Point me in the right direction (DSLR)

[umbalito99]

I am currently looking to purchase a DSLR anytime soon.

I am currently looking at, in order of my preference:
Nikon D50
Olympus E500
RebelXT
Olympus E300.

I have read and re-read the reviews for all these cameras across the web but it's a bit hard to make a decision as I am absolutlely new to everything. Although I do have a good understanding of basic stuff like exposures, lens speed etc.. Being a former owner of a Canon S2.

My main concern is of course price. And the three are the cheapest SLRs on the market right now, from what I can see. But as everyone keeps saying, its the lenses you gotta look out for.

The D50 I really like because of the way it feels. And this really is very important to me. The E500 is great because I get two lenses for what looks like a good price to me. So what's the catch?

The Rebel, well, I personally do not like the way it feels. And that's a big issue. BUT, from what I can see it is very popular, so my thinking is it would be easier to get cheap 2nd hand lenses for it? Plus based on reviews, it seems to have more features than the D50?? But I don;t really know what as again, I dont really understand most of these things.

The E300, I like simply because of the attractive price. But again, I simple do not like the way it feels.

Someone told me to skip the Olympus because the 4/3rds thing means a smaller sensor? Is that what it is? So how come Olympus keeps on advertising this 4/3rds system if it is actually not that good???

Basically I am looking to take pix of landscapes, portraits and wildlife. I would prefer to start with a wide lens than a zoom one. So basically, in terms of what lenses are available for each of the camera's, which one would give me the most bang for my buck??

Oh and my prints would only go as high as 8x10.

[coldrain]

Both the D50 and 350D/XT are your best bets. You will have the biggest lens choice, from Canon/Nikon or from 3rd party manufacturers (and both have great image quality).

The 350D is without doubt more complete, but question is, will you miss the things on a D50. The 350D has mirror lock up, white balance fine tuning, higher resolution, a button to check the effect the set aperture has through the lens, a light in the settings LCD for when it is dark, it comes with good RAW conversion software.

The D50 feels better to you, which of course is important. You have to buy Nikon's RAW conversion software (Nikon Capture 4) separate, it is about $100 I believe.

What lenses you should look at is a bit difficult to say without knowing what you would want, and what kind of budget we are talking about. A real wide zoom would be the Tokina 12-24mm f4, which is available on both cameras, and is your best option on both too.

[Jason25]

I went with the D50 and have been thrilled thus far with it. I don't really miss the features it is lacking, even the LCD backlight (though MLU would be nice, but not vital to me). I think it sucks that Nikon Capture is an extra $100, though many people say it is a pretty good program and I'll probably spring for it sometime soon.

The Olympus cameras are great bang-for-buck cameras, though they produce higher levels of image noise and have less lens choices.

If you pick any of them, you really can't go wrong as long as the camera does what you want it to do and the system has lenses you will need.

[umbalito99]

thanks for the replies.

My budget I have set to an absolute max of CDN $ 1200. Which is pretty much the price of my top-of-the-list item>> A D50 body+Sigma 18mm-125.

I've read and re-read the reviews for the 350D/XT and I dont think I will miss the features, not with the considerably lower price of the D50 from where Im looking to purchase it. Although Im still trying to understand what benefits they will really give me. Plus as I've learned with my disappointment (handling-wise) with my former Canon S2 IS, ergonomics are a big thing for me. I like big cameras.

I've looked at some lens prices earlier and I was really taken aback with the prices!!!!! I certainly did not expect them to be that much. I mean yes, I knew there were expensive lenses but I thought there were cheap ones too. Well, I expected them to be a lot cheaper anyhow.

Right now the prices are making me think a bit.. I'm thinking that a Panasonic FZ30/Fujis9000 at CDN $799 seems to be a better buy at this point..

Also, I have another question, just how useful is the dust-remover on the Olympus? I read a review somewhere (not here I think) which said that if dust does get on the sensor I have to ship it to a service center?? Is that true? are there any accessories that I can buy to clean it myself? or is it too risky?

Thanks in advance.

[wxcloud9xw]

the Rebel XT's image quality is 2nd to none in it's category. I'd look at that as well. I'm sure the d50 does feel better, but what matters more: the way it feels or the image quality?

[phatkid77]

hey there....

i just purchased the D70s from henrys for $899 cndn and got the sigma 18-200 lens to go with

the D70s was $50 bucks more than the D50, so i grabbed it..

it was a price match as henrys has the D70s for $1050 body only i believe

cory

[Rhys]

They're all capable cameras. I have the XT.

Some like the Olympuses but a recent survey showed that most people prefer Canon than Nikon and more prefer Nikon than olympus however it is a matter of individual taste.

[umbalito99]

the Rebel XT's image quality is 2nd to none in it's category. I'd look at that as well. I'm sure the d50 does feel better, but what matters more: the way it feels or the image quality?

Granted that might be true. But even if it were, I cant really see the difference.

The Canon does have a bunch of nice features but they are not deal breakers for me, with the D50 priced considerably lower than the 350D. If they were priced similarly, then it just might be a different story.

And yes, for me ergonomics are actually a very important thing. Which is actually the main reason why I sold my Canon S2 after less than a month of use. I was perfectly happy with the photos, but even with the adapter, it was just way too small for my liking. Although of course a lot of people prefer small camera's just not me. I want a place where I can put both of my hands comfortably.

Hmm.. ya, the Olympus's are looking like a decent deal too. For someone like me who doesn't reallly intend on getting addicted to lenses. Just one or two lenses that will cover 28-to something like 200mm would be nice for me.

But then again my only problem is, if I dont spend on lenses, then that sort of defies the point of getting an SLR in the first place. Although granted I can take more high ISO shots, but still the cost is still staggering. So I'm thinking why dont I just get an FZ20 with a 35-420 f/2.8?? Which is similar to my former S2 but feels a lot better in my hands. And is a lot cheaper too.

Ah, back to square one again./

Thanks for the replies.

[coldrain]

You can easily remove the dust yourself, when it gets to be a problem. You can use cheap blowers that are espacially made for this purpose from a good camera store. There are also "wet" ways to clean it, lots of info about it to be found online. But when you take care with changing lenses (make sure backs of lenses stay clean, hold camera down when changing, etc.) dust will not be a big problem in the first place.

[wxcloud9xw]

You can easily remove the dust yourself, when it gets to be a problem. You can use cheap blowers that are espacially made for this purpose from a good camera store. There are also "wet" ways to clean it, lots of info about it to be found online. But when you take care with changing lenses (make sure backs of lenses stay clean, hold camera down when changing, etc.) dust will not be a big problem in the first place.

Yeah, I make sure I'm very careful and try not to move around much to stir up any dust when changing lenses and tilt the camera downward.

[insertnamehere]

Swings and roundabouts:

Nikon is cheap and has a great lens selection (almost as much as the Canon).
Canon is more expensive, & less ergonomic, but has even bigger lens selection.
Olympus E500 arguably takes better landscape photos, but less lenses as it is a new format. The risk is that the fourthirds thing fails and you can't get lenses.

Olympus E300 - why buy obsolete technology?

Out of interest any reason why not the KM 5D? Cheap, but smaller lens selection than Nikon or Canon. However, it has built in anti shake and is constructed like a tank. I've got one and I'm having more fun than I have done with any other camera ever - I'm completely satisfied with it and picked up the controls in about half an hour of playing around. That'd get my vote.

[coldrain]

*puzzled look* why would an E-500 be better at landscape photography? With its 4/3's format it actually is a bit less good at that.

[insertnamehere]

Sorry to confuse. I was referring to image quality which some allege to be better than its Canon/Nikon equivalents. I personally cannot tell the difference. I guess the differences are largely aesthetic.

[umbalito99]

thanks again for the replies.

@insertnamehere

Ya, the KMs are interesting because of the anti-shake which I think might be very useful but for some reason only one store even sells KMs here, they have the 7D, but all they have is a "kit" with everything like flashes, bags etc.. which goes to over Cdn $ 2000 and they dont have it in stock at the moment. Im unfortunately not going to buy something unless I can spend at least 45 mins playing around with it..

Plus Ive read that most controls are buried in the menus..? And thats a bit of a concern for me. But if I do get to try it out and find it at a good price, its certainly wil be on my list.



Just for arguments sake, which one would be better for me:

Spend less on something like a Panasonic FZ20 (36-432mm) f/2.8 all the way or an FZ30, (35-420mm) f/2.8-3.7 or with go with something like the D50 but with just an entry level lens thats not going to go as long, not as fast but will be wider (i.e Sigma 18-125mm) as I simply CANNOT afford a decent lens.

I mean, Im trying to put things in perspective here, sure the FZs are noisy, but Ive looked at samples and I can live with them. And theyre not good in low light, but then if I just get a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 it won't be that good in low light either right? or am I wrong? And the FZ would be 1/3 the price.

Assuming I print mostly 5x7s and a few 8x10s. Would I be better off spending less on an FZ30 with a fairly nice lens starting at f/2.8, albeit noisy chip than on spending an extra Cdn $ 600 for an SLR with a "slow" lens, BUT has better output in higher ISOs?

Bottom line is, if I do not have the resources to spend on quality $500+ lenses would it actually be worth it to go SLR?

thanks in advance.