Looking for a DSLR

[Pickle']

Hi all,

Just Starting to look around at buying a DSLR i've never owned anything beyond a plain old digital camera, but you have to start somewhere. My price range is going to be looking at $800-$900 (give or take ofcoarse) but im just wanting to know what will be a good one to start and learn with. Just after some recommendations and some advice for starting up!

I know there was another thread before but i can't seem to find it.

Cheers, Mick.

 

[MikeCuzzy]

Sorry to hi-jack your thread Mick, but I was about to post the same thing! I'm in the same boat, but I've heard good things about $500-$600 entry level DSLR for complete novices like me, personally I need low light functionality - can anyone reccommend some in that slightly lower bracket as well?

 

[Pickle']

Sorry to hi-jack your thread Mick, but I was about to post the same thing! I'm in the same boat, but I've heard good things about $500-$600 entry level DSLR for complete novices like me, personally I need low light functionality - can anyone reccommend some in that slightly lower bracket as well?

Lol all good mate! If i can get something that will help me to learn a little about what im doing for 500-600 that would be a great start. I wont be taking photos of anything in particular, just really want to get out and have a go with it.

Also, and websites etc for information would be a great help also!

Cheers.

 

[TI3VOM]

Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews

Some pretty honest reviews from this guy.

MikeCuzzy, you could have the best DSLR in the world, but it will still be let down by the lens on the front. Don't get to caught up with how good the camera is, never forget about the lens.

Both of you should look for possibly a second hand camera with a better lens or two.

Maybe a canon in your price range and a nifty fifty 50mm f1.8, would be perfect for what you want, as well as fitting into your budget.

 

[minux]

MikeCuzzy, you could have the best DSLR in the world, but it will still be let down by the lens on the front. Don't get to caught up with how good the camera is, never forget about the lens.

Maybe a canon in your price range and a nifty fifty 50mm f1.8, would be perfect for what you want, as well as fitting into your budget.

:rofl:

Really? You bang on about how important a lens is and offer up advice on purchasing a piece of crap cheap lens?

The argument about having the best dslr will be let down by a lens is crap. I can add contrast and colour to flat images, what I cannot do is remove noise caused by cheap bodies in low light. Lets see a 50d print up a 20 x 40 at 6400 ISO and not have it soft. Won't matter what lens you have it will be soft because the camera body cannot handle it.

 

[TI3VOM]

WOW I had a whole lot of stuff to say about you and your comment, but you know what? Your not worth it!

All I will say, is that the advice I gave falls into his price range. Should I have told him to go out and get say a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 for night shots I think not. It would have a very hard time focusing in such low light as opposed to what the 50mm f1.8 would (This applies for any body that these lenses are attached to).

What suggestions do you have for a $500-$600 budget? That is reasonable to shoot at night with?


I'm very pleased to see that you gave him advice! Oh wait....... there is none!! Instead you had to shoot me down with what I suggested!
Thanks for that, your a top bloke.

P.S. I did not say anything about the picture quality, you just assumed.

 

[304runner]

:rofl:

Really? You bang on about how important a lens is and offer up advice on purchasing a piece of crap cheap lens?

The argument about having the best dslr will be let down by a lens is crap. I can add contrast and colour to flat images, what I cannot do is remove noise caused by cheap bodies in low light. Lets see a 50d print up a 20 x 40 at 6400 ISO and not have it soft. Won't matter what lens you have it will be soft because the camera body cannot handle it.

The 50mm f1.8 is perfect for the OP use and budget. The advice given by TI3VOM meant to be constructive and helpful.

As a keen photographer I would almost agree 100% with TI3VOM"S statement, You can always take a nice picture with a good lens attached to an entry level DSLR but struggle to achieve the maximum potential of a subject with the more expensive DSLR with a crappy lens....

And to the OP, a second hand Nikon D90 will be perfect for you..

 

[minux]

All I will say, is that the advice I gave falls into his price range. Should I have told him to go out and get say a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 for night shots I think not. It would have a very hard time focusing in such low light as opposed to what the 50mm f1.8 would (This applies for any body that these lenses are attached to).

Hang on...why does the 50mm focus easier in low light than the 17-85? I would dearly love to know...

What suggestions do you have for a $500-$600 budget? That is reasonable to shoot at night with?

I have seen 17-40 F4L's with 50d's go for the price range the OP is looking at. Not great gear but better than a 50 1.8 which has magic focus power in low light. It hunts bad enough during daylight hours let alone low light.

I'm very pleased to see that you gave him advice! Oh wait....... there is none!! Instead you had to shoot me down with what I suggested!
Thanks for that, your a top bloke.

My advice was to not waste money on a piece of **** lens...thought that was obvious.

P.S. I did not say anything about the picture quality, you just assumed.

you could have the best DSLR in the world, but it will still be let down by the lens on the front

As i said, this statement is not true and I explained why.

As a keen photographer I would almost agree 100% with TI3VOM"S statement, You can always take a nice picture with a good lens attached to an entry level DSLR but struggle to achieve the maximum potential of a subject with the more expensive DSLR with a crappy lens....

So you have tested say a 1d4, 5d3 with a crappy lens and a good lens? I guarantee my bodies will produce a better image with say an 85 1.8 vs your body with an 85 1.2 .

For the record, I am only a hack with no experience. So Op do not listen to me.

If you do want to listen to me, shoot me a PM, happy to give you advice.

 

[304runner]

He doesn't have a spare 8 grand to bust out on a 1d mark 4, and the difference between my D3S and the Nikon D90 to a newby like the OP is going to be minimal regardless of his lens. He wont be blowing up prints so the pixel difference wont matter.

You and I might have the brain power to walk around the functions of an advanced camera body and use the camera to its ability but as you now, not many people can use a camera to its full ability the first time they pick one up.

He wont be able to tell the difference between the a $200 lens and a $1200 lens at the moment.

 

[some_guy]

I don't think a nifty 50 is a complete waste of money. I mean $140 for what it is/does. Isn't to bad.

However tievom I'm with minux, explain how it would "focus better in low light situations" .

Maybe your referring to the fact that it can hold a lower fstop value which in low light allows for a faster shutter speed. Then in turn means you can have an Iso value closer to 100?

I'm no pro, just offering what I understand.

And 304 I don't think minux was telling the op too buy an expensive body he was merely referring to your comment about crap lenses in good bodies and wether you has tested that theory.

@ the op, Like what has been said before, maybe a decent 2nd body would be the way to go whilst starting out, then if you feel like your gaining interest and experience that is outweighing the limits of your camera body, buy a new one.