First time DSLR Buyer

[Aaron300]

First off let me thank those who have taken the time to take a look at this, so Thank You!! I'm looking to buy a DSLR for the first time so you will have to excuse me if I say something stupid. Let me tell you what I'm looking for.

I Dont want to spend more than $750 including lens.

Size dosen't matter to me.

6+ megapixels.

Would like to have 10x optical zoom, but could settle for less, I can always buy another lens later.

Image quality is very important, at least an 8 out of 10.

Must have manual focus, zoom, aperture, and shutter speed.

I will be taking most of my pics in the outdoors.

I will be printing large photos.

I will be doing some low light outdoor stuff, very little indoor.

Might be doing some action photos, no sports though.

Brands are not important as long as its dependable.

I might be asking for to much for under $750 and if I am let me know. I might just have to sacrifice some to the things I want in a camera, but if you could let me know the best camera for the $ I sure would be gratefull.

[britkev]

You're not going to get real low light capability AND that much zoom within your budget... if you can live without wide angle I'd suggest the Nikon D50 body only, the Nikon 70-300G for distance and Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for low light, but even that will take you a bit over your limit.

[Jason25]

You can get the D50 body for $500-$550 with the 28-80G lens, then buy a used or gray market 70-300G for another $100, then a 50/1.8 for low light for another $100. That would put you right at your budget, but with no memory card or bag or anything else.

[Aaron300]

It looks like i can get an Olympus EVOLT E-500 SLR Digital Camera w/ 14-45mm Lens for $649 from butterflyphoto.com. How would that compare?

[Rhys]

It looks like i can get an Olympus EVOLT E-500 SLR Digital Camera w/ 14-45mm Lens for $649 from butterflyphoto.com. How would that compare?
It's a 5mp camera which is a bit old hat, these days. Having said that, it's a pretty good camera. If the photos are not intended to be printed to bigger than A3 then it should be fine.

[britkev]

It looks like i can get an Olympus EVOLT E-500 SLR Digital Camera w/ 14-45mm Lens for $649 from butterflyphoto.com. How would that compare?


I've no personal experience with Olympus DSLR's but I'm sure it's an equally fine product. It's smaller and lighter than the D50 which could be a pro or a con depending on your preference. Try to actually get your hands on an example of each before you decide. Feel and ergonomics are just as important as megapixels and other measurables.

The Olympus sensor has a 2x crop factor - so the 14-45 is a 28-90mm equivalent, still leaving you a long way short of the zoom factor you were looking for. At f/2.8 it's also leaving you a little underpowered in the low-light department. Olympus does not have anything like the selection of lenses available compared to Canon/Nikon, but they do have an 40-150 (80-300 equivalent) in the sub $300 price range that would complement your kit lens

[PatrickLeonardo]

It's a 5mp camera which is a bit old hat, these days. Having said that, it's a pretty good camera. If the photos are not intended to be printed to bigger than A3 then it should be fine.

I'm confused. Are you saying the e-500 is a 5MP camera? Isn't it a 8MP camera? Not effective pixels of course.

[coldrain]

Rhys is a bit confused (happens more often). It is an 8mp camera and very new (released end of 2005). It feels GREAT in your hands for an entry DSLR, a world of difference from the cheap Pentax *istDL for instance.

Only drawback is its small-ish sensor, 2x crop which has more noise at higer ISO's than for instance the Canon EOS 350D/XT and Nikon D50.

But that aside, it is a good camera that has very good feel in buttons and dials.

[Rhys]

I'm confused. Are you saying the e-500 is a 5MP camera? Isn't it a 8MP camera? Not effective pixels of course.

Oops. You are indeed correct. My error.

[PatrickLeonardo]

Rhys is a bit confused (happens more often). It is an 8mp camera and very new (released end of 2005). It feels GREAT in your hands for an entry DSLR, a world of difference from the cheap Pentax *istDL for instance.

Only drawback is its small-ish sensor, 2x crop which has more noise at higer ISO's than for instance the Canon EOS 350D/XT and Nikon D50.

But that aside, it is a good camera that has very good feel in buttons and dials.
Yeah, I thought it was a type.
Anyhow, I think paying attention to sensor size in combination with pixel count is more important in actual quality than a mere pixel count. The finepix s9000 crams a ton of pixels onto a relatively small sensor it must make up for resultant noise with processing (I've been experimenting with my dad's,) the resulting 'smoothing' can of course partially or wholly negate detail expected from a high amount of pixels. Anyway, this to me is the practical difference (and price point!) between, for the most part large (usualy CMOS) sensors in SLRs, and smaller sensors in almost everything else.

It seems the availability of amazing lenses with prosumer SLRs is rarely going to be relevant to amateur photographers. The sheer price of these gourmet lenses paired with sub $1000 cameras suggests this contrived market. Of course there are exceptions.:) but I would guess the demand for a high quality (nice and large and noise free) sensor in a 28-200mm range fixed lense (with good shutter speed) should effect the sales of SLRs tremendously. I'm not saying anything we all don't already know. We'll have to see if anyone follows Sony's R1. I wonder if manufacturing costs of CCD or CMOS sensors for cameras are negligible for DC manufacturers and therefore artificially effect the value. In the world of electronic telescopes, they certainly are, but in DCs? Anyone?

[Vich]

Costco had a D50 with 2 lenses, 28-85 and 70-300 for $799. Not sure if there was a memory card or not (my guess is yes). They're kit lenses but its a start!

[jeisner]

It is an 8mp camera and very new (released end of 2005). It feels GREAT in your hands for an entry DSLR, a world of difference from the cheap Pentax *istDL for instance.

Also a world of difference from the much more expensive, but still very cheap (more cheap imo) feeling 350d :p

[coldrain]

Also a world of difference from the much more expensive, but still very cheap (more cheap imo) feeling 350d :p
That is just not true, hold an *istDL and 350D/XT side by side and anyone will notice the huge difference in the quality/feel of the controls, in the XT's favour.
And the Olympus E-500 feel even a bit better than the XT.

Saying the XT feels worse than the Pentax is just biased defending your own make talk. That the grip of the XT feels less nice to you is not the same as the controls.

[jeisner]

Saying the XT feels worse than the Pentax is just biased defending your own make talk.

No its just my opinion the plastic feels weak and cheap on the 350D (to me)...

That the grip of the XT feels less nice to you is not the same as the controls.

The grip is something I notice the whole time when using a camera, so when rating its build, its a pretty important aspect..

[Rhys]

No its just my opinion the plastic feels weak and cheap on the 350D (to me)...

The plastic just feels like plastic to me. I don't really worry about the quality of the plastic any more. My Nikon 3100 has cheap feeling plastic but it has lasted 3 years with barely a scratch so far. I don't have any problem with the size or weight of the 350D/XT. My problem is with the less-than-ergonomic controls. Instead of putting a second dial on the back, they opted for buttons and they just make simple things far more difficult.


The grip is something I notice the whole time when using a camera, so when rating its build, its a pretty important aspect..

Do you mean the grip as in the handgrip or the way the controls fall under your fingers? If you mean the latter, I have to agree with you. I have fairly slender fingers so I don't have problems with smaller cameras.

[PatrickLeonardo]

The plastic just feels like plastic to me. I don't really worry about the quality of the plastic any more.
What's plastic? Is that that new space age material that's rigid and doesn't corrode; some of which is even formulated for bullet proof vests? I think I've heard about it. . .
My problem is with the less-than-ergonomic controls. Instead of putting a second dial on the back, they opted for buttons and they just make simple things far more difficult.

That's what I've heard about the 350XT. It's size in combination with control layout. Coming from someone who can palm a basketball, but with big meaty fingers, this is unacceptable. But I guess for Canon, a million Japaneese tourists can't be wrong. And a big chunk of their market.

[Rhys]

What's plastic? Is that that new space age material that's rigid and doesn't corrode; some of which is even formulated for bullet proof vests? I think I've heard about it. . .


By the time the plastic bends or breaks, you'll be after a new digital camera anyway. It probably won't stand up to much rough handling but on the other hand if you are that rough then perhaps a 1D might be a better option.


That's what I've heard about the 350XT. It's size in combination with control layout. Coming from someone who can palm a basketball, but with big meaty fingers, this is unacceptable. But I guess for Canon, a million Japaneese tourists can't be wrong. And a big chunk of their market.
It's not the size so much as the fiddliness combined with buttons that change roles depending on the mode employed. I find that to be quite confounding.

[coldrain]

Rhys' objections would also be the same for a Pentax, Nikon, Olympus entry DSLR. So his points are rather mooth.

Instead of going on "what you heard", why not go check out cameras for yourself. You will see that the 350D's controls are quite well layed out, and whether or not it feels ok in your hands only you can decide.

The Nikon D50 feels a little bit bigger, the D70s and EOS 20/30D again a bit bigger.

[some guy]

If you want resale, just get Canon. It's like a freakin' Honda. :D

the size of the 350d is both its strength and weakness. If you want a robust Ford-tough camera get a 1DmkII.

[capedeci]

hi,

seems like this thread has gone off topic quite far away :)

for $750 with 10X Zoom the choice is most likely:

Pentax IstDL + Sigma 18-200/28-300/kit+Sigma 70-300
Nikon D50 + Sigma 70-300
KM5D + Sigma 70-300


only the pentax left enough dollars to go for a 10x zoom lens, all other choices force u to stick with kit lens, and carry another cheapie 70-300 lens in ur bag.

Im not saying Canon XT cuz it will exceed the budget, not enough $$$ left to get an extra tele lens.

For low light performance, the KM5D's IS might help for city nightscapes & other still subjects. oh and this is the only one that have selectable ISO3200 IIRC...noisy but useful

While someone above said pentax don't have the low light performance, it does actually still do much better than any P&S available.

see ya

[JTL]

Im not saying Canon XT cuz it will exceed the budget, not enough $$$ left to get an extra tele lens.That's not true with the $100.00 rebate available through July. ;)

[capedeci]

then it become one of the options too.

[aparmley]

then it become one of the options too.

You are all forgeting our friend said he'll consider increasing his budget if that $750 ended up not being realistic! Its all right there and you don't even have to use your memory just scroll back up to his first post.

[aparmley]

I might be asking for to much for under $750 and if I am let me know. I might just have to sacrifice some to the things I want in a camera, but if you could let me know the best camera for the $ I sure would be gratefull.

I think you're asking a bit much.

The best camera for $750 - is the XT. All around it comes out ahead. The D50 is nice as well.

Just an FYI you will easily spend 2x the price of the body just on lenses [if image quality is important - which it sounds like you want to make large prints]. . . Its a fact of life. thats not counting all the other supplies. . . but those lens stay with you if, you purchase the right ones, bodies will come and go. You don't have to spend that money upfront - its just something to be aware of. No one should candy coat it for you. . .

[AlexMonro]

Sorry for jumping in late amd drifting the thread, but Patrick got me thinking.


Anyhow, I think paying attention to sensor size in combination with pixel count is more important in actual quality than a mere pixel count. The finepix s9000 crams a ton of pixels onto a relatively small sensor it must make up for resultant noise with processing (I've been experimenting with my dad's,) the resulting 'smoothing' can of course partially or wholly negate detail expected from a high amount of pixels. Anyway, this to me is the practical difference (and price point!) between, for the most part large (usualy CMOS) sensors in SLRs, and smaller sensors in almost everything else.

It seems the availability of amazing lenses with prosumer SLRs is rarely going to be relevant to amateur photographers. The sheer price of these gourmet lenses paired with sub $1000 cameras suggests this contrived market. Of course there are exceptions.:) but I would guess the demand for a high quality (nice and large and noise free) sensor in a 28-200mm range fixed lense (with good shutter speed) should effect the sales of SLRs tremendously. I'm not saying anything we all don't already know. We'll have to see if anyone follows Sony's R1. I wonder if manufacturing costs of CCD or CMOS sensors for cameras are negligible for DC manufacturers and therefore artificially effect the value. In the world of electronic telescopes, they certainly are, but in DCs? Anyone?

Actually, the Fuji S9000 was a step in that direction, with 9Mpixels on a 1/1.6" sensor, compared with most fixed lens ultrazoom compacts having 5 or 6 Mpix on a 1/2.5" sensor, which has a sensor area of 24.7 sq mm, so about 4.1 - 5 sq mm / Mpixel. I don't know exactly the area of the 1/1.6", but a 1/1.7" is 43.3 sq mm, and 2/3" is 58.1 sq mm, so I'm guessing 50 sq mm is not far off.

So 1.5x the photodetectors on twice the area has got to be a step in the right direction, even if it's a long way to full frame 35mm. Works out as about 5.5 sq mm / Mpixel. (Yes, I know the 9500 is 9M "effective" pixels, interpolated from whatever the real number of photodiodes is. Still it's more area accepting light to make each pixel of the image.)

The Sony DSC-R1 has 10Mpixels from a 21.5x14.4 = 310 sq mm sensor, or 31 sq mm per Mpixel, a lot better still, and comparable to some low end DSLRs.

A full frame DSLR, such as the Canon EOS5D, is 12.8 Mpixels on a 36x24mm sensor, or 67.5 sq mm / Mpixel.

Hmm... maybe this "sq mm per megapixel" thing is a new number we should see in review specs...:)

(3rd time lucky with the figures... dunno how I kept getting the sensor areas wrong, other than by trying to do sums too late at night. Sensor size data from Digital Photography Review)

[capedeci]

You are all forgeting our friend said he'll consider increasing his budget if that $750 ended up not being realistic! Its all right there and you don't even have to use your memory just scroll back up to his first post.

so what? are you saying nikon, km, and pentax which can fit his current budget is unrealistic?

if its fine with current budget, why increase it for nothing