid my hand), AF wasn't great in low light, etc. etc.
My new replacement has 3 wheels on it, countless buttons, full weather sealing ("I can shoot in situations of rain whereas cheaper cameras can't"), better in body IS, faster fps with a buffer that can actually take a load (relative to the K100 lol) and is almost ENTIRELY button driven (the only thing I go to the menus is for the timer...sometimes I still forget that I can change ISO with buttons and I go to the menus to select it). Yet can I say that makes a real difference in my photography? Not really.