cheapie

i don't know anything about digital SLR cameras but i'd like to pick one up for my wife's 30th birthday in march. my budget is $1,000ish and while i'd like something that great quality, she'll find no benefit in having more bells and whistles that a person would really use.

i'm also going to try and get her signed up for a local photography class after i give it to her.

any ideas?

__________________
70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Bob Sanders

ray

Canon Digital Rebel
Nikon D50
Nikon D70

All good choices.

Airencracken

Any reason you want an SLR in particular? I own a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 which is a "Super Zoom". 8mp, 12x zoom and a lot of other "manual" features for about 500. (There is also a Panasonic DMC-FZ50 out which is a 10mp upgrade of the DMC-FZ30.

Otherwise I'd go with what Ray said. Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

__________________
"I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre

zippyjuan

Do you already have any SLR lenses? That might influence what brand if you have some to use with it. I have a Nikon D80 which is a bit high for your price range, but you can probably find some really good deals on a D70 (which was discontinued due to being replaced by the D80) if any where still has one in stock. The D40 is the newest model (replacing the D50) recently released but the D70 would probably be better. Canon would be another excellent choice- I really don't know much about their models.

One major difference betweem these two is the sensor size. Canon uses a "full frame" sensor which is the same size as a 35mm. negative frame. The Nikon uses a smaller one. The biggest result (both will produce excellent images) is that the Nikon can make smaller lenses for the comparable focal length. A normal 50mm lens will be equal to a 75mm lens on the Nikon due to the difference (crop factor). This means you can have less weight to carry around to get the same results.

People like the feel of one camera over another too. Since this is for her birthday, you may not be able to have her try to hold both brands in her hands to see what feels the best.

__________________
I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz

cheapie

i kind of wanted to surprise her. and no, we don't already have any lenses.

where's the best place to buy a camera like that?

TruckStuff

My boss is a photo pro and loves the Nikon cameras. He says the Canons aren't made as well and they just "feel cheap" to him. I borrowed his D70 (6.2Mp) when we went to Fiji last summer and I thoroughly enjoyed it. You can see some images here: http://sbrown.dyndns.org/fiji, although they have been optimized for the web, so don't really do the camera justice. He recently upgraded to the D80, which is the new 10.2Mp model. I'm probably going to get a DSLR later this year before we go to Africa this summer. I'm looking at the D40 (6.2Mp), maybe the D70 if I can find someone who has a used one on eBay. I've seen prints he has made from his D70 that are something silly like 20 inches x 15 inches, and you wouldn't know they weren't film.

When you are looking at an SLR, the most important thing is to get quality lenses. A decent camera with great lenses is going to take better pictures than a quality camera with decent lenses. That's why I'm leaning towards spending more on the lenses then the camera. The lenses can be expensive, but once you buy one, it will work on every camera body you buy (within the same camera family).

I'll find out where he bought his D80 from and let you know.

__________________
DISCLAIMER
The preceding statements are meant to be taken as a whole, in their entirety. They may not be quoted in part and then used to flame me. They also do not imply that I believe the exact opposite of their meaning. They do not make any implication about any group, race, ethnicity, age group, or other cohort beyond what is stated above. They do not make any implications at all. They have no "tone" or "attitude." They are words. Nothing more.

cheapie

thanks! so would i expect the lense to be about as much as the the body? and how many of those would i need? the vast, vast majority of the pics she'd be taking would be of near objects. the kids, objects in the yard, things we're looking at while on vacation, etc. once in a while something far away but we rarely ever use the zoom on our olympus stylus.

Markel

I have absolutely loved having a higher zoom (10x optical) on my digital camera. For example, when my boys are in the middle of the soccer field, I can still get good pictures of them. When I get my next digital camera, I am certain that it will have at least a 10x optical zoom.

__________________
stay low... keep moving...

Thesifer

It depends on how much she wants to get into it. Also the lenses can run MORE then the Camera for Highly quality or faster lenses. You can get cheaper ones obviously, and should probably start out with a cheaper one. But they have lenses in the thousands of dollars range. (and hundreds of thousands if you want to get really into it )

__________________

cheapie

okay....looks like a visit to the local camera shop is in order.

this is the closest "real" camera store: http://www.normancamera.com/

ray

Since she'll be a relative newcomer to the world of SLR photography, the lenses that are included with any camera "kit" will suffice for what she's doing. If she begins taking classes and experiments more with her style of photography, she may feel the need to purchase different types of lenses down the road.

All of the Nikon cameras aforementioned are offered in various packages: body only, body + lens, body + 2 lenses, etc. You can definitely find similar bundles with the Canon Digital Rebels as well.

One thing to look out for when buying a body+lens kit is to make sure you're receiving the better quality lens (manufacturer). Many times stores will swap out the Nikon branded lens with an inferior product. Don't get me wrong, there are some amazing third party lenses, but don't get fooled by shops trying to sell you a package with 3-4 lenses made by different manufacturers.

I am partial to Nikon lenses, particularly the DX series lenses that ship with all of the new DSLRs.

MrGreg

Beware any online store in NYC. Make sure to do a search on one of the store ratings sites, because a lot of the online camera shops push really hard to make you buy a bunch of high prices accessories, and if you don't buy any, they drag their feet or even cancel the order.

I've had a lot of good experiences with www.onecall.com, and their prices are usually pretty good.

__________________
-The nerd formerly known as vectorcalculus

RoniMan

i'm surprised, no one has mentioned dpreview.com

apex pointed me that way when i first started considering getting a digital camera.

it's just that there's a LOT of info on the site, and u can end up reading for a while. but it's another resource to help you.

Jeffbx

Also http://www.steves-digicams.com of course

For good pricing - keep an eye on Dell.com for accessory sales - a 20% off coupon will do wonders.

Airencracken

Lenses can be very expensive depending on their function and who makes them.

Thesifer

By the way, I found my Canon 20D on Amazon a while back and it was one of the cheapest prices around, (shipping from Amazons Warehouse) which is what you have to look for when dealing with online. I trust Amazon, at least somewhat. And definitely more then a NEW YORK CITY Online Camera Store.

redcolours

thanks cheapie! (for the question ive been meaning to ask about entry level D-SLRs )
and thanks for the answers, guys! this is a big help for me too.

__________________
there are pictures, but no,nothing happens on my site.

Butch

Could be wrong, but I'm quite certain that until you step up to a Canon 5D, you won't have a full-frame sensor in a Canon camera . . . if you could get a full frame sensor in a Rebel, I would certainly choose that over the Nikon options.

By the way, I would certainly second/third everyone's comments about NYC Online photo retailers, but one you can definitely trust is B&H Photo . . . it is probably the premiere camera store in the country . . . if you were living in NYC, I would definitely suggest you stop by . . . very knowledgeable staff and great customer service/support . . . www.bhphotovideo.com

For online info, dpreview and steve's are both very helpful sites.

__________________
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and beastiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse

Houdini

Zoom lenses are convenient, but you do sacrifice picture quality and resolution. While I have a Canon Elph digital pocket cam and a couple of Minolta film SLRs, my newest modern Minolta's pictures are pretty good, but the ones taken with the 45mm fixed (interchangeable, of course) lens on the older one look better. In fact, if I take a decent vacation this year, I'm really going to have to figure out if I want to bring my old (1970s) Minolta or my Maxxum5, or if I want to buy some different lenses for the M5. I know the 28-80 zoom is versatile, but I'm still losing sensitivity, resolution, etc., and I like shooting high quality film.

zippyjuan

For someone starting out, I like the zoom option. This gives you lots of flexability. Granted, they can be slower (require more light for good shots hand held), but the image quality is getting closer to fixed lenses. I say go with a zoom until you decide what type of shots you like and then what sort of specialized lens you need, if any. I would also like to add that all of my pictures have been take with a zoom lens. I presently have two-an 18- 135mm one and a 10- 20mm one. The 35mm (full frame) equivelent would be 24- 205mm and 15- 30mm. Zoom means fewer lenses to buy, less stuff to carry around (if you have to lug a bunch of stuff around, unless you are really serious about it, will mean you will use your camera less) and fewer lens changes which can result in getting dust on your sensor (which can be removed). I vote zoom for starting out.

Houdini

Agree with that. I was just speaking for more long-term and serious use I guess. And I'm still stuck in the dark ages of film. Mainly Ectachrome.

Markel

Back in my days of photography classes, we only used the standard 50/55mm lens. And black & white film.

cheapie

probably a stupid question but will we really see a difference in the pics taken with a Canon 10.1 Megapixels Rebel XTi vs our 4mp Olympus Stylus?

i guess we'd be able to have more control in different situations, right?

zippyjuan

I took one photography course back in college and of course we did black and white too. That is usually because it is easier and cheaper to teach than color. I didn't learn much besides how to develop film which I never did again after that. I love digital because you are free from buying film, can instantly review a shot and make adjustments without having to send in your film, wait several days to get it back and then see it. By then you have forgotten what you did in the first place. The incredibly powerful software available also lets you correct photos easier too- so what would have been a throw- away can sometimes be salvaged. Then you only have to print what you want- not everything you shot.

I would agree that film definately has a different look. Part of that is because it has a wider dynamic range that it can capture along with the size and texture of the grain in the film.

Markel

I took several classes in college - the photography teacher was really quite good - a former staffer from "Look" magazine(I just did a quick search and found his web site: http://www.douglasrgilbert.com/). He really showed us composure, awareness of light, etc. Most of learning to develop film and prints was self-learning (using info from a book).

I'll admit that digital makes things much easier and opens up a range of possibilities that film could never offer. But I will still stand in awe when I look at the work of Ansel Adams.

I'm not doing serious photography now, but I imagine that having a good digital SLR lets you control things at a more precise level where the more simplified cameras try to automate (or make a more difficult process).

zippyjuan

For those having trouble, try the link without the "/" at the end.

renovation

A good start maybe here at - http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html I have always trusted this site its never let me or the wife down.

__________________
You could pick up Lindsay Lohan for less than a intel 990x, and still have money left over to bail her outta jail

Butch

You should see a difference. The difference, however, will not come in the megapixel rating, but in the more fundamental differences between a dSLR and P&S. If you were to compare a 4mp P&S vs. a 10mp P&S, you may not see much . . . but due to factors like lens and sensor, you should see improvements with the dSLR.

It may be worth reading some articles by David Pogue of the NY Times . . . (will need to register for the Times online or use bugmenot or something) . . .

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9619C8B63

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/te...gue-email.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/te...0d704c&ei=5070

Markel

Seems like vBulletin somehow included the close parenthesis in the url. Fixed it.

cheapie

thanks a ton! esp for the second article that talked about sensors. i had never heard about that.