Oh no, not another "which camera" thread!

TheOtherBart

I would like to get into a digital SLR on a very tight budget. I thought I would throw out some constraints and see if you guys had any suggestions for a body/lens that would get me started.

Being able to shoot in relatively low light is important to me. I take a lot of candids of the family and for me flash just seems to ruin the feel. I also like shooting sports. I've honestly not done much of it since back in the day when I earned a little beer money shooting sports with my trusty Canon F1's, so I have little to no idea how the process is different with auto focus, or how characteristics of the camera or focusing system affect the ability to get good softball/volleyball/basketball pictures.

I have no problem buying used from a reputable source. The kicker is that I'd like to come in under $500 for a body and lens. Possible to find something that would do what I want in that range? Crazy talk? Suggestions?

manbou

Nikon D40 with 18-55mm II lens.

Not the best setup for low light, but about as good as you can get with a $500 budget.

Scott_Quier

I have no problem buying used from a reputable source. The kicker is that I'd like to come in under $500 for a body and lens. Possible to find something that would do what I want in that range? Crazy talk? Suggestions?

Under $500 - don't like to my things easy on yourself do you? Crazy? Maybe not so much, but I think you'll need to accept a compromise on the quality of the lens you get.

I'm thinking you might be able to pick up a Canon XT or XTi or maybe a 20D, each with the 18-55 kit lens for that.

BTW - There's not a thing wrong with any of these suggested bodies. I started with the Canon 300D (aka, the original dRebel) and loved it. At least until I got my 20D - that was a real step up.

Capt Rick Hiott

Bart,,,I went from film to the Canon Rebel XTI and liked it so much I bought another one.
Spend your money on good glass...........
Here is a shot I printed to 12"X18" and its tack sharp! This shot was taken with a 50mm 1.4
10 Mega Pixels is plenty when it comes to a digital camera. But you wont get much for 500.00

catspaw

you can get a puffer difuser for the built in flash to 'soften' the effects I think I saw a few between $10-20 at the camera store.

Grainbelt

Sounds like you have a good history with manual cameras and lenses. In that case, with your budget, and with a desire for low-light, non-flash photography, I'd encourage you to look at Pentax.

All Pentax DSLRs are compatible with K-mount lenses dating back to the seventies, and you can use older M42 screwmount lenses with an adapter. There are a lot of nice wide-aperture primes available, new and used, all over the place.

Used bodies are available via B&H and other vendors. The larger, brighter viewfinder on the K10D will be an asset for manual focus, but will eat up much of your budget compared to the K100D or *ist models. The current models are the K200D and K20D.

Lots of information at pentaxforums.com, including lens reviews, a compatibility chart, and a classifieds section.

ziggy53

TheOtherBart wrote:

I would like to get into a digital SLR on a very tight budget. I thought I would throw out some constraints and see if you guys had any suggestions for a body/lens that would get me started.

Being able to shoot in relatively low light is important to me. I take a lot of candids of the family and for me flash just seems to ruin the feel. I also like shooting sports. I've honestly not done much of it since back in the day when I earned a little beer money shooting sports with my trusty Canon F1's, so I have little to no idea how the process is different with auto focus, or how characteristics of the camera or focusing system affect the ability to get good softball/volleyball/basketball pictures.

I have no problem buying used from a reputable source. The kicker is that I'd like to come in under $500 for a body and lens. Possible to find something that would do what I want in that range? Crazy talk? Suggestions?

Bart, welcome to the Digital Grin.

When you talk about family photography it is quite possible to use just about any modern dSLR for that purpose.

When you talk about sports you really need to consider a different class of camera and lenses and with a budget of $500 I think you are not going to find a suitable solution. $2000 is around the practical low end for building a fairly competent sports kit IMO.

Any camera, dSLR or not, can benefit from the use of an external flash. The trick is learning to use the flash, and lighting in general, so it doesn't "look" like a photo was shot with flash or so that the flash compliments the photo.

Buying used is a good way to purchase excellent equipment. I have only purchased 1 new dSLR and that was when the camera had been on the market for around a year and had dropped somewhat in price.

If you want a good used camera with decent low-light and high-ISO performance the best bet is an older Canon dSLR. While many current model cameras are doing a great job now, Canon lead the way for several years. Do be prepared to shoot RAW format and process the RAW files in software for best results.

Shopping at KEH I can see several Canon Digital Camera Outfits in your price range and I would recommend a Canon XT with the "kit" lens. Then I recommend you purchase a Canon EF 50mm, f1.8 for better low light performance.

This combination should be very close to your budget and I can vouch for the XT/350D as I have 3 of them. Use this camera in RAW and you can have virtually noiseless images to ISO 400 and ISO 800 is still very good and correctable with freeware noise reduction. ISO 1600 is usable for smaller image sizes after treatment with noise reduction or you can embrace the noise as part of the image if you desire.

If you decide that high-ISO noise is not so much of a concern, almost any dSLR might do niceley and if you use the camera with a flash and flash modifier most will serve you well especially at moderate ISOs. Older Nikons are very effective as are Olympus and Pentax. I have a friend with a Pentax K100D and he produces very nice images with it partly because he knows what he is doing.

Our "swintonphoto" (Jonathan Swinton) uses Olympus cameras professionally and successfully. That says something about Olympus cameras, but it says more about Jonathan. thumb

Whatever you get, be prepared to spend more as this particular "hobby" can grow on you and become very expensive indeed.

When my son started to get serious about football is about the same time as my equipment grew tremendously in order to properly cover the sport. While my entry level camera did fairly well in good light, it suffered in night conditions and that meant an upgrade in both camera and lens in order to get an acceptable number of "keepers".

That same equipment has also served me well for each of my kids' graduations and major events, so I don't regret the investment at all.

TheOtherBart

Thanks for all of the great info folks...I'm really intrigued by the Pentax option, not least because my first camera was the venerable old K1000. I also love the idea of being able to use all of the old manual focus lenses. What is it about the Pentax that keeps it from being more popular? I had no idea they even made digital SLRs. There's a K10D on E-Bay right now for $412 BIN including shipping...

jrmyrnsm

I'm going to be selling a 20D for $350 shipped then you could add on a 50mm 1.8 for $80 brand new giving you a pretty decent low light combo for around $430.:D Let me know if you'd be interested.

Scott_Quier

The EF 50mm f/1.8 has problems, sometimes, getting focus lock in dim light and getting accurate focus lock in any light. This may not be a solution.

sherijohnson

I got to say you made me laugh with the title of this thread and you already know why.

Definitely go with your gut, but make sure you get all the facts first. It's amazing what you can learn when you are researching stuff like this.

If you have old gear that will work with your new camera, that is a plus. I know for me, it made it easy to choose a Sony alpha when I found out that my Minolta gear was compatible and got new lenses too.

Also if you have a store nearby go there and play around with the cameras so you can see firsthand how they feel and react, how intuitive they are, etc. I think this makes the biggest difference in finding something you are going to be comfortable with.

bandgeekndb

Something I'm finding now...don't be afraid to wait and save up a bit more, ESPECIALLY if you already have a good background in photography.

I got a Nikon D40 kit in June of 08, and yet already, I'm hunting around for a new body. While the D40 is a great starter camera, I soon found myself hitting the ceiling of that camera quite often. One of the biggest things I "put aside" when I bought the D40 was the ability to only autofocus with AF-S lenses. My thinking was, when the heck am I gonna need that? It'll be a while before I need that ability!

A little over 6 months later, I just bought a 50mm f/1.8 which I love, but it doesn't autofocus on my current body. I'm living with MF right now, anxiously awaiting the right moment to upgrade so I can get AF with these lenses.

While this is only an example, keep an eye on the shortcomings of a true budget dSLR. For someone well versed in photography already, an extra one or two hundred dollars could buy you a used d80, or a nicer used Canon (i guess the 20D, or 30D? I'm not a canon guy) and you can compromise between budget and future-proofing.

I'm only mildly kicking myself for buying a D40 new at $500, and I'll be lucky to get $250 for the body when I sell. Just think wisely, the advice above mine will help a lot!

~Nick

TheOtherBart

sherijohnson wrote:

I got to say you made me laugh with the title of this thread and you already know why...

If you have old gear that will work with your new camera, that is a plus. I know for me, it made it easy to choose a Sony alpha when I found out that my Minolta gear was compatible and got new lenses too...

I know how much the regulars on any forum hate fielding the same...questions...over...and...over...glad the title was good for a chuckle.

The only gear I have left are one F1n body, one AE-1 body, a 50mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2.8. Are there any decent options that would let me use the manual focus Canon lenses? Because you're right, I really like those lenses and that would be a big help budget wise.

bandgeekndb wrote:

Something I'm finding now...don't be afraid to wait and save up a bit more, ESPECIALLY if you already have a good background in photography.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm sure my skill will be the limiting factor in image quality with any digital SLR on the market.

catspaw wrote:

you can get a puffer difuser for the built in flash to 'soften' the effects

I've used bounce cards/diffusers/flash modifiers before and am generally happy with what they do for the images, but I'm less happy with the extra bulk of the flash and the intrusion into the moment. I like being kind of a "blend into the scenery" photographer. I've also never come up with a good way (short of an expensive and even more bulky flash bracket) to accomodate shooting in both orientations without ending up with wierd shadows.

I guess I say all that to say this: it's certainly something I would consider, but I would like to avoid it if possible.

jrmyrnsm wrote:

I'm going to be selling a 20D for $350 shipped then you could add on a 50mm 1.8 for $80 brand new giving you a pretty decent low light combo for around $430.:D Let me know if you'd be interested.

Thanks jr, I just might be...have to check the finances, and I'd like to do some research on the model since I know nothing about them, but I'll be in touch very soon one way or the other. How does the 20D compare to the 10D that someone suggested earlier? For that matter how do they compare to the 100D and 200D? I'm sure there's some kind of side-by-side comparo out there, I'll do some Goooogling.

You all rawk, thanks so much for the help and info!

JohnBiggs

Ok,

+1 to a 20D, 30D, or XT. Any of these will do fine. All of them can be found for under $500.

These are all great cameras.

I assume those lenses are FD mount? I'd sell the whole lot and just put the money into EF lenses.

John

jbakerphoto

JohnBiggs wrote:

Ok,

I assume those lenses are FD mount? I'd sell the whole lot and just put the money into EF lenses.

John

Yea you can send it to Adorama and they will give you 70% retail for it supposidly...

+1 on XT, 20D, 30D
Xt/350D is the consumer line....20D/XXD is the semi-pro line ...Higher the the number the the more recent it is.... ( 50D is the most recent XXD)