First Digital SLR...suggestion?

[imagia]

So in about 6 months time I'm planning on buying my first digital SLR. Does anyone have any suggestions on a brand/model? I'm looking for something in the $500-$600 range. I also want something with a decent megapixel count. I don't necessarily need 10mp, but something in the 7-8 range would be nice. I've only had point-and-shoot models up until now and I'm really looking forward to finally being able to make the pictures that I want to make. So I thought I'd see what suggestions people had. Thanks for any input if I get any!

[xxpinballxx]

I was in your shoes a few months ago and I agonized over it alot more than most. Im sure some here will attest to that. However, I think the Pixel count is not as important as alot think. I thought I needed a 10megapixel and was set on the D80. After seeing a ton of shots with the D40 and some 18x24 shots made with it I changed my tune about pixel count. I am for more pixels if you are going to be cropping ay down and enlarging but ven some of that can be done just fine with the lower megapixel cameras. I chose instead of higher pixel and cropping way down to just go and get a longer lens. IN six months who knows where prices will be but I say and everyone, I mean everyone here will agree...you have to buy one that "feels right" in your hands. Go try them out. I found that my local camera shop was more than willing to let me handle the cameras and feel them with different lenses and battery grips on them. Right now for 500-600 dolalrs you wont be able to get anything over a D40 with a lens. Bow if you have lenses and go the reconditioned route you might be closer to getting a larger selection. Not much but maybe....I say go test drive them....

[inkista]

Short answer? If you don't know what lenses you want, go Nikon or Canon. They have full-frame bodies in their lineups. They have the largest current lens lineups. For full scope of future upgrading, you can't go wrong with either one. Other brands have great bodies, but their current lens lineups don't compare, and you can find yourself locked out of choices you may want in the future. (If otoh, you know exactly what you want, and another brand has the lens lineup that fulfills those needs, then go for it.)

You cannot interchange lenses with different mount systems (without losing autofocus and autoexposure and EXIF functionality). So if you go Nikon, you'll be buying Nikon lenses or Nikon-mount lenses from Sigma/Tamron. If you buy Canon, you cannot use Nikon or Pentax or Olympus lenses. So, the decision you make locks you in. Nikon & Canon are therefore going to be your "safest" choices, especially if you don't know what lenses you want.

Be aware that jumping from a P&S to a SLR is not a simple straightfoward "upgrade", like moving from one P&S to another. There's a very steep learning curve. And you are buying into a camera system; it's like moving from a swiss army knife to the world of big red tool boxes. Now, at last, you can pound that nail (high iso). But you can also smash your thumb pretty good (out-of-focus), and there ain't no toothpick (face recognition) or tweezers (video) in the box.

The body is just your tool "platform." You're likely to get a new one in five years (like any piece of digital equipment), and the lenses are going to be your long-term purchase. You may eventually spend as much or more on lenses as you did on the body. Be aware that's the kind of cost you're looking at. Some lenses can easily outstrip the cost of the body. The scale of expense of new on-brand lenses is: $100 = "dirt cheap"; $300 = "cheap"; $600 = "moderately expensive", $1000+ = "expensive." "very expensive" starts around $3000. :D

That doesn't mean you can't start out with the body and the kit lens and a $100 50mm f/1.8. :) But you will want more.

[xxpinballxx]

I like the analogy Inkista! very fitting. Although an out of focus picture doesn't hurt as much as a smashed thumb....

[Nicole]

Be aware that jumping from a P&S to a SLR is not a simple straightfoward "upgrade", like moving from one P&S to another. There's a very steep learning curve. And you are buying into a camera system; it's like moving from a swiss army knife to the world of big red tool boxes. Now, at last, you can pound that nail (high iso). But you can also smash your thumb pretty good (out-of-focus), and there ain't no toothpick (face recognition) or tweezers (video) in the box.


Can I just say that I think you put together a fantastic metaphor? :D

[D40]

So in about 6 months time I'm planning on buying my first digital SLR. Does anyone have any suggestions on a brand/model? I'm looking for something in the $500-$600 range. I also want something with a decent megapixel count. I don't necessarily need 10mp, but something in the 7-8 range would be nice. I've only had point-and-shoot models up until now and I'm really looking forward to finally being able to make the pictures that I want to make. So I thought I'd see what suggestions people had. Thanks for any input if I get any!

I would suggest you get the Nikon D40 which a very nice camera for an excellent price of 499.99 in many locatoins
or the
Canon Digital rebel Xt

i personally like the D40 better i like how it fits in my hand the comfortablity of it how everything is set up is great, also the huge screen helps !

try costco.com its a great place it has the d40 for 500 an a 3 month return policy

[inkista]

I like the analogy Inkista! very fitting. Although an out of focus picture doesn't hurt as much as a smashed thumb....
I think that depends on what the out-of-focus picture was. ;) Sigh. I'm still p.o.'ed at the random stranger I handed my carefully FOCUSED Olympus OM-10 (loaded with ISO 1200 film) to the night I got to have my picture taken with Jeremy Brett--and she "refocused" it, so all I have is fuzzy outlines.

Can I just say that I think you put together a fantastic metaphor? :DThanks! I keep finding ways to add to it...

Yeah, D40 or XT are in the price range. But does the budget also have to cover another lens? Because if so, then I'd vote for a used 6MP dRebel (~$350). Which leaves $150-$250, which could get a 50mm f/1.8, a Tamron 70-300 DO, a Vivitar 285HV and ebay triggers, or a good tripod. :).

[smc1377]

I think that depends on what the out-of-focus picture was. ;) Sigh. I'm still p.o.'ed at the random stranger I handed my carefully FOCUSED Olympus OM-10 (loaded with ISO 1200 film) to the night I got to have my picture taken with Jeremy Brett--and she "refocused" it, so all I have is fuzzy outlines.

I have often complained that ALL cameras should come with some sort of lock button where all a person should be able to do is to press the shutter button. I hate it when you give someone your camera to take a picture of you and their fingers manage to change some sort of setting before they take the picture or in my case one time, a video instead of a picture.

But this is getting way off topic. :(

[jdepould]

I have often complained that ALL cameras should come with some sort of lock button where all a person should be able to do is to press the shutter button. I hate it when you give someone your camera to take a picture of you and their fingers manage to change some sort of setting before they take the picture or in my case one time, a video instead of a picture.

But this is getting way off topic. :(

It'd be nice for shooting sports too, I can't tell you how many times I've been shooting away and looked at the top LCD to realize my settings aren't where I started. It'd have to allow AF though.

[matthewchj]

Some of Canon's longer lenses have AF preset, which works something like a lock, if I'm not wrong, by limiting your focus to a preset distance. But needless to say, these lenses are the big, heavy and expensive ones.

Anyway, I agree with the others about going with Canon or Nikon. For Canon, you have either the 350D or 400D, both of which are cheap but good cameras.

[jdepould]

Some of Canon's longer lenses have AF preset, which works something like a lock, if I'm not wrong, by limiting your focus to a preset distance. But needless to say, these lenses are the big, heavy and expensive ones.

Anyway, I agree with the others about going with Canon or Nikon. For Canon, you have either the 350D or 400D, both of which are cheap but good cameras.

A few Nikkors have limit switches (80-200 f/2.8 springs to mind). . . I'm just not lucky enough to have one.

Anywho back on topic: there really isn't that much difference between any of the big players. Nikon and Canon both have massive lens selections, but image quality is very similar across the board. Canon would appear to have the edge in low light performance, but the sample shots from the new crop of pro Nikons have some stunning high ISO samples.

Ergonomics and ease of use are by far the most important part of a new camera purchase. If it doesn't fit in your hand and you hate using it, then you'll find time for another hobby.

[imagia]

well thank you all for your input. I truly appreciate it. I'm not naive enough to think that this will be a simple transaction. I've spent the last 3 months reading about what all goes into operating an SLR and trying to understand all the different readings and how they interact. And I know fully well that for awhile I'll still be better off using my much more simple camera, at least until I get used to my pretty new one. And as far as what feels comfortable in my hands that's a HUGE issue for me. I've got tiny hands and have already found that Olympus' with the zoom on the front is very awkward. What I needed here was a jumping off point, a place to start. And you guys have given me a great one!

[xxpinballxx]

well with tiny hands another selling point of a d40 is its the smallest body of all the DSLRs out.

[wulf]

I think Olympus does smaller cameras but the D40 is nice and small.

Wulf

[JAHphoto]

I would agree with everyone else, that either a Nikon D40 or any Canon rebel (300D, 350D, 400D) would be a fine first DSLR. If you don't mind an older used camera, the first Digital Rebel (300D) would give you more money left over for lenses.
In that price range theres also the Pentax K10D. Its a tad over 600, I think 700 body only, but you get 10.1MP, shake reduction built in, weather sealing, and I've heard its pretty tough. Only problem with going Pentax is their lens lineup is nothing like Canon's or Nikon's (But Sigma makes Pentax mount lenses, so you still have a wide variety from them). Also, the image stabilizer system in Canon and Nikon, being lens based, supposedly is slightly more effective, however it's more expensive, because each lens has the IS components inside, where the Pentax has the stabilization built into the camera, so it works on any lens you put on.

If thats too expensive, the Pentax K10D is good, also has the built in shake reduction, and for a mere $459 with a lens from a reputable seller (http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/from-froogle.asp?id=964671792&rf=froogle&dfdate=10_3_2007) it's a great deal.
6MP, but thats enough for what most people need.

[smc1377]

I've spent the last 3 months reading about what all goes into operating an SLR and trying to understand all the different readings and how they interact. And I know fully well that for awhile I'll still be better off using my much more simple camera, at least until I get used to my pretty new one.

To be real honest, I only began to understand the full potential of my point and shoots after I got my DSLR. It wasn't until I was forced to learn what every single setting does on my DSLR until I realized that my little point and shoots could do a lot of that as well.

For example, custom white balance. Never knew my point and shoots could do that until I started messing around with it on my DSLR. Heck, it wasn't even until two weeks ago that I realized that my MiniDV camcorder had a custom white balance setting. Which is great because a lot of indoor videos tend to come out all yellowish. After setting the custom white balance, the indoor videos are now white like they should be.

What I'm getting at is, sometimes you just have to jump in. Don't feel like you have to master your point and shoots before you can take the next step. I bet a lot of us learned a lot about our point and shoots from playing with our DSLR's.

[imagia]

I've still been playing a lot with my point and shoot and i've realized it does a lot more than you'd first think...but one thing I really want to do is adjust my depth of field. I know you adjust the aperture for that, which my camera does. However all of my pictures then come out black or darn near close. It just doesn't do the trick for what I want. But it does get points for trying!:)

[inkista]

Oops. Sorry. The caveat wasn't meant to scare you off--just to help you with expectations. I've seen folks make the leap and then jump right back because they didn't realize P&S and dSLR was like apples and oranges rather than apples and better apples. :) Knowing that there's an adjustment period sounds like you've been doing your homework pretty thoroughly.

And most of us who have dSLRs will attest that we also have room in our bags for a P&S camera. Sometimes, a P&S can still be the better tool (sometimes you just need that damn toothpick. And the portability). Don't think it has to be an either-or proposition.

[JAHphoto]

And most of us who have dSLRs will attest that we also have room in our bags for a P&S camera. Sometimes, a P&S can still be the better tool (sometimes you just need that damn toothpick. And the portability).


Yeah, like my Pentax Optio WPi... for the times I don't want to take my 5D underwater/in mud/etc :D