Ask Engadget: Best starter DSLR?
By Darren Murph 
posted July 30th 2009 9:03PM
posted July 30th 2009 9:03PM
"I'm pretty much a complete noob when it comes to camera stuff. My wife loves to take pictures, though. So much so that she literally wore out her first point and shoot camera, and the Kodak Z712 I bought for her less than two years ago is starting to act up as well. To compound the matter, we are expecting our first born sometime next year. I fear the Kodak just isn't going to cut it any longer. What would be the best starter DSLR to get? She hates missing photo opportunities due to camera 'lag' so speed would definitely be at the top of the list. Photo quality and features would be next. Price should be no more than $800 or so. Also, I'm not interested in video capabilities as I would probably get a dedicated device for that."Aw, we've got love for the noobs, Adam! With Nikon's D3000 just announced, we figured this was about as good a time as any to get an updated list of responses for this always-popular inquiry. Be sure to let him know if your entry-level DSLR is doing you right, and feel free to drop those congrats / condolences on the kid while you're at it.
I would recommend Canon Rebel XSi. It is really great!
pentax k200d and spend the rest of your budget on some lenses.
My advice is to get a Pentax K-1000, or perhaps a decent $100-150 Film SLR.
- learn everything about it
- then--and only then--buy yourself a Digital SLR.
There is no point in going "starter" with digital. The technology moves too damn fast, and you're better off putting your money into something advanced, that you like, as soon as you can.
Don't compromise yourself by getting a "starter" $400 DSLR and then buying an advanced one a couple of years later. Go straight for the $900+ ones, but only after you learn the basics on a used film SLR. It's a far more practical solution.
I bought a Canon Xsi and I'm very happy with it. Sisyphus indicated they needed to replace the lenses when upgrading to full frame. Not true. EF lenses work on the cropped bodies. If you upgrade to full frame at a later time, those lenses will work just fine. I'd like a 5D, but Canon needs a new generation that uses SDHC. Compact FLASH is so 1990's. I choose Canon over Nikon simply because I felt the Canon's images were slightly sharper.
only EF lenses will work with FF
nowt wrong with CF
consider CF will soon be upgraded to CFast
Congrats, not only for the baby: You're going to be STUNNED by the difference to point-and-shooters - in picture & build quality, price and heft.
Do get any USED mid-consumer-level body with a used VERSATILE lens. Your money should go into glass.
I did so with a Nikon D80 and the Nikkor 18-105mm lens and was in bliss. Later, I replaced that by a (used) Nikkor 18-200 mm, added a (used) Nikon SB800 flash and a remote. If you tend to go Nikon as well, look at the 'digitorials' on their website: you'll see what dial turning & button pushing you'll NEED TO LEARN. bythom.com is another great website.
Even though all of my stuff now has upgrades (available/announced), the flash will push you over your price limit. But do start with the body&lens - even that is more than my "shot discipline" currently is worth. At least until quasi-instanteneous contrast-autofocus does away with the bulky, noisy and expensive mirror/viewfinder on DSLRs, which is when I'm going to upgrade in a few years.
Yes, that's how good this 'outdated' but one-above-basic equipment is: Yours truly is the limiting factor, you probably don't need more, but I wouldn't look at less.
Still another thought: In case you reconsider your decision concerning video, on the Nikon D3000 it finally sounds usable (but I don't know). Try it out in person - you could buy a flash instead of the camcorder. Most of the time NECESSARY for really beautiful shots inddoors. But this camera body could be limiting, as it's baseline (no competent reviews available currently, IMHO). Therefore I wouldn't go that way now. Do consider: Video editing is a hassle for the author (decreasingly done it since 10 years), no video editing is a bore for the spectator. With the stunning photos you're going to take: I'd get the flash, do picture books, forget video for now...and spend the extra time hugging both 'babies'.
If you're changing between point and shoots to DSLRs then a good transition camera is the Canon Powershot SX10IS. It will do 20x optical zoom and 80x digital zoom, has 10 megapixels and can take pictures quite quickly. Also, it runs on AA batteries, which means that if you are without a charger, you can use AAs which generally last for about a day of constant use (as in turned on all the time). No interchangeable lenses though. It's around $400.
If I went DSLR it would be for the noisefree sensor (compared to P&S) and superior lenses too but mostly the sensor, so I would not be helped with advise towards a tiny sensor camera at that point.
As a parent of small children, I would urge you to reconsider your stance on video. Initially, I had the same opinion as you since a dedicated device can offer you better performance and better quality. However, in practice we never used it. It's impractical to carry around two devices and even if you did carry two devices, kids move so fast that you're guaranteed to miss really cute moments while you're switching devices. If you want to buy a dedicated device for special events or something, that's your call, but I guarantee that if you get a DSLR without video you'll regret it soon after your child is born.
ANY entry model DSLR. Since you will be learning all aspects of manual photography, it doesn't matter about the quality of the glass, or the number of lenses you can get for you body, or if such and such has this or that.
I have a 2 lens kit, but I would recommend getting a 18-200mm lens. I know people will go on about the quality etc, but i've had so many moments in the midst of taking photos that it was bloody annoying to change lenses when you see a shot that you want, but end up missing it.
I was all set for buying a Canon, but at the last minute settled on a Nikon (D40). I have no regrets with my choice, but i wouldn't be fussed with either. It does get harder to change brands once you are familiar with one.
I picked up a refurbished Canon XTi a while back and absoluetely love playing with it. It only cost me $350 for the body and kit lens through Canon's upgrade program. I then bought their 50mm f1.8 lens to play with and it has taken some amazing shots. If you get a good deal on the Canon XTi or the XSi with Kit lens, you get the 50mm f1.8 prime lens all for easily under $800. It's a great wait to start!
Used Nikon D70/80/90, hands down. I shoot Canon and have a pretty big investment in glass, but if I were starting over I'd go with Nikon. IMO, they're a much geekier, photographer-friendly company with better support for legacy lenses. Canon and Nikon both have their pluses and minuses but I think in the last few years the balance has tipped in favor of Nikon.
All Canon/Nikon dSLRs take images that look more or less the same in prints. Really, the D70 or original Rebel were both so good that improvements from generation to generation weren't mind-blowing. Noise got better, but that's about it. What's really important are the ergonomics and whatever bells and whistles you demand.
Used is the way to go. Get a "prosumer" SLR body and not the entry level stuff. The images won't look any different, but they handle 10x better. The bodies are well made and last forever and being one generation behind is FINE once you get to the point where you're treating the camera as a tool rather than an end in itself. You'll still see tons and tons of pros shooting on stuff 3 generations old. Plus it's a hell of a lot easier to manage 6-10MP images than >12mp ones.
.
Olympus e-520, e-620.
e-420 has no image stabilization and is a little on the small and hard to handel side.
Dont get me wrong i have one and i love it, but you need good steady hands to handel a camera with that small of a grip. I also own an e-500 and when i let others use my cameras, they tend to take better pictures on the 500 bacause they can hold the camera steady. (the e-500 is pre IS as well).
I just got the d40x, which upgrades the d40's 6mp sensor to 10mp, for $269 refurbed at newegg. I picked up a refurb 18-55 nikkor lense with vr for $130. Both of these items look and perform as if brand new. I would argue that this is still one of the best entry level DSLR's and you can't beat $400 for body+lens.
Sorry, forgot to mention I got the lens at Adorama.
My vote is for a Sony A330, it can be bought right now for $699 with two lenses. Sony has improved the kit lens for this camera from the A300 (which I own). They have also improved the camera quite nicely from the last model, better menu's-taller flash-larger screen, etc. I have the A300 and love it, I have a sigma lens and a minolta beercan lens and love the picture quality. The 10.2 MP sensor is a very good sensor, Nikon buys this sensor from Sony for their cameras.
Canon 40D great camera if you can find it (Adorama). Easy to use and not as hard as everyone makes it seem. Maybe the 50D which has the Creative Auto Mode but it is a over your budget.
My first (and currently only) DSLR is a Pentax K2000. It was resonably inexpensive. True, the kit lens is kinda flimsy (plastic mount and all), but replacement lenses are cheap and plentiful. Got a very nice 28-200 Tamron zoom off eBay for 80 bucks that I use as my all-around. Pentax primes from back-in-the-day are easily the best glass you can find for the money, bang-for-buck-wise, and they're available everywhere.
I have a buddy who got a Canon XSi, and is very happy with it. I have another buddy who's been doing semi-pro photography for 20 years or more. He just stepped up to a Nikon D90. The D90 is definitely nicer than mine, or the Canon, but it's also in a higher class.
I just debated this myself over the last month and I settled on a Nikon D60 with a Nikon 18-105mm VR lens. I will not be a professional photographer, all I want is something that is better then a point and shoot for pictures of my kids/vacation but with some upside for taking more artistic shots if I am willing to learn.
I was able to get a refurb D60 from Adorama for $330 and the 18-105mm VR lens from Abe's for $250. A very nice kit for $580 and so far I am very satisfied and really impressed.
At full price from a features standpoint the D60 compares to a Canon XS. They both take very good photos and there somethings the Canon is better at vs the Nikon and vis versa. I don't think you could go wrong with either and there would be reasons to choose the Canon over the Nikon but in the end the end I ended up with Nikon for three reasons:
1) It felt better in my had/better ergonomics, this was huge - It is always recommended you pick these up and take some pictures before buying for good reason
2) I wanted a single lens that could do most everything and the Nikon lens was a better deal then any Canon lens and I felt more comfortable with a matched vendor lens then a 3rd party lens (Sigma, Tamron...). Also I don't have any legacy lenses so I could choose any model/manufacturer I wanted.
3) Price, it really matters on an entry level DSLR. I wasn't afraid of a refurb so I was able to save ~$120 over a new body. I couldn't find as good a deal on a Canon refurb and I tried as well as looking at Pentax, Olympus and Sony.
There are things I don't like about either the Canon or Nikon, in lens vs in body vibration reduction and in lens autofocus motor on the Nikon. These strike me as short sighted on Canon and Nikon's, for this Pentax, Olympus and Sony get it right but for what I want to use the camera for in the end it didn't matter.
if you can afford to spend more than you must. The 5d Mk2 may be a bit above entry level (with a modest lens you're looking at about 3000$) but you cannot deny the amazing quality of image, and the fact that with built in 1080p video you're turning home movies into a theatre experience...The fact is 3 grand isn't a harsh investment for a camera that is on par with DSLRs that are 2 and 3 times the price.
Canon XTi.
I'm a professional photographer and I prefer the Canon line... although you can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. The other brands have some pretty big downsides, which I won't reiterate because someone has already listed the pros and cons.
I agree that if he gets Canon, he should get the 50mm 1.8, but it's fixed lens so I think that a beginner should have something more than a fixed lens to work with. It can get quite irritating. Maybe a 28-135 or 19-35 or 18-55.
Main advice: buy a decent, fast lens for everyday shooting. My 28-75mm works great for this. something that is a constant f2.8 if you go for a zoom. The kit lens didn't cut it for me after very long. at least get a good flash that tilts side to side & up so you don't blind the poor kid all the time.
I've always shot with a Pentax SLR. I looked at the others when I went digital but stuck with them. It seems like you get some really pro features at under $1000 - weather sealing, wider overall range of lenses (talk about that in a sec), option to mount grips, & use remotes.
The Canon T1i has video capability, but only shoots HD at like 20 frames/sec. This isn't really useable footage overall. Nikons under the D80/90 have to use the "II" series lenses as there is no focus motor on the body for the older ones. So, there is no option to buy older lenses unless you manually focus them. Canon has had to release firmwares lately for a couple cameras, think their QC is going down a bit. Nikon has gotten better overall, but like to really force you above $1000 pretty fast for silly reasons (AF body motor!)
You'll spend some more overall, but I'd check out your local camera store, not a big box store, a shop that sells cameras.
I went the same route. I have some experience in using manual film based SLRs. After researching a lot online, the choice came down to three cameras, Nikon (D40), Canon and Olympus. I found a great deal for a Olympus E410 , body plus two lenses for 340$ at microcenter (www.microcenter.com). Its an amazing camera. Plus the fact that its got liveview means, for someone upgrading from a point and shoot, it is a natural transition. once you've got used to the settings, you will feel more comfortable switching the liveview off and sticking to the viewfinder.
the e410 has been all the camera i need, but you also get sweet deals on the e520. the fact that olympus always gives you a set of two lenses means you're good to go for atleast the next couple of years or until the bug bites you hard enough to invest in better glass.
Do check out camera reviews at dpreview before you decide on one.
The low-end Nikon and Canon offerings are garbage... toys at best.
Check out the Olympus 620.
haha.. you obviously know garbage about cameras
You've obviously either never held a CaNikon, or an Olympus body.
Go pickup a D40 and tell me with a straight face it doesn't feel like a toy. Even the menu-system looks like it was designed by a toy company (Apple?)
That combined with the fact that Oly kit glass destroys any kit lenses CaNikon has ever produced... the "front" focus ring? Come on...
Finally, the high-end Oly glass kicks the cr@p out of CaNikon lenses. Canon's "red ring" means nothing, even L glass is soft wide open. Not so with Olympus! Go read a review on the 35-100 f2.0. What's that? The CaNikon equiv is 2.8? boohoo
the d40 is not that bad.. the menu is a little different but the camera is made to be affordable. It delivers where it counts and that's in Image quality.
I would never buy kit packages from canon, and I do know olympus has very good ones. I'm just talking strictly from an Image quality standpoint.. If you know how to use a low end slr, it's possible to get results that look indistinguishable from one that cost 2-3x more. After all.. it's just a black box, some nicer than others but the sensors are basically all the same unless you're going into full frame. I guess I'm more concerened with the end result and not what I'm shooting with.
I won't argue which lenses are better but Canon has some great glass for what I like to take photos of.. 35-100 2.0 sounds nice but I'd rather just have a couple nice fixed lenses that are even faster and sharper. there is no right or wrong way to go. I just get frustrated when people think you need the latest and most expensive prosumer slr because it's just not true..
I can make a 35mm film camera out of cardboard that will beat all but the most exspensive digital cameras in image quality
Agreed.
I just wish I could retro-fit a 35mm sensor into my Contax SLR with Zeiss lenses =(
THAT would be a dream come true... a 35mm sensor and a CF card with a little ISO dial. RAW only. I'd love that.
Sony cameras are really Minolta , the Minolta corp has ben the leader in camera technology for the last 40 years or so. they invented the first programmable cameras ,the i maximum series, be for that was auto focus . auto bracket with selectable exposure, the programmable mode dial and others , these were film cameras. however, when Sony developed the dual channel Bionzes processor they knew witch platform to use to introduce this new processor to the the world. Minolta.this led to Sony purchasing Minolta and now we have the Sony camera line. when you are selecting a image creating machine you should look at what tools the machine has on board to create the image with . these basically are , beyond the basic exposure controls, image contrast, image color and resolution. even in the Sony a-100 entry level camera there are 50 different contrast settings plus a dynamic range compensator that will produce amazing hdr looking images. then there is the 12 mp and the 24 mp a-700 and a -900 both have phenomenal image control built in to the these cameras. when you are in the field is when the photographer really need the ability to handle the lighting situation at hand photoshop can only help so much . compair the cameras and you will find that the Sony's are way ahead of the pack when it comes to putting the card in to the computer and having some great images to work with.
I purchased my Canon Rebel XS (1000D) and I've been loving it ever since. A bit slow in continuous shooting but, in my opinion, a very affordable and solid DSLR (online deals FTW) to get into the hobby.
Here's the deal. Pick one that you feel comfortable with. If it doesn't feel good in your hands, you aren't going to use it.
This is the same reason why I returned a D40, and an XSi and ended up getting an Olympus E-520.
Sony a200 is where it's at, at this point.
Refurbished Canon 40D - on Adorama for $699 shipped. or get it in a kit with the 28-135mm IS for $899. That is my recomendation..
Body Only --- http://www.adorama.com/ICA40DR.html
Body w/ 28-135mm IS --- http://www.adorama.com/ICA40DKR.html
both have 1 year warranty
camera is fast, very durable/built well and in your price range.. seems to be exactly what you're looking for
It all depends on the glass you have...
I had Minolta Maxxum lenses so it made sense for me to get a Sony (A100). It was a perfect camera for me at the time. I see newer models, as well as a really nice full frame version. However, since mine is not full frame the normal lenses translate to 1.5 times the listed distance (my 70-200 zoom lens is actually a 105-300 which is a nice perk for sports). I take mostly ice hockey pictures and added a very nice sigma 2.8 zoom to my arsenal. Rinks are inconsistently lit and hockey is so fast that a lens like that is a must. I also like the in camera stabilization.
Here is an example of a hockey pic from my Sony camera (it's 10 megapixel and no additional noise processing was done on it):
http://njhockey.net/revolution/dsc05612xlrg.jpg
The newer Sony's have better resolution and show less grain....eventually I'll upgrade.
That being said...
- if you have a set of lenses, go with that brand...be it Sony/Minolta, Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, or whatever.
- if you don't have any lenses, Nikon and Cannon are your best bet because of the wider availability of lenses for those systems. However, since they use in the lens stabilization, that complicates matters a bit. Also, some low end Nikons (D40 & D60 ) do not have a built in drive motor so that limits the AF lenses available to you. ( )
- if you have to choose between a better camera and better lenses, the lenses should win out (within reason...i.e. the Nikon drive motor issue)
These are just my opinions....other viewpoints are welcome.
Thanks. :)
My choice:
Olympus E-520.
or
Olympus E-620.
Get the twin lens kits. They are great.
Wanting more lenses?
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/#standard
* Olympus 35mm macro (70mm equivalent)
Want one of the sharpest and most distortion-free lenses on earth for macro? Bonus is you don't have to spend an arm and a leg for these kind of quality optics when you buy Olympus.
*Olympus 70-300mm telephoto lens
140-600mm equivalent telephoto that again kicks the competition to the curb for the money you pay. Quite versatile when needing more reach than the (excellent) kit lenses will give you.
Olympus don't bury most-used features behind silly LCD menus, either. Unlike Nikon, Sony, etc. This may or may not be important to you. Their lenses are quite often the best in their class and their kit lenses are not throwaways.
Good luck.
I started with a Rebel XT, while slightly older, it's treated me fairly well. An XSi is very quite possibly on its way.
The nikon D40 is gonna be out of production soon. It also has much poorer low light performance than competition i.e. Canon 1000D/XS. The entire Canon Rebel series will produce better jpeg output than even the Nikon D90, so I wouldn't go for Nikon unless u were going to play with RAW (and even then, the D5000 is the minimum to get an advantage).
Having said this, Nikon has superior kit lenses, as well as other better cheap DX lenses (the excellent 35mm 1.8). In $800 you can go either with Canon 500D or Nikon D5000, both of which feature video (though its almost impossible to effectively use).
Dont go for a lens that doesnt cover at least 18-55mm. Some are suggesting 28mm which is just not wide enough, and some are suggesting a 50mm fixed, which is not practical either.
Take a look at the following website too:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/268|0/(appareil2)/319|0/(appareil3)/320|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon
I like the Pentax K20D. You can find it under $800, and since the IS is built in, nice lenses tend to be cheaper. Plus it's weather sealed. Paired with the 18-50 & 50-135 f/2.8 DA* lenses & for under $2k you have a nice set of do anything gear for much less than the equivalent Nikon/Canon.
But start out with the kit lens or the 50mm.
I have a Sony A350... but I don't use it because it's to heavy in comparison with Sony DSC-H9. Why I bought a DSLR? I don't know...
I have another vote for the Nikon D40. I bought it on Ken Rockwell's recommendation and have not been disappointed. Because of Ken's site, I knew its limitations going into it especially since I was using it to replace a dying Fuji S2-Pro. I couldn't afford the D90 so I got the D40 and spent the extra on lenses. It was a good investment and is allowing me to make money that will buy a more expensive camera. Let me tell you this, the D40 is tiny. I even had to buy the battery grip so my pinkie wouldn't fall off bottom of the grip. That being said, the grip is much more comfortable than the equivalent offering form Canon. It will fit a woman's hands nicely. As far as photo quality, it is very nice. Its six megapixels allows me to easily print 11x14 sizes that look beautiful. Consider how often you plan to print images larger than this. Durability is amazing. I have shot over 13,000 frames with it since Christmas and it is humming along nicely.
Since you wife has never used an SLR before, it will be an amazing upgrade without the bulk of a Pro body. Use the extra money to get a refurbished 55-200 VR lens and a new 35mm 1.8 lens. Along with the kit lens, these will provide everything she will need for years to come. And, if she finally does decide she needs more camera (like a D90, or D300s), all the old lenses will work on the new camera.
Of course the D3000 has a newer chip and more AF points, but will she even notice coming from a little squint and squeeze? I doubt it.
The D40 (refurbished) is selling for $327 here:
http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/25420?mv_pc=google_base&tts=20090729104710
You can hardly get a decent squint and squeeze for that price. So for your $800 budget, you can get D40 with its great kit lens, a 55-200 VR zoom lens, a new 35mm fast prime and enough left over for an SB-400 flash. You will have a hard time duplicating that setup with any of the other brands.
Speaking of other brands, remember, these are just tools. Your wife will be overjoyed at what she can do with ANY of the entry level DSLRs. That being said, there are a few things to consider. Canon's entry level KIT lenses are not up to the standard of Nikon's so if you buy a Canon kit, you may need to upgrade the kit lens right away. I would stay away from Sony because they charge a premium for additional lenses with lower quality optics than equivalent Canon or Nikon systems. I have friends who started with Sony and very quickly got frustrated at the expense of purchasing extra lenses compared to my Nikon lenses.
Hope you find exactly what you need.
Thanks to all for your great feedback about purchasing from Adorama Camera. However, should you ever experience a problem or have a query regarding an order from Adorama - or AdoramaPix - please don't hesitate to contact me directly.
Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
helen.oster@adoramacamera.com
www.adorama.com
I would wait until fall when the next big camera shows unveil the new micro 4/3 offerings from Lumix/Panasonic.
I finally got around to reading all of these replies. It looks like the Canon D40/60 and the Rebel XSi seem to be the favorites for my price range. I'm in no rush (she isn't due until April) so I can hunt for a great deal. Thanks for all of the suggestions and info. I'll make sure to post back with a picture of the new hardware (and the camera).
A couple of the cameras mentioned are relatively new, such as the Canon T1i. What is best guess to when a successor will come next? I'm thinking of buying, but can wait until next Spring.
Best Budget DSLR?
i want to buy DSLR with NIKON. Please help me.
Budget DSLRin Nikon???