What dslr should i buy for 750-900$?
I need help choosing a camera.
I have now a sony DSC-T10, some pics i took with it : http://www.flickr.com/photos/indika_/
and i think i need a better camera, i have no idea where to start, this is my budget 900$ but i want it to be cheap as it can get :]
Id take a look at the Nikon D80 but it depends on what you are looking for in a camera. What kind of pictures do you want to take? Does size matter? MP matter? etc.
Best way to pick a camera is hands on. Youll get a couple model names from this thread. Once youve got that look up a few reviews on them to get a technical look at them. Once you see one you may be interested in (and most the most important part), go to a camera store and "play" with them. See what feels natural to you.
Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers
R3G Media | Flickr
"You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz
I am not an expert and I just got it yesterday but you can get the Pentax k100D with a couple lenses for that. But I will reiterate I am not an expert and I have about 5 hours experience with the camera
thank you for the quik responce
i was thinking to get the most compactik and easy to use and smallest that i can get, i dont know what i should look in the technical stuff of the camera...
i will go to the store when i have a chance but i dont think there is much to see in office deput\target\best buy...
my direction of camera(only by seeing pics in the internet and some comments about them in dpreview) is sony alpha and nikon d40X how are them?
im not going to be a profsional photographer its just for fun.
If you want more in the way of recreational photos, then you might consider an ultrazoom rather than an SLR; less bulk to carry around in lenses, probably a bit cheaper...You'll loose some features and image quality, but it's worth considering. If you want to take a look at some, Fuji and Panasonic make some high-end Ultrazooms, although the Panasonics tend to be a bit noisy.
Canon 40D + Sigma 18-50mm + Canon 55-250mm
i think i will still go with dslr
because i dont want to loose image quality, i looking to improve quality from my sony DSC-T10 that i have right now..
Originally Posted by Paradox
For that sort of money, you can get a Nikon D40, 18-55 lens, 55-200 VR lens, a 2gb memory card, and a small bag to hold it all. That would run you close to the $900 max. (Prices based on Samys Camera online site).
Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter
Originally Posted by erichlund
i alreday have 4 GB cards of SD memory..
and is the d40 is the best i can get? isint the d40X\sony alpha are better?
and why will i need 2 different lenss? i what is special about the lens?
Originally Posted by indika
Like you, I'm researching which entry level dslr to buy. From your comments, my research is:
<< i alreday have 4 GB cards of SD memory>>
This would omit the Sony Alpha A100 if you want to use your SD memory cards. The Sony Alpha only takes compact flash and includes a compact flash to memory stick adapter.
<<why will i need 2 different lenss?>>
DSLRs usually use two lenses to cover the range from 28mm (wide angle) to 300mm (telephoto) since it is easier to cover that range and still retain image quality with minimal distortion, etc. It is possible to buy one super zoom lens for a DSLR to cover most of that range but apparently, there are compromises that one must make doing that as opposed to using two lenses to cover the same range.
The Nikon D40X does not have "real" image stabilization while the Sony Alpha A100 does. If image stabilization is important to you, then look at the Sony Alpha 100, Pentax K10D and Olympus E510. If "real" image stabilization is not necessary for you then any of the other DSLRs in your price range would fit. (EDIT: To clarify, I meant real image stabilization using "kit" lenses to keep within the original poster's budget. I was thinking that when I wrote this but reading it again now I can see where my ommision of specifying "with kit lenses" makes my statements incorrect.)
If "real" image stabilization is not necessary for you and you want the lowest cost DSLR like camera, try looking at the Fugifilm S6000fd which sells for about $320. This is a camera with:
- an excellent 28mm-300mm (35mm equivalent), F/2.8-4.5 lens (fixed, not interchageable lens) This lens gives wide angle with a big F/2.8 aperature plus a 10.7 zoom. Most kit lenses that come with DSLRs come with about a F3.5 aperature at their wide angle setting which allows "less" light in than a F2.8 aperature.
- excellent low light with minimal noise (Fuji is known for their low noise image sensors)
- face detection for auto focus and exposure. (Some folks feel it is more of a gimik but hey, one should be able to just turn it off if not desired.)
- double photo taking without and with flash with one press (good for an available light photo plus a flash photo to satisfy the subjects that a photo was taken)
- live view before taking the picture (in DSLRs, only the Olympus E510 has live view in the price range you are looking at. With all other DLRs in your price range, you have to look through the viewfinder to compose your photo. They only show the photo on the big LCD screen "after" you take the picture.)
- live histogram before you take the picture. Live histogram allows you to check your exposure "before" you take the picture. Many DSLRs allow you to check the histogram "after" you take the picture and if the exposure is off, you have to tell the group to stay put while you take another photo. (The Olympus E510 has a live histogram.)
IOW, the Fuji S6000fd acts like a point & shoot (live preview with fast shutter) but also acts like a DSLR in many respects. The cons are that the viewfinder shows the image on a small LCD instead of the real image using mirrors as a DSLR would show (though the LCD screen shows the image like a P&S) and it does not have a hot shoe for an external flash unit. I would buy the S6000fd today if it had "real" image stabilization even if it cost $200 more. As it is, I'm looking at the Olympus E510 and will wait till Christmas to see if Fuji releases an S6000fd successor with "real" image stabilzation.
Just another "looking for a better than P&S camera" person (maybe like you),
Last edited by Mike S.; 07-05-2007 at 04:30 PM.
thank you !! :]
i understand better now,
Originally Posted by Mike S.
but i guess sony will be the best solution for me..? i do care about image stabilization, and image quality , and the easy of the menue and use of the camera.
SONY ALPHA will be my next camera? or should i still check other options like canon? or other companies?
and if you think i should go with canon can you recomend a store and a deal? and lenss to go with the sony?