Digital SLR Camera's

[PaddyHarrington]

Hi

I am in the market for a new DSLR,Actually it will be my first one.
As it is I have a Sony Cybershot 8.2mp digital camera but I want to take the next step up especially now that I am getting married in September and will be going to New York and Las Vegas on Honeymoon so I want something good.
I will have about €400 to spend which is around $545 american dollars.

Has anyone any experience with these cameras and what would you recommend for a DSLR virgin like myself.
I was looking at the Canon 1000D which I can get on ebay for about €350/$475,with a 18-55mm stock lens and liveview on the LCD.
Thats another thing I don't understand..the lens!,I presume the stock lens isn't going to be top quality,I want something that will enable me to take panoramic pictures and normal every day pictures and also something that will let me take good night time shots like for example a city skyline at night.

I am not opposed to buying 2nd hand or refurbished,also I would like livewiew on the LCD as I am use to it on my normal digital camera but is liveview really necessary with a DSLR? I can get a Nikon D3000 on ebay for €288/$391 with the 18-55mm stock lens but with no liveview

Thanks for any advice.

[rudygu]

Hi

Live View on a DSLR is a totally different experience than on a point and shoot digicam. It is useful when working on a tripod and can help when taking shots at odd angles, but in my opinion its usefulness is a bit limited for these things if it's not accompanied by an articulating screen. The problem with using liveview on a DSLR is slow autofocus...usually a good bit slower than an average point and shoot.

If liveview is a really important feature for you I would recommend looking into a Micro 4/3 camera. They use interchangeable lenses and have large sensors (pretty close to the same size sensor as the Canon and Nikon you mentioned) but offer much, much better autofocus performance than any pure DSLR in liveview. The downside with these cameras is they lack an optical viewfinder...they are liveview all the time. This means they are not very well suited to shooting fast moving action...the screen will blank out each time the shutter closes to take the shot, so it's difficult to track action with them. Only two companies currently produce Micro 4/3 - Olympus and Panasonic. They use very similar sensors (but process their images differently in-camera) and both brands have very good image quality, but Panasonic's autofocus is a good bit quicker. I believe the Panasonic G1 can be found close to your budget, but camera prices can fluctuate wildly with new releases, etc. so I'm not positive. Samsung recently launched a competitor to Micro 4/3, the NX10, and from everything I've seen it looks to be a very good performer as well.

[iacas]

Only two companies currently produce Micro 4/3 - Olympus and Panasonic. They use very similar sensors (but process their images differently in-camera) and both brands have very good image quality, but Panasonic's autofocus is a good bit quicker. I believe the Panasonic G1 can be found close to your budget, but camera prices can fluctuate wildly with new releases, etc. so I'm not positive. Samsung recently launched a competitor to Micro 4/3, the NX10, and from everything I've seen it looks to be a very good performer as well.

The sensor sizes are still smaller, and the problem with buying into that system is that if you progress, you're stuck with lenses you likely aren't going to be using on your later cameras - a Canon or a Nikon (both of which offer cameras with Live View).

Paddy, I'm going to send you a PM about DSLRU. Have a look.

[rudygu]

The sensor sizes are still smaller, and the problem with buying into that system is that if you progress, you're stuck with lenses you likely aren't going to be using on your later cameras - a Canon or a Nikon (both of which offer cameras with Live View).

I agree with you. I shoot a Nikon D5000 and find that it's live view is pretty nice in certain situations, but it's not what I'd want if I planned on shooting in liveview most of the time. I was just pointing out that liveview on a DSLR is not really equivalent to liveview on his Cybershot. If you really want an interchangeable lens camera that performs on par with a p&s; in liveview, there aren't many choices.

[iacas]

I agree with you. I shoot a Nikon D5000 and find that it's live view is pretty nice in certain situations, but it's not what I'd want if I planned on shooting in liveview most of the time. I was just pointing out that liveview on a DSLR is not really equivalent to liveview on his Cybershot. If you really want an interchangeable lens camera that performs on par with a p&s; in liveview, there aren't many choices.

Yeah, obviously. The only time I use Live View is when I'm shooting video.

[B Keller]

What is DSLRU?

For what its worth, I use the first generation Canon Rebel DSLR in my line of work. It does what I need it to do, uses CF cards, good price, and very durable.

[iacas]

What is DSLRU?

http://tinyurl.com/yefb6sz

For what its worth, I use the first generation Canon Rebel DSLR in my line of work. It does what I need it to do, uses CF cards, good price, and very durable.

Agreed. Heck, you could even pick up a used 40D or something for a really good price.

[PaddyHarrington]

So really livewiew is not that important?
I can pick up a Canon 350D for €200/$272 with a 18-55mm and a 50mm lens on ebay from a guy in Dublin?
It has no liveview but would it be a good start for me on the DSLR scene?

[iacas]

So really livewiew is not that important?

Did you read the article at DSLRU?

[PaddyHarrington]

Iacas..

Just logging on now,thanks for the invite

[zeg]

I've got a Canon T1i (I think it's 500D in Europe) with the 18-55 mm lens. The lens will be fine for most of what you want to do, but is decidedly not a good low-light lens. If you're coming from a P&S; it's going to be far, far better (once you learn to use it, though the auto modes are pretty good), so I would not bother with other lenses until you know a bit more about what you're doing. I happened to prefer the Canon option, but Nikon has virtually identical offerings, so either way you'll be fine.

As for Olympus, Sony, Pentax, etc, they apparently have fine options as well. It's true, as was mentioned above, that they don't have as wide a high-end selection of lenses, so you run the risk of having to start over if you ever get to a point where you really want to upgrade seriously. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about that anyway unless you're planning on dropping many thousands of [currency units] right away. The cost of what you spend now is going to be pretty negligible if you really start talking about investing in $1500 lenses.

[rudygu]

http://tinyurl.com/yefb6sz

Used 40D's are going for great prices now, but I haven't seen any that would fit in the budget Paddy mentioned. If one could be found that fit the budget, it would be a GREAT purchase.

I just bought my D5000 and 18-55 VR from Adorama for $525, refurbished by Nikon - I think that special is over, though. I think a Canon 450d w/ 18-55 IS should be doable and could maybe add the cheap Canon 50 f1.8 for low light. It may even be possible to find a refurbished or used 500d within that budget now that the 550d has been announced. Both the 450d and 500d have live view.

[PaddyHarrington]

What about the Canon 350D,It's about 4 years old now,but I can get one for €200 with a 18-55mm lens and a 50mm lens.
Has technology moved on that much in 4 years? I think I could probably live without the liveview

[PaddyHarrington]

Ok so I can get a brand new Canon 1000D with the stock 18-55mm lens from a online shop in England for under €400....Good deal?

[zeg]

IMO you can definitely live without the LiveView.

Either the 350D or 1000D should be a fine camera. At €200 it'd be fairly hard to turn down the 350D with 18-55 and 50mm. If it's used, though, you might want to find out how heavily it's been used. The shutters on these things do wear out, so after 4 years of heavy use it could be nearing its limit (I don't think canon really rates them on their consumer cameras, but IIRC it's expected they'll survive to ~50,000 exposures and after that it's hard to say). I assume the 50mm is the 1.8 from Canon---if so, it'll fill your need for low light/night photography perfectly. Not an expensive lens (~$100 US new) but from what I understand it's well worth having. The only issue with it is that on the crop-sensor cameras it's a moderate telephoto, so it's not quite as ideal as a 28mm or 35mm would be, but that's really picking at nits.

One thing that I didn't like about the 350D/1000D was that they don't have a spot meter on them. If you don't know what that means, you may not care, and it's certainly not a must-have feature, but it was part of the reason I decided to move up to the 500D instead. In retrospect, I'd have been perfectly happy had I decided to go with any of these cameras. In your shoes, I'd probably go with the brand new 1000D + 18-55mm and possibly add a 50mm/1.8 (or even the 50mm/1.4 if you can scrounge about a hundred extra €) later if you find the 18-55 isn't doing it for you.

[PaddyHarrington]

No idea what a spot meter is no! I am just learning what all the terminology is and what function they provide on the camera.
So if I go for the Canon 1000D brand new,I wouldn't have to buy much else only the 50mm lens?
My brain is fried at the moment reading about all the different lens that are available.
Would the 50mm be suitable for pretty much most of what I need,as in zoom,wide angle,night time and for weddings etc that will be a step up from the normal digital camera?

Sorry I know I'm asking silly questions but I am reading so many reviews etc I am getting lost,so a bit of advice from a "real" person with experience is what I need.
€400 is a lot of money to be spending so I want to get it right.

Was also looking at the Sony Alpha 330,the thing I like about this is it has built-in stabilisation which I think would be a great advantage,and I see it also does the 50mm/1.8 lens

[zeg]

No problem, it's hard to get into it. The in-camera image stabilization on the Sony and Olympus (and maybe Pentax, not sure) is a nice addition, certainly. In practice how useful this is depends a lot on what you're shooting. If you're outdoors in bright light, you'll never notice it. In low light, if you're taking hand-held (i.e., not tripod) shots of stationary scenes, it'll help reduce blurriness due to camera shake. It won't, however, help stop motion if your subject is moving. On the Canon and Nikon systems, the IS is built into the lenses rather than the bodies. The 18-55mm has it (in some versions, maybe all, not sure), the 50mm doesn't.

With respect to your questions about the 50mm, it will not do any "zooming." Quick terminology check: "zoom" refers to a lens whose focal length can be adjusted. When you swing from wide to tight on your P&S;, you're zooming. Zoom is not the opposite of wide angle: telephoto is. So, to answer your question, the 50mm does not zoom. On the cameras you're looking at, it's a moderate telephoto --- it's going to give a fairly close-up view of what you're looking at. Most photographers would consider it to be a good focal length for portrait shooting when you want to get most of someone's upper body in view. It's also useful for other things, of course, but that probably gives you some idea of its effect. I'd guess it's equivalent to something near the tightest optical zoom on your P&S; (not counting digital "zoom" mode).

IMO, in your budget range, you need the 18-55mm zoom (for Canon; if it's Nikon, Sony, etc, I'm not exactly wure what the equivalent lens is, but it'll be whatever they bundle with the cameras). It'll give you decent wide angle through telephoto focal lengths and will do everything you need outdoors during the day. It'll work for snapshots in lower light situations about as well, maybe a little better than your P&S; (actually your P&S; probably has slightly better low-light optics, but the sensor and processing won't work as well, so on balance the DSLR will win).

So really, I would say get just the camera and the kit zoom and play with it for a while. Find out whether you really need better low-light optics, and whether you'd be happy using the longest (55mm) end of the zoom for the low-light work you want to do. You may find that if you're doing indoor low-light stuff you're going to want something wider---the 50mm won't be very good for, say, indoor group shots.