Looking for a Digital SLR

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by michaeljkrell

I will second Olympus. I only have an E-300, but I have their prosumer 14mm-54mm glass and it is lovely. From the reviews I have read, it is very tough to beat for the price.

My first oly was an e-330. It was great on my trip but it got soaked a few times and it's not really made for that. I don't like the idea of not getting pictures of a place I may not be back to because of environmental conditions and the limitations of my camera's sealing, hence the e-3.

Olympus glass is very very sharp overall, and their lens features make sense throughout their various grades. I love that all the HG is splash/dustproof.

You should def look at the 50-200 SWF if you like telephoto, but be aware it begs to be paired with the EC-14. ^_^

 

[michaeljkrell]

Yeah, if I wanted to get that 50-200mm, I would probably pick up an E1 (couldn't think about affording an e3) so I could be completely weatherproof. I have had the e-300 out in the snow and and light rain without a problem. If I ever want a telephoto lens I would probably just get that $250 sigma lens. The kit telephoto lens for the e-300 is really spectacular for being a kit lens.

 

[GQgeek]

Most cameras will do fine with a little exposure to rain. It's 3 hours of constant rain that begins to become a problem. Even as I was doing my best to shoot from under my poncho, water still got in. Can't wait to put the e-3 through similar conditions.

 

[LookSharp]

Don't simply look at particular models. Look at overal systems - the lens line-up, how the flash system works. If you want a small camera with good controls and some nice lenses but aren't going to take photography too far I quite like the Olympus range. If you just want the widest range of options then it's Canon or Nikon. Canon has the best out-and-out image quality (by a fraction) while Nikon gives you a more professional AF-system in it's mid-range cameras while Canon's stingy with that. I use Canon and have so many bits of Canon kit that I'd never change. I'd personally avoid the Pentax/Samsungs and Sigmas because they don't have as wide a set of options as Nikon/Canon. I do professional work and only use 30Ds and 20Ds (one of which was £200 from ebay), although may get a 5D MKII this year - beware of camera forums filled with gear heads with more equipment than most working pros. The lens quality is the key - so spend money there. Most recent bodies are good. If a shot is lit well a £4k camera is only going to add a tiny slither of icing if anything to what a £200 second hand one can do. C'est tout.

By looksharp, shot with Canon EOS 30D at 2009-01-25

 

[needshoehelp]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

You should look at the camera I included in my post. It's probably the closest you can get to a DSLR in terms of control and functionality without going full DSLR.

+1

I ditched my DSLR for the Lumix LX3. It can't do everything my DSLR could, but I take it more places. It's a hell of a camera. I just wasn't taking my DSLR out enough because of its size.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by needshoehelp

+1

I ditched my DSLR for the Lumix LX3. It can't do everything my DSLR could, but I take it more places. It's a hell of a camera. I just wasn't taking my DSLR out enough because of its size.

What are some of its primary limitations?

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Yeah, i like doing that.

My IRL friends also really enjoy it.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Yes and no. This was what I was talking about (micro 4/3). However, they don't have a real viewfinder and that may be a dealbreaker for some. At this point they don't have fast glass, which is definitely a problem for many. It's also first-gen of a lot of new tech. That's generally a bad idea. In the next couple of years I expect that the standard will mature and that it will fare quite well.
Yah, EVF and slow glass is not my world, I'm under f/2 most of the time. But what they're doing may herald a (trendy word alert) new paradigm in photog. Time will tell, but smaller, faster, lighter, cheaper usually wins out in the long run. ~ H

 

[maomao1980]

I currently use an Olympus E-420, which is the second smallest DSLR available now (smallest is the new Panosonic G1). Combine it with the pancake lense, you will have the smallest overall DSLR package available. I think it is a great first DSLR. You should be able to get the kit for less than $400 new.

 

[andyw]

Purchased 3 digital cameras over the past 2 months and some observations:
1) Basic DSLR's should cost about $500-600. Bought my son a Nikon D60 ( $525 at J&R) and my daughter the Sony A200 ($500 at Adorama); both with the basic lens. My son's in art school and my daughter a savvy high schooler into photography. More camera than they need and with upgrades, useful for many years to come.
2) The information on the Digital Photography Revuiew website was very useful to understand the many brands and features in the DSLR line-up. I felt more confident about what was out there and it helped lower my budget. http://www.dpreview.com/
3) I bought a Ricoh GRD II camera for myself and love it. It is a smart digital rangefinder camera with manual controls as well as automatic. It took me a month to master the manual controls but worth it. I can control the photographic outcome and it's quality is akin to Leica. It comes with a fixed 28mm lens, i.e. no zoom but there is another Ricoh model with a zoom - I think its called the GX200. The GRD II camera is small and stealth. I also bought the add-on wide angle, the tele lens and the rangefinder.
4) If you spend more than $600+, presumably it's to get more megapixels. So make sure you get the best sensor possible and be prepared to spend more on the best quality lens. A crappy lens will be the barrier in expoiting the power of the sensor. It's like audiophile grade components and why the nuts spend as much on cabling as on the components.

Enjoy!

 

[brimley]

For $1K, I would get a Canon xTi/xS/xSi and a Tamron 17-55 mm f/2.8. Should even leave you a few bucks for a case, a foldable tripod, memory, and maybe a brew

If you get a good deal on the body you can pick up Canon's 50 mm f/1.8, which is too long for general purpose on a crop body but a very cheap and fun lens.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by andyw

4) If you spend more than $600+, presumably it's to get more megapixels. So make sure you get the best sensor possible and be prepared to spend more on the best quality lens. A crappy lens will be the barrier in expoiting the power of the sensor. It's like audiophile grade components and why the nuts spend as much on cabling as on the components.

Enjoy!

I hate to nitpick, but the people that spend as much on cables as components are only doing so because they're insane, like their bling, or are easily fooled by bogus physics, a misapplication of real physics, and/or marketing-speak. Relating high quality lenses to audio cables is a horrible analogy. There are also many more reasons to spend on a higher priced body than just higher MP. In fact, I'd say that MP are only a small part of the reason why anyone would buy something more expensive than a $600 camera.

 

[needshoehelp]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

What are some of its primary limitations?

It's not as fast in operation as a DSLR, and its high ISO performance, while easily the best I've seen from a compact camera, is also not in the same league as a DSLR. But with its fast f/2 lens and IS, that compensates a lot. I'm actually able to get better indoor shots on this camera at ISO 400 because of the fast lens and IS than a slow DSLR lens without stabilization.

 

[drizzt3117]

I'm using a XSi/EF28-135IS, but if I were going to get a new camera now, I'd heavily consider the deal Costco has on the D90 with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses for $1299.

 

[EL72]

For ~$1,100, the best DSLR you can get is the new Nikon D90 with an excellent 18-105 lens. It's an amazing camera and the only SLR that you can take HD video with.

For a bit less $, get the Canon Rebel XSi. We just got it and it's a beauty too. Takes amazing pictures in auto or full manual if you want. You can get a kit with two image stabilization lenses (18-55 and 55-250) for ~$900 or just the smaller lens for $600.

If I was inclined to spend $1,000, I would definitely get the D90. You won't be disappointed and won't be able to go back to point and shoot after you start with DSLR quality shots.

 

[rnoldh]

Originally Posted by EL72

For ~$1,100, the best DSLR you can get is the new Nikon D90 with an excellent 18-105 lens. It's an amazing camera and the only SLR that you can take HD video with.

For a bit less $, get the Canon Rebel XSi. We just got it and it's a beauty too. Takes amazing pictures in auto or full manual if you want. You can get a kit with two image stabilization lenses (18-55 and 55-250) for ~$900 or just the smaller lens for $600.

If I was inclined to spend $1,000, I would definitely get the D90. You won't be disappointed and won't be able to go back to point and shoot after you start with DSLR quality shots.

+1

I am pretty much "amateur".

But for around $1,000, I agree with the above.

If you want to start inexpensively, you could get a Nikon D40 or D40X kit to learn on. Available for about $500 to $550 ( new ones, with used kits cheaper )And you'll get 2 nice kit lenses. An 18-55 mm and a 55-200mm ( make sure they are the VR version ). AQnd when you step up to better Nikons you will still be able to use the VR lenses. For your very first DSLR, the D90 might be a bit much. But if you wanted to put some time and effort into learning it's use, I think you'll love it.

The D40 and D40X are more like starter DSLRs but I think you would like them. Their bodies are particularly small and light too. I guess you could get a Nikon D60 too for a $550-$650 kit range, with the 2 nice VR Nikon lems's. But it's only advantage over the D40s is that it is able to use older legacy Nikon SLR glass and auto focus ( if the lens does it ). While the D40s need the newer Nikon len's with their own internal AF motor to auto focus. But I'm guessing you don't have any older Nikon SLR lens's anyway.