Best digital SLR camera under $1000?

How about the Nikon D40? How does that compare to the Canon XSI/T series? I can get the D40 for around $400.

What are the differences between a so-called semi-professional camera and a full-fledged professional model?

I imagine it has something to do with the quality of the sensors, but the choices all seem very difficult in comparison to professional-grade cameras of the past, which usually just had something like a "fancy" meter as a plus, additional framelines, or better mechanical build a la the Contarex.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

What are the differences between a so-called semi-professional camera and a full-fledged professional model? I imagine it has something to do with the quality of the sensors, but the choices all seem very difficult in comparison to professional-grade cameras of the past, which usually just had something like a "fancy" meter as a plus, or better mechanical build a la the Contarex.
Generally speaking, the more expensive cameras have bigger, better sensors, more auto-focus points, they work faster, have better viewfinders, better white balancing, better exposure meters, and give less noise at higher ISOs. Those are the most noticeable differences as they related directly to image quality, but the actual feature list is much longer. Mechanical build also increases noticeably. A non-professional camera would a D40/D60. There's no way a professional photographer would prefer to use it for their work as it just doesn't have enough performance and control features even though it takes nice pictures. A semi-professional camera would be a D80. A professional could get away with using it as its a nice camera and makes great pictures. They basically took a D200, made it smaller and cut down the features that non-professionals wouldn't notice, and left in the ones that are important. Most pros would prefer to go up to at least a D200, though. A professional camera would be a D200 (now replaced by D300), and going even higher, a D2 or D3. Image quality is the highest, and all the other features I already named are in and in their best form. I don't know my model numbers as well with Canon, but they have an equivalent at every level.

Originally Posted by jakejake

Click to expand...

I'm going to add photography to my hobby list. I don't know much about SLR cameras, but I can afford anything under $1000. A friend of mine recommends the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1. New or used is fine as long as it's under 1 grand. Any other recommendations?

That Casio isn't an SLR. It has an electronic viewfinder, and you can't swap lenses. Not to mention I despise Casios because their build quality is godawful. Personally, I'd go with a D40 and a nice lens or two if you're looking to stay under a grand.

If I had to replace my old Nikon D70s today, I would go for a D200. It's available at Amazon.com for $999 (or in Germany for €999).
There were some technical problems (banding) with the first models, but that has long been solved.

However, you want to keep in mind that it's a rather heavy piece of equipment (it has a metal case in contrast to the cheaper Nikons). Maybe nothing you want to take with you for a little stroll.

The higher you go up in the model range, the less "useless" features like automatic programs for portrait, landscape, action... you get. I think this is a good thing because you actually have to learn how shutter, speed etc. work together. Instead, you usually get a more sophisticated light meter and a faster auto-focus. Again, you have to learn how these features operate to make maximum use of them.

I don't understand why anyone buys an SLR and leaves it on automatic mode. I understand it in wedding photography, but I see a lot of people doing still photography and using fully automatic mode. If I see someone wakling around the city with their camera and its not on M, A, S, or P, it kind of gives me a chuckle.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone buys an SLR and leaves it on automatic mode. I understand it in wedding photography, but I see a lot of people doing still photography and using fully automatic mode. If I see someone wakling around the city with their camera and its not on M, A, S, or P, it kind of gives me a chuckle.

It's like buying a Porsche only to be driven around by your mom who never goes faster that 50 mph.

Originally Posted by chessplayer

Click to expand...

It's like buying a Porsche only to be driven around by your mom who never goes faster that 50 mph.

Are you stalking me?

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

Are you stalking me?

Wouldn't it be foolish to stalk a moderator?

Originally Posted by chessplayer

Click to expand...

It's like buying a Porsche only to be driven around by your mom who never goes faster that 50 mph.

It's actually more like buying a Porsche with an auto transmission.

That said, I sometimes use my (film) SLR on aperture priority because I'm more worried about catching a moment than fiddling with settings.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the more expensive cameras have bigger, better sensors, more auto-focus points, they work faster, have better viewfinders, better white balancing, better exposure meters, and give less noise at higher ISOs. Those are the most noticeable differences as they related directly to image quality, but the actual feature list is much longer. Mechanical build also increases noticeably.

A non-professional camera would a D40/D60. There's no way a professional photographer would prefer to use it for their work as it just doesn't have enough performance and control features even though it takes nice pictures.

A semi-professional camera would be a D80. A professional could get away with using it as its a nice camera and makes great pictures. They basically took a D200, made it smaller and cut down the features that non-professionals wouldn't notice, and left in the ones that are important. Most pros would prefer to go up to at least a D200, though.

A professional camera would be a D200 (now replaced by D300), and going even higher, a D2 or D3. Image quality is the highest, and all the other features I already named are in and in their best form.

I don't know my model numbers as well with Canon, but they have an equivalent at every level.

Just to expand a bit. D200 and D80 have pretty simillar image quality. The difference is mostly in the pro weather sealed body of the D200. Studio pros put a lot of value on a larger sensor like the one in Canons 5D or Nikons new D700.

The Sony A series are nice. I bought an A 200 since the price was right and it seemed to have the functions I wanted. Now that I've fiddled with it for a while I wouldn't have a problem jumping up to the 700 or 900 when it's available. I play with long exposure IR and it's by far the easiest camera to setup for this kind of photography. I'm happy with the way it takes lightning pics too. I've played with some of the Zeiss lenses for this camera and needless to say the quality is top notch. Oh and you can use about a bizzilion lenses made by Konica/Minolta.

In any case play with all of the cameras you can and pick the one that works for you.

+1 on the casio not being an SLR.

The entry level Canons and Nikons are both good. For that matter, you can probably get a Canon 40D for less than a grand today.

I'm leaning toward Nikon D80 since the price will drop b/c of the D90. I've never used a D/SLR before. Should I get the D40 instead or get the D80 and keep it for a longer time? What are the major differences between the two? Any reason why I shouldn't get the D80 but some other brand?

Originally Posted by milosh

Click to expand...

Just to expand a bit. D200 and D80 have pretty simillar image quality. The difference is mostly in the pro weather sealed body of the D200. Studio pros put a lot of value on a larger sensor like the one in Canons 5D or Nikons new D700.


Just a note: the weather sealing on the d200/d300 is not of the same level as on the pro cameras, and unless you're buying their pro glass, most nikon/canon lenses are not weather sealed either.

If environmental sealing is really important to you, the olympus e-3 is the way to go under 2k. All of their pro range glass is sealed to the extent that you see some people pouring bottles of water on them or rinsing them under the sink. Nikon doesn't really focus on the weather-sealing aspect of their cameras. Olympus practically dares you to submerge them.

My point is that i would not buy a d200 for the weathersealing. I would buy a d300 for the crazy AF system, but not the weathersealing.

As for the OP, don't forget to look at the olympus e-520. The Olympus kit lenses are some of the best out there.