Ask Engadget: What's the best entry-level DSLR?

Don't worry, we'll get to you mid- and high-enders soon enough, but we've got a feeling this week's Ask Engadget question will appeal to the masses. Granted, we've shot this inquiry out before, but a lot has happened in the DSLR realm in 3.5 long years, wouldn't you agree?

"Summer's coming up, and that means vacation time. I want to get an entry-level DSLR in order to best capture some of my upcoming adventures, and while I'd like to keep the cost low, I'm not against spending a bit of cash to get a really solid setup. What camera (and maybe even what lens) would your readers recommend for a newcomer?"

Go easy on the guy -- he even admitted that he's fresh to the game -- but don't hold back on explaining your answers in order to really give a good idea of why one camera is a better pick versus another. Right after that, send in a question of your own to ask at engadget dawt com -- but make it good, alright?

[techk8 @ May 29th 2008 6:33PM]

Nikon D40? I don't know, DSLRs aren't my type of thing.

[Richard Hendrix @ May 29th 2008 7:03PM]

actually, it would be the Nikon D60 now ;)

[Richard Lai @ May 29th 2008 7:08PM]

Yep, D60, but D80 would be a better investment for the long run.

[chris @ May 29th 2008 7:19PM]

tech8, why would you comment if DSLR's aren't your thing? I don't get it, it's like if you were reading an article on Reuters about foreign policy and they asked for comment, and then you saw my comment at the top saying "I don't know much about foreign policy, not really my thing --chris."

Seriously, come on ...

[mark @ May 29th 2008 7:12PM]

Yep, although you may think you want a DSLR, think first if you're prepared to lug it around everythere.
I used to have a Sony T1 which permanently lived in my pocket and i was constantly taking pictures.
Upgraded to a Canon 400D year and a half ago and i'm now taking far fewer pictures simply because it's a pain in the arse to take it with me everywhere.

Some of latest generation of consumer cameras are getting really good - nearing the quality of low end dslrs. Worth thinking about

[Jongscx @ May 29th 2008 9:15PM]

You mean D40X?

I'd say it's good, has a lot of documentation on "how do you do... [blank]" because of its age, and has had probably all bugs worked out through firmware patches, etc...

Plus, it's SD-based... a 2-gig for $10 = 800 really big/detailed pictures..

[Mehul @ May 29th 2008 7:45PM]

Sorry to break the D60 party but the Canon XSi is WAYY better for just $100 more. Here are some of the reasons why:

Better noise reduction at high ISOs
Larger screen with live view
9 point auto focus compared to 3pt in Nikon
Faster
RAW editing software included (Nikon gives a trial version)

Dont get me wrong. Both cameras will give you great picture quality but in the entry level DSLR category, I'd go with the XSi. I do admit that D60 has a better grip and better textured plastic.

[techk8 @ May 29th 2008 8:15PM]

@chris
Sorry man. I'm just trying to help, that's all.

[NicholasN @ Jun 7th 2008 4:19AM]

I would definately suggest the Pentax K20D. It has a much better build quality than the Canikons, more seals and more megapixels and is very well featured. It has inbuilt Shake Reduction so you won't have to pay top dollar for new lenses (Canon and Nikon have image stabilization in the lens therefore they are more pricey).

[Josh Warner @ May 29th 2008 9:52PM]

I honestly believe Nikon has Canon bested in the ways that count (usability, features mapped to buttons & in easy to access parts of the customizable menus, Auto ISO that just works), but I'm a D200 user. Canon may have a few advantages in sharpness if you're printing at 16x20 or larger and looking with a magnifying glass, but nobody cares about that. I pick up a Nikon, and I start taking good pictures. Canon has no functioning equivalent to Auto ISO, white balance controls buried in several levels of non-customizable menus, etc.

That having been said, I recommend the older D50 above the D40(x) or the D60, as that camera still mounts, meters, and autofocuses with any AF nikon lens.

The D40(x) and D60 will only autofocus with the new AF-S lenses with internal motors; this is a pretty big blunder on Nikon's part IMO. A lightly used D50 will be as cheap or cheaper than a D40(x) and will give results just as good.

[Mehul @ May 29th 2008 10:51PM]

@ Josh
Maybe you wanna take a second look at a Canon. ALL Canon DSLRs have had a dedicated WB and ISO button since the original Rebel. They all also have Auto ISO. Nikon D40x/D60 on the other hand do not have any of these dedicated buttons. You're talking in terms of D200 which is not an entry level camera and D50 is old.

Here is a link to compare all entry level DSLRs
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page4.asp

[Boostjunkie @ May 30th 2008 12:32AM]

Why is the guy that said that a DSLR is too big to lug around highly ranked? If you want to be into photography, you HAVE to get a DSLR. I take far more pictures with my Nikon D80 that I ever did before. The quality is so much better, if you are willing to learn the camera. If you don't understand why a DSLR is so important for photography, then you shouldn't be commenting on this subject anyway. I have a special backpack for my camera, it goes with me everywhere, even hiking for miles up mountains. It's just a necessity, you learn to deal with it.

[Alan @ Jun 1st 2008 11:03PM]

@Mehul:

Canon Rebels do not have an Auto ISO setting in creative modes that changes ISO sensitivity according to current lighting setup. I however don't think this is really necessary.. if you want the camera to automatically set things for you, use the automatic setting and it will do Auto ISO on both Canons and Nikons.

As for white balance, I think he is referring to adjusting and fine-tuning white balance settings, not changing the white balance preset (fine tuning RGB values instead of changing WB presets like kelvin, flourescent, cloudy, incadescent, etc). Personally for me white balance is very easy to fix in post-processing if a white balance preset does not do the trick.

[Hero @ May 29th 2008 6:34PM]

Wait till June and get the Olympus E-520

[Hero @ May 29th 2008 6:55PM]

This is a preview to the E-520, it comes out in June. The 510 has won a number or rewards and high rating. The E-510 retails for $550 or so, the 520 will be similar and it comes with a great lens. 510 was one of the best purchases I've made.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08051301olympusE520.asp


Here is the Olympus E-510 review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/

[ChrisH @ May 29th 2008 7:03PM]

I got the Olympus E-510 for Christmas with the 2 lens kit, and now you can find it for $600, which is an incredibly good deal. It's a great size, and I get incredible pictures out of it whether I'm at home, or taking pictures at a triathlon or of a concert. Compared to Canon/Nikon you'll get built-in IS, and two lenses in a smaller size. You will have a smaller selection of lenses to pick from later, but the selection is growing, and the Olympus lenses are amazing quality as well.

[chadow @ May 29th 2008 8:26PM]

I'd recommend the Olympus E-510 or the new 520. I paid $549 for the 2 lens kit a while back, and it was by far the best DSLR for that price then, although it now seems to have gone up $50 or so. Still an exceptional camera at a great price.

[Spencer @ May 29th 2008 11:41PM]

I got an Olympus E-410 for Christmas, and my primary reason for picking that camera is that it was the smallest available - I wanted to have a DSLR that I could carry with me every day. Admittedly, the manual focus isn't as nice as on my father's EOS 300D, but if you're getting started, surely the most important thing is practice, practice, practice - in which case, buying a camera that you can actually carry around all the time makes a lot of sense. (I take mine in my bag with me everywhere)

[You @ May 29th 2008 6:34PM]

Canon EOS 450D. Next?

[StephenD @ May 29th 2008 7:09PM]

I'm with you You

[PhatheadWRX @ May 29th 2008 8:48PM]

+1 its hell of a camera with a ton of room to grow as your skill grows.

Its my first dslr and I've produced some amazing pictures in the week and a half I've owned it.

I also suggest a "nifty fifty" (Canon 50mm 1.8). You'll need the speed for indoor shots and its super sharp. A real steal at under $90

[Genuis Bartender @ May 30th 2008 5:09PM]

Canon 450D without a doubt.

[unmai @ May 30th 2008 10:57AM]

Go Canon.

[aaron @ May 29th 2008 6:34PM]

I have no advice(never used one) and I just recently ordered a Nikon D60. Hope I made the right decision.

[Jake Hershman @ May 29th 2008 6:34PM]

Nikon D40x

[Ed @ May 29th 2008 7:41PM]

It's what I've got, along with 2 lenses and a flash. However, the D60 is out now, which is the successor to the D40 series, so unless you find a good price on a decent used one I'd go with D60.

[Stace @ May 29th 2008 8:10PM]

A 1200 dollar camera is entry level?

What kind of crack are you smoking? Well, the expensive kind, I guess.

[Ed @ May 29th 2008 10:07PM]

$660 with one kit lens at newegg, actually. I'm wondering what kind of crack you're smoking.

[Nick K. @ May 29th 2008 6:35PM]

Try the Canon XSi.
You can save a few hundred by going with the XTi, I have a black-body XTi which has been awesome this past year, but with the XSi you get anti-shake lens and such in the starter pack. :]
Have fun with your DSLR!!!

[Luke @ May 29th 2008 6:35PM]

Nikon D40 or Canon Rebel. Since you probably have no lenses the choice is yours.

[Prezzie @ May 29th 2008 6:35PM]

Digital Rebel XTi no doubt, especially now that the XSi is out, so you might start to see some deals on the XTi.

[Josh @ May 29th 2008 6:37PM]

I would love to know this as well. I have never used a SLR or DSLR camera and I would like to get into it for pictures of my family and such. I have held back though because I know nothing about different lenses or things like ISO and exposure. It all just seems so daunting.

[You @ May 29th 2008 6:37PM]

Oh, you want to know which lens to get also. Canon EF 17-40mm f4L + EF 50mm f1.8.

[Michael @ May 29th 2008 11:43PM]

Josh
A lot of these DSLR's have full auto mode on them that you can start out with. Then you can start switching on one manual mode at a time and really learning how to use it.

If I had to create a pecking order of which manual modes to start with first it would look something like this:

Full Auto (then)
Manual focus (then)
ISO (then)
Aperture (then)
Shutter (then)
Exposure bracketing
then things like add on flashes and so on.

Take your time and learn each one until you feel comfortable knowing how to use that manual feature. Sooner or later you'll me shooting in full manual RAW mode for those really serious shots.

It's also very important to learn post production process like photoshop.
Sometimes shots that don't look like much can really be brought out with good photoshop skills. Using levels, color correction, color grading, exposure, cropping and so on.

If you are hesitant about spending big bucks, I'd recommend finding a lightly used original Canon Digital Rebel (also known as a 300D) on ebay. They can be found with a lens for around $200 or so. Just make sure it's in good condition and ask if they know how many shutter accuations it has on it. These is how many pictures the camera has taken. Alot of these cheaper entry level DLR's are only rated up to 100,000 or so for a lifetime.

[Michael @ May 29th 2008 11:46PM]

Josh
A lot of these DSLR's have full auto mode on them that you can start out with. Then you can start switching on one manual mode at a time and really learning how to use it.

If I had to create a pecking order of which manual modes to start with first it would look something like this:

Full Auto (then)
Manual focus (then)
ISO (then)
Aperture (then)
Shutter (then)
Exposure bracketing
then things like add on flashes and so on.

Take your time and learn each one until you feel comfortable knowing how to use that manual feature. Sooner or later you'll me shooting in full manual RAW mode for those really serious shots.

It's also very important to learn post production process like photoshop.
Sometimes shots that don't look like much can really be brought out with good photoshop skills. Using levels, color correction, color grading, exposure, cropping and so on.

If you are hesitant about spending big bucks, I'd recommend finding a lightly used original Canon Digital Rebel (also known as a 300D) on ebay. They can be found with a lens for around $200 or so. Just make sure it's in good condition and ask if they know how many shutter accuations it has on it. These is how many pictures the camera has taken. Alot of these cheaper entry level DLR's are only rated up to 100,000 or so for a lifetime.

[David W. @ May 30th 2008 3:14AM]

Theres a huge argument between Canon and Nikon, which for entry level shooters means nothing. I shoot with a D40 and absolutely love it, it's my first SLR and everyone is amazed with the quality of pictures that come outta that thing. If you want some examples:

http://davidwixom.smugmug.com

99% of the pictures are there are taken with my D40 :)

Hope this helps ya!

[Hotrod @ May 30th 2008 6:53AM]

Josh I copied this a while ago from somewhere that I can't remember, it really helped me and I hope it will help you too. (Props to the original poster of this)

"Basics of Aperture, Shutter speed, and Exposure;

Aperture refers to the size of the opening of the iris, the smallest, changeable opening that light passes through in the lens. It is expressed as a fraction of the focal length, so at f4, the aperture diameter is 1/4 the focal length, i.e. a 100mm lens at f4 has an iris diameter of 25mm. This is why a smaller aperture number actually means a larger aperture.

The aperture effects the amount of light that gets through the lens, every "stop" (f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32, f44, f64, f88, f128) of aperture means a doubling or halving of the amount of light that gets through the lens: if you go down the scale (to a lower number) the amount of light is doubled, if you go up the scale (to a higher number) the amount of light is halved.

Aperture also affects depth of field, the amount of the frame that is in focus: at a lower number, depth of field is shallow and not much behind or in front of your subject is in focus, at a high f number, depth of field is greater and more is in focus.

Exposure refers to how much light reaches the sensor or film, it is affected by both aperture and shutter speed (the amount of time that light is hitting the sensor/film). To keep the same exposure at a lower f number, you double the shutter speed once for each stop, to keep the exposure at a higher f number you halve the shutter shutter speed once for each stop. For example, 1/400 sec at F2.8, 1/200 at F4, 1/100 at F5.6, 1/50 at F8, and 1/25 at F11 are all the same exposure. If the camera gives a picture too much exposure, then yes, the shutter was left open too long to give good exposure at the current aperture."

This will all make sense to you if you actually have a DSLR in your hands. I was so glad when I first got a DSLR, and so upset because I wish I would have gotten one earlier. Point & Shoots seem so inferior to me now. Good luck!

[mark @ May 29th 2008 6:45PM]

I reckon the 17-40 is overkill if you're only just starting out - the new image stabalised kit lens is fantastic and covers the same range.

The 50mm 1.8 prime is a fantastic portrait lens and the biggest bargain in the world (first lens i brought for my camera) so is deff a must have

If he's got a bit of cash he'd be better off getting the 10-22mm for vacations as having the wide angle is great for scenery

[Celebrity Poker @ May 29th 2008 8:04PM]

I'd definitely just buy the body and a lens or two, but I'd go with the 35mm f2, it doesn't have USM and it's not quite as fast, but I like it better than the 50mm. It's smaller, seems sharper, and it's closer to normal and it seems much more useful. I recently got the 10-22mm and I think it's more advanced that a novice would want. I have a hard time taking good pictures with it, and I'd go for a telephoto-zoom (like to 70-300) or the 100mm macro. I have the 17-85mm zoom that was the alternate kit lens for the XT, and I like it, but it's dog-slow and wish I had known enough to save up for the 24-70.

[gkpgkp @ May 30th 2008 1:26AM]

right on the money. this is my walk about lens setup. the 50 1.4 is beyond compare and the 17-40L beautifully handles the rest.

i have had the the XT, XTi, and am now waiting to purchase the 5D MKII. image quality on the canon cmos sensor with digix processors will always please you.

best part about the rebels are their price to performance ratio. These cameras will shoot pro shots. Especially once you graduate up to using and maximizing the manual settings.


my recommendation for anyone is going to be the XSi.

[Kris S. @ May 29th 2008 6:38PM]

The Pentax K200D.

[ingus @ May 29th 2008 7:04PM]

or the Pentax K100D Super from last year...

[thiel @ May 29th 2008 7:35PM]

If you can get a k100super, otherwise the k200 with the Pentax kit lens MkII. Fantastic value.

[mdekkers @ May 30th 2008 2:01AM]

Yup - Pentax is an awesome entry level camera that is extremely solid, and will last for a long time. It has all the features of more expensive camera's, very nice optics, and as for almost everything else, well, if you are serious about a DSLR you would shot in RAW format.

[ankit @ May 30th 2008 3:58AM]

Problem I have with pentax's entry level cameras (at least the K100D) is the lack of a dedicated ISO button. I have the K10D and love it, but sadly I don't think the K100/K200 is the "best" entry level camera.

[Citrico @ May 29th 2008 6:39PM]

I like my Canon XSi a LOT. Can't recommend it highly enough.

[mark @ May 29th 2008 6:39PM]

Virtually no difference between the canon and nikon since cannon upgraded their kit lens. Both are excelent cameras

Main thing is how they feel in your hands. Go to a store and try them out - It's the only way to choose

[Tom @ May 29th 2008 6:57PM]

The Pentax kit lens is better than both!

[mark @ May 29th 2008 7:02PM]

Never used the pentax so couldn't say.
The advantage of canon and nikon cameras is that they have the biggest second hand lens markets.

[Tom @ May 29th 2008 7:07PM]

Not sure that's true. Canon and Nikon have changed mount systems where as Pentax lenses from the dawn of time (almost) still work with the newest cameras. And don't forget Pentax's reputation for amazing prime glass in the film era.