Dslr

[TN94z]

Great info!! And timely too as I have been getting really interested in photography as a hobby and have just started doing a little research.

I saw video capabilities mentioned above...what kind of fps does these cameras offer?

[zeg]

I would disagree with your opinion on DLSR's shooting video. Currently some television shows and movies are now using Canon 5D's and 7D's in place or addition to their professional cameras. Video has come a long way on DSLR's and it's eventually going to kill the high end consumer video camera market.

Really? I'm a bit skeptical they'd use them for anything other than low-production-value reality-TV style video. I also don't see them replacing high end consumer video; low end I could see, but the form factor of an SLR is pretty uncomfortable for shooting video, even if they address the technical problems I've seen in the consumer-grade SLR video modes (slow, noisy autofocus, lousy microphone, etc). If you really want a video camera, I think you'll want a video camera for some time yet. As a freebie in a still camera, it's great, though.

[newtogolf]

Last seasons season finale of House was recorded entirely with a Canon 5D Mark II

[Koth]

Last seasons season finale of House was recorded entirely with a Canon 5D Mark II

This is true. DSLR video capability is nothing to scoff at.

That said, when I bought my 40D and for any future bodies I purchase, video won't be something I'm looking for. I am personally buying a DSLR to take photos, not video. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but I HIGHLY recommend the next lens you buy be the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D ("Nikkor" is the manufacturer name Nikon uses for their lenses). It's a VERY sharp lens and has great low-light capabilities. It will be noticeably sharper than the kit lens you get with the body. It's only about $100 so buying it has always been a no-brainer, but don't let the low price detract you from the quality of the glass. It has a plastic body to keep the price down, but you're getting a very sharp lens. Also, for photo editing, I use Lightroom almost exclusively. The interface is so much more friendly to photographers, and there is very little it can't do. It's just faster and easier to use than Photoshop.

[wrx_junki]

I guess I'll have to get myself familiar with Lightroom. Looks like I won't opt for the lower price D3000 and go with either a D3100 or D5000. So I shouldn't get the 55-200mm VR lens with the package and wait til later for an upgrade on the lens.

[newtogolf]

The 55-200mm will actually be 88-320mm on the D5000 and 82-300mm on the D3100 so you'll have to decide if it's too long or too short for what you want to do. It's a good all around lens, though a bit long for some indoor shooting, and not quite long enough for sports or wildlife. Lenses like this typically lose focal quality at the both ends, so your probably looking at a usable range of about 100 - 275mm. It's also an F4-5.6 which is a bit slow and will require you to shoot with a flash or tripod when shooting in less than ideal lighting conditions to maintain a reasonable shutter speed.

[zeg]

What newtogolf says about the 55-200 lens is spot on. If it's what you need, it looks like a great deal, but it's not necessarily the lens you're looking for.

[newtogolf]

Great info!! And timely too as I have been getting really interested in photography as a hobby and have just started doing a little research.

The 5D and 7D can shoot Full HD 1080p video at 30fps and HD 720p at 60 fps

[wrx_junki]

Guess, I was just thinking about throwing it into the package since it was only a $100 upgrade. If I decide to buy it later on, then it'll cost me $180.

[TN94z]

Where are you looking at the packages? Are you buying new or used?

[newtogolf]

Guess, I was just thinking about throwing it into the package since it was only a $100 upgrade. If I decide to buy it later on, then it'll cost me $180.

There's nothing wrong with having a lower cost general purpose lens. I bought the Canon 28-135 kit lens with my 50D when I upgraded from the Rebel XS. It's not a bad lens, but now that I have better lenses, I never use it.

If you believe you have a use for the kit lens or you just want a cheap lens to use to learn the camera, then you should take advantage of the price discount. If money is tight, the lens isn't ideal for what you want, and there's a better lens you want to purchase with the camera then you should apply the $100 towards the other lens.

[darkhunter139]

Guess, I was just thinking about throwing it into the package since it was only a $100 upgrade. If I decide to buy it later on, then it'll cost me $180.

Is it the VR version of the lens? I would absolutly buy it if so. I have it and it is my favorite lens, for $100 you cant go wrong. If you are planning on doing any type of outdoor photography I would get the 55-200mm for sure. It is one of the best zoom lenses for under $200. If you wanted to go for a faster or longer lens you will be looking at $400+ at least.

All of the photos on my flickr were taken with either the 55-200mm or 18-55mm (With the exception of 2 or three that were taken with a 35mm f/1.8) I know they are not the best shots in the world but its something to check out. (Body used was a D40) http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkhunter139/

[Mac62]

I guess I'll have to get myself familiar with Lightroom...

Go to Adobe's site and download it - you get a 30-day free trial, so there's nothing to lose.

...So I shouldn't get the 55-200mm VR lens with the package and wait til later for an upgrade on the lens.

For a $100 addition to your kit, I wouldn't pass it up. I can tell you that I definitely wouldn't be without something longer than 55mm in my gear bag - it really limits your opportunities. Play with it and see how it works for you....if it's good enough, you got a good price on a lens. If it's not and you want something more, you can sell it and put the money toward an upgrade. There are certainly better lenses out there, but go online and price a 70-200 f/2.8 and you'll probably be surprised by the price difference. In the Canon line, the 55-250 IS (Image Stabilization) costs about $200; the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS will set you back around $1900. The Nikon version is $2000-$2200. Is it a better lens? Undoubtedly. Will it allow you to shoot in lower light? Yup. Is it worth over 20 times what you'll pay for the 55-200? Only you can answer that question.

BTW - I just looked up the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8, just for kicks - price is currently showing a tidy $7,498!

[wrx_junki]

Where are you looking at the packages? Are you buying new or used?

New and un-refurbished. Newegg was having a sale but seems to have sold out now. D5000 with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses would have been nice for $660.

Also, anyone heard of the company Tamron? Tamron lenses were on sale @ Newegg as well. A 300mm for $180 and a 18-200mm for $170.

[darkhunter139]

Adorama.com has some good deals on refurbished D5000's a lot.

[TN94z]

Adorama.com has some good deals on refurbished D5000's a lot.

I have been looking at this site...actually the only site I have looked at so far.

[darkhunter139]

I have been looking at this site...actually the only site I have looked at so far.

They are really good, I have bought most of my camera gear from them.

[Mac62]

I have been looking at this site...actually the only site I have looked at so far.

Adorama and B&H; are both solid, reputable sites that offer fair prices on

legitimate equipment. There are a lot of online camera merchants who offer "too good to be true" prices, but will then try to upsell you a kit with a bunch of overpriced junk in it to make up the difference. If you don't want to buy all their junk, they "suddenly" don't have the camera you wanted in stock. Just as with buying anything else, if the price looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Also, anyone heard of the company Tamron?

Yep. Their lenses are generally of very good quality and some are significantly less expensive than OEM lenses.