Digital camera recommendation

[white spaniard]

Hi I am thinking of upgrading my compact camera to a larger SLR, anyone recommend a entry level camera. My budget is 600-700. Thanks.

[Alex V]

you might start a fight on here lol

I would stick to either a Canon or a Nikon. Just remember that with an SLR, you will be investing mostly in glass [lenses] rather than the body. A lot of the entry level SLR's come with mediocre lenses, but they are good to get you started. When you see the type of photography that you will be going, you can tailor your lens choise to suit your need.

I shoot [or used to] mostly auto racing, so I use longer zoom lenses and do have 1 or 2 lenses for up close shots of cars. Since I am an Architect, I also have a PC [perspective control] to shoot buildings.

If you are going to be doing portraits you will need a totally different lens all together.

Stickman would be a great resource on this and he will recomend Canon, I use Nikon, so I will say to use it as well. lol As long as you get either or, you are in great shape. Kinda like chooseing between the top tier rifle makers.

The Cannon Rebel XS is a great choise for an MSRP of about 500. The remeb line tends to be small, light and easy to use. Great for starting out with an SLR. Dont forget, that in your 600-700 budget you will still need, memory cards, bags, posibly a tripod, extra battery and so on. I used to sell cameras in a Best Buy during college and people never seemed to think of the other stuff they needed to buy when getting a camera.

[Iraq Ninja]

Alex,

Are the lens mounts compatible to the older ones used with 35mm SLRs?

[Hoss356]

How bout a minolta 7D+ extras for $400, I'll throw in two lenses, two CF cards, 4 batteries and a 35mm minolta body to run as a back up.

I shoot Minolta and now Sony but for your price range I'd look into used set ups, just double check the availability of lenses for whatever platform you find. KEH.com is a great place for used lenses, and don't count out the Minolta/Sony system. Alot of the features you find on your Nikons and Canons were first pioneered by Minolta, here's two examples: first 35mm SLR auto focus system and first DSLR with in-body stabilization.

[Alex V]

Alex,

Are the lens mounts compatible to the older ones used with 35mm SLRs?

Depends on the camera. With Nikon almost all old lenses will mount, because the bayonelle mount did not change since the early 80's But the older lenses will not communicate metering data with the camera, so they can only be used on manual modes, cant be used on aperture or shutter priority modes and all the preprogramed picture modes like portrait, landscape and so on. For instance my PC lens is from 1986 [e-bay baby!] and has a aperture ring and I have to set the aperture on the lens, then adjust the shutter speed accordingly based on the meetering that I am seeing, the camera has to be in manual mode and manualy focused.

With Canon the cut off date is later, meaning the lenses have to be newer but if you had a 35mm Canon 10 years ago, the lens will mount.

Another thing is that most popular and "affordable" digital SLRs use a CCD or CMOS sensor that is smaller than a 35mm negative which is 24x36mm but most of the sensors are roughly 16x24mm so the lesnes act at 1.5x their zoom. For instance, if you have a 100mm lens, it will give you roughly 150mm of equivalant zoom on a digital SLR. Some of the higher end SLRs do use full frame sensors, Nikon D700, D3, Canon 5D and up. So a 24mm lens which was a wide angle on a 35mm camera, may not be a wide angle on a digital. Conversly, if you buy a smaller frame SLR and get a 18-55 lens, if you later upgrade to a full frame SLR even though its the same brand and it will mount, it may cut off the corners or vignette the photo.

[rob_s]

you might start a fight on here lol

No shit, camera guys are more nuts and loyal than gun guys!

I like Nikon, because I had Nikon SLR lenses that made the transfer over. I'm frankly not sophisticated enough to appreciate any other differences between brands.

If buying today and without any pre-existing lenses I *might* poll some of my more photog-oriented friends as to what brand they owned in the hopes that it might make it easier for me to borrow/try lenses and other gear from them before buying for myself. I think this is actually a really important distinction that I almost never hear brought up amidst all the brand-loyalty wailing and gnashing of teeth that usually goes on.

[Alex V]

No shit, camera guys are more nuts and loyal than gun guys!

I like Nikon, because I had Nikon SLR lenses that made the transfer over. I'm frankly not sophisticated enough to appreciate any other differences between brands.

If buying today and without any pre-existing lenses I *might* poll some of my more photog-oriented friends as to what brand they owned in the hopes that it might make it easier for me to borrow/try lenses and other gear from them before buying for myself. I think this is actually a really important distinction that I almost never hear brought up amidst all the brand-loyalty wailing and gnashing of teeth that usually goes on.

Exactly... you should hear the fights on the photo forums. And the shit I would hear from people who were buying one camera and someone was about to buy another lol

I got into Nikon because as an BestBuy employee they were selling their cameras direct from Nikon on Long Island for DIRT CHEAP! I got what was then a killer SLR body D70 which retailed for almost a grand for about 400 bucks. Canon was not doing the same thing, or even close, so I am now a Nikon user.

Honestly, I think Canon does some things better. Their in camera prossesing seems to favor portraits better, though one of the best wedding photogrophers that I have ever seen [local guy in NJ] uses a Nikon. The Nikon body seems to be better adapted for high speed action, I find the controll wheels to be in better locations for changing settings w/o taking my face away from the eyepiece and the larger memory buffer seems to allow me to shoot at high frame rates longer than I could on a Canon. With a high speed CF card I am able to shoot for 5fps for nearly 30 frames shootingin RAW before the camera slows down, on a equal Canon I was only able to get about 15 or 16 frames in sequence. This helps me a lot when trying to get a panning shot of a car going by.

I dont mean to insult, but I was never a fan of the Sony/Minolta camera. It never impressed me, and the in camera stabilization seemed more of a marketing ploy then a usefull tool. My 80-400VR lens will stabilise hand movement a lot better than a Sony SLR body ever could.

In the end, whichever body you choose, you will spend much much more on glass. I think about it this way. If you have a $7000 SLR body and you put a cheap Tokika lens in front of it, by the time the light gets through that bottom of a coke bottle quality lens, the quality is so poor that no CMOS sensor in the worls will make up for it. But if you buy a good quality body, and invest in great glass like Canon L-glass or the Nikon ED glass, you are golden! This is partly the reason I am not a fan of Sony/Minolta, Pentax, Olympus and so on. Their glass just isnt as good. And even though Sony staps the Ziess name on some of their lenses or at least used to, they are as much Ziess and the Russian Zenetar or Peling lenses which "stole" Ziess technology after WW2.

[orionz06]

The cameras are getting better and better every couple months it seems, but I would suggest finding a year or two old canon-nikon body and getting a little better glass. The best improvement for me wasnt borrowing a newer camera, it was renting a better lense on an older camera. I shoot a Canon XTi, and it does what I need it to and nothing more. It is noisier than I would like it to be, but it serves my purpose (and the noise can be worked around).

where I didnt skimp was the tripod, I bought a $300 Giottos set up that I will leave to someone in my will. Rock solid and worth every penny.

[PaulL]

I'm a Nikon guy personally. I've been seeing the D90 for less and less money lately, so that might be a good option. It's gonna hit the high end of your budget though. I like it 'cause it has the feel and features of even the highest-end Nikon stuff for a pretty decent price (two adjustment wheels, good high ISO, some video capability, able to use non-AF-S lenses, etc.). It's a crop sensor, so you can get away with some of the cheaper lenses, too. The 35mm f/1.8 is only $200 and the cropped portion of the $130 50mm f/1.8 is pretty dang good. You can do the 17-55mm f/2.8 for $1300 instead of the 24-70mm for $1800, also.

Hope that helps. I can spend WAAAY too much time yapping about camera stuff...

[Brimstone]

I am a Nikon guy as well. I have been using the D90 for over a year now and it has been a phenomenal camera.

Having said that, I have several friends who are professional photographers and all but one uses Canon. Nikon and Canon both make great cameras.

My suggestion would be to go to a store and try both cameras in your hands and manipulate the controls. Usually you will have one brand that fits you better. The Nikon was just a better choice for me because of the button layout and feel of the camera in my hands. YMMV