Hi I am thinking of upgrading my compact camera to a larger SLR, anyone recommend a entry level camera. My budget is 600-700. Thanks.
you might start a fight on here lol
I would stick to either a Canon or a Nikon. Just remember that with an SLR, you will be investing mostly in glass [lenses] rather than the body. A lot of the entry level SLR’s come with mediocre lenses, but they are good to get you started. When you see the type of photography that you will be going, you can tailor your lens choise to suit your need.
I shoot [or used to] mostly auto racing, so I use longer zoom lenses and do have 1 or 2 lenses for up close shots of cars. Since I am an Architect, I also have a PC [perspective control] to shoot buildings.
If you are going to be doing portraits you will need a totally different lens all together.
Stickman would be a great resource on this and he will recomend Canon, I use Nikon, so I will say to use it as well. lol As long as you get either or, you are in great shape. Kinda like chooseing between the top tier rifle makers.
The Cannon Rebel XS is a great choise for an MSRP of about 500. The remeb line tends to be small, light and easy to use. Great for starting out with an SLR. Dont forget, that in your 600-700 budget you will still need, memory cards, bags, posibly a tripod, extra battery and so on. I used to sell cameras in a Best Buy during college and people never seemed to think of the other stuff they needed to buy when getting a camera.
Alex,
Are the lens mounts compatible to the older ones used with 35mm SLRs?
How bout a minolta 7D+ extras for $400, I’ll throw in two lenses, two CF cards, 4 batteries and a 35mm minolta body to run as a back up.
I shoot Minolta and now Sony but for your price range I’d look into used set ups, just double check the availability of lenses for whatever platform you find. KEH.com is a great place for used lenses, and don’t count out the Minolta/Sony system. Alot of the features you find on your Nikons and Canons were first pioneered by Minolta, here’s two examples: first 35mm SLR auto focus system and first DSLR with in-body stabilization.
Depends on the camera. With Nikon almost all old lenses will mount, because the bayonelle mount did not change since the early 80’s But the older lenses will not communicate metering data with the camera, so they can only be used on manual modes, cant be used on aperture or shutter priority modes and all the preprogramed picture modes like portrait, landscape and so on. For instance my PC lens is from 1986 [e-bay baby!] and has a aperture ring and I have to set the aperture on the lens, then adjust the shutter speed accordingly based on the meetering that I am seeing, the camera has to be in manual mode and manualy focused.
With Canon the cut off date is later, meaning the lenses have to be newer but if you had a 35mm Canon 10 years ago, the lens will mount.
Another thing is that most popular and “affordable” digital SLRs use a CCD or CMOS sensor that is smaller than a 35mm negative which is 24x36mm but most of the sensors are roughly 16x24mm so the lesnes act at 1.5x their zoom. For instance, if you have a 100mm lens, it will give you roughly 150mm of equivalant zoom on a digital SLR. Some of the higher end SLRs do use full frame sensors, Nikon D700, D3, Canon 5D and up. So a 24mm lens which was a wide angle on a 35mm camera, may not be a wide angle on a digital. Conversly, if you buy a smaller frame SLR and get a 18-55 lens, if you later upgrade to a full frame SLR even though its the same brand and it will mount, it may cut off the corners or vignette the photo.
No shit, camera guys are more nuts and loyal than gun guys!
I like Nikon, because I had Nikon SLR lenses that made the transfer over. I’m frankly not sophisticated enough to appreciate any other differences between brands.
If buying today and without any pre-existing lenses I might poll some of my more photog-oriented friends as to what brand they owned in the hopes that it might make it easier for me to borrow/try lenses and other gear from them before buying for myself. I think this is actually a really important distinction that I almost never hear brought up amidst all the brand-loyalty wailing and gnashing of teeth that usually goes on.
Exactly… you should hear the fights on the photo forums. And the shit I would hear from people who were buying one camera and someone was about to buy another lol
I got into Nikon because as an BestBuy employee they were selling their cameras direct from Nikon on Long Island for DIRT CHEAP! I got what was then a killer SLR body D70 which retailed for almost a grand for about 400 bucks. Canon was not doing the same thing, or even close, so I am now a Nikon user.
Honestly, I think Canon does some things better. Their in camera prossesing seems to favor portraits better, though one of the best wedding photogrophers that I have ever seen [local guy in NJ] uses a Nikon. The Nikon body seems to be better adapted for high speed action, I find the controll wheels to be in better locations for changing settings w/o taking my face away from the eyepiece and the larger memory buffer seems to allow me to shoot at high frame rates longer than I could on a Canon. With a high speed CF card I am able to shoot for 5fps for nearly 30 frames shootingin RAW before the camera slows down, on a equal Canon I was only able to get about 15 or 16 frames in sequence. This helps me a lot when trying to get a panning shot of a car going by.
I dont mean to insult, but I was never a fan of the Sony/Minolta camera. It never impressed me, and the in camera stabilization seemed more of a marketing ploy then a usefull tool. My 80-400VR lens will stabilise hand movement a lot better than a Sony SLR body ever could.
In the end, whichever body you choose, you will spend much much more on glass. I think about it this way. If you have a $7000 SLR body and you put a cheap Tokika lens in front of it, by the time the light gets through that bottom of a coke bottle quality lens, the quality is so poor that no CMOS sensor in the worls will make up for it. But if you buy a good quality body, and invest in great glass like Canon L-glass or the Nikon ED glass, you are golden! This is partly the reason I am not a fan of Sony/Minolta, Pentax, Olympus and so on. Their glass just isnt as good. And even though Sony staps the Ziess name on some of their lenses or at least used to, they are as much Ziess and the Russian Zenetar or Peling lenses which “stole” Ziess technology after WW2.
The cameras are getting better and better every couple months it seems, but I would suggest finding a year or two old canon-nikon body and getting a little better glass. The best improvement for me wasnt borrowing a newer camera, it was renting a better lense on an older camera. I shoot a Canon XTi, and it does what I need it to and nothing more. It is noisier than I would like it to be, but it serves my purpose (and the noise can be worked around).
where I didnt skimp was the tripod, I bought a $300 Giottos set up that I will leave to someone in my will. Rock solid and worth every penny.
I’m a Nikon guy personally. I’ve been seeing the D90 for less and less money lately, so that might be a good option. It’s gonna hit the high end of your budget though. I like it 'cause it has the feel and features of even the highest-end Nikon stuff for a pretty decent price (two adjustment wheels, good high ISO, some video capability, able to use non-AF-S lenses, etc.). It’s a crop sensor, so you can get away with some of the cheaper lenses, too. The 35mm f/1.8 is only $200 and the cropped portion of the $130 50mm f/1.8 is pretty dang good. You can do the 17-55mm f/2.8 for $1300 instead of the 24-70mm for $1800, also.
Hope that helps. I can spend WAAAY too much time yapping about camera stuff…
I am a Nikon guy as well. I have been using the D90 for over a year now and it has been a phenomenal camera.
Having said that, I have several friends who are professional photographers and all but one uses Canon. Nikon and Canon both make great cameras.
My suggestion would be to go to a store and try both cameras in your hands and manipulate the controls. Usually you will have one brand that fits you better. The Nikon was just a better choice for me because of the button layout and feel of the camera in my hands. YMMV
Have it, love it, best lense EVER! lol
Just last week I purchased a Canon T2i and love it. My dad has a Canon XSi and prior to that he used a Canon F1 for 25 years; still has it I think. My last SLR was a Canon EOS Elan 7E and loved it as well. My point and shoot is a Canon A640. It’s about 4 years old and did a really good job in between the Elan and T2i.
Any guesses about which I’d recommend? 
Honestly though, I don’t think you could go wrong with a Canon or Nikon. The Sony Alphas did sort of catch my eye too, but went with what I know and got the Canon.
Fry’s has a special on a slightly older Canon T1i kit right now but it’s barely out of your range. Within your price range is the really good Canon XSi at $590.
I have several cameras. Point-and-shoot and SLR (digital and good old fashioned film). While I like my SLRs I find that carrying one requires some planning and a bag full of equipment (2nd lens and flash at a minimum).
About a year ago I got a Canon PowerShot G9 (superseded by the G10 and G11) that I now use almost all the time. And when I need more capability I add a lens adapter from LensMate and can add a wide angle, telephoto or macro lens or any manner of filters.
Just an option to throw into the mix.
Canon EOS Rebel T2i or whatever the entry level Canon is now.
Personally, I would only consider Nikon or Canon for an SLR. Many people feel that Nikon has better bodies and Canon has better lenses. This is subjective and personal opinion. Some Canon bodies can feel “plasticy.” Spend plenty of time playing with the arrangement of buttons and dials. Can you operate the buttons and dials naturally and comfortably?
One of the fundamental differences between the two brands has to do with where the auto focus motor is located.
All of Canon’s current auto focus lens lineup have the motor in the lens. This is the preferable place for the motor for several reasons. Also, even many lower end Canon lenses use a ring ultrasonic motor rather than a more traditional motor. The ring ultra sonic motor is same type that is used in almost all Canon Pro “L” lenses.
Generally speaking, Nikon uses a motor in the body and in some lenses. This varies with the body and with the lens and therefore, this creates a compatibility nightmare, imo. The motor in the body uses a screw driver blade that mates with the lenses in order to drive the focus mechanism. This screw driver motor is louder and not as fast as the much superior ring ultra sonic motors that are located in the lens. Nikon also has lenses that use ring ultra sonic motors, but not as many as Canon. Nikon calls their ring ultra sonic motors, “AF-S” or “silentwave motors.” Even some popular Nikon Pro lenses do not have the ring ultra sonic motors.
Nikon users like to tout the fact Nikon bodies can use any Nikon lens. That applies only to some bodies. Take a look at the Nikon lens/body compatibility chart before you place too much emphasis on this “feature.”
There is a lot more to it. You may want to check out this web site: http://photo.net/equipment/
Scroll down to the, “Our Most Popular Photography Equipment Articles” section.
See also:
Man, I’m WAAYYY behind the times as far as cameras go. I still have a Nikon EM SLR.
I will definitely agree that many photographers are even more fanatical then AR owners, in their preferences.
But apply the same reasoning and you will be happy. Most major cameras will give you very similiar results, and it’s at the upper end that you will start noticing the differences; at that point you have to decide at which point your wallet dictates your actions.
Get to a camera store with a good variety and line up several models (in your price range); which one feels the best in your hand? Which one has the more logical menues (for you)? Then start looking deeper. Is weather sealing important, do you want the flexibility of using standard AA batteries in a pinch, will you be looking to add a motor drive in the future, does it have a dioptic correcter on the view finder?
I can usually work with any camera, but the ones that feel best in my hands (balance, grip, button layout) are the ones that are most comfortable to use and usually stay in my hands longer. You could have the besting shooting M4 on the market, but if it feels like %%$& when you shoulder it, how much are you going to enjoy shooting it? (lol and yes you could also have the best feeling M4 and it shoots like crap). Hopefully you can find performance and “feel” in the same platform. Good hunting.
I am a Nikon guy. Cannon makes good cameras but Nikon has always felt better to me. Right now I would say they are about equal in quality, except for video capability where Cannon has a slight edge in their prosumer level cameras.
Look at the D5000. Should be right in your range. It has the same CMOS sensor as the D90 but without some of the more advanced features. You can get it with a lens for about 600 right now. The only thing I don’t like about it is the flip out screen. I am afraid it builds a failure point into the camera.
ETA:
Used Cameras are not a bad idea but I suggest you get something with a CMOS sensor in it if you do buy used. THey are much better than the old style CCD sensors. CMOS does much better in low light especially.
A great site for camera stuff is http://dpreview.com/
I brought a Canon Rebel XS back in January and took a photography class with it this semester. At $450, it was affordable for me.
It, IMHO, is pretty good for an entry level camera. It comes with an 18-55 lens, which is not totally horrible, but it is one of the things you will want to upgrade.
One of the better choices in the Canon lineup, however, is the Canon T2i. It goes a bit over your budget, but it’s a good camera.
Like AR rifles, the camera body is the cheap part of the equation. Lenses, tripod, flashes, the list goes on and on…
Figure the cost of Lightroom into the equation. You are going to need something to at least tweak, rename, organize, and convert the photos. Shoot in RAW format, by the way.
If you don’t know much about cameras, learn how to use one. Leaving it on automatic mode (the “green box” on Canons) means you will never enjoy the DSLR to anywhere near it’s full potential. It will just be a big, expensive point and shoot…
After four months of near constant shooting with a DSLR, I could not go back to a point and shoot. The instant responsiveness, looooonnnnnnggggg batter life, comfortable form factor, usable and simple controls (DSLRs don’t try to cram all of the functions into 3 buttons), and quality of results has sold me. I run with minimal support equipment, so my bag isn’t huge and bulky like many photographers
IMO, the differences between the two (Canon and Nikon) are very slight. it come down to the best deal you can get and personal preference on control layout, etc.
whatever you get, if your eyes are anything like mine, do yourself a favor and get at least a 3" preview screen on the rear. and the ability to do video is very nice - well worth the extra couple bucks…
i’m a nikon DSLR guy, as i had nikon film cameras/lenses already. whichever you go with - nikon or canon, for an entry-level DSLR, i think you’ll be happy with.
the ‘nikon vs. canon fight/debate’ wouldn’t exist if there was a huge, distinct difference between the two. for cameras at the same price level, it’s in the details, and more about personal preference than performance.