Decisions about new DSLR

[NEWIMAGE]

First time posting, bear with me.
After much research, I've decided to take the plunge back in to SLR photog (still love my old, clunky film Minolta). I'd love to spend less than $450 on a body only; it's my first delve into digital (besides p&s) and don't need to start out huge. I need something that does well with indoor lighting (no flash), some outdoor, but no need for sports photog. or large landscape. MP at least 6.0. And this is silly, but I'd love the ability to see B&W as I review, not just after I'm on the computer. Canon Rebel seems a little small for my grip, but not sure. Love Nikon, but no B&W, right? Help! Oh, does the AF on the Canon Rebel XTi really restrict indoor low-lighting focus (b/c only activates with flash)? Also, because I'd like to purchase lenses separately (duh, SLR), any cameras to avoid b/c of inadequate supply lenses or b/c some AF lenses won't work etc (like the Nikon D40). I'd like to not go crazy with lens purchases right away, and would like to have a choice of less expensive lenses.
Any help is greatly appreciated!

[DonSchap]

Which Minolta film camera are you using?

If you have AF lenses (A-mount), you could consider the SONY A100 Alpha (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06060501sonydslra100.asp) (<- Click here), which would use all your old glass, saving you a carload of money for a new system's glass.

Just a thought.

[pagnamenta]

The only thing you can really get for the budget you gave, $450 is a Nikon D50 or D40, and even that is pushing it into the upper $500's. You can pick up a Canon Xt for the high $500 or low $600's.

If you have old Minolta lenses, I would agree with Don; take a look at the Sony Alpha 100.

[SpecialK]

Pentax has some good rebates going.

Basic K100D body $463 final at Beach, 50-200 lens $157 at Adorama?, 16-45 lens $299, and 10-17 about $320.

The kit lens only adds about $50 to the price but is nothing special (as is the case with all kit lenses) and is not particularly suited to low light use.

Pentax includes software for RAW if you are so inclined. Nikon's is about $90. Not sure about Canon.

[NEWIMAGE]

Thanks for the tips, I actually don't still have my Minolta, I still love it in theory:). I really want heft (Canon is out I think). I should probably up my price to at least $550. So looks like it's between the D50 or Pentax k100d? Any thoughts on the black and white issue? I really can't find any info about the Nikon, seems it's all computer manipulation whereas the Canon and Pentax have the ability to do it in review or shooting mode. Any that stand out in the field for low-light indoors? I have to say I like the feel of the Nikon, is it just silly for me to be hung up on the b&w issue? thanks!

[DonSchap]

The DSLR is not for the feint-in-the-wallet bunch. If you are going to do your photography justice, be prepared to spend around $700-$1000 for a decent body to throw your glass on. Then, plan on another $400 or more for each decent zoom lens you place on the body from there on out.

Anyway... if they say you can go cheaper ... you are simply kidding yourself, but you will see that for yourself, after you try cheap out.

Been there, done that ... yes, I even have pictures. LOL :rolleyes:

[SpecialK]

The Pentax has 5 or 6 "digital filters" including B/W that you apply in camera after shooting. However, I think it is pretty easy to convert to BW with simple editing software.

The price DSLRs is going down and technology is going up. We'd all love to be able to spend $2000 on a camera system, but for many people that is not an option. The basic Pentaxes and Nikons all have good reviews. The "cheap" Pentax 50-200 is highly rated. I love the "cheap" Pentax fisheye. If you need specialized features (you apparently don't) then any of these bodies should be fine.

[NEWIMAGE]

Yup, definitely know it will put a ding in my wallet. But I'm confident I can find a decent (not professional by any means) camera with at least one lens for under $1000. This is for casual photography enthusiast who is tired of working my p&s (or any that I've tried, including the Canon 3sis) to the nth degree to get nice photos consistently. That said, wish I had the money for my grandest dreams!
So, sturdy, reliable, good low-light, AF beam assist w/o flash, and ability to buy readily available lenses. With great image quality of course! Pentax looks fairly decent on paper and doesn't squeeze every penny. It's either that or the Nikon D50. right? Thanks for the info, I am highly impressed with this site. Non-biased reviews with loads of useful info in an easily navigable format. Kudos!

[Need4Spd]

Having gone thru this decision process recently myself, let me ask you: Do you really need/want a dSLR? I was an avid enthusiast with my Nikon F3 and had a bunch of lenses for it, but the small Point n Shoots are so good now that I don't really miss it as much as I would have thought. No question that the F3 was much sharper and allowed more creativity, but really, I take my Canon SD700 around with me much more often because it's so small and yet excellent in low light w/o flash, and there's that huge 2.5" "viewfinder" LCD.

OK, so recently I decided to get back into something that allows for more than what a PnS can offer, so I got a Canon Xti. The advantage of the dSLR over a PnS is not only the additional creative control but the flexibility of the lenses. If you don't go to the extreme ends, like super wide angle or very long telephoto, the PnS will give the "normal" range lens-equipped dSLR a run for its money.

So, given your budget of $400-$500, I'd bet you'd be a lot happier and shoot a lot more pictures if you bought yourself something like a Canon SD700. If you go the dSLR route, you will need to spend far more than that to get the true benefits of a dSLR.

BTW, if you're wondering why I didn't go Nikon with my legacy F3 glass, it's because the older lenses don't work well with the dSLRs. The minimum level Nikon dSLR that would let me really use my old lenses is the D200, at $1700 body only (lesser Nikon dSLRs, like the D80 and D40, don't let you meter your shots with the old manual Nikon lenses, so you can't really use them even though they fit the same mounts). The D200 is much bigger and heavier than the Xti (but not as heavy as my F3), and for the same money, I could get a Canon Xti, 2 kit lenses and a 10-22mm wide angle zoom. Digital cameras get out of date quickly. I had my F3 forever (and will probably never give it up), but I figure my Xti is good for 2 or 3 years and will be obsolete by then. If you don't believe me, look how the Xti compares so favorably with the Canon 30D, and how the Nikon D80 is so close to the D200 and how both outshine the Nikon D2.

[NEWIMAGE]

I have a tiny little Konica Minolta dimage x60 that just stays in my bag, pocket, whatever. I never want to miss a photo op! When I started this whole dslr trip, I tried out a Nikon D50 of my friends, literally just started shooting in auto with no adjustments. Gorgeous, and I was reminded of why I used to enjoy taking photographs so much. Well, I initally questioned whether I needed a dslr or just a great p&s. I tried out a few, most recently the Canon 3SIS. It's nice, takes nice pictures. But I just can't tell you that they compare in any way to the quick "off the hip" shots I took with the Nikon, just fooling around. So, my quest for a dslr began....

[SpecialK]

Pentax uses the flash sometimes for low light focus-assist. If it is really dark, the camera pops one or more flashes to illuminate the subject for exposure determination and focusing.

However, if you use the AF 540FGZ dedicated (P-TTL) flash (and perhaps the AF 360FGZ), it uses the "beam" you are used to.

[cdifoto]

When I started this whole dslr trip, I tried out a Nikon D50 of my friends, literally just started shooting in auto with no adjustments. Gorgeous, and I was reminded of why I used to enjoy taking photographs so much.
I have to ask you what lens your friend had on that Nikon. You might not be able to afford to get the same results. If it was excellent glass, the chances are he/she paid a pretty penny for it...much more than you're willing to spend.

Sticking cheap lenses on your dSLR just gives you a really expensive point and shoot.

[SpecialK]

With a DSLR you have no shutter lag, the ability to select from a wide range of lenses (especial superwide) and although on-camera flash is poo-poo'd in the forums, redeye is usually not an issue on any DSLR, though frequently so in compacts.

I totally agree that in most instances, quality goes up with the cost of a lens, but for the vast majority, three or four $800-1000+ lenses is not really an option.

For many working people on a budget, a competent and average DSLR is fine.

[DonSchap]

I'm not buying that. I have seen the results of a cheap DSLR compared to the "norm" cost.

CDI is absolutely right. His own personal experience took him up a notch or two, realizing the need outweighs the budget.

SOLVE THE PROBLEM ... then budget for the costs.

[NEWIMAGE]

Believe it or not, just the kit lens on the Nikon D50. Expensive p&s or not, the flexibility of a dslr is what has driven my decision to go for it. I really think the Pentax k100d will be perfect (thanks SpecialK for answering my questions directly about my concerns!). I just don't enjoy photography as much with a p&s, it just doesn't "feel" the same. And I'm not getting the results I'd like, even with gleaning every last bit of info from the manual. I've looked at some lenses for the Pentax and they seem numerous and affordable. Again, not professional I'm sure, but more than adequate and flexible for my needs. SpecialK, any macro lenses you like? Goes down to 1:1 but has a "multi-purpose" ability like the canon 60mm f/2.8 macro? Meaning I can use it for some portrait work and indoor low-light but also is macro? Tamron 90mm f2.8? Definitely getting the fish-eye, what a steal! About the flash for focus assist---does it just pop off some flash to focus, but then doesn't fire for the picture (if you don't want to have a flash picture obviously). Because that sounds perfect. I also like the fact that it seems the Pentax will try for autofocus, although it may take longer. Seemed like the D50 gave up too quickly and I had to switch to manual frequently. (which is fine as well). Do you think even getting the kit lens is worth it? I've seen some pretty nice deals on both body only and with kit lens and the reviews I've seen have said kit lens is better than most. Thanks again, all the help very much appreciated.

[SpecialK]

Hi:

The Pentax flash will pop up in very low light to help focus, however it may not fire for the actual exposure. It has 4 modes (auto, manual, auto w redeye and manual w redeye) and can be disabled entirely, such as in a museum.

I can't recomend a "good" macro, sorry. The Sigma 18-50 captures an image about 5 keyboard keys wide which is enough for me at this point. However 60 is about as short as I'd go for portraits. You will have a bit more working room at macro magnifications with a longer one, though.

[NEWIMAGE]

Thanks again and again. I'm ready to do some price checking and get my Pentax. Wish I had it already, heading to NYC tomorrow and would love to give it a test drive. I really appreciate everyone's input, it definitely helped me with my questions and influenced my decision-making. And such quick responses---I was working an overnight shift and still was getting replies right back! So, thanks everyone! Guess I'll go to the specific Pentax forum if I have any additional ?s about the camera---once it's actually in my hands. :)

[SpecialK]

Have fun with your new camera. Use it for a week or two and let us know what you think (with a sample photo) in the the Pentax DSLR forum.