entry level DSLRs

[ZippyDan]

so from the last year it looks like the Nikon D3100 and maybe the Canon T2i were the best bang-for-your-buck cameras.

I want a DSLR but I don't want to spend a lot of money (I'm not a pro). $600 is the absolute maximum I want to spend, but I'd actually prefer to find a used camera and spend a little less.

I'm not super brand loyal or set on one camera over another. I had planned to get the Nikon, but the prices seem to be going up because of the flooding in Thailand. Also, it occurs to me that both these cameras are already nearing a year old, and I know sensor technology advances rapidly.

I'll be in HK in March, and I'm thinking of picking up a camera then. Which brands/models should I be looking at in the entry-level range?

 

[TanisHalfElven]

I recently got a used canon rebel xt from amazom (seller KEH which is a good used camera shop) and a 50 mm f/1.8 prime. I'd higly recommend something like that. You could save the extra money, or spend it on a nice lens (i'd suggest the 55-250mm IS).

Keh camera has a nice used store.
So does bhphoto

links
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Di...a-Bodies?s=1&bcode=DC&ccode=2&cc=79269&r=WG&f
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...s&usedSearch=1

Both these stores are highly reputed and personal experiance has been excellent at KEH.
I'd go with a cheap body and spend the rest on lenses rather than a newer "better" body and staying with the kit lens.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

I'd also add that do you need a SLR. Not questioning you, just suggesting that if you just looking for better IQ maybe consider something like the canon s90/95/100. Those would be far far more portable and the s95 can be had for 300ish these days.

 

[ZippyDan]

I'm planning to tour Europe, Vietnam, and HK for several months next year and I want something that will do justice to recording those memories. I know the photographer is as important as the camera. I'm not a professional but I will read up on the basics. That is why I'm looking at an entry-level DSLR. I want something good for my trips, but there is no sense wasting money on a noob.

 

[currahee440]

I wanted a DSLR too, but in the end I got a bridge camera. Or a "High performance point and shoot camera"

The sensors are higher quality than that of normal point and shoots but don't quite match DSLR quality. The sensors are smaller than that of DSLRs... but because of that they can have lenses that are smaller but still go quite a ways. I've taken some really good photos .. I can upload them if you're interested in looking at some of the good ones. They will look blurry because I did not own a tripod at the time.

I have the Nikon Coolpix P500. The nice thing about bridge cameras are that they have ridiculous zoom range. Mine does 36x and all you need is that single lens on there... unlike DSLRs that need multiple lenses. My guess is that the superzoom will help you out a lot if you wanted to capture something far in the distance.. which a DSLR would be impractical with unless if you swapped lenses.

I can show you a photo of the full 36x zoom :whiste: there was a boat on a reservoir I was at. I zoomed in all the way and could make out the people on the boat as well as the number on the sail. Not creepy at all D:

It also does high speed video... but it's more of a neat thing and not a serious thing.
Also I suggest you watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfnv9pRUJrU
It helped me in deciding between a DSLR or a bridge ... it might for you too!

The only downside I can think of is that it uses a proprietary battery. I've heard it lasts 120-200 shots. I use exposure bracketing for HDR tone-mapped photos so the battery will die on me quite quickly as you can imagine...

 

[ZippyDan]

I watched your video.

In the first shot of the fisherman, the bridge camera seemed to present more detail in the foreground and background, but it looked very grainy and unpleasant like a cell phone camera. The same shot with the DSLR produced a slightly blurrier but at the same time more realistic and aesthetically pleasing shot. I'm not sure how to describe the difference.

I also much preferred the aspect ratio of the DSLR's photos.

 

[currahee440]

I watched your video.

In the first shot of the fisherman, the bridge camera seemed to present more detail in the foreground and background, but it looked very grainy and unpleasant like a cell phone camera. The same shot with the DSLR produced a slightly blurrier but at the same time more realistic and aesthetically pleasing shot. I'm not sure how to describe the difference.

I also much preferred the aspect ratio of the DSLR's photos.

I understand. I knew almost nothing about digital photography so I wanted to start out on something practical before I dive into the "big boy" stuff that being said, I think comparing a bridge to a DSLR would be like comparing a car with a V8 to a car with a V6. You're gonna notice the difference!

I don't know if you have a photography shop nearby, but Best Buy seems to have a good package deal that includes a pretty lengthy zoom lens which might be helpful: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+EO...99170000050034

Or this
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-...kuId=1987075&st=Top5DSLR_09042011_2&cp=1&lp=2

 

[Throckmorton]

I watched your video.

In the first shot of the fisherman, the bridge camera seemed to present more detail in the foreground and background, but it looked very grainy and unpleasant like a cell phone camera. The same shot with the DSLR produced a slightly blurrier but at the same time more realistic and aesthetically pleasing shot. I'm not sure how to describe the difference.

I also much preferred the aspect ratio of the DSLR's photos.

But you aren't going to be bring a huge bazooka sized lens with you on your trip. You'd have maybe a 4x lens. Then again you may not want to take super zoom pictures.

 

[GoSharks]

The sensors are higher quality than that of normal point and shoots but don't quite match DSLR quality. The sensors are smaller than that of DSLRs...

I understand. I knew almost nothing about digital photography so I wanted to start out on something practical before I dive into the "big boy" stuff that being said, I think comparing a bridge to a DSLR would be like comparing a car with a V8 to a car with a V6. You're gonna notice the difference!

Those are very much understatements there, especially for your example Nikon P500.

Sensor sizes:
Nikon P500: 6.17 x 4.55 mm, 28.0735 mm^2
Nikon D7000: 23.6 x 15.7 mm, 370.52 mm^2

We're talking the difference between a 2 cylinder and a V12 between your P500 and the D7000. Actually, I would question your categorization of the P500 as a bridge camera... I would consider a Canon S100, with a 7.44 x 5.58 mm, 41.5152 mm^2, sensor to be more of one, but as you can see, it is still very far from a DSLR.

 

[LR6]

If you would like to get serious about photography, get the DSLR and learn to use it. I am so glad that I did several years ago.

I would say the Nikon, but I am biased. Either the Nikon or Canon should be fine, even if it is an older model. I still have my 4.5 year old Nikon D40 and it still takes great pics. I don't have plans to replace it anytime soon. Good photography is more about understanding how the camera works and not about the latest equipment(assuming that you have a good starting point, like a DSLR).

 

[ZippyDan]

But you aren't going to be bring a huge bazooka sized lens with you on your trip. You'd have maybe a 4x lens. Then again you may not want to take super zoom pictures.

Yup I don't want something toooo bulky. And I don't really care about zoom photography right now. My interest is in taking photos of people (that I know). The environment only provides the setting and frame. Most of my pictures will be of people relatively close to the camera.

 

[randomrogue]

That video is stupid. Really stupid and they pretty much admit it themselves in the video.

The difference between a bridge camera and a DSLR can be rather large depending on what you're using it for. In broad daylight at ISO100 taking pictures of stationary objects the differences aren't as pronounced. However while a new DSLR can take clean high iso shots a bridge camera, especially that one, will not. You get more dynamic range and less noise (especially ugly noise) with a DSLR. Look at a review of that Fuji HS 20 and you'll see that even at ISO200 it's not that great.

A DSLR will focus faster and correctly more often. A bridge camera will fail quite miserably on moving objects.

Decide what you want the camera for. If it's just snapshots in daylight then anything will do. If you want a huge zoom for snapshots then sure it's fine and I know lots of people that used a bridge camera briefly before moving on to a DSLR (although that HS20 is pretty damn expensive for a bridge camera). However when it comes to printing high quality prints, moving objects, low light, better depth of field, better exposure, more versatility with lens options such as a lens baby or tilt shift, etc I'd go with a DSLR.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Nikon D40. Very light, compact and easy to use. $384 w/ kit lens in E+ condition.

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20470777.html

JR

 

[TanisHalfElven]

For a trip to HK, i'd go with the canon s95 (or similar). These have a great low light performance. Cheap (you can get a used s90 from amazon for less than 200) and extreamly portable. For a trip to HK, and especailly if your not into photography already i'd go with that.
You really don't wanna be carrying around a DSLR to bars and shit. You'll end up leaving it at home, and missing stuff.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

ps. I'd also look at the Fuji x10.
It just barely fits in your budget too.

EDIT.
I found something else for you.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0048AVBD8
Samsung NX100. Same APS-C size sensor as every other entry level DSLR, but cheap and far more portable.

pps. I'm having a blast looking at camera's and shopping. thanks OP

 

[ZippyDan]

no flash on the samsung :/

and i only mentioned HK because i thought it might be a good place to buy a camera. the camera will be used primarily for touring Europe

 

[JohnnyRebel]

no flash on the samsung :/

and i only mentioned HK because i thought it might be a good place to buy a camera. the camera will be used primarily for touring Europe

I also want to suggest the Canon S95. This is my "carry anywhere" camera with the semi-rigid camera case designed for it by canon (PSC 900). It is wonderfully on my belt for any situation. The S95 is as capable as any P&S, plus the controls make it much more so in the hands of a semi-experienced photographer.

The DSLR will probably be left behind, unless you are dedicated about carrying it everywhere (in which case get an R-Strap).

JR

 

[Throckmorton]

What about a micro 4/3?

 

[currahee440]

Those are very much understatements there, especially for your example Nikon P5000.

Sensor sizes:
Nikon P5000: 6.17 x 4.55 mm, 28.0735 mm^2
Nikon D7000: 23.6 x 15.7 mm, 370.52 mm^2

We're talking the difference between a 2 cylinder and a V12 between your P5000 and the D7000. Actually, I would question your categorization of the P5000 as a bridge camera... I would consider a Canon S100, with a 7.44 x 5.58 mm, 41.5152 mm^2, sensor to be more of one, but as you can see, it is still very far from a DSLR.

Thats P500 sir not 5000 :x
And the engine difference was just an analogy in terms of the quality difference

 

[GoSharks]

Thats P500 sir not 5000 :x
And the engine difference was just an analogy in terms of the quality difference

Sorry, I meant the P500, and the numbers as posted are correct. The P5000 actually has a bigger sensor than the P500.

Your engine analogy wrong; I was talking about the quality difference too. Assuming similar vintage, sensor size directly correlates to image quality.

 

[Binky]

You should look at and consider mirror-less cameras too, like the Micro 4/3 stuff from Panasonic and Olympus, and the Sony NEX series. The "big" advantage of these systems is smaller size and lower weight. Smaller could be a huge advantage on a vacation. Disadvantages are picture quality and lens selection.

 

[jonny13]

I went for years with a bridge type camera until 2 years ago when I went DSLR. I'd never go back. The pictures that are possible are simply amazing and like nothing I got with any previous cameras. I started with a Canon XS and kit lens and it took many great pictures. Right now, I'd look at a refurbished T3 camera with kit lens. They are $439 direct from Canon. That leaves enough for a used 55-250 lens or a new 50 f/1.8 lens to bring along on your trip.

Here's the camera:
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_283215_-1

 

[todpod]

Amazon has New Rebel t3s for 437.56

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T3.../dp/B004J3Y9U6

 

[Gintaras]

no flash on the samsung :/

and i only mentioned HK because i thought it might be a good place to buy a camera. the camera will be used primarily for touring Europe

Built-in flash on DSLR is almost useless - it can be used just in emergency cases - when low light and no external flash, but don't expect much of it.

 

[ZippyDan]

Built-in flash on DSLR is almost useless - it can be used just in emergency cases - when low light and no external flash, but don't expect much of it.

a DSLR with a kit lens is basically the maximum bulk I will tolerate. I won't carry around an external flash. So it will be useful. Harsh lighting here I come