Suggestions for an entry level SLR w/ IS?

[miler]

I'm considering getting a DSLR. I need one that is simple to use for my family. Image stabilization would be VERY helpful. I know the lens would be slow, but would love a 28-200± (equivalent) lens option (not required, but would be a nicer range) I know no one will want to change lens -- trust me. I've tried several P&S zoom/super zooms and they just don't have the quality of a SLR. I'm wanting to stay under $800. I tried Sony and Nikon at a local shop and both were nice, but they only had kits. Couldn't find an Olympus today to try, but the 510 looks good online. Thanks for your help!

[Visual Reality]

D80 w/18-55 VR

$877 shipped.

Your budget is too low for a zoom like that.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-ED-IF-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000BY52NU

[wilson44512]

you could get a Nikon D40 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-200mm VR lens for about $750 and $800

[griptape]

When you say "for my family", do you mean for your family to use, or you're using it to take pictures of your family. I ask mainly because image stabilization doesn't help AT ALL with moving subjects. It simply allows the shutter speed to be longer, so anything moving in front of the lens will actually be blurrier than if you didn't have IS and used a shorter shutter speed. Just making sure your purpose is to shoot motionless subjects in low light.

[TheWengler]

Pentax K100D, Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6. I'm not sure if they're still selling that lens anywhere. You may have to hunt around.

If you give up the IS requirement then you could also consider the Canon XT. If you give up the IS and the focal length requirement then you should consider the Nikon D40 kit too.

[bauerman]

Canon Rebel XTi - $500 (body only)
Canon 18-55 IS Lens - $200
Canon 55-250 IS Lens - $250

Total $950 for some very nice image stabilized lenses and a great body that you can grow with.

[miler]

When you say "for my family", do you mean for your family to use, or you're using it to take pictures of your family.

Both -- for my family to use and mainly for photos of the family ; ) I'm hoping to show everyone how to use the camera correctly (the best I know). I thought IS would be more "forgiving" but don't think it's a requirement. SLRs shoot well at higher ISO so I could just bump the ISO up as well. My wife would be the main user and really liked our old film Canon Rebel. The Rebel was pretty simple compared to the new XT. The Sony and Nikon looked pretty simple. I noticed the E-510 has scene modes. Is that common in entry level SLRs? That makes it nice for what I'm looking for.

Thanks for everyone's help so far.

[miler]

Your budget is too low for a zoom like that.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-ED-IF-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000BY52NU

But its not too low for this.... Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofocus-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Nikon/dp/B0007WK8NA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1205766655&sr=1-4) Sure its slow on the long end, but at a similar focal length (ie. 55 vs 55) is it slower than the kit? I'm stepping up from P&Ss.

[JTL]

XT with Sigma 18-200 OS. You get a great body and a very good quality mega-zoom lens with image stabilzation for $895.00. I have this combo and it is the perfect family setup. You can't beat this combo for price performance ratio in a one-lens setup.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371189-REG/Canon_0209B001_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XT.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485226-REG/Sigma_888_101_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_OS.html

The Tamron 18-200 that you mentioned does not have IS. I've shot both and would take the Sigma no question.

Yes...you can have it all...;)

[bauerman]

XT with Sigma 18-200 OS. You get a great body and a very good quality mega-zoom lens with image stabilzation for $895.00. I have this combo and it is the perfect family setup. You can't beat this combo for price performance ratio in a one-lens setup.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371189-REG/Canon_0209B001_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XT.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485226-REG/Sigma_888_101_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_OS.html

The Tamron 18-200 that you mentioned does not have IS. I've shot both and would take the Sigma no question.

Yes...you can have it all...;)

This is a good recommendation as well - the 18-200 OS from Sigma is a well regarded performer.

You mention scene modes above - which I think are a waste of time and energy once you really start to understand the relationships between shutter speed, aperture and ISO. I would not include the option of (or lack thereof) of scene (or preset) modes in your buying decision.

[DonSchap]

SONY A350 w/ TAMRON 18-250 ... it's all most people need, except a flash for indoor zoom.

Anti-shake, Live-View and a whoppin' 14.2 MP sensor. It does darn near anything the others can ... makes the decision very simple.

Good luck with it

[Rhys]

I think the Olympus E510 is very nice - I played with one in Sams Club.

[JTL]

SONY A350 w/ TAMRON 18-250 ... Don..you NEVER cease to amaze. I have to question whether you can actually read or whether you just know how to type. Once again you have completely ignored the OP's budget. Your recommendation is almost DOUBLE the stated budget. I know you don't care and are being paid by Sony to promote their cameras but some of us do care about the integrity of this site. All attempts to engage you in civil discourse fail...you just go on muttering your nonsense. Fortunately most everyone knows to ignore you and knows that you're nothing more than a Sony billboard. And the ones who don't...well...the K.D.I.C. squad will see to that...and protect the newbs from you.

I'm watching you....

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/224577996_bSUqG-Ti.gif

Do your Sony overlords know that you're perceived as a joke? I bet there are people out there who don't buy a Sony DSLR specifically because of you!

[stever06]

Miler-
The E-510 is a great step up from a p&s. The size of it is a real nice fit for average hands and it's light weight with the kit lenses is great, benefitting youngsters and inexperienced feminine hands. The 28-300mm coverage of the 2 good quality kit lenses should suffice you, but there is a 18-180mm option out there should you desire a single walk around lense with reach.
Ask away if you want more info.

[miler]

Miler-
The E-510 is a great step up from a p&s. The size of it is a real nice fit for average hands and it's light weight with the kit lenses is great, benefitting youngsters and inexperienced feminine hands. The 28-300mm coverage of the 2 good quality kit lenses should suffice you, but there is a 18-180mm option out there should you desire a single walk around lense with reach.
Ask away if you want more info.

That does look like a good option. I found the body only for $480 and the 18-200 for $420. Slightly over my budget, but not too much more. With the e510 do you have do much PP corrections or does the camera do a good job in that regard? (I just posted another topic on the forum to make sure I'm dSLR worthy, but don't want to duplicate too much)

[stever06]

you set it up to your shooting style. Like most DSLR's, you can adjust sharpness, saturation, contrast and noise filter to your needs. These settings will vary by brand, but that's why you're considering a DSLR, adjustability.
I PP most of my shots with Elements 5 and Neat Image, but mostly just slightly for crop and lighting adjustment.

[DonSchap]

...Your recommendation is almost DOUBLE the stated budget ...


When it comes to a DSLR investment ... THERE IS NO BUDGET ... and to propose that you can "budget it" ... well, figure it out on your lil' calculator, JTL. You should not have that much difficulty ... just turn it on ... start putting in the overall costs. Just get a good camera and lens that you won't have to worry about replacing, anytime soon. Accept the costs. Please understand that going "cheap" is a major league mistake, made every single day at various retailers across the world.

Don't worry about costs as long as you spend the money intelligently. Foolish spending is, of course, a mistake. So why do it? Add a few hundred bucks and you get to a quality product you will not regret for going CHEAP.

"DSLR Budget" ... yeah right! In for a penny, in for a pound. Oh, please stop ... my sides are hurting. :D :eek: Ouch!

Budget around $3000 ... just to be honest, having SOME quality to it and about as low-cost as can be reasonably expected. This isn't your father's P&S ... just buy a real camera ... an intro-tool way ahead of the anti-shake curve.

If your camera is delivering good work ... you should not have to go to post-processing that often. That is a time-consuming effort and since "time is money" ... isn't your time better spent arguing on the discussion boards about what is the best camera for this, that and the ... yep, the next thing? Whatever ... just remember, good glass should not go out of style.

A Budget with a DSLR ... heh, heh ... that's the joke.

[JTL]

If Don speaks in the woods and there's no one there to hear him, did he say anything? :D:D:D

Explorations of this theory welcome...

[DonSchap]

And if I gave the "Sermon on the Mount" ... you bringing the fish and wine? Goodness knows, we'd have some mouths to feed.

Now ... that would be a picture, JTL ... espousing the virtue of anti-sh-sh-shake ... in the body, w/o spilling blood!

34119
BTW: JTL could be the guy with the crossed arms ... and the "XT" hidden in the sleeve of his robe. LOL

Happy Easter, Folks! :D

[griptape]

Hey, that's the guy who was killed because he was a political threat to the leader of the free world (Ceasar at the time) by telling people that by being ultra conservative and believing things without any proof whatsoever would lead to eternal happiness. Kinda like what Bush did to Sadam. Nice picture Don. Got any you've taken with YOUR Sony?

[tim11]

Who was he sticking his finger to? :D

[DonSchap]

Nice picture Don. Got any you've taken with YOUR Sony?

I didn't quite get up early enough to catch the Savior's speech "Live" and I apologize for that. It would have be a golden moment ... or was that "Golden Rule?" Guess you had to be there.

To be quite honest, I've had to trim back on my camera time ... because of school, work and a host of other issues. Hopefully, in early May ... I may have some real time to religiously consecrate ... err, concentrate :rolleyes: on my craft.

I do have a trip planned to Colorado ... which might result in some interesting opportunities. The backpack is going ... so I'll have the full lens compliment to choose from. Then, to find a good mount(ain) to take aim from ... and grab all the grandeur and vista that life has to offer. Hope the weather cooperates ... this year has been chuck full of surprises. Destruction abounds, to be sure. Thank goodness for Home Improvement Centers, eh?

Who was he sticking his finger to? :D

He was talking about the astronomical costs of trying to equip yourself with a compliment of "in-the-lens" IS lenses ... in Canikons.

This guy just shook his head ... as a non-believer.
He said he wasn't buying it.

34120


We can all but wonder why ...

[JTL]

And if I gave the "Sermon on the Mount" ... you bringing the fish and wine? Goodness knows, we'd have some mouths to feed.

Now ... that would be a picture, JTL ... espousing the virtue of anti-sh-sh-shake ... in the body, w/o spilling blood!

BTW: JTL could be the guy with the crossed arms ... and the "XT" hidden in the sleeve of his robe. LOL

Happy Easter, Folks! :DHey...wait a minute...I recognize the guy in that picture! It's...it's...it's Osama!!!

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/267162334_Wpw2j-S.jpg

And that guy...in the back on the left side...it's Emperor Palpatine!

I guess we don't know the power of the dark side....:p:p:p

[tim11]

----

He was talking about the astronomical costs of trying to equip yourself with a compliment of "in-the-lens" IS lenses ... in Canikons.

This guy just shook his head ... as a non-believer.
He said he wasn't buying it.

34120


We can all but wonder why ...

Who do mean WE? DonSchap and who else? Your Sony camera? The guy keeps saying it's over his budget; you just aren't listening; Don.

JTL. I believe it's Chancellor Palpatine and then just THE EMPEROR.

[JTL]

JTL. I believe it's Chancellor Palpatine and then just THE EMPEROR.But, it is him, right? :D:D:D

[tim11]

lol... on closer inspection hmm....... yeah...

[Rooz]

XT with Sigma 18-200 OS. You get a great body and a very good quality mega-zoom lens with image stabilzation for $895.00. I have this combo and it is the perfect family setup. You can't beat this combo for price performance ratio in a one-lens setup.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371189-REG/Canon_0209B001_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XT.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485226-REG/Sigma_888_101_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_OS.html

The Tamron 18-200 that you mentioned does not have IS. I've shot both and would take the Sigma no question.

Yes...you can have it all...;)

XT ? come on now.

[JTL]

XT ? come on now.Rooz...have you joined the Don Schap school of ignoring budget requirements? Did you, like Don, forget to read the OP's request? Come to think of it, you and Don are probably the same person! I knew there was something "off" about you! :p:p:p

And anyway, there's not a picture on Earth that I can't take with the XT as good or better than with any of the cameras suggested so far. And here I thought you were a smart guy...you disappoint me, my good fellow! You disappoint me indeed! In this case, you happen to not know what you're talking about and you are being insulting out of your ignorance. ;)

But that's O.K. I know that you don't know any better.

[Rooz]

Rooz...have you joined the Don Schap school of ignoring budget requirements? Did you, like Don, forget to read the OP's request? Come to think of it, you and Don are probably the same person! I knew there was something "off" about you! :p:p:p

And anyway, there's not a picture on Earth that I can't take with the XT as good or better than with any of the cameras suggested so far. And here I thought you were a smart guy...you disappoint me, my good fellow! You disappoint me indeed! In this case, you happen to not know what you're talking about and you are being insulting out of your ignorance. ;)

But that's O.K. I know that you don't know any better.

lmao man that gave me a good laugh. :D

seriously though...times change, technology moves on. newer model cameras didn't magically stop the older cameras like the XT from taking great shots. no doubt about that. but there are more options out there now that are, all things being equal, better performing dslr's. sensors improve, AF improves, metering, colour rendition etc etc etc

of course what you said is true about the picture taking, i agree wholeheartedly. but same can be said of ANY camera in a decent photographers hands. hell, there is a guy here shooting a coolpix 5800 and you'd swear it was a $4k setup.

my point is dear sir that the XT, like you, has had its day and is past its prime. time to move on brother. :)

[JTL]

lmao man that gave me a good laugh. :D

seriously though...times change, technology moves on. newer model cameras didn't magically stop the older cameras like the XT from taking great shots. no doubt about that. but there are more options out there now that are, all things being equal, better performing dslr's. sensors improve, AF improves, metering, colour rendition etc etc etc

of course what you said is true about the picture taking, i agree wholeheartedly. but same can be said of ANY camera in a decent photographers hands. hell, there is a guy here shooting a coolpix 5800 and you'd swear it was a $4k setup.

my point is dear sir that the XT, like you, has had its day and is past its prime. time to move on brother. :)At least I had a day! You don't even qualify for one, sir! :p

Now...I agree with most everything you said as well...but...I take you back to the all-important thing called: THE OP'S ORIGINAL POST. Did you miss the little part in there about the budget? Now...it's all well and good to tell someone that their expectations are unreasonable and that for around $800.00 all they can expect is some baling wire and a stick. But, that's simply not true. You can take world-class pictures with a dslr for that $800.00. So, hard as you may find it, please try to actually HELP the OP achieve his goal rather than bore him with your verbal flatulence! ;)

Psst...how was that? Too much? :D

[Rooz]

too funny man...too funny. screw the OP this is too much fun. :D

[T06]

Can we somehow blame this thread for going off topic on an apple computer because old mate will need at least an iMac to develop the digital film....:D:D:eek::D:D

[DonSchap]

Kev ... I got busted by Jeff for advertising something in my signature ... it was just a link to my equipment list and the list wasn't even on this forum! How are you getting away with pushing that lens on yours, in size 5 font, no less???

Anyway ... to the OP, keep it simple and reasonable ... take the initial hit, buy the SONY α350 ... and be able to use the very decent and older Minolta lenses that are still available for a song.

You can get the:

50mm f/1.7 (http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-MAXXUM-AF-50mm-f-1-7-LENS_W0QQitemZ250226174566QQihZ015QQcategoryZ3342Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) (<- click here and take a peek) for about $50. 28mm f/2.8 (http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-MAXXUM-AF-WIDE-ANGLE-28mm-f-2-8-LENS_W0QQitemZ250226323653QQihZ015QQcategoryZ3342Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) (<- click here and take a peek) for around $100. 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-GENUINE-MINOLTA-MAXXUM-SONY-35-70mm-F3-5-ZOOM-LENS_W0QQitemZ280209784586QQihZ018QQcategoryZ3342Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) (<- click here and take a peek) for $70?

It's probably the best available intro-body ... with a lens price break and IS built-in for all glass you add. You go Canikon or Olympus ... and it is still full price for every piece of crystallized-sand you put on it! THAT can be crippling. :(

[cwphoto]

A Budget with a DSLR ... heh, heh ... that's the joke.

This coming from the guy who accuses Canon of rampant price-gouging for their quality lenses, and insists there is better value in the off-brands.

Don, your credibility is zero.

Note to OP: don't believe a word this guy says.

[cwphoto]

Kev ... I got busted by Jeff for advertising something in my signature ... it was a link and it wasn't even on this forum! How are you getting away with pushing that lens on yours, in size 5 font, no less???

Anyway ... to the OP, keep it simple and reasonable ... take the initial hit, buy the SONY α350 ... and be able to use the very decent and older Minolta lenses that are still available for a song.

You can get the:

50mm f/1.7 (http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-MAXXUM-AF-50mm-f-1-7-LENS_W0QQitemZ250226174566QQihZ015QQcategoryZ3342Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) (<- click here and take a peek) for about $50. 28mm f/2.8 (http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-MAXXUM-AF-WIDE-ANGLE-28mm-f-2-8-LENS_W0QQitemZ250226323653QQihZ015QQcategoryZ3342Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) (<- click here and take a peek) for around $100. 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-GENUINE-MINOLTA-MAXXUM-SONY-35-70mm-F3-5-ZOOM-LENS_W0QQitemZ280209784586QQihZ018QQcategoryZ3342Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) (<- click here and take a peek) for $70?

It's probably the best available intro-body ... with a lens price break and IS built-in for glass. You go Canikon or Olympus ... and it is still full price for every piece of crystallized-sand you put on it! THAT can be crippling. :(

The OP wants a super-zoom Don. When are you going to learn to comprehend?

[WestCoast]

When it comes to a DSLR investment ... THERE IS NO BUDGET

Hey, that's the guy who was killed because he was a political threat to the leader of the free world (Ceasar at the time) by telling people that by being ultra conservative and believing things without any proof whatsoever would lead to eternal happiness. Kinda like what Bush did to Sadam. Nice picture Don. Got any you've taken with YOUR Sony?

:rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

THIS ... coming from a high-end Canon-jockey. Nice shot, CW. Guess you kind of forgot "normal" people shoot f/4 or worse, indoors. Their lenses don't open up any wider.

Ok, yeah ... you're so right. GO Canikon ... needlessly endure digital camera shake until the sun falls out of the sky with your non-IS-equipped cheapo 70-300mm glass, 18-55mm, and 18-200mm. These lenses roughly cost the same on any camera system ... so it's a wash.

It's all in what you want out of your camera, I suspect. Credibility? I promise you this, you will see the results HANDHELD at 1/15 sec. and you're going to need 1/15 sec using cheapo f/4+ glass, folks ... or a tripod.

It's really no contest, once you try it. Oh, sh-sh-shake me to reality. I'm seeing double. :eek: Oh, no wonder ... "Super SteadyShot™" was off. -Click- ... all fixed. It's all in the body ... and just that fast!

34135


Have a wonderful day. :D

[griptape]

You guys, we should probably ease up on Don a little bit. Clearly the poor guy has Parkinson's disease. Why else would he shake so much? He's simply forgotten what it's like to be normal and doesn't know that we all don't have the same problem.

[DonSchap]

gr-gr-grip .... wh-wh-what are y-y-you trying to ... imp ... imp ... say? Produce a sharp h-h-handheld image at 1/15th-second at 135mm+ with a Canon non-IS lens. I double-dog dare ya!

There are just some natural levels of shooting you cannot exceed without a bit of help. You d-d-don't need an elaborate disease to show this horrible ef-ef- ... oh, the heck with you! :rolleyes: Now, I st-st-stutter when I type!

[cwphoto]

THIS ... coming from a high-end Canon-jockey. Nice shot, CW. Guess you kind of forgot "normal" people shoot f/4 or worse, indoors. Their lenses don't open up any wider.

Ok, yeah ... you're so right. GO Canikon ... needlessly endure digital camera shake until the sun falls out of the sky with your non-IS-equipped cheapo 70-300mm glass, 18-55mm, and 18-200mm. These lenses roughly cost the same on any camera system ... so it's a wash.

It's all in what you want out of your camera, I suspect. Credibility? I promise you this, you will see the results HANDHELD at 1/15 sec. and you're going to need 1/15 sec using cheapo f/4+ glass, folks ... or a tripod.

It's really no contest, once you try it. Oh, sh-sh-shake me to reality. I'm seeing double. :eek: Oh, no wonder ... "Super SteadyShot™" was off. -Click- ... all fixed. It's all in the body ... and just that fast!

34135


Have a wonderful day. :D

When your answers start bearing even a remote relevance to the question we will start to ease up on you Don.

Until then, your rantings resemble that of an old fool - which is a shame, because in person you're probably a likeable guy.

[tim11]

To OP. Just buy XTi and Sigma 18-200 OS (<----- Optical Stabiliser); you probably have to up your budget a tad. Don't worry too much about Don; he will be okay.

[Visual Reality]

I'd handle both Canons and Nikons before making a choice - I found the Rebel XTi to be too plastic, consumer friendly, and "electronic". I hated the screen clutter, and overall it just felt far too clumsy to me. It was fast, had good autofocus and took great pictures though.

The Nikons? Refined, comfortable, solid, easy to switch controls on the fly, feels more of a photographer's tool. That's just MO of course :D

[DonSchap]

This is all a little too simplistic. I recommend you simply do the test ... take your 1/15th-second test shot ... with and without stablization. IS-in-the-lens or no ... just remember, not every lens comes with stability (most don't) ... but, every lens you put on an in-the- body-stabilized camera will have it by default. That's the real difference and that is worth remembering. It isn't changing for the foreseeable future, despite an old man's rant. Facts is facts. LOL :D

[griptape]

Don, seriously, not everyone is taking pictures of non-moving objects in the dark. Get out in the daylight a little would ya? Shooting at 1/15 would do absolutely nothing for people who shoot things that actually have personalities and talk and move. And not all of us buy cameras with ISO performance that's so terrible that we can't raise it so we don't NEED to shoot at 1/15. IS is great, for those who need it. Not everyone does.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Why so much comment about stabilisation. I find it a pain to turn on and off when I put my camera on and off a tripod - it's just one more thing to have to remember. Also a lot of the photos I take are of my kids indoors and IS isn't worth a pinch of xxxx for that, I'm much better off turning up the ISO to get a quicker shutterspeed.

Other factors count too, comfort, menu accessibility, button positions oh and now that I think about it perhaps performance and ease of use.

If the camera is being passed around a family then sticking to the OP's price point is probably a good idea. I'd love to do this but am too scared my 7yo will drop my gear.

Have a troll through the threads on this forum (eg Nikon SLR-> D40 pics) and you'll see plenty of example photos from cameras at this price point, they're fantastic photos and I'm sure you'll love your new gear.

One other point, don't neglect a flash (around $200), indoors with a slow superzoom I'm finding a bounce suitable flash invaluable to shoot the kids.

Are people really being paid by manufacturers to post here, I'd have thought there'd be better ways to make a living.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Life isn't a test shot at 1/15 sec.

The gent and his family want a camera which will take nice photos and help him teach them "proper photography", image stabilisation has almost nothing to do with this goal.

In my humble opinion as a newbie that is.

[tim11]

Life isn't a test shot at 1/15 sec.
..
That's so right Dread. I can imagine Don telling his grand children at Xmas gathering to move slowly at 1/15sec. :D

Seriously now, if Don realises what this thread is about then he doesn't care about giving rational advice. The Sony recommended by him is properly as great as he claims, (still debatable to some) but who cares if one only wants to capture family memory within a budget. And the rant that there is no budget if you want to get DSLR is absolute rubbish.

[griptape]

Life isn't a test shot at 1/15 sec.
You, Sir, have just penned my signature.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Thanks griptape, feel free.

[Franklin]

I am a tad miffled about this thread. I would prefer if the OP was asked the following things:

What are the goals: What does he want to shoot?
What is your photography experience
What are your expectations?

Then someone should have listed the possibilities wich can fill in his goal (be it compact or DSLR)

Had this been asked at the start Miller would have been pointed towards a luxuruous Compact.

And yes, I fully agree that if sometimes it might be wise to advise a "stretch of budget", but if need be we should be open enough to advice not to spend that amount of cash.

Maybe one of the seniors in the forum can create a model post with the following template:


I want a DSLR:

1. I want to shoot: (rank from 1-5, higher is more important)

a) Landscapes
b) Sports
c) Portraits
d) Party/Nightlife
e) Wildlife

2. My budget is xxx$

3. My current photography experience is:

4. I already own the following gear

5. Special wishes/considerations?


With those five questions asked it's easier to give good advice

[Ray Schnoor]

Maybe one of the seniors in the forum can create a model post with the following template:


I want a DSLR:

1. I want to shoot: (rank from 1-5, higher is more important)

a) Landscapes
b) Sports
c) Portraits
d) Party/Nightlife
e) Wildlife

2. My budget is xxx$

3. My current photography experience is:

4. I already own the following gear

5. Special wishes/considerations?


With those five questions asked it's easier to give good advice
Or maybe they could just use the template already in the post "Which Camera Should I Buy..." (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5111) and post in the forum (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4) of the same name...

Ray.

[JTL]

I am a tad miffled about this thread. I would prefer if the OP was asked the following things:

What are the goals: What does he want to shoot?
What is your photography experience
What are your expectations?

Then someone should have listed the possibilities wich can fill in his goal (be it compact or DSLR)

Had this been asked at the start Miller would have been pointed towards a luxuruous Compact.

And yes, I fully agree that if sometimes it might be wise to advise a "stretch of budget", but if need be we should be open enough to advice not to spend that amount of cash.

Maybe one of the seniors in the forum can create a model post with the following template:


I want a DSLR:

1. I want to shoot: (rank from 1-5, higher is more important)

a) Landscapes
b) Sports
c) Portraits
d) Party/Nightlife
e) Wildlife

2. My budget is xxx$

3. My current photography experience is:

4. I already own the following gear

5. Special wishes/considerations?


With those five questions asked it's easier to give good advicePersonally, I think you're way off base. The OP's initial post contained enough information so that anyone with even a moderate amount of knowledge could intelligently provide an answer. And, the OP received a lot of good information and advice...up to a point....that point being when a particular member, who is paid to tout a specific brand started going off on a much repeated tangent. But, in the process, the OP did get PLENTY of good information to consider. Plenty. And if anyone reading this this can't tell the credible members form the less-then-credible members, then no amount of "advice" will ever help that person.

So, you're "a tad miffed". Well, IMO, you should just make sure you're miffed for the right reasons.

[Franklin]

Or maybe they could just use the template already in the post "Which Camera Should I Buy..." (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5111) and post in the forum (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4) of the same name...

Ray.

Touché :D The best advice would have been to point him towards that thread. I stand happily corrected.

To JTL: I disagree a bit. Yes, I understand the annoyance with DS (his advice was ludicrous), but truth is most people were pointing towards a dslr. So I was annoyed about a lot of advice without the necessary questions. You can disagree, for sure. But this is simply my sentiment... the thread annoyed me ;)

[GaryS]

But Franklin, when someone comes to a DSLR forum, and posts a question like "Should I buy a DSLR?", the answers are going to be overwhelmingly supportive of buying a DSLR.... Thats just human nature. If you go to a Chevy car forum and ask about buying a Chevy, I would suspect the same would hold true.

Everyone is allowed to give their opinion (even Don) and its up to the OP to filter out the information....

So post your recommendation, and let the rest of us do the same.

[griptape]

There's a WHOLE lot of posts in this thread that could stand to be deleted (including my own). Let's just use this thread as reference on how NOT to try and help someone. By this point, pretty much all of us look like jerks, whether our advice was intended as helpful or not. Time to let this one die and do better next time.

[JTL]

but truth is most people were pointing towards a dslr. So I was annoyed about a lot of advice without the necessary questions.Well, then...you're no better than DS! Did you read the title of the OP's initial post? Go back, read it, sit down and have a good long look in the mirror. This thread went off course for the very reason that the OPs question and requirements were ignored. What you're actually saying is that you're miffed because we didn't ignore his requirements and requests with the first response! :rolleyes:

If someone posts a specific question about getting a dslr in a dslr thread and someone responds with "get an ultra compact instead"...that's borderline trolling. It's not like the OP asked "what kind of camera should I buy?" His question was a specific dslr question. So, I really fail to see your point and this is just MORE thread pollution as far as I'm concerned.

The best advice for advice givers: LEARN TO READ!

[WestCoast]

Let's just use this thread as reference on how NOT to try and help someone.

Unfortunately, certain people on this board have the unrelenting habit of ignoring the OP's needs/price range and using these threads as a forum to pimp their brand of choice. This will not change until the offending individuals are sent packing.

[DonSchap]

And take their lil' cameras with them, eh?

Look, even PMA represents a number of options when they have a show ... some are within a price range ... others are not. I still contend that if you are in the market for a DSLR ... forget a budget. Believe me ... the manufacturers who price this stuff have. LOL Goodnight shirt tale!

A semi-decent lens (one on whose performance will be consistant) usually is starting at $400, but by no means allow price to dictate quality, as we are all aware. You can still get some poor performers at high prices, too. The fact is: you can get some great performers at lower prices ... so you just have to be careful and do your homework when looking.

Watchout for "COMBO" deals/offers, which usually marries up your DSLR to two marginally performing lenses, if not just old 35-film lenses (not really recommended for digital SLR use). Again, be careful. These 'deals" are still out there to get to the "unwashed" masses, who think they have found a boon.

All these DSLR cameras bring something to the table, it's just that some bring more.

[WestCoast]

I still contend that if you are in the market for a DSLR ... forget a budget. Believe me ... the manufacturers who price this stuff have.

More bad advice and another inaccurate statement. Thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:

[TenD]

if not just old 35-film lenses (not really recommended for digital SLR use).



Why not? All of my lenses are old 35mm lenses. I seem to get by just fine. Of course most have an L after their moniker but still they are just old film lenses...

Oh and to the OP, sorry this thread has gotten so out of hand. Most of us know to basically ignore a lot of Don's rantings, but a new poster may take him seriously and that's unacceptable.

I agree with JTL: an XT plus a good lens will make a fine setup and not blow the budget. JTL is right that there isn't a photo that any camera can take that the XT cannot. There have been some minor changes in technology with the XTi and now the XSi, but the truth of the matter is that the XT can take any photo that those two cameras or any camera out there can take. I still take a lot of photographs with my 10D it's even older than the XT. I will put it's output up against almost anything out there.

IS?? well it's just not necessary. A tripod will fill it's role nicely. IS does nothing for moving subjects, by the time you get your shutter speed slow enough to actually make IS worthwhile if your subject is moving at all, your subject will still be blurry.

[Ray Schnoor]

just old 35-film lenses (not really recommended for digital SLR use)...
Don,

I thought that one of the big plusses you always espouse about choosing Sony over CaNikon is the great abundance of inexpensive legacy Minolta glass which can be used on Sony dSLR's. I guess that this makes the Sony dSLR's a little less attractive since you are now recommending against using such lenses.

Ray.

Edit:
The HDDI direct compatibility allows the camera to directly interface with the newest technology, yet the cameras maintain their legacy capability to use low-cost and great lenses from 23-years ago.
If you decide to go with a SONY A100 ... your choices of reasonably priced glass are definitely improved, as all of Minolta's older lenses (1985+) ...

... There is a long legacy of older glass to choose from, so you might just want to take a quick look in SONY's direction before you plunk down that wad on the low-end Nikon D40.
I know I was able to use my previous 20-years' worth of Minolta-glass on my new SONY A100 DSLR.

[tim11]

Touché :D The best advice would have been to point him towards that thread. I stand happily corrected.

To JTL: I disagree a bit. Yes, I understand the annoyance with DS (his advice was ludicrous), but truth is most people were pointing towards a dslr. So I was annoyed about a lot of advice without the necessary questions. You can disagree, for sure. But this is simply my sentiment... the thread annoyed me ;)
But the thread title already read "Suggestions for an entry level SLR w/ IS?". And OP's follow up post already told enough of the requirement.

[DonSchap]

I apologize for not being precise, here, by electing not to name names, Ray.

Minolta-brand lenses are better than most, in my evaluation. My AF 50mm f/1.7 is just as sharp as the SONY 50mm f/1.4. Besides, SONY does not bundle old Minolta lenses in its kits, nor do any retailers that I am aware of. You will have to obtain them second hand (ebay) or from a camera shop, who might take them in on trade. Personally, I recently just missed out on getting my hands on a Minolta AF 28mm f/1.8. Makes your mouth water just thinking about it, eh? :D

A pleasant surprise film camera lens came in the form of an all-metal body lens, the Tokina ATX-840 AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 telephoto, which produced excellent results in contrast to most 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lenses. It has a longer minimum focus distance (8-feet) than the standard 70-300, but if you're using it outdoors ... you're usually shooting over distance, anyway. I am going to give it a go for the next full moon, over Easter, looking for that sharpness.

The ones that really are out to lunch, on just about any digital mount, are the early TAMRON AF28-80 3.5-5.6 Aspherical and AF75-300 f/4-5.6 LD Macro which dealers are throwing into bundles to look attractive. Don't kid yourself, there are a ton of these by-gone lenses out there that most of these Internet bargain-retailers paid for with pennies on the dollar, just so the manufacturers did not have to take the tax-hit on effectively obsolete inventory. The images they produce are not that great, on a digital body. In fact, these lenses focus soft, lack considerable contrast, and can produce image flair from intense light reflection off the camera's sensor-face hitting the lens' rear optical element.

I cannot say whether or not SIGMA designs also suffer from rear reflection coating issue and soft focus with 35mm-film lenses, because I made a decision, a while back, not to use SIGMA glass because of continuing QC issues.

Even recently as two months ago, same old game:

1) buy the brand new lens,
2) focus is messed up (it's not sharp)
3) put it the box ... pack it in another box for shipping,
4) pay the postage and send it back to SIGMA, NY for tuning
5) wait four additional weeks for servicing and shipping
6) lens comes back, maybe better (who knows?) :confused:

By rights, SIGMA really should include a RETURN SHIPPING LABEL to their repair depot facility in every lens box, because it can be up to thirty dollars ($30) in shipping to have this "adjustment" on a brand new purchase. I'm sorry, but that's a waste of money and it's just not right! :mad:

Q: Why not try this, just to be novel:

It works the FIRST time out of the box. :eek:
No 4-week adjustment/repair cycle for a new lens. :D
What a concept! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I hope that clears this up, Ray, and thanks for asking.

Sorry for any confusion in this regard.

[Ray Schnoor]

I apologize for not being precise, here, by electing not to name names, Ray.
It's not that you weren't being precise, but contradictory. In the past, you have been very precise in advocating the use of legacy Minolta glass on Sony dSLRs.

Now, it seems, that you are being very precise in saying that legacy 35mm lenses are not really recommended for use on dSLRs.

Two contradictory statements which are not cleared up by your last statement, but just a clarification to not include Sony. From your last statement it seems that legacy Minolta glass is fine, while Sigma/Tamron are questionable. No word on Canon/Nikon.

It seems that you just made a broad sweeping statement with the unintended consequence of putting Sony dSLRs in a very unattractive light. Sony obviously does not have a large selection of glass available for their dSLRs, so you had to make a clarification to make it OK to add legacy Minolta glass to the available choices. Instead you make it more specific to Sigma/Tamron, and by omission Canon/Nikon must be questionable, too. Once again, it seems that your beloved Sony comes out Top Dog.

I think that legacy 35mm glass is more a case just like any glass. You are going to have good performers and bad performers, while it would be preferable to choose a lens with the anti-reflective coatings which make them more capable for dSLR use. You need to make your selections carefully.

Clarification: In my opinion I think that most if not all of the current dSLRs on the market are capable of taking excellent photos. I am not advocating the use of 1 brand over another. Pick whichever one you prefer. I think that all brands have their plusses and minuses. There is not one hands down clear winner.

Ray.

Edits in italics...

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Don, I'm only new here and don't know the underlying politics. Like some Australians I'm not so inclined to beat around the bush. So let me ask plainly - just so I understand. Please don't take unintended offence.

Are you actually paid by Sony to advertise their gear on this forum?

I only ask because it seams an unusual moneyspinner.
It's often intimated by others.
And frankly your posts appear unduly biased towards one manufacturer.

I further contend if the gear was as good as you say wouldn't that Sony forum have more than a dozen posts in the last month like the other manufacturers.

I agree this thread looks like a classic example of how not to help someone. Further appologies to the OP for staying off topic here.

On topic I think you would love a budget DSLR and the scene and full auto modes on the budget models (Canon XT, Nikon D40 or old Olly) make them almost certainly as easy to use as a superzoom. There's some great pics on the respective threads to let you compare what lovely work can be done with the cheaper bodies and the cheap kit lenses that are sold with them. They're sure not xxxx as often stated loosly.

Ignore image stabilisation by whatever name it's known in each brand. It's largely marketing hype. I reckognise it offers a minimal advantage but it's not a deal breaker. For example if you're shooting a sunset you're going to get an extra couple minutes handheld shooting with IS than without it and then you'll have to get your tripod for the last bit of the sunset with the strong fading colours. Indoors with kids IS offers nothing. Outside in bright sun IS offers nothing. Shooting that memorable test shot of a piece of paper on your desk in the dark IS sure might help though.:D

[DonSchap]

DPR ... as it says in my signature and quite plainly ... THERE'S NO MONEY IN THIS ... I get soaked just like the rest of you folks ... probably more so, because I'm always experimenting with something new, here and there.

I have had a SONY directly because of legacy glass ... and because the darn thing works pretty darn nice. It fits my hand very well and takes a pretty good shot. I can shoot indoors, without a flash, and still get results that are usable. I was not able to acheive that with the Canon EOS 20D with my personal and limited Canon/TAMRON lens selection. With anti-shake in the body ... the range of available shots and the number of handheld "keepers" went up.


Ray, I'm not saying these results sway any decision, but they probably should. The SONY cameras work as advertised and it is just plain foolish to refute the findings. A bonus is that you can successfully use Minolta film-glass with fair to good results. Would a digitally qualified lens work better? I would say that's a fair assessment, but for just getting more mileage out of your old glass ... the SONY is the way to proceed. It SAVES you the green-stuff in a big way.

Guess we shall see, with the upcoming A900 release, when non-stability Full Frame cameras finally get a good kick straight to the goodie locker. Admittedly, a camera like that will be a real test on any lens. My question becomes: Is there currently ANY 35mm-type lenses made that can hope to provide a superior image with a 24.6 MP sensor?

Only from the Mind of Minolta!

[great_guns]

gr-gr-grip .... wh-wh-what are y-y-you trying to ... imp ... imp ... say? Produce a sharp h-h-handheld image at 1/15th-second at 135mm+ with a Canon non-IS lens. I double-dog dare ya!

There are just some natural levels of shooting you cannot exceed without a bit of help. You d-d-don't need an elaborate disease to show this horrible ef-ef- ... oh, the heck with you! :rolleyes: Now, I st-st-stutter when I type!

I could take up the challenge. What do I stand to win? :p

[great_guns]

...

One other point, don't neglect a flash (around $200), indoors with a slow superzoom I'm finding a bounce suitable flash invaluable to shoot the kids.

...

ouch!:eek:

[EddieRock]

Oh my... You guy sure know how to scare a guy from posting a simple quesiton...

So... If he's looking for a DSLR for ~800 or so with a decent lens, then there are many places where he can find a Nikon D40x or a Nikon D60 (replaces the D40x) with 1-2 lenses for under $900.

Oops, did I go over $800, well I've done a few searches and found D60's with two lenses both with VR for $889

Look at the D60 kit (with 18-55mm AF-S VR Zoom) with the Nikon 55-200mm AF-s VR zoom. It's $899.

Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a new D60 body and then getting a used Nikon lens. That way, you will get the new electronics in the body and the great optics of a Nikon.

Good luck!

[JTL]

Oh my... You guy sure know how to scare a guy from posting a simple quesitonWhat? Another one who's challenged with following the flow of a thread? Up until post #11 he was getting very clear and appropriate advice. Or didn't you start at the beginning? And since you're throwing the "you guys" crap around...how about this: Oh my...you sure don't know how to post a simple answer! :p:p:p

[tim11]

Oh my... You guy sure know how to scare a guy from posting a simple quesiton...----

I notice you said 'you guy' instead of 'you guys'. Of course he did. :D

I think the possibility is that OP bought the Sony and has been moving at 1/15 second since so his relative can take his picture. That's why he is slow at getting back here. :eek::eek::eek:

[JTL]

Tim, you are TOO FUNNY!!! :D:D:D

Now I can go to sleep laughing!

[Ray Schnoor]

Ray, I'm not saying these results sway any decision, but they probably should. The SONY cameras work as advertised and it is just plain foolish to refute the findings.
Nikons work as advertised and Canons work as advertised, so what. I don't see where anyone has said that Sony cameras do not work as advertised.

Guess we shall see, with the upcoming A900 release, when non-stability Full Frame cameras finally get a good kick straight to the goodie locker. Admittedly, a camera like that will be a real test on any lens. My question becomes: Is there currently ANY 35mm-type lenses made that can hope to provide a superior image with a 24.6 MP sensor?
Oh no!!! You mean that Sony is coming out with a non-stability camera. Now that I have bought overpriced(non-IS models cost more than Canon and Nikon IS/VR models) non-IS Sony lenses, I will no longer be able to take those 1/15 second shots on my new Sony camera unless I start buying a whole new set of IS lenses. You have always claimed that Canon and Nikon were being thiefs by charging for IS in each lens instead of the body. Why not the same claims now that you say Sony is coming out with a non-stability camera(full frame or not). Wouldn't people have been better served by sticking with Nikon or Canon in the 1st place. Oh, thats right, basically everyone did...:D

Ray.

[Visual Reality]

Oh my... You guy sure know how to scare a guy from posting a simple quesiton...

So... If he's looking for a DSLR for ~800 or so with a decent lens, then there are many places where he can find a Nikon D40x or a Nikon D60 (replaces the D40x) with 1-2 lenses for under $900.

Oops, did I go over $800, well I've done a few searches and found D60's with two lenses both with VR for $889

Look at the D60 kit (with 18-55mm AF-S VR Zoom) with the Nikon 55-200mm AF-s VR zoom. It's $899.

Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a new D60 body and then getting a used Nikon lens. That way, you will get the new electronics in the body and the great optics of a Nikon.

Good luck!
Or he could get the D80 w/18-55 VR for $859.

[DonSchap]

Oh no!!! You mean that Sony is coming out with a non-stability camera. Now that I have bought overpriced(non-IS models cost more than Canon and Nikon IS/VR models) non-IS Sony lenses, I will no longer be able to take those 1/15 second shots on my new Sony camera unless I start buying a whole new set of IS lenses. You have always claimed that Canon and Nikon were being thiefs by charging for IS in each lens instead of the body. Why not the same claims now that you say Sony is coming out with a non-stability camera(full frame or not). Wouldn't people have been better served by sticking with Nikon or Canon in the 1st place. Oh, thats right, basically everyone did...:D

Ray.

Ray ... please calm down. I honestly do not know how you got that SONY was releasing a non-IS camera body from what I wrote. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, here are images from the latest PMA, where SONY went to great lengths to demonstrate the new FULL FRAME 24.2MP SENSOR mounted on the Super SteadyShot™ (In-the-body-IS) appliance.

Check out the body on that one!
34357

You can clearly see ...
34359

Full Frame w/Super SteadyShot™
34360

Listen ... I think you just might be able to hear it working.

[EddieRock]

Or he could get the D80 w/18-55 VR for $859.

Totally agree. The D80 is a fantastic camera. A bit bigger than the D60 and is a little older but it is a good option and still current model. He would then still need to get a lens that would give him a bit of zoom. The 18-55 really is not much of a zoom lens. More of a wide to standard lens. Not sure how much the VR will need to work on a 55mm lens...?

[Visual Reality]

It gives you a 3 stop advantage at 55mm.

[bass7858]

i like vr on the 18-55. but i'm an newbie so anything helps.

[cwphoto]

Ray ... please calm down. I honestly do not know how you got that SONY was releasing a non-IS camera body from what I wrote. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, here are images from the latest PMA, where SONY went to great lengths to demonstrate the new FULL FRAME 24.2MP SENSOR mounted on the Super SteadyShot™ (In-the-body-IS) appliance.

Check out the body on that one!
34357

You can clearly see ...
34359

Full Frame w/Super SteadyShot™
34360

Listen ... I think you just might be able to hear it working.

I can't see it happening. They'll need to ditch SSS if they release FF.

[Visual Reality]

I can't see it happening. They'll need to ditch SSS if they release FF.
It's called the A900 (http://gizmodo.com/371009/sonys-next-gen-alpha-a900-dslr-25-megapixels-due-by-september)
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=3213&p=4

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/2008/PMA2008/a900-3.jpg

And it uses this sensor:
http://gizmodo.com/350341/sonys-25+megapixel-35mm-image-sensor-is-up-for-grabs

Anyway this is getting completely off-topic...

[DonSchap]

Yes, the α900 is not your father's "entry-level DSLR suggestion" anymore. LOL

That α350, though ... is another matter, entirely.

34409

[cwphoto]

It's called the A900 (http://gizmodo.com/371009/sonys-next-gen-alpha-a900-dslr-25-megapixels-due-by-september)
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=3213&p=4

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/2008/PMA2008/a900-3.jpg

And it uses this sensor:
http://gizmodo.com/350341/sonys-25+megapixel-35mm-image-sensor-is-up-for-grabs

Anyway this is getting completely off-topic...

I know what it's called. It's just that FF and in-body stabilisation don't go together very well.