Best SLR

[eachpeach]

prefer best SLR for a beginner?

I have used a Canon powershot p and s, and a Canon powershot pro for 6 years. I am just missing something in the pictures. And wanting something more in my pictures. I want something decent zoom, great micro (for close up of buggies) and something that can handle shaking.. I have no idea where to start, what to get, where to buy. This will be mostly used for amteur use taking photos of my children pets, flowers, bugs, and picture of our travels

I prefer a digital SLR for under 800.00, but we can budget up to 1500.00. And what sort of lens would be good for a beginner to work with



I want details instead of reading a bunch of reviews. I love Canon, but might be willing to try something different. So thinking a rebel, but just wondering/wanting more in depth knowledge on what is the best digtail slr camera.

So... any help would be greatly, greatly appreciated. Thanks

[danic]

There are many answers out there for you. I'm not going to recommend a particular brand, you'll decide that one for yourself. It sounds like you would like a wide angle lens perhaps 10mm-30mm, a normal zoom lens, say 24mm-70mm, and a macro lens, say 90mm to 105mm.

There are many lenses out there that fit that description, so look around, and have a look the photo's people take with the lenses you would like to buy. Have a look at the pro's and con's of those lenses.

I've attached a link which I think you'll find useful

FAQ: What is the best digital SLR?

[Greg McCary]

You can buy a Olympus E520 under 800 easily. It will come with a kit lens that should give you what you need. It has image stabilization as well. That will help with the camera shake.

[Franglais]

prefer best SLR for a beginner?

I have used a Canon powershot p and s, and a Canon powershot pro for 6 years. I am just missing something in the pictures. And wanting something more in my pictures. I wanr decent zoom, and something that can handle shaking. And is can take some hard use. I have no idea where to start, what to get, where to buy. This will be mostly used for amteur use taking photos of my chidlren, animals, flowers, bugs, toads and picture of our travels

aA digital SLR for under 800.00, And what sort of lens

I want details instead of reading a bunch of reviews. I love Canons, so thinking a rebel, but just wondering/wanting more in depth knowledge on what is the best digtail slr camera.

So... any help would be greatly, greatly appreciated. Thanks

I wouldn't recommend any entry-level DSLR kit for "hard use". In particular the lens is all plastic, including the zoom mechanism. Use it a lot, drop it on the floor, go out on the beach or in rain - you're going to ruin the thing quickly. If you're going to spend only $800 on a camera then treat it with respect. If you want something really tough then you're talking $3000 (D300 or 50D with 18-55 f2.8).

There are lots of good DSLR's for $800 but I always recommend to go for the top two - Canon or Nikon. In 10 years time they'll still be in the business.

That means a Canon 1000D with 18-55 or a Nikon D60 with a 18-55 or 18-105. The Canon has more focus points which makes it easier to follow a running child, might be a plus.

[Frog]

One of the threads here said that D80s were selling for under $600 now.
More than a start-up camera but should serve you a while with the more advanced settings.
This doesn't take the price of a lens into account tho and you are better off spending more on lens than body.
I've had my D80 for two + years now and have no complaints. Have used it in some pretty heavy snow and rain with no problems as long as I protect it as much as possible and dry it off.

[freygr]

There is not one best DSLR for beginners. But if you have some lenses which you could use from a film SLR, I would say this would be a major factor on camera you end up purchasing. Just make sure it does have full manual control along with all the auto modes.

[Martin Brazil]

Avoid the Nikon D40X, piece of garbage only lasted 20 days after the warranty.

[freygr]

Avoid the Nikon D40X, piece of garbage only lasted 20 days after the warranty.

There are too may variables, even the name bands have a lemon now and then. Check Consumers Reports for the most dependable cameras.

[GB1]

Just to know here that with SLRs the body is completely separate from the lens - If you want a long focal length (not sure this is what you meant) and a macro capability, you will normally need two separate lenses to get those capabilities.

If you don't want to mess with independent lenses, there's all in one cameras with permanent lenses that are really good. They usually have 5 or 6 X lenses and some have macro capability. They're basically point and shoot cameras on steroids.

But if you really want an SLR for the potential to really get into photography (which is GOOD), $800 for a camera and starter lens is totally doable. There's a whole range of Nikons out there .. D40, 50, 89, 90, .. they have camera + body packages for good prices. Just to note that you do not have to get Nikon - it's harder to find a bad digital SLR these days than good ones.

G

[artbob]

I would suggest you look at the Canon XS it is around $599.00.

[Anbesol]

There are lots of good DSLR's for $800 but I always recommend to go for the top two - Canon or Nikon. In 10 years time they'll still be in the business.

considering their competitors have remained in the business for many many decades, I dont think this statement has any merit. Sony has Zeiss autofocus glass, I'm pretty sure its impossible for a system with Zeiss glass to just exit the business.

Anyway I probably stand alone in my suggestion, but I'd encourage getting a higher end DSLR, for the ruggedness of the magnesium alloy body, it allows the camera to take a lot more abuse and still stay in shape. You can get the higher end DSLRS with said bodies for around $1k-$1.5k as well.

[Franglais]

considering their competitors have remained in the business for many many decades, I dont think this statement has any merit. Sony has Zeiss autofocus glass, I'm pretty sure its impossible for a system with Zeiss glass to just exit the business.
.

There is nothing magical about Zeiss that would stop a manufacturer going out of business. Contax used to use Zeiss glass, both in original rangefinder format and after rebirth as a Yashica offshoot. All gone.

Right now DSLR's are about the only place where manufacturers can make a profit because there are too many players in the point-and-shoot market. Canon and Nikon have most of the market. The others are struggling and have been bought up or heavily supported by bigger electronics manufacturers trying to get into the market:

- Minolta were bought by Sony
- Pentax were bought by Hoya and are supported by Samsung, who rebadge some of their models
- Olympus seem to be supported by Panasonic

Each is making big investments to try to get into the number 3 position. But they might not do that forever. Konica is gone, Mamiya is almost gone, Leica have almost disappeared several times.

[Wild Wassa]

I've a special Canon F-1, her name is Heidi. Heidi has swum in both the Pacific Ocean and the South Tasman Sea.

After what would normally be considered life threatening swims for a camera, I submerged Heidi in buckets of metho (twice) to flush out the salt and help speed up the evaporation of any residual water in her ... and to slow possible galvanic corrosion between the dissimilar metals in her beautiful body ... and She still hasn't missed a beat, even after her two dunkings, it is now two decades later ... and not one single heart beat has She missed.

I once fell, slid and rolled about 30ft down a conglomerate rock face at a place called the Castle in the Budawang Wilderness and She faithfully followed me down, without question to Her own safety ... the Gitzo tripod She was on, was pathetically scared for life.

I love my Canon F-1 ... I doubt that how She looks now, totally butt-assed ugly to Nikon people no doubt ... that anyone else apart from we Chosen Ones, would love her like I do.

There is only one SLR to buy in my opinion ... and I'd rather shoot a kitten or my Pope than shoot any Nikon. Having owned several supposedly pro level Nikon 35mm SLRs (an F, an F2 and an F2AS Photomic) ... I do not joke. Although I once owned a Nikomat FTN that was very classy and solidly built.

I'll post a shot tomorrow of my beautiful old girl. I'll do it tomorrow to give Nikon people enough time to try find their old cameras, OK? ... and show off their cameras? But I doubt they will post? Seen one Nikon, you've seen them all?

Canon F-1 lovers hang fire, I'm sure that you will be most impressed with Heidi because She is totally ruggedly differently stunning ... and She's been around more than just the block ... She's been around the block twice.






Warren.

[Sushigaijin]

There is nothing magical about Zeiss that would stop a manufacturer going out of business.

There is nothing magical about ANY company that will keep them in business. ALL of the camera companies have the same chance of staying in business in ten years.

Sony is a huge corporation, much larger than canon or nikon. They are the most diverse and the most likely to stay in business.

Pentax has substantial investments in many different optics, such as binoculars. I don't know enough about their corporation to make any further claims.

Olympus is an independent company that makes the finest medical imaging products. Ask your doctor, they will probably use an olympus imager for some kind of scopy. They also manufacture things like voice recorders. Cameras are not the be-all-end-all of Olympus products. They DO buy sensors from panasonic, but they are not being "supported" by them. Nikon buys sensors from Sony, what's the difference? Their marketing division has played it smart - they aren't even trying to compete with canikon, being content in manufacturing for their own niche. Good idea, Olympus.

The way I see it, Nikon and Canon are the MOST likely to go out of business. They are large, and spend large amounts of money in advertising and R&D. A dip in consumer investment in their camera divisions could tip the profitability scale pretty quickly. Massive overhead is only good if you have massive income. If they don't adjust quickly for a shrinking market, they are the most likely to be effected by the downswing in the economy. Their large market share is a liability.

And we all know that Nikon was practically out of business before - you can thank Simon and Garfunkle for dragging them out of bankruptcy.

[Dougjgreen]

And we all know that Nikon was practically out of business before - you can thank Simon and Garfunkle for dragging them out of bankruptcy.

What did Art Garfunkle ever do for Nikon? I know that Paul Simon wrote "Kodachrome" as in: "I got a Ni-kon camera.... I love to take photographs.... so mama don't take.... my Kodachrome away" But Art Garfunkle had nothing to do with it.

In any case. I think both Nikon and Canon will be capable of battening down the hatches and cutting costs for a tough spell - they do split over 80% of the market between them. The issue with some of the rest of the companies in the DSLR market is that, while the company itself may survive, they very well might drop out of the high end camera market. Sony could bail on DSLRs without giving it a second thought. Olympus too could drop that business and stick to medical instruments. And Pentax could easily vanish entirely - they would already be gone if not for Hoya. At least Nikon and Canon NEED the DSLR business.

[Dougjgreen]

I've a special Canon F-1, her name is Heidi. Heidi has swum in both the Pacific Ocean and the South Tasman Sea.

After what would normally be considered life threatening swims for a camera, I submerged Heidi in a buckets of metho (twice) to flush out the salt and help speed up the evaporation of any residual water in her ... and to slow possible galvanic corrosion between the dissimilar metals in her beautiful body ... and She still hasn't missed a beat, even after her two dunkings, it is now two decades later ... and not one single heart beat has She missed.

I once fell, slid and rolled about 30ft down a conglomerate rock face at a place called the Castle in the Budawang Wilderness and She faithfully followed me down, without question to Her own safety ... the Gitzo tripod She was on, was pathetically scared for life.

I love my Canon F-1 ... I doubt that how She looks now, totally butt-assed ugly to Nikon people no doubt ... that anyone else apart from we Chosen Ones, would love her like I do.

There is only one SLR to buy in my opinion ... and I'd rather shoot a kitten or my Pope than shoot any Nikon. Having owned several supposedly pro level Nikon 35mm SLRs (an F, an F2 and an F2AS Photomic) ... I do not joke. Although I once owned a Nikomat FTN that was very classy and solidly built.

I'll post a shot tomorrow of my beautiful old girl. I'll do it tomorrow to give Nikon people enough time to try find their old cameras, OK? ... and show off their cameras? But I doubt they will post? Seen one Nikon, you've seen them all?

Canon F-1 lovers hang fire, I'm sure that you will be most impressed with Heidi because She is totally ruggedly differently stunning ... and She's been around more than just the block ... She's been around the block twice.


Photo coming, tomorrow morning EST Oz. Hiedi can hardly wait.

Warren.

I don't buy it. I've owned Nikons and Canons (and Minoltas and Olympuses too).

I still own a Nikon F, F2, a pair of F3s, and a Kodak DSC-760 based on the F5.
The fact is, Canon's F-1 was built to the same standard of ruggedness, but Canon was let down by their lens mount. The Canon Breach lock was never as reliable nor as simple and elegant a design as the F-mount, and they bailed on it when they went to AF. I can (and have) filed a small AI indexing notch into the mount of my 45 year old Nikon lenses and still use them today on my DSLRs. And my 45 year old 55mm Micro-Nikkor is still a world class macro lens to this day. And a Nikon F would have just as easily endured a swim or two as your Canon F-1 did.

BTW, you can take an Olympus E-1 for an ocean swim, rinse it off under the tap, wipe it dry and be good to go two minutes later. Which Canon DSLR can do that? Don't feel bad, Nikon DSLRs can't either.

That, plus the fact that a $20 adapter lets me mount all of my classic Nikon lenses to it is why I still keep a 5 MP Olympus E-1 as well.

[Wild Wassa]

I don't buy it.

Doug, you are welcome to not buy what ever you want. I'm guessing the other 99% of the readers here picked up on the pungent humour. "I'd rather shoot a kitten ... than shoot a Nikon" didn't that give it away? I've owned several pro quality Nikons, I know how good Nikons are.

And a Nikon F would have just as easily endured a swim or two as your Canon F-1 did.

I challenge you to prove it to me and post some shots of your Nikon F an a bucket of salty water. I'm guessing that a few Forumites would like to see this ... I certainly would.

Canon was let down by their lens mount.

Concerning the lens mount of the Canon F1 my camera I've had for 26 years from new and there isn't anything wrong with the lens mount. Nor has my camera had even a basic service or any repairs in Her faultless 26 years.

Don't feel bad, Nikon DSLRs can't either.

I do not feel the slightest bit bad and I have no intention of getting my 40D wet.

Warren.

[Dougjgreen]

I challenge you to prove it to me and post some shots of your Nikon F an a bucket of salty water. I'm guessing that a few Forumites would like to see this ... I certainly would.

My Nikon F never did get dunked. But I certainly know of several that did, and survived. I also know of one that stopped a bullet, and was able to be successfully repaired. But if you wish, I could show you a photo of me rinsing off my Olympus E-1 under a tap.

Concerning the lens mount of the Canon F1 my camera I've had for 26 years from new and there isn't anything wrong with the lens mount. Nor has my camera had even a basic service or any repairs in Her faultless 26 years.

Other than the fact that the lens mount was so inefficient that Canon was forced to modify it because too many people could not change lenses quickly enough, and that it was also technically incapable of adding the electronic linkages that would allow it to evolve into the autofocus age, unlike those of Nikon and Pentax - which forced Canon to completely obsolete everything that was made with it. Other than those two fatal flaws, yeah, nothing was wrong with the mount.

[Wild Wassa]

My Nikon F never did get dunked.

Now is the camera's big chance and take some shots and post them here on the Forum.

But if you wish, I could show you a photo of me rinsing off my Olympus E-1 under a tap.

There is a major difference between a camera being fully submerged with the pressure of the water in it than a camera being rinsed under a tap.

Warren.

[Martin Brazil]

There are too may variables, even the name bands have a lemon now and then. Check Consumers Reports for the most dependable cameras.

Thats true but I have seen a few people's reports on similar faults with the D40X after a similar amount of time. Also the ass tech told me that the D40X was not built to last. And also it has now been replaced by the D60 after what, 2 years on the market, that must tell you something.

[Dougjgreen]

Now is the camera's big chance and take some shots and post them here on the Forum.

Sorry, even though the F-body would surely survive, it's future resale value would not.

There is a major difference between a camera being fully submerged with the pressure of the water in it than a camera being rinsed under a tap.

Not if the submersion is not to a depth, but rather just inches below the surface there isn't. I never said that I'd take it 10 feet below the surface. But several folks I know have used their Olympus E-1s to take photos where the waterline crossed the middle of the lens (several of which are completely water-sealed), and the top of the image was above water, and the bottom was under water. Why not try that with your Canon F-1n, given that it's a swimmer.

[Frog]

I think I'll prove my camera is better than yours by dropping it in a volcano.

[Dougjgreen]

Thats true but I have seen a few people's reports on similar faults with the D40X after a similar amount of time. Also the ass tech told me that the D40X was not built to last. And also it has now been replaced by the D60 after what, 2 years on the market, that must tell you something.

The D60 was just a marketing turn on the D40x. The build quality is, for all intents and purposes, identical, and the feature set of the body only is almost 99% identical to the D40x.

It is possible that the sensor electronics of the D40 are more reliable than the D40x/D60, as the sensor and buffer are less taxed at 6 MP than at 10 MP.

[Dougjgreen]

I think I'll prove my camera is better than yours by dropping it in a volcano.

I once did that with a Nikon F2. It wasn't an ACTIVE volcano, though, and it fell less than 3 feet. I did bend the filter ring on the lens, but otherwise, nothing worse than some paint scuffs.

[Martin Brazil]

The D60 was just a marketing turn on the D40x. The build quality is, for all intents and purposes, identical, and the feature set of the body only is almost 99% identical to the D40x.

It is possible that the sensor electronics of the D40 are more reliable than the D40x/D60, as the sensor and buffer are less taxed at 6 MP than at 10 MP.

Agreed Doug, it seemed more or less the same to me which is what made me think the D40X was a beta test for the D60.