Best Digital SLR for the money?

[ElFenix]

the crops on the digital picture have the 18-55 superior over the lower numbers. at 55 the 18-55 IS is worse, but that's it. certainly some of it is due to the CA being so strong on 17-85 that it makes the lens blurrier uncorrected.

If we talk about price though, clearly the 18-55 is better bang for the buck at $89

i think you've got the lenses confused.

 

[qbfx]

the crops on the digital picture have the 18-55 superior over the lower numbers. at 55 the 18-55 IS is worse, but that's it. certainly some of it is due to the CA being so strong on 17-85 that it makes the lens blurrier uncorrected.

Here's some comparison between the two lenses:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

i think you've got the lenses confused.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...643811&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_2002wt_939

 

[compcons]

When checking for price/performance, the Sony Alphas are pretty nice. The major value is in the alpha mount. Sony bought Miniolta tehcnology and is rolling with that. You can pick up lenses made for the auto focus Minolta Maxxum line from 1985 until present. this definitely opens up opportunity to try different lenses and get to some quality items very quickly. The alphas have in-body Auto Focus and Image Stabilization which help control lens costs. If you can get to the 300/350, or above, they add live view which can be of value in composing shots.

As far as those one-off values, check Best Buy for dispalys. A local BB had a D40 kit display for $350 and a Sony A350 for $400. Personally, I picked up a clearance A300 from Best Buy for $400. I then found an A200 kit display for $180 from a Sony Style store. You CAN NOT beat that one! Be sure to check Costco or Sam's for their deal. They had a killer deal on the Xsi and maybe a D60 with two lenses for a very reasonable price. Sears also has some clearance and open box cameras at some stores.

At this level, I don't see that there are a ton of differences in features and quality. There are pros and cons of each, but be sure to hold the camera (I didn't like the canon at all) to see how it feels. Also, stick with a brand so you don't lose out on your lens investments.

EH

 

[ElFenix]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...643811&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_2002wt_939

whoa

yeah gray market but for that much off...

 

[Muse]

As far as those one-off values, check Best Buy for dispalys. A local BB had a D40 kit display for $350 and a Sony A350 for $400. Personally, I picked up a clearance A300 from Best Buy for $400. I then found an A200 kit display for $180 from a Sony Style store. You CAN NOT beat that one! Be sure to check Costco or Sam's for their deal. They had a killer deal on the Xsi and maybe a D60 with two lenses for a very reasonable price. Sears also has some clearance and open box cameras at some stores.

EH

Are these to be found at random B&M's or online? How do you go about finding these deals?

I did notice some deals at my local Costco about a week ago. XSi, Xti, d3000 and d5000, IIRC all with the kit lens and with a 75-250 (don't know about the 75 part, didn't jot anything down). The prices were around $800 I think. All new stuff, of course. $180 for a sony A200 with kit lens sounds fantastic!

I want a good entry level DSLR that has a good/cheap external flash option. The Pentax k-x looks interesting to me because of the AA's and SD support (haven't investigated the external flash options with it yet). I have lots of NiMH AA's, know them pretty well and have a good charger, and have SDHC cards.

 

[compcons]

These are all local sotre finds. I started looking and I noticed clearance on some items. It's very inconsistent, but if you have a bit of patience, you can find something on clearance.

I have about a gazillion Best Buys near me and I drive a lot for work (I travel about 200 miles a day). Lots of BB's in IL and WI on my route.

EH

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Many issues going on. Instead of spending time quoting I'll be lazy:

1) 17-85 is decent. Slightly better than the 28-135, but the 18-55 IS is king. Seriously, that thing is DEAD SHARP. If you get a good copy it can fight against the 17-55mm almost. F/2.8 is great but for a kit lens the 18-55 IS is a killer.

2) Nikon seriously has better sensors now. The D5000 rapes the XSi and the T1i. Unfortunately I swear by Canon so I bought a T1i even after reading about the D5000 sensor which apparently can take on the 5DII in terms of noise and dynamic range....

3) 40D is nice. I like that it buffers more and can shoot faster. That's what I wish my T1i could do. I would get a 50D though. Better LCD right? I'm not so clear on the XXD line, but I want to make it clear that 920k vs 230k 3.0" is like night and day. My friend loves my T1i over his XSi screen. I know the 40D performs slightly better than the 50D but many tests show them even too. I would get the 50D simply for the Micro AF alone....

3) And what's this about the D40? It's a great value but the camera is dead. 3 AF points? 6 MP? I mean Nikons have great dynamic range and push the saturation, but you could replicate it if you want in LR post processing for Canons too. You could replicate in-camera too. The D40 served its use and the new value camera is now the D3000. I remember a guy in POTN trying to pick a fight with his D40 shot (some random casual shot) and saying how no Canon could match that. Honestly I feel sorry for their 6 MP sometimes. I can crop the hell out of a T1i shot and still get some awesome detail.

4) I have to recommend a D5000. That camera is just great. I swear by Canon and Canon's UI so I won't jump ship yet, but on the D5000 just does too well. By that I mean the sensor performance and what not. The flip LCD might be useful too. Having a G-series camera I've learned to value the swivel LCD. I sometimes miss it on my T1i

5) I wish I had a 7D

 

[Muse]

Many issues going on. Instead of spending time quoting I'll be lazy:

1) 17-85 is decent. Slightly better than the 28-135, but the 18-55 IS is king. Seriously, that thing is DEAD SHARP. If you get a good copy it can fight against the 17-55mm almost. F/2.8 is great but for a kit lens the 18-55 IS is a killer.

Whose 18-55 IS are you talking about here? Canon's? Nikon's? Or another?

 

[GoSharks]

Whose 18-55 IS are you talking about here? Canon's? Nikon's? Or another?

Nobody other than Canon makes a 18-55 IS

 

[twistedlogic]

3) And what's this about the D40? It's a great value but the camera is dead. 3 AF points? 6 MP? I mean Nikons have great dynamic range and push the saturation, but you could replicate it if you want in LR post processing for Canons too. You could replicate in-camera too. The D40 served its use and the new value camera is now the D3000.

-D40 has a much weaker AA filter
-1/500 flash sync speed, up to 1/4000 using radio triggered strobes - thats a huge difference in flash power
-The D3000 uses the same 10mp sensor that was used in the D200/D80/D60/D40x, which are not as clean as the D40 at higher ISOs

 

[alexruiz]

A medium format Hasselblad?

Seriously, until budget is know, we cannot make good suggestions.

Anyways, I also propose the Pentax K-x.
As far as the lenses availability arguments, the majority of people who get DSLRs still shoot with the kit lenses.... A good example: A few weeks ago, there was an event at the children school. Someone was shooting with a spiffy new Nikon D300.... wow, you would say. The person was such a show off that he was using... the 50-200 zoom for indoor low distance shots just to make the camera look even more impressive with this long lens

So, for the OP, if he/she is NOT going to get additional lenses immediately, the kit lenses quality becomes crucial, and Olympus and Pentax have better kit lenses. That reinforces my initial suggestion of the K-x

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

-D40 has a much weaker AA filter
-1/500 flash sync speed, up to 1/4000 using radio triggered strobes - thats a huge difference in flash power
-The D3000 uses the same 10mp sensor that was used in the D200/D80/D60/D40x, which are not as clean as the D40 at higher ISOs

Yeah I looked at some reviews. The D40 blows the D3000 away. Of course the D5000 is just in a new class of its own. Taking down the D90 easily and challenging the Canon 5D2 even...

 

[Munky]

-D40 has a much weaker AA filter
-1/500 flash sync speed, up to 1/4000 using radio triggered strobes - thats a huge difference in flash power
-The D3000 uses the same 10mp sensor that was used in the D200/D80/D60/D40x, which are not as clean as the D40 at higher ISOs

Exactly. I don't care how many more MP other camera's have, there's no replacement for having a 1/500 or faster x-sync. The 1/180 or so of Sony is just plain laughable.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I'm helping my Dad look at an entry level camera. Right now, the Pentax k-x w/ kit-lens for $549 at Amazon seems pretty unbeatable. Looking at some image comparisons...they did very well with the sensor on that camera (Sony I think).

 

[pdo]

I'm helping my Dad look at an entry level camera. Right now, the Pentax k-x w/ kit-lens for $549 at Amazon seems pretty unbeatable. Looking at some image comparisons...they did very well with the sensor on that camera (Sony I think).

I'm still new to photgraphy but I just got the K-X and test it out with the girl.

 

[funks]

I'd say, get a Refurbished Canon EOS-40D from Adorama (around 699$ and even less with Bing Cashback, or if you have 250$ more - a new 50D body). Even though it says refurbished - it's pretty much brand new, refurbished by canon and comes with a 1 Year Warranty from Adorama. For a cheap, decent lens, get a Canon EF-S 18-55 IS F3.5-> 5.6 IS lens for around 110$ or so.

Later on, when you have some cash to spare on a great lens - me thinks the EF 24-70MM f/2.8L USM would be a great companion (lens cost 1300$). My pro-photographer buddy swears by the combo (EOS-40D w/ the 24-70MM F2.7 L) but he's telling me about his itch to get the 5D Mark II.

I have a T1i but my buddies EOS-40D is definitely built alot better (magnesium shell - doesn't feel like a big hunka plastic). Note, with the money saved - spend some cash on taking a photography class or something so that you'll know what to do with your new camera.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Exactly. I don't care how many more MP other camera's have, there's no replacement for having a 1/500 or faster x-sync. The 1/180 or so of Sony is just plain laughable.

Not only that the D3000 regressed from the D60 even though it's a similar sensor.

But if IQ is about the same, MP does matter to an extent. 6MP is ridiculous. I feel sorry for people and their 6 MP when I shoot at 15. I can crop the hell out of an image and still get usable resolution. Like for example I did some shooting on a Tokina 11-16. At 16mm the distortion is minimal, so I cropped the hell out of some group shots simply because I didn't have time to switch to my 28mm prime. Try doing that on your 6MP.

The D40 was a great buy back in the day, but honestly... it's getting a bit dated. Unfortunately Nikon screwed the D3000 over, but to say that MP is just worthless isn't really completely true.

I believe image quality/sharpness and megapixels shouldn't be mutually exclusive. We should be able to have advancements in both. I don't want an MP race to screw stupid consumers over, but at the same time, I want to see improvements in both departments.

To me the G11 was a bit of a disappointment in decreasing resolution.I havent read reviews, but unless the sensor change made it THAT much better in image quality... I see it as a meh...

 

[BeauJangles]

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

If your goal is to shoot your family gatherings and use the camera casually, there is nothing wrong with buying a less expensive nikon or canon camera and one of their less expensive lenses. I'm much more familiar with the Nikon line, so those who have suggested a simple DSLR like the D40 are spot-on. The D40 is a great little camera and you can find one very inexpensively on Ebay.

For your lens, you need to be more specific. Do you want one lens that covers everything from wide-angle to super-zoom? Do you want something that just does the middle (30 - 100 mm)? Do you only want one lens to deal with?

Finally, how much do you want to spend on the whole package?

 

[djnsmith7]

I'm relatively new to D-SLR's & I've been very happy with the D60 & 70-300VR lens. The D60 takes great photos & didn't do too shabby at Laguna Seca during Moto GP this year. I've been impressed with the results, considering I haven't used a D-SLR before.

 

[Munky]

Not only that the D3000 regressed from the D60 even though it's a similar sensor.

But if IQ is about the same, MP does matter to an extent. 6MP is ridiculous. I feel sorry for people and their 6 MP when I shoot at 15. I can crop the hell out of an image and still get usable resolution. Like for example I did some shooting on a Tokina 11-16. At 16mm the distortion is minimal, so I cropped the hell out of some group shots simply because I didn't have time to switch to my 28mm prime. Try doing that on your 6MP.

The D40 was a great buy back in the day, but honestly... it's getting a bit dated. Unfortunately Nikon screwed the D3000 over, but to say that MP is just worthless isn't really completely true.

I believe image quality/sharpness and megapixels shouldn't be mutually exclusive. We should be able to have advancements in both. I don't want an MP race to screw stupid consumers over, but at the same time, I want to see improvements in both departments.

To me the G11 was a bit of a disappointment in decreasing resolution.I havent read reviews, but unless the sensor change made it THAT much better in image quality... I see it as a meh...

Never thought cropping the hell out of an image was a good idea. I'm one of those people who prefer to get the image more or less "correct" from the start instead of toying with Photoshop for hours.

With that said, the target medium for majority of my photo's is a web gallery - and 6MP is more than enough for those. What possible use would more MP be when 6MP are already larger than any computer screen? Even on the occasion when I make a few 8x12 prints, it serves me well.

The 1/500 x-sync was one of the biggest reasons I chose a D40 over anything else. Every time I use fill flash outdoors, it makes me appreciate that feature, which can't be replicated with more MP or expensive lenses.

 

[oogabooga]

Never thought cropping the hell out of an image was a good idea. I'm one of those people who prefer to get the image more or less "correct" from the start instead of toying with Photoshop for hours.

With that said, the target medium for majority of my photo's is a web gallery - and 6MP is more than enough for those. What possible use would more MP be when 6MP are already larger than any computer screen? Even on the occasion when I make a few 8x12 prints, it serves me well.

The 1/500 x-sync was one of the biggest reasons I chose a D40 over anything else. Every time I use fill flash outdoors, it makes me appreciate that feature, which can't be replicated with more MP or expensive lenses.

I think that given the choice, most people would like to get the shot 'correct' from the getgo. But especially for newer shooters (like myself) being able to crop and still get a high resolution image is nice.

I personally am not printing large prints of my shot though, so resolution probably wasn't going to be a problem anyway. Considering most of my stuff is going to the web.

 

[PurdueRy]

My opinion is either the Canon T1i or the Nikon D5000 depending on the deal going on. Both are exceptional cameras. I always recommend a person evaluates the major differences and handle the cameras and see which they prefer.

 

[twistedlogic]

With that said, the target medium for majority of my photo's is a web gallery - and 6MP is more than enough for those.

Considering most of my stuff is going to the web.

Ditto. I'd say that about I have done a total of 150 prints in the past two years, mostly 4X6s. I've done three 13X19, a 12X18, and one 30X20. That's just a meager .5% of my total shots taken.

I shoot RAW and archive all my originals, if I where shooting with more MPs my workflow would take even longer, backups would take longer, and I'd be out of HDD space by now. How large is a 15MP RAW file anyway?

Don't get me wrong, if someone handed me a D3X I'd be thrilled, but I really don't need the extra pixels as much as I need better glass/lighting/tripod/experience. I'd be more excited about using an ISO over 1600,

 

[PurdueRy]

How large is a 15MP RAW file anyway?

Approximately 20MB on average.

I shoot full resolution on my 50D and yes, the file sizes can get intimidating. I export a JPG at approximately 5-7MB archive my RAW files if there is a chance I may need them in the future. When I am just messing around I won't.