What's new

Digital SLR Suggestions

OK, I am going to open the floodgates once more. I am looking for a DSLR and want one that it a good deal, but something above the entry level. I don't need the $1,000/2,000+ models, they are likely more camera than I need. But, I think that if I went with the entry level model (eg a Nikon D40) slr, I would kick myself and want something a little fancier. I have been eyeing the Olympus E520 (already have some old OM lens options and have found great kits for bargain prices), but many have said to go with Canon or Nikon instead.

All of this said, what camera would you all suggest? Any advice on camera bodies or what lens options I need to pay attention to would be great as well.

Thanks!
 
Even though it has been around for quite awhile,I own a Nikon D50. It has been a wonderful camera and never has had a problem. The newer D40,etc are smaller and had a few newer features but also cost more than what i paid.

There are so many models these days yet an SLR is the way to go.

Remember: High pixel quantity can be nice but the lenses are what does all the work. The glass is where the money should be spent in my opinion.

handlebar
 
Even though it has been around for quite awhile,I own a Nikon D50. It has been a wonderful camera and never has had a problem. The newer D40,etc are smaller and had a few newer features but also cost more than what i paid.

There are so many models these days yet an SLR is the way to go.

Remember: High pixel quantity can be nice but the lenses are what does all the work. The glass is where the money should be spent in my opinion.

handlebar

Truer words were never spoken!!
 
Each of the brands has it's own appeal and quirks. I prefer Canon and right now, the 40D is selling for about $750 and the new 50D is selling for about $1050 on Amazon. The 50D, although it's the newer model, is not $300 better than the 40D. The Canon 40D is a real bargain right now.
 
The new micro 4/3s mount is interesting, to say the least. Only one shipping camera so far, but this mount may open the floodgates for those look for a small yet very capable digital camera that can accept glass from legacy OM to Cosina Voigtlander, Zeiss and Leica.

Yes, glass is where it's at. About 90% of the 'features' of DSLRs are totally unnecessary.
 
I have an olympus digital SLR and it has been a very good camera. It does not automatically accept OM lenses as they created a new set of lenses for these cameras. You can buy an adapter but from what I understand it creates a lot of restrictions. Like I said, its a good camera, but if you decide to buy it you will more than likely want to get new lenses with it in the first place.
 
One great thing about Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras are the acceptability of old lenses. I as a freelancer for years in the late 80's and early 90's,using Nikon pro gear with a variety of lenses that still work fine on the D50. Yes,I do lose some of the metering on them but I shoot aperture priority or manual most of the time anyways. And those older lenses can be found quite often for a fraction of the price that both Nikon and Canon want for the newer models.

Olympus certainly produce a good camera as well. The older Om series are wonderful shooters.

Handlebar
 
Thanks everyone for such great replies. Camera's seem to be like cars; the discussions can get passionate. I am definitely hearing you all on the importance of glass. On that point, I actually have my dad's old OM which I have been messing around with. I do like the idea of using the old lenses with a new camera (manual with an adapter). In some ways all of the choices are overwhelming, but it is also clear that there are many great options out there. From reading other photo forums it is clear that the camera is one part, but a a great bit is just remembering to bring the camera out with you to capture the shots. It is the sunset (or whatever you are shooting) doing most of the work anyway... :smile:
 
I personally don't like the 4/3rds system. The issue is the image sensor size. It's bad enough we have to swallow sensors in the APS-C size to get an affordable Nikon or Canon but to go smaller still to a 4/3rds sensor had better save you a ton of money in my opinion or it isn't worth it. I personally expect 4/3rds to go the way of the Kodak Advantix system eventually.

Here's an article on the 4/3rds with read under Image Sensor and make up your own mind.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Four-Thirds
 
I would say go for the Nikon D40.

I have had one for a year and it's the best camera I've ever owned. Sure I lust after the D90 because it's the newest and greatest mid-level DSLR by Nikon, but in reality the D40 is all I need.

The only time I wish for a new camera is when my 55-200 lens doesn't quite give me all the length I need. I don't really have the resolution to crop with my D40.

If you decide to go with the D40, I'd recommend getting the kit lens, and either one of these two lenses depending on your needs:

1) 50mm f/1.8 (~$100): Won't AF with the D40, but it will meter. I use mine for low-light and all around shooting. It almost never comes off my camera. I use an older Series E 50mm (from the 80's) that I bought on eBay for ~$30, but it won't meter. If you're comfortable with using a lens that won't meter or AF with your camera, that would be a good option.

2) 55-200mm VR: I use this lens when photographing animals, basketball games, etc. It's not very fast, so sometimes it has bokeh problems, but otherwise I love it. Excellent lens, although VR doesn't give you too much of an improvement (Maybe 1.5 or 2 stops of real-world improvement against camera shake).

Canon also has an excellent system, as does Olympus and Sony. Choose the camera brand wisely, after you buy it and lenses, you'll not want to switch. It's the ultimate in vendor lock-in.
 
i guess i am the odd one out .. i just got rid of my Nikon and Canon DSLR's .. and picked up an Olympus 850sw ... i am more interested in simplicity now, with quality photos still...
 
Remember: High pixel quantity can be nice but the lenses are what does all the work. The glass is where the money should be spent in my opinion.

handlebar

While I can appreciate the intent that lenses do all the work, the statement applies more to film-based photography than digital photography. Digital camera sensors are not all created equal and can have a significant impact on the capture (much in the way that the choice of film did. To oversimplify, more megapixels in many cameras means smaller pixels to fit on the same size sensor, which leads to less light gathering per pixel. Amplifiers are then used to boost the signal, which can lead to more noise in the resulting image if the noise isn't dealt with effectively. Some pro glass can even reveal flaws in the sensor that you didn't know were there to begin with.

None of this is to say that lenses aren't important. Bad glass can lead to all sorts of issues (lack of sharpness, color fringing in high contrast edges, etc.). But bad sensors can call all sorts of issues too.

In general, I think you couldn't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. I happened to shoot Nikon because that's what I was using with film before I switched to digital.

When all is said and done, YOU are the most important, contributing factor in the photograph because you make all sorts of choices when you shoot: subject matter, framing, in what light to shoot, depth of field, etc.

Cheers,
Peter
 
kc0byy said:
When all is said and done, YOU are the most important, contributing factor in the photograph because you make all sorts of choices when you shoot: subject matter, framing, in what light to shoot, depth of field, etc.

Cheers,
Peter

That is the most important part of all ... :) the best camera equipment in the world can still make a crappy photo in the wrong hands ... but the best photographer can make a prize winning shot with a disposable camera.
 
I have the Nikon D70s, the more I use it the more i love it. When you hold it in your hand you really fell the quality.
 
That is the most important part of all ... :) the best camera equipment in the world can still make a crappy photo in the wrong hands ... but the best photographer can make a prize winning shot with a disposable camera.

Which does bring up an interesting followup- how does one learn to be a better photographer? Reading books, or just shooting a bunch of shots with hopes that you are improving? Certainly there must be certain ways to learn.
 
Which does bring up an interesting followup- how does one learn to be a better photographer? Reading books, or just shooting a bunch of shots with hopes that you are improving? Certainly there must be certain ways to learn.

Both, one great thing about digital photography is that you can shoot thousands and thousands of pictures at no cost. I once whet to a photography club when I first started and one of the old pros was very blunt. "Take your camera and shoot away and when you think your done shoot some more!"

Happy Shooting
 
Which does bring up an interesting followup- how does one learn to be a better photographer? Reading books, or just shooting a bunch of shots with hopes that you are improving? Certainly there must be certain ways to learn.

Books on photography are a great source. Study the work of photographers you like. However, my best advice is to take a photo workshop. I highly recommend them. Find a photographer you like and then attend one of their workshops. If you're interested in landscape photography I personally know the guy that runs these:
http://www.nature-photo-workshops.com/Nature_Photo_Workshops/Workshops_2009.html

Charles Campbell is a great photographer, a great instructor and an all around great guy. You'll learn a lot in his workshops. I took one four years ago on the Oregon coast. Some of the best money I ever spent in learning photography.
 
If memory serves, a significant difference exists between the D40 and D50. The latter can autofocus the older Nikon autofocus lenses; the D40 can't.
Even though it has been around for quite awhile,I own a Nikon D50. It has been a wonderful camera and never has had a problem. The newer D40,etc are smaller and had a few newer features but also cost more than what i paid. ...

If it's at all within the realm of possibility, hold the camera that you're considering in your hands before you buy it. I paid more to buy mine at a local shop, but it's worth it to have a local store in business. Being able to hold the four contenders in my hands to evaluate them is an enormous advantage.
(e.g. - I eliminated the Canon in a nanosecond because it didn't feel comfortable.)

- Richard (the Pentax K200D owner)
 
Top Bottom