Ask Engadget: What's the best entry-level DSLR?
By Darren Murph 
posted May 29th 2008 6:30PM
posted May 29th 2008 6:30PM
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?
Sony a200, a300/a350 or Olympus e510/e520. Why? 1) Image Stabilised in camera, don't worry about expensive IS lenses for canikon 2) old minolta lenses for sony are dirt cheap now 3) Oly has best anti-dust by far 4) a300/a350 best live view if you want it. QED.// :)
[ REVISED BECAUSE ENGADGET WON'T PERMIT MORE THAN 3 LINKS,
SO ALL CLICKABLE LINKS TO REVIEWS WERE DELETED ]
3 CLICKABLE LINKS:
http://photo.net/learn/
in the Equipment section of Photo.net, reviews of 40D, Rebel XSi, Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, Canon 10-22mm wide, etc.
http://www.BHPhotoVideo.com/
everything here except the cheaper flash, froogle.google.com for that.
.. The 3rd link is the Photobert Cheat Sheets link, below
I'm trying to submit this so you can cut-n-paste the rest of the "links" in your own browser.
Also, no I don't work for any of these joints, but when people have infrastructure that WORKS, they are happier, own their own worth more, and everyone gains thereby.
===
If you want to do capital-p Photography, then you are beginning a system.
If you just want *better than dinky digicams*,
then entry-level is your *destination*,
not stepping-stone.
Lens, Camera, Cheatsheet,
UV-filter, Lens Hood, Flash-diffuser,
Shooting-harness, Flash Card, Insurance.
---
For investment in your lifetime photography, begin with Good Glass.
Your "Walking Around lens" goes from OK-Wide to OK-Portrait-length:
photo.net/equipment/canon/efs_17-55/
$1000 for the lens.
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html
www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955
( or Amazon.com )
---
If you're committed to "capital-p Photography", then
photo.net/equipment/canon/40D/
( because of the Custom modes: you set 'em the way you want 'em. E.G.
Want Aperture with flash, with red-eye-reduction, with image stabilization, etc. set that to one mode.
Set another to no image stabilization, no red-eye reduction, no flash, etc. for wildlife shots from a tripod.
Then you don't have to fuss with menus when you get to one of your habitual shooting moments, just switch to the presets-group you want! )
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html
( or Amazon.com )
Or, if you'd rather save, and aren't interested in going deep, then
photo.net/equipment/canon/rebel-xsi/review/
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542177-REG/Canon_2756B001_EOS_Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html
( or Amazon.com )
---
and a Photobert cheatsheet:
http://www.photocheatsheets.com/
get their general ones, as well as one specific to *your* camera.
---
UV filter to protect the front element,
*without* wrecking the contrast or creating flare, or both,
due to reflections ( this thing is much more cheaply replacable than your $1000 lens, right?
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/132978-REG/B_W_66026942_77mm_UV_Haze_010.html
---
Hood, both protect glass & blocks flare:
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425814-REG/Canon_1244B001_EW_83J_Lens_Hood.html
it's bayonet mount, so that means one doesn't have to "stack" it on a filter, if you're using one.
---
And this flash-diffuser,
so you don't always have that Deer In The Headlights look in everyone
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/522116-REG/Gary_Fong_PUF_RETAIL_Puffer_Pop_Up_Flash_Diffuser.html
---
and this:
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197145-REG/Op_Tech_USA_5301422_Bino_Cam_Harness_Binocular_or.html
It's a harness that stabilizes your camera, using your body as a support-mass, so it isn't just your wobbly arms holding the rig.
---
Sandisk Ultra CF card or SDHC card.
Nothing faster seems worth the money:
for some reason cameras are NEVER made to work the cards at max speed.
WHY? damn stupid design-engineering choices...
You make your own cost/benefit choices, though,
if you find 1/2 price for 4/5 performance isn't your thing:
for 40D:
www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9257
for Rebel XSi
www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9424
---
And, INSURANCE.
Your normal policy may not cover any such stuff!
( airline insurance won't cover any electronics or jewelry, period -
- get your own supplementary term insurance )
===
For beginning, That's it.
This is assuming that you are *investing* in your photography,
rather than spending on snapshots.
If spending on snapshots,
then the Rebel XSi with the "kit" lens is the only choice
$900 for both lens & body:
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542180-REG/Canon_2756B003_EOS_Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html
===
Now for the *later* purchases that fill-out your system,
without costing what the pros pay!
( which is usually $1000-$2000 / lens, up to $10 000 or so )
===
for Wide, $700 ( landscape, architecture )
photo.net/equipment/canon/efs_10-22/
www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=10510
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-USA/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html
===
Now one has true-wide to portrait-length telephoto, so next ...
===
1 flash, either the Metz 58 for Canon ( $400 )
www.metz.de/en/foto-elektronik/metz-mecablitz-modelle/system-blitzgeraete/mecablitz-58-af-1-digital/produktbeschreibung.html
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/472478-REG/Metz_MZ_58311C_58_AF_1_TTL_Shoe.html
or the Promaster 7500EDF for Canon ( $230 )
www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?CatID=150&CatSM=&SubCatID=3&CatName=Electronic%20Flash&SubCatName=Digital%20TTL%20&sm=sm2_1503&dir=&page=PROD&product=7500EDF
www.google.com/products?q=promaster+7500edf%20-ebay&btnG=Search%20Produts
The reason for these two recommendations is,
both are firmware-updatable,
and both have *2* flash-tubes.
Therefore one can aim the main head up at the ceiling,
filling the room with light,
while putting a little "spark" in the eyes of the victims^h^h^h^h^h^h^hSubjects.
for when there's no white-ceiling,
get a BIG cereal-bag ( inner bag from box of cereal ),
blow it up,
& put it over the vertically-oriented big flashhead,
and hold it there with big elastics, using the secondary tube for that eye-spark.
The bag will turn the hard light into a soft/big light,
making your portraits look so nice...
Also get a "shoe cord" so you can hold your flash off to the side for effects
( better portrait photography, off to the side )
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/524499-REG/Dot_Line_RS_0445_Off_Camera_E_TTL_II_Shoe.html
and DO get a DVD on flash-use, or strobe-use.
Learning HOW to work light makes a HUGE difference.
===
Now for "itty bitty creatures, way over there" photography...
===
For wildlife photography, one of the two Sigma -300mm lenses, either the $2500 120-300 f/2.8,
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/407585-REG/Sigma_135101_Zoom_Telephoto_120_300mm_f_2_8.html
or the dimmer 100-300mm for around $1000
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/390170-REG/Sigma_134101_100_300mm_f_4_EX_DG.html
+ one Canon "Extender", either 1.4x ( better images ) or 2.0x ( bigger, but fuzzier ), to give you the ability to get frame-filling shots of birds, or animals, in camping/safari.
& a good tripod, light & quick, to put it on, so you get usably steady/sharp shots!
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/353682-REG/Bogen_Manfrotto_190MF3_190MF3_Magfiber_Carbon_Fiber.html
for the legs ( Manfrotto / Bogen 190MagFiber 3-section legs ), with
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/272449-REG/Bogen_Manfrotto_486RC2_486RC2_Compact_Ballhead_w_Rapid.html
Ballhead big enough to bear the weight of the big lens.
==
Cheers, & hit the Strobist to learn, and
photography.alltop.com/
WOW, amazing post. This is the reason why I like this website, because occasionally people actually say sensible stuff that is incredibly useful. Thanks!
Personally, I can't be dealing with lugging a DSLR around, so went with a (pretty bad) compromise, a Panasonic lumix MDC-LX2, which is the same camera as a leica D-lux3. It's a point and shoot, but can burn RAW image files, and has manual focus option, and you can get a lens adapter for it to allow fitting of filters, fish-eye lens etc. Plus when you want real simple it will just fit in your pocket. It's nowhere near as fancy as a DSLR, but a bit more sophisticated than your average P&S box.
Why do you want a DSLR? Because it's trendy? Or because you believe you will be able to take better pictures?
If you really want a camera that you can carry around while doing all the fun summer stuff, maybe you should consider something a bit more portable like the Canon G9 (or G7). Less money, more likely to fit in a pocket, and will give you as good, if not better pics. You can learn just as much from the G9 as you would a DSLR. If it turns out that photography is your thing, then you can sell it in a few months time and move directly to a 'nicer' SLR.
Your post makes a lot of sense. I just don't see people carrying a SLR around while they're on a trip to Cedar Point. A G9 is a top notch point and shoot, and to me a SLR is more for professionals or a hobbyist.
My vote will go to the well-equipped Sony Alpha A200/300 or the tiny Olympus E-420.
Sony Alpha Range from 200 to 350
- nice features (most time better than their counterparts)
- great price
- included antishake
D40x and buy the best lens you can afford. Camera bodies get replaced every few years but lenses last a lot longer. Nikon has better glass but it's also a bit more expensive.
Lenses also have better resale value so it's easier to recoup your investment if you decide digital SLR isn't your thing.
I just picked up a D40 and so far I'm liking it. I know it's not the very best by any means but I got the body, 18-55, and 55-200 for $600 altogether. As someone who has only used other people's DSLRs up until now, I am the very definition of entry level. I wanted something that I could learn with but that would not cost me a fortune for the body and a starter set of lenses. I could have tacked on another $200-300 and gotten the next best thing but for my entry level purposes of learning to take good digital photos, the D40 fit the bill and fit my budget.
Hands down the best DSLR is the Nikon D300 for the semi-pro market!
Sony Alpha 350 --> Live View system is the simplest and fastest to use on any DSLR!
The new Sony DSLR's with live view, the Alpha 350 and 300 are killer little beasts.
A real photographers camera.
Normally I don't post any comments on these boards, but since I recently bought an "entry-level" DSLR, I feel compelled to make a couple of comments. First, I ended up buying the previous model Pentax K10D - 10.1 megapixels. The release of the new K200 and K20 had the beneficial effect of lowering the cost of the K10. With rebate, I ended up getting a "prosumer" model for about $500 (without kit lens). The Pentax has a dedicated RAW button, weather sealing and built-in shake reduction. I have access to older Pentax lenses, so that influenced my decision a bit.
I would advise looking closely at the included pieces with any of these DSLRs. I found that the K10 uses a very nice rechargeable battery while the K200 (the newer entry level) uses AA batteries. That made a big difference to me.
By going with the Pentax brand, I feel I was able to get a better camera (the "prosumer" K10 over the K100 or K200) for less money than a less-featured, lower resolution Nikon D40x.
One final comment is to speak against the argument that came up in many of the comments. While the optical components are arguably the most important part of a camera, unlike film cameras, the body becomes VERY important when buying a digital camera. With film cameras, you can influence your picture quality by buying "better" film. However, once you buy the body of a digital camera, you are locked into your sensor. The CCD (or CMOS) detector will ultimately determine the quality of your images. Be wary of claimed 1600+ ISO ratings as many digital detectors introduce lots of noise at these levels. You want to read some reviews about the quality of the detector in whatever camera you choose. You can't get better pictures with better glass if you have a crummy chip in your camera. So - the body DOES MATTER in this case.
I would recommend the Nikon D60 or D80. Everyone will argue back and forth why Canon is better than Nikon, why Nikon is better than Canon, then every nowandthen someone will pop up endorsing the Olympus or Sony or Pentax lins.
I would definitely say to stick with either Canon or Nikon if you really want to learn about photography and do a lot with it. For the most part, all DSLRs in the same class can pretty much do the same things and give you the same results... how you get to those results will differ though. I use a lot of customized settings and on all of my Nikons, even my ancient D50 and D70 (now shooting with a D200 and D2X), the ability to set custom settings have always been at your finger tips and not burried in confusing menus like Canon's have been. This may have changed or be about to change, but this is a common complaint from my friends who shoot Canon, it takes them 3 and 4 times as much time and effort to set custom settings as it does for me.
Megapixels don't matter unless you're planning on having poster sized prints made. Megapixels does not mean increased image quality, it means larger image size and gives you the ability to make larger prints without any pixelation/distortion/loss in quality and sharpness. A good friend of mine's mom just bought a used Nikon D70 and right out of the box she's been making excellent images.
I personally believe Nikon's system is easier to use for newcomers. But pretty much you have to decide this for yourself. The best thing I can say to do is go down to a professional camera store in your area, not a Wolf/Ritz or Best Buy, hold the cameras that are in the price range you're looking in, see what feels best in your hand. Are the buttons and knobs in comfortable locations for you, which feels more natural to hold.
Lastly, I definitely would not recommend a camera that has vibration reduction/anti-shake built into the body. The only time VR(nikon) or IS(canon) is really needed is when you're shooting with a telephoto lens. When you're using a normal zoom lens (like an 18-70mm) this feature is pretty much useless and in a lot of cases will actually generate worse images. Plus, I've never seen or heard of a single pro who uses these types of cameras and they don't for a reason.
Get yourself a Nikon D40, not the D40x or D60 if you are looking for a true entry level DSLR. You don't need 10 megapixels, the D40's 6MP is plenty unless you are going to print posters.
The D40 is still in production but with the introduction of the D60 prices have fallen enough to make the D40 an amazing deal. Get the 18-55mm non-VR kit lens, it's very inexpensive and very light so you can keep it on your camera and not worry about banging it around. Watch amazon and you can pick up the D40 w 18-55 lens for $450. I would also purchase the Nikor DX 18-200mm VR lens to have as your good lens when you are ready, this is probably the best all purpose DSLR lens made $ for $ for any mount type. This lens will set you back around $650.
Starting out with the D40 is a great bet, if you decide that you want to be more serious later on, you can then pick up the D300 and have a professional level camera that will work with your d40 lenses, and still have your D40 as your backup camera.
Nikon D40 or D40x.
As simple or complex as you want. $450 is a good entry point too.
A lot has already been said on this, so I'll just add.
Keep in mind with a DSLR you'll need a decent lens. Lenses can cost you more that what you paid for the camera body.
The Canon XSi (aka in Europe as 450D) comes with one of the best "kit" lenses.
It has IS (image stabilization) which you'll need for low light shots and quite good image quality.
The image quality from this lens is actually much better than the kit lens that came with the XTi (400D) and that had no IS.
and keep in mind the kit lens usually comes in a bundle with the camera for a reasonable price.
At least a lot less than buying a separate lens.
I would say go for the Canon 450D/XSi (same camera). I have had mine for almost 7 weeks now, and I have to say, I love it. I have over 2100 pictures taken in that amount of time, and it is going like a champ. The Image Stabalized lense that comes with it, is great. I would go with a Telephoto lense, as well, so you can get some long range shooting in.
It is also the latest in the Canon "low-end" consumer line, so there will not be an upgrade for a few more years.
A little bit of general advice. Go into a camera store, and check them out. Hold them, and get a feel for what you like.
Also, Buy a Canon, or Nikon. The lion's share of "after-market" parts are made for those 2 cameras.
Nikon D80 nuff said
My suggestion is if you only want to buy one lens initially, then I'd first buy the Nikor DX 18-200mm VR lens. As a novice/intermediate level photographer, it'll do everything you'll need. It can go from wide angle to zoon w/o switching lenses -- the hassle you save from having to switch lenses is almost reason enough to buy the lens. Plus, the VR is also great in lower light situations so you won't have to use a flash nearly as much. (I'm a big fan of using natural light whenever possible.) Of course, the one downside of the lens is that it might cost more than the camera body. But you won't need to buy (or carry) two lenses for a while.
try this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
Being a professional photographer can be a handicap in this area. We prefer much higher-end cameras to meet our needs. But I have a famous art photographer friend in Pennsylvania who uses an 8x10 film camera and he used two Digital Rebels for years. He recently upgraded to the D40 because it has compelling features that the Rebels don't. But if an art photographer can do amazing work with Digital Rebels, you can imagine amateurs will be quite happy with them.
But I would also recommend Nikon. They actually sell more DSLRs than Canon does. Although Canon sells more cameras to the pro market, the D300 and D3 have given Nikon some credibility back it's been lacking for some time.
As for mounts, Nikon and Canon introduced their SLRs (and thus their mounts) in the late 50s. Leica did in '63. Pentax has the screw mount for years after that. The introduced their K mount in 1975. Back then the only information that was trasnferred between body and lens was the aperture actuation. There have been eight K mounts in total. Each adding features (and one even being referred to as the "crippled" K mount). So it's utter nonsense to think that the original K mount (which is at least 16 years younger than Nikon's F mount) is more ubiquitous.
Nikon has modified their mount, so that a few of their lenses no longer work with their later bodies (from the late 80s on). And now they're moving away from bodies that have motors to drive the lenses that aren't AF-S.
As for the Canon EF-S line. Those lenses are for the APS-C bodies (the non-full-frame bodies). You cannot mount EF-S lenses on their high end DSLRs. Period. The Canon mount changed in the mid-80s to their autofocus line. A complete break from the past. They lucked out and were able to draw in a lot of pro photographers who could afford to make a break with the past. But they alienated a lot of people too. They either went with Nikon, or stayed with them.
But things have to change. If you want full functionality with any lens on any body (other than for the most part Leica M lenses on Leica M bodies) then you're better off buying new lenses.
Anyway, you can't go wrong with any camera mentioned here when you're just starting out. But the benefit of going with Nikon or Canon is the comprehensive systems they have. Any expansion you want to make in the future, you're already in a system that can accommodate you. No other camera maker can make that claim.
I shoot with high-end Canons at work. The 1Ds Mark II. My personal system for years was Leica SLRs and rangefinders. But now I'm a NIkon guy. Take that for what it's worth. I've been playing with cameras since 1977. And I tend to obsess over my cameras and lenses. (Which explains most of my photojournalism career being shot on the most expensive lenses on the planet.)
well..Eric great comment...
One piece of advice I would like to ask you for...I've been using Canon EOS SLR for about 6-7 years now...its a film camera.
Now I'm looking at a dSLR to buy. For over a year I have Nikon D80 in mind but now with newer models coming in i think this is old. I recently saw Canon 40D but it was huge, hheavy and has more or less the same specs as D80. I like D80 a lot and it fits in my budget and features as well. Would you recommend some other camera or shall I stick with D80?
I am planning on 18-135mm or 18-200mm lens with the D80. What would you recommend?
@ Vidit Bhargava
The 40D is really nice, a friend of mine uses it in his photography business shooting weddings. Another friend of mine uses the D80 for shooting just about anything and everything. (not saying that the 40D isn't capable of doing that, just stating their particular uses) The catch22 with buying a DSLR from one or the other, is that they leapfrog each other each year.
The other catch to buying any DSLR is that it won't be long after you buy it that there will be something else that comes out that is bigger better and faster.
I love my Nikon's (have a D2H and a D200). I bought my D200 and it wasn't even 6 months later that they announced the D300. It's just the nature of the technology. I always tell people to hold each of the cameras that they're considering to purchase, which feels better in hand with a lens mounted on it. The weight, location of buttons, ease of navigation in the menus, etc. The next thing I always advise on is to look at the line of lenses, is there a lens that you would need want that the other doesn't have?
Right now, as far a I know, no other camera maker has a lens equivalent to Nikon's 18-200mm VR lens, I would definitely recommend it over the 18-135mm mostly because there will be times where you will need the extra reach of the 200mm zoom.
To sum it up, buy a camera for the body, stay for the lenses. The body will not retain its value, your lenses will. Buy into a system that you're comfortable with, the feel, the weight, the ergonomics of the controls, and invest in REALLY nice glass. The camera will be obsolete before you get it out of the box, the lenses on either system will last you a lifetime.
ENTRY LEVEL - Nikon D40. It has everything for you to start with.
Being a K100d owner, I will say that I like it a lot.
However...
Without an addon battery pack, getting the fun shots (such as using the bulb option for night photography) is very very difficult.
While aftermarket products exist, I was extremely disappointed in this regard.
Of course I recommend that everyone go to http://flickr.com/cameras/ and see what kind of photos each of the mentioned cameras can produce.
Then again, you'll see some photos done with a Nikon Coolpix which will make you question spending the loot on any DSLR.
Well, right after reading subject it was already clear it's going to be Nikon vs Canon with a little Pentax around. Started reading comments and here you go!
Back to subject, my starter DSLR is Nikon D80 with 18-200 VRII lens. I like it very much. I don't use my Sony T1 for anything anymore. It just does not feel good after DSLR experience.
Personally, I like the D80 a lot right now. Fantastic camera with the ability to autofocus older Nikon lenses and third party lenses. Tokina especially makes some stunning lenses for the ASP-C size sensor, but without autofocus motors built in, potentially leaving you high and dry with the D40/x/60 bodies.
If you don't see yourself purchasing many lenses, go with the D40 for a great budget camera, or the D60 if you want an image-stabilized kit lens.
I'd go with the Pentax. I have a istDL right now which I purchased with the kit lens and HP printer for $350 after rebate. After that I purchased a manual focus Pentax K mount 50mm lens and a 70-210mm lens off of ebay. Can't beat the old glass.
Can't beat the price but I only wish that I had waited for the new Pentax camera with on board shake reduction. Basically any lens you mount to the body will be able to use the benefits of shake reduction in the body. With the other SLR's (Canon, Nikon) you will have to purchase a new lens with shake reduction. This feature might not suit everybody (pro photographers) but I'm a sucker for innovative features like this.
using a Canon SLR right now...yeah its a pain having to get the film developed etc but the pics are just too good.
looking at D80...will probably get it in a month :)
I'm a Nikon D3 user, but I have to say the Canon XSi is superior to the Nikon D60. I'm currently getting a friend of mine to get D80 though.
I also have a Pentax K10D and have been very happy with it.
If there is any possibility you'd want to upgrade in the future, you should look more at lenses than bodies. I prefer Nikon lenses which is why I went the Nikon route. A good lens can last decades, a body not so much.
To be perfectly honest, any entry DSLR will give you great pictures. The composition and lighting matters far more than anything else.
My first DSLR (still using it) is the Sony A100, and is my 4th camera. Pretty good camera for beginners, lenses 18-70, 75-300 are quite suited for a lot of things, from portraits to sports and a whole lot more. One thing I'm disappointed is that the lack of 3rd party add-ons available - you'll have to buy the original from sony for sony stuff, like a remote shutter for example.
When I first got this camera, there were 3 to choose from. All the same price, similar specs (A100, D40x, 400D). But I went for Sony. I just got this feel towards that camera - don't know why exactly.
The CCD sensor is great, but sometimes it can't determine the correct colour temperature correctly - e.g. grass/lawns/golf course, overcast day, results in a kinda blueish, greenish colour photo - but it can be tweaked in the computer - kinda a hassle.
The camera body is light and grippy, I find the grip is better than the A200 and so much lighter than the A700 (but that's what you get for a high-end camera).
The shutter sound sounds like a bit "blunt", "loud" and "woody spring", but they've "tweaked" it for the later models - sounds more pro now. I don't mind about the sound, but it's a distinct noise it makes - kinda stands out from the crowd.
I feel that Sony has been a good brand and even though they just started DSLR a few years ago they've incorporated konica minolta and its technologies very well. Quality is exceptional. Their service is quick and speedy. I have been buying sony for a number of gadgets now.
But overall, I'm pretty impressed by that camera, even though there are now better ones, I'm gripped to this one for a while - until I save up for a newer model :) I am looking forward to a new generation that slots between the A300 and the A700 for my next upgrade.
I just got my Canon EOS 450D a few days ago, and out of all the Camera's I have used, it is my favorite so far. Just like Mark, I upgraded from the Sony CyberShot DSC-T1 which I absolutely loved for the last 3 years.
I have two lenses, the 18-55 AF and a 75-300 Telephoto lens. Both of those do the trick for almost anything I want to photograph. All the options on the 450D make it fairly easy to get the picture you want, especially if you know what you are doing. along with the speed and power that it offers, I think that the XSi is the total package.
I like the Nikon D80 as an entry level DSLR because it can drive the older autofocus lenses and use the even older manual focus lenses.
The D40/D40x can not drive older autofocus lenses.
Having spent a bundle on a DSLR being able to use old, inexpensive yet quality lenses is very nice.
There is no BEST all these companies have great entry level DSLRs pick one that fits in your hand nicely and with the UI that makes the most since to you. All are capable of better than film 11x14s for most situations.
The Sony A200 is the best, at least thats what I think (and a lot of photography webs, like popphoto, tipa, among others).
The A200 features ISO from 100 to 3200 (while the XTi has best performace at highs ISO, it isn't a big difference in reality), IS body, 10.2 MP and it outresolves all budget DSLR in resolution tests, a slightly longer kit lens (and technically wider than Canon equivalent, since sony crop factor is 1.5x and canon is 1.6x) a bigger VF than the XTi and even the XSi, 3 shots per second, DRO and a big 2.7" screen, with histograms along with nicely done interface.
And the D40 sucks, come on, 6 MP are nothing, you can't crop a damn thing from that, I have big crops from my A200 that have a higher resolution than 6, come on.
The D40x is nice, but I certainly prefer the Rebel XTi over it, and the Sony A200 over the Canon, I don't care about the A300 and A350, the small VF is annoying, Live preview is for emergencies it shouldn't compromise something far more important.
For a real beginner, I would recommend the Canon XTi and the Sigma 18-200 OS (stabilized) lens.
You'll eventually want additional lens (the Canon 35 f1.8 is superb regular lens...the 50 f1.8 is too long with the 1.6 conversion factor), and Canon makes some really nice glass.
Not that you would go wrong with a Nikon; it really comes down to personal preference. Go to the camera store and try a bunch of different ones and see which fits your hand the best, make sure your nose doesn't trip any of the buttons, and see which pleases you as a user.
Rebel XSi or even an XTi
I agree the D-50, its the camera I have its a great camera. Lightweight (like 2-3 pounds) and its reliable. My friend dropped it from about 4 feet and it still works perfectly. I also recommend getting a 55-200mm lense and a circular polarizer it makes bueatiful sunset pictures. Good Luck!!
It's hard to say straight up what is the best SLR for your tastes.. it really depends on your own shooting habits. Are you looking have a huge zoom range? Low light capabilities? Are you willing to buy a cornucopia of lenses or would you prefer a do-it-all?
I personally own a Canon SLR and have been relatively happy with it and the choices of lenses that go along with it. Generally, though, people recommend L Series glass, which can get exorbitantly expensive. Personally, i could recommend the XT, XTi, or XSI all as extremely good cameras. The XTi would probably be the best value in my opinion so long as Live View is not a requirement.
Generally, it seems that Canon SLRs have great ISO performance. A downside is the lack of image stabilization built into the body, which Canon (and Nikon) claim that is better implemented on a per-lens basis, driving up the cost of good lenses. As a result, Canon has no versatile "super zoom" lens (something like an 18-200 image stabilized lens), and Canon has IS versions of lenses that are quite a bit more costly than their non-IS counterparts (the 70-200mm lenses, for instance).
Personally, as lenses go, I prefer the mid-range lenses, as they perform optically "good enough" for my tastes, and don't break the bank. I often find the build quality of the low-end lenses unsuitable and not really built to last (plastic mounts, etc)... and the high end is just too expensive. Also I prefer using multiple lenses to do specific jobs rather than one lens that tries to do everything. As such, I like have a low-light zoom lens, which has a smaller range but can shoot in darker situations, a low-light prime lens (for even darker situations), a wide angle zoom, a telephoto zoom, and a super zoom (in the case where I can't bring all this gear with me and can only bring one lens). Generally if I go to shoot, however, i usually end up bringing 3 lenses (usually 3 different zooms, or the low light zoom, another zoom, and a prime)
I have gotten good results from the EF 28-135 IS USM as my super zoom. The EF 50mm 1.4 USM is my low light prime of choice- some say the 50mm is too long on an Entry level slr with a 1.6X Field of View Crop, but I prefer this to the wider angle (Non L series) primes (the 35m f/2 lens does not have a USM drive, and the 28mm F/1.8 is slower for the same price). The EF 70-300 IS USM is in my opinion the ideal telephoto zoom... many make due with the 55-250 IS, or decide to splurge on the 70-200 F/4L (the sharpest of the three)... but none have as long a focal length with IS and USM in the same lens, so that makes it the best value in my opinion. Some also like the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM for its ideal focal lengths and midrange price as a do-everything lens. I also recommend a third party mid range zoom such as the Tamron 28-75 (or 17-50), or Sigma 24-70, as a sharp, low light zoom lens that doesn't break the bank. Also, it depends if wide angle is that much of a concern to you.. I personally would rather shoot wide angle with its own dedicated lens, others feel strongly about keeping the wide angle with their zooms.. as such I personally feel that the 18-55 focal length is too short but has a nice wide angle, and I find myself using the long end more... thus, I prefer a 24/28-xxx zoom lens because of the longer zoom that they afford... (for instance, I much prefer the focal length to the 28-135 to the 17-85).. as for wide angle lenses... the EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 look like fantastic wide angle choices. Another small thing is that if you own any lenses already, you may be able to adapt these lenses to your mount of choice with third party adapters. I use some Carl Zeiss/Yashica mount lenses on my Canon SLR with very good results.
People generally say the best lenses for Canon is the 24-105 F/4 L IS USM, the EF-S 17-55 IS USM, and the 24-70 F/2.8....I have tried these and while impressive, their over $1000 price drove me away from purchasing them outright.
As for any SLR camera choice, though, heavily research the lenses before you buy the camera if you do not already have lenses of any sort. The glass ends up being way more important than the body, and the selection of glass does vary as much as the bodies do....
Nikon seems to also have an ardent following, and I personally prefer their beefier grips and the plastic screen protectors. The D40x, or D60 seem to be very good cameras. However, hearing about the lack of an autofocus drive motor limiting the amount of lenses you can buy is indeed troubling in an SLR... because of this the D80 in my opinion is the lowest cost Nikon SLR that I would contemplate getting.. anything below that would limit your lens choices (some will argue against the practicality of this but of course- this is purely my opinion). Nikon does, however, have an image stabilized super zoom (an 18-200 VR lens), which many people swear by (and Canon has nothing of the sort), and I couldn't help but notice that the 70-300 VR telephoto zoom lens is quite a bit cheaper than Canon's own 70-300 IS USM lens (~$200 difference)...both of which I personally see as being the ideal telephoto zoom in terms of price, size, and focal length...
To throw one more in the mix, Sony's SLRs have looked fairly impressive in terms of value. They have in -body image stabilization, and dust reduction built in. Their newer slrs (such as the A300 and A350) seem to have a very good Live View implementation (if that is important) and ISO 3200.. which makes them probably the most hand-holdable starting Digital Slrs available... whether or not it is recommended to shoot in ISO 3200 is questionable, but the ability to, combined with built in IS, is definitely appealing.
So if I had to sum it up, I would go for the Canon XTi, Nikon D80, or the Sony Alpha a300 as the best starter SLR bodies...and if price is no object, of course the Canon 40D, or Nikon D300 would be the best bet.
Best value entry level camera for the moment would have to be Pentax K200D. IQ to rival Canon 40D and built in image stabilisation and you can also develop into a photographer capable of utilising the superb Pentax Primes.
Just pick it up and try it and you will see just why it is superior to anything remotely near it's price range.
Canon XSi is probably the best entry-level DSLR on the market right now.
I'm always amazed to see recommendations for $1000 DSLR outfits as entry level.
Without question, the new Olympus E-520 is the ideal newbie DSLR. Look for test reports where you can do 1 to 1 comparisons -- Olympus makes the best and lightest lenses of any DSLR maker, bar none, from entry to pro level. Their Zuiko 12-60mm/f2-8-3.5 has no equiv. from any other DSLR maker. Their kit 40-150mm covers the 35mm eq. of 80-300mm, yet is roughly the same size and weight as Canon's 18-55mm! And the feel in your hands of the E-520 is vastly superior to both the Nikon D60 and Canon XSI
Cost: only $700US including 2 kit lenses covering 28-300mm
My entry level setup is as follows:
Canon 30D (purchased body only)
Canon EF-S f/2.8 17 - 55mm IS lens
Canon 430 Speedlite EX flash
It was purchased Spring of 2007 for about $2,800.
Of course I shoot professional boxing and we are not allowed to use flash during the bouts so I had to get the good glass that could shoot in various lighting conditions.
I started with a Nikon D40 and I own a D200. I highly recomend a D60 (D40 news brother).
You know for about $500 if you want to get your feet wet and don't want to drop the money, pick up a Sony a200 DSLR. It is a good solid camera. I wouldn't go crazy on lenses because if you get a higher end Nikon then you will have to start all over.
I have a Sony a200 DSLR and at my work the photo journalists use Nikon D3's (around 5k) and all are Nikon enthusiasts and yeah their shots are great, better than mine for the most part. I have a personal camera, the Sony a200 DSLR and it rocks. Very little noise at 3200 ISO great speed, fast focus, the auto focusing is probably the fastest I have seen.
Ok. It is only $500. It comes with a 18-70mm lens. It IS an entry level camera but it still has the same sensor that all the non-full frames have and it is a 10.2 megapixel. It takes great pictures.
Ok. The bad part. The Nikon's are definitely better at the high end and if you want to get lenses right off the bat and sink a lot of money into it I would start a little higher then and go with the D80. But in all honesty, I doubt you will see any difference in the D80 and the a200, the a200 might just actually pull ahead, barely, at least for me. So, if you are just looking to drop a total of 1k into a camera including extra battery, lens, bag and accessories -- go for the Sony a200. If you know you are going to stick it out and you don't want to be stuck with a lenses you don't need when you upgrade to a better camera, go with the D80 for a little more.