I wanna buy a DSLR, any suggestions?

It's time to replace our little Sony cybershot point and shoot. I've used a DSLR a few times (Nikon D40) and LOVED the control it gave me. I'm TOTALLY unschooled and don't really have an idea of what I'm doing, FYI. Anyway, I really liked the D40, felt good in my hand and the lens that comes with it seems pretty good.
Anyway, we'd like to keep it to under $500 and be easy to use.
On that note, I'd like a full-auto mode so my wife will be more comfortable with it, and so we can just grab it and take a shot.
I like to shoot a little of everything, landscapes, action shots, indoor, outdoor, while fending off lions in Africa (still reading?).
I'd like to be able to shoot digi vids with it, but I'm being told that the vid capabilities create a significant compromise in the still photography area???
I appreciate any help you can offer.

Refurb Canon T2i and lens kit

Exceeds your budget slightly, but it's money well spent. It's an exceptional camera for the money that will grow with you as your skills do. Shoot exceptional video, and, no, video capability does NOT compromise still quality.

My old T2i shot several GRM and CMS covers. Essentially the same sensor as the 60D and 7D, with a little more rudimentary guts than those two (slower shots per second in full auto, less ISO range, etc.). Very little separates it from a true pro camera, and the user experience is exceptional.

Do it.

(cue Nikon/Canon flame war in 3, 2...)

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote: Refurb Canon T2i and lens kit Exceeds your budget slightly, but it's money well spent. It's an exceptional camera for the money that will grow with you as your skills do. Shoot exceptional video, and, no, video capability does NOT compromise still quality. My old T2i shot several GRM and CMS covers. Essentially the same sensor as the 60D and 7D, with a little more rudimentary guts than those two (slower shots per second in full auto, less ISO range, etc.). Very little separates it from a true pro camera, and the user experience is exceptional. Do it. (cue Nikon/Canon flame war in 3, 2...) jg

canon rebels are a great entry level to the DSLR... and as mentioned the sensor is great... I wish they (rebels) fit me a little better... I ended up going with a 60d for the extra tidbits it offers... and I'd do it again... but It was my 2nd DSLR (first was a 2 generation old used PRO-summer pentax) and I grew up shooting SLR with my dads 60's nikon

I have a D60 and I think I have pulled it out of the camera bag twice. I thought I would like to get into motorsports photography for my own pleasure. Then I saw how much a "good" lens cost. :eek:

Really any digital SLR nowadays is pretty darn good. Get a feel for what fits in your hand and buy the one that fits best.

The ones that shoot video also shoot stills just fine.

Seriously, any DSLR will do 10 times the amount of stuff you are asking. All brands have great lenses and accessories available. Canons take really great photos. And so do Nikons. And Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, etc.

I personally downsized from a dSLR to a Micro 4/3rds camera (Panasonic GF1) because I found I was leaving the bulky dSLR behind at home too much. The best camera is the one you have on you.

Oh and here's another thing you may want to consider.

Most of my pro-photography buddies are using iPhones more and more in their line of work. It blows up to 8x10 in its native resolution very well. It shoots very easily. It does very advanced photo techniques - there really is an app for everything. And it uploads and shares photos and video 1million times easier than anything else on the market.

I always roll with the Cannons. I've been using a Rebel XT 8 mp and we just got my wife a Rebel T3 for $500. Their both fantastic. Mine is still kicking after I don't know how many years.

If I didn't have my Nikon D80 already (bought new when the D90 came out and they were dropping prices) I'd be looking at one of the new micro 4/3rds rigs. Mirrorless, point and shoot like but take DSLR lenses. In hindsight I don't really do enough manual control shooting to justify a full on DSLR.

http://www.engadget.com/tag/FourThirds/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system

Nikon 1

The Pink ones have been on sale for $100 less than other colors FWIW.

I would not recommend the Nikon 1 series. The sensor is far smaller than the competitors, and it gets no real size tradeoff. Images have comparably more noise and less sharpness than competitors.

If you DO want to go with a smaller but capable camera, I recommend the Sony NEX or Panasonic/Olympus Micro-4/3 cameras. They have SLR-sized sensors, but compact bodies for a good combo of handling and image quality.

Cameta camera has the Olympus E-PL1 body on sale for $149 which is a really good deal. Pair it with any M4/3 lens and you have a great starter kit for not much money. I recommend the starter 14-42 lens. Cameta usually has some great deals regardless of what you should choose.

Anti-stance wrote: I have a D60 and I think I have pulled it out of the camera bag twice. I thought I would like to get into motorsports photography for my own pleasure. Then I saw how much a "good" lens cost. :eek:

Wanna sell it?

I'm not diggin the idea of Sony. So they still use the proprietary memory card?

Anti-stance wrote: I have a D60 and I think I have pulled it out of the camera bag twice. I thought I would like to get into motorsports photography for my own pleasure. Then I saw how much a "good" lens cost. :eek:

There are actually excellent budget lenses out there that won't break the bank. The biggest issue with the D40 and 60 lines was no internal focus motor so you had to buy AFS lenses which cost more if you wanted autofocus to function. One of the best Nikon lenses is the good ol 50mm 1.8 sharp as could be and dirt cheap. I think every Nikon shooter has one, but it is AF not AFS.

I have a t2i and it is a great camera, that being said I would recommend starting out with a cheaper body and going for extra glass (lenses) Something like a rebel xs is still a great little camera as long as you don't need video. start off with this: Rebel XS and then go find a cheap 50mm f1.8 lens to get started after that determine whether you want telephoto or wide angle capabilities, I'd suggest a second lens such as the ef-s 18-135

Some assigned reading if you do want to go canon, look up ef vs ef-s and for general DSLR studies look up f-stop, perspective, iso, and sensor size; those are the big advantages to DSLR protography.

An iPhone is not a substitute for a DSLR!

In the future you may even want to graduate to a full frame camera like the 5D MKII, I know I do!

slopecarver wrote: An iPhone is not a substitute for a DSLR!

Tell that to David Hume Kennerly, Damon Winter, and Ben Lowy among many other award-winning photojournalists who are turning to the iPhone to get much better photos than they would get with a dSLR in many cases.

Once you get to a certain level of quality, better sharpness, sensor size, and lenses add next to nothing to the final quality of the image. I think the iPhone has already surpassed that point. I give maybe 2 years before a Pulitzer is won with an iPhone.

I took some shots with an iPhone 4 last night and it seemed extremely slow to actually, you know, take the picture. Megadeath Karaoke doesn't wait on a slow camera to fire the sensor and I was pretty disappointed.

The other thing is not having a true optical viewfinder. And you can't swap the battery out when it's running low.

I personally like Pentax, have been happy with my now pretty old K100D, and can't imagine moving to another platform. That said, I sometimes have lens envy with the Canon line of lenses; Pentax has some great stuff and there's some 3rd party around but it isn't like Canon's. I really like that I can use AA batteries though, and having image stabilization working at the sensor and not in the lens, so all my lenses have IS applied if I want to use it instead of paying more for the Canon lenses that offer it.

If you live in a real metro area that has some shops, go hold some cameras from different makes and see how easy it is to hit the various controls with your hands / fingers. I held a Nikon, I think it was an old D80, a while ago and really didn't like how the controls were arranged. Part of that might be my time spent on a Pentax.

One other thing; if there was a Micro 4/3rds out there with an optical view finder and ran on AA's (and that one is sort of low on the requirements scale) I would seriously look at going that route and giving up the big DSLR. Look around and see what you can find.

An iPhone is NOT a substitute. Period. Any camera phone is going to be slow and be more limited in range and limits due to lighting. While they may serve as an advantage for some shots like when it is better to not be holding a large expensive camera in front of an angry crowd, it is not a replacment. No camera phone will have a suitable optical zoom for longer range shots either. You also have to remember photojournalism does not require quality as a top requirment it is being in the right place with your camera to get a shot to show the story.

bastomatic wrote: Tell that to David Hume Kennerly, Damon Winter, and Ben Lowy among many other award-winning photojournalists who are turning to the iPhone to get much better photos than they would get with a dSLR in many cases.

Photojournalism has almost nothing to do with gear, though.

In reply to Josh: exactly it is about getting the shot not necessarily the quality of the shot. Heck I know photojournalists that shoot with point and shoots because they are easy and concealable.

However you will NEVER see a professional wildlife, landscape, sports or portrait shooter using a camera phone for serious work.

rebelgtp wrote: However you will NEVER see a professional wildlife, landscape, sports or portrait shooter using a camera phone for serious work.

Those fields most likely describe absolutely nobody who reads this message board.

My essential argument here is that, given a dSLR and an iPhone, 99.9% of all (non-professional) photographers would take a better photo with the iPhone. And I think most photojournalists would take umbrage with the idea that their work had everything to do with timing and nothing to do with quality, and I'm POSITIVE those using $20,000 Leica kits would take issue with the gear statement.

/threadjack

bastomatic wrote: Those fields most likely describe absolutely nobody who reads this message board.

You would be wrong.

Besides I know quite a few of the guys on here that use their cameras to take photos at the race track. I can't imagine trying to take a photo of a race car in motion with a camera phone with any hopes of it coming out decently.

Anyway back on topic if the OP doesn't mind getting used gear and saving a considerable amount of change check out the deals on KEH.com. I have done quite a bit of business with them ranging from budget to pro gear and I have never had a problem. Well okay one issue but a short phone call they had another body out the door to me and delivered the next day on their dime because they knew I was on a time crunch.

Thanks for the link rebel. While I appreciate the iPhone mentions, I'm not interested in that. If I wanted something small, simple and limited, I'd stick with a point and shoot. I'm looking to gain the manual control, flexibility, and control a DSLR affords. That said, camera phones are freaking AMAZING considering it's a phone.

In reply to DrBoost:

If you end up with a Nikon and want to know a some good lenses that you can get on a budget let me know.

I'm going to slightly hijack the OPs thread because I've always wondered why Pentax doesn't seem to get any attention in the dSLR market. They seem to get left out of the most comparisons, but when they are included they do well.

Is there some down side I'm missing?

In reply to fromeast2west:

I've been carrying my Pentax K100D for almost six years now and the feeling I have is that the lens selection is a little limited if you want auto-focus (the mount has been neutered like a lot of the other SLR mounts out there requiring an AF motor in the lens) since the old lenses won't provide it even if they were AF back in the past. What I'd really like is something like a 10 to 22mm with an f-stop in the F2.x range, lower being better, and then not having to sell a minor organ to pay for it. As far as I can tell, that lens doesn't exist, and the couple that are available for the Pentax mount aren't really that good.

Tele-zoom stuff is easily found and is pretty affordable from what I can tell. A two or three lens kit could be pretty easily figured out if that wide angle job I've talked about above was found. Maybe it's out there and I've missed it but I doubt it. Assuming such a beast could be found, I'd be very pleased with my Pentax based kit and would gladly update the body at a point in time where it makes sense. I don't feel like the body is limiting me, just the lens situation and my own abilities. Much more the later than the former.

I think Pentax gets left out of these discussions because they don't advertise like Nikon or Canon and those two brands have greater brand recognition.