Cheap, but good, DSLR cameras

[cblnchat]

I have an interest in photography, and id like to start getting more into it, but i dont have a good camera. The one i have to use is an old 5mp Kodak! Are there any cheap but still good DSLR cameras? Ive looked them up but they all seem to be in the hundreds and hundreds of dollars.
Maybe is there a non DSLR camera that takes just as good photos?

Thanks

[Muffinabus]

A non digital SLR will easily take just as good photos but it will be more expensive to actually take pictures with having to develop them and purchase film. Not to mention the delay with snapping the photo and viewing the result, it can be difficult to learn with a non digital SLR. You'll look at a photo and either have to remember the settings you used to produce the photo or have it written down so that you can learn why the photo might have come out bad or what you did to make it look nice. A DSLR shines here just because they will have the aperture, shutter speed, and iso settings in the RAW.

I have a Canon a-1 that I have been learning on for a few years and it takes photos great (note that the camera is from the 70's, 80's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_A-1 ). There are certainly disadvantages to non digital, but it would probably be cheaper to start off with initially if you can find a decent deal.

[cblnchat]

A non digital SLR will easily take just as good photos but it will be more expensive to actually take pictures with having to develop them and purchase film. Not to mention the delay with snapping the photo and viewing the result, it can be difficult to learn with a non digital SLR. You'll look at a photo and either have to remember the settings you used to produce the photo or have it written down so that you can learn why the photo might have come out bad or what you did to make it look nice. A DSLR shines here just because they will have the aperture, shutter speed, and iso settings in the RAW.

I have a Canon a-1 that I have been learning on for a few years and it takes photos great (note that the camera is from the 70's, 80's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_A-1 ). There are certainly disadvantages to non digital, but it would probably be cheaper to start off with initially if you can find a decent deal.
I didnt think about non-digital. I have somewhere a vivitar 220 or something like that. I guess i could start using that. If i can find it lol. And i guess i could use that till i can find a DSLR

[walt.smith1960]

I have a non-DSLR canon that is no longer in production but its successors are still around. Not all digital cameras are DSLRs. Unless you're printing large format, 5-8 megapixels is probably fine. There are more factors that go into making a good camera than a mongo CCD. Good glass is as important or more so. http://dpreview.com/ seems to be pretty well thought of.

[linuxforartists]

I think if you get a DSLR that's one or two generations behind the most recent version, you can find good deals. For example, the Canon Rebel T3i just came out, so the T2i and T1i should come down in price in the next few months.

Buying a used camera is an option, but you have to be really careful to inspect it and make sure it works.

If you get an old DSLR camera that's body-only (no lens included), you might be able to get one for about US$500. Still way more than a point-and-shoot camera, but DSLRs can easily cost over US$1,000.

You also have to watch for lens compatibility. Newer lenses might not work with cameras that are too old.

Good luck!

[handy]

Without becoming sophisticated, there are three prime reasons to get a DSLR.

1. You want the ability to change lenses or to have a quality & reasonably fast zoom; for instance an 18->200.

2. You want a fast camera so as to be able to take photos of moving objects.

3. You want to be able to use a flash that you can bounce of the ceiling & do other useful tricks with.

6 mega pixels is plenty for all but the poster size printers, & a good photographer can still take photos with 6 mp & get huge sharp prints. Anyone who starts trying to sell you a camera on the mega pixel count doesn't know what they are talking about.

You can buy well 2nd hand, or if you choose you can buy directly from Hong Kong, which is what I did for my last camera & lens. Doing so saved me over $700- on the best price I could find in Oz.

If you buy 2nd hand site unseen you need a strong warranty which offers a return policy.

It is better to get your hands on the thing & use it, dumping photos from its memory card onto your computer (notebooks are handy like that) to check out the results.

Another tip is to buy 4GB size memory as you can dump it to computer & easily back it up to a single density DVD. I find that this has quite a few advantages.

Good luck & happy hunting. ;)

Oh! One last thing, here is a good site for gathering info' on photography. Some don't agree with everything Ken says, but don't let that put you off, there is a great deal of help for a beginner in digital photography on his site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm

[cblnchat]

I have a non-DSLR canon that is no longer in production but its successors are still around. Not all digital cameras are DSLRs. Unless you're printing large format, 5-8 megapixels is probably fine. There are more factors that go into making a good camera than a mongo CCD. Good glass is as important or more so. http://dpreview.com/ seems to be pretty well thought of.

Im fine with the image quality of the camera i use, for the most part. But it takes pictures painfully slow, and it zooms SO slowly. And id also like a bit of change ablility in the lenses for different kinds of photos. And ill take a look at the link you sent.

[themarker0]

Rebel XS, good cheap starter DSLRs.

[handy]

Rebel XS, good cheap starter DSLRs.

I'd personally recommend the Nikon D3100 which should be a little cheaper than the Rebel.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3100.htm

But I'm probably a biased Nikon man. :)

[jcolyn]

You can't go wrong with either a Nikon or Canon.The Olympus E-series is another option and very often comes in a two lens kit. I have the E-620 which is a small very high quality body and the lens are also high quality.

For my shooting requirements I need at least 10MP which is what my D200 is rated at. I also use the D90. A 6 or 8Mp is a good go between..

Don't waste your money on cheap lens. Otherwise you'll get less than excellent quality..

Be prepared though to pay several hundred dollars..

[cblnchat]

I'd personally recommend the Nikon D3100 which should be a little cheaper than the Rebel.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3100.htm

But I'm probably a biased Nikon man. :)

I really like this one. It says on the site that its small. Thats one thing i forgot to mention is i like the smaller ones. Their easier to carry around. And i really like the info the site gave, ill keep it in mind.

Thanks

[handy]

I really like this one. It says on the site that its small. Thats one thing i forgot to mention is i like the smaller ones. Their easier to carry around. And i really like the info the site gave, ill keep it in mind.

Thanks

Providing you don't have sausage fingers the 3100 should be great. It is actually the lenses that you use that are far more important than the camera. So buying a cheaper body & putting money into lenses as you desire or can afford is the best way to go.

If you get hooked by digital photography & desire more than the body you own can do, you can sell the body (or keep it to hold a certain lens) & buy a more capable body & still use your lenses.

Good lenses don't devalue they can even appreciate over time. Camera bodies become technologically redundant & depreciate dramatically over a period of 3 years or so. That doesn't mean that the majority of photographers would have any need to upgrade, it is just to show how quickly the technology is progressing.

Nikon & Canon are really the best two brands to use; pick one & stick with it. They both have such a large range of equipment & large following. It makes it easier to both buy & sell components as you desire.

As an aside, Nikon, Canon & others will make out that they are what professional photographers use. In reality that is true though in a far more limited way than they would have you believe.

Most commonly the pro's that use DSLR's are newspaper, sport & wildlife photographers, they are people that need tough, often tripod less cameras that can take a lot of photos quickly, auto focus quickly & have a range of lenses available that are suitable to their needs.

People that are serious about landscapes & portraiture use large format cameras & often adore film.

[Ocxic]

i research for about 4 months and settled on getting Nikon's D90. from everything i read it had the most number of features that you would find on a more expensive/professional DSLR, but stayed in my budget.

PLUS: The D90 is a DX format sensor (APS-C) and can be use will most all of Nikon's FX (full frame) lenses, thus giving you a greater focal length. example: if you get Nikon's 70-300mm VRII FX lens, and attach it to the D90 you get an effective 105-450mm focal length. This might help later if you want to get lenses with longer focal lengths, as you can get FX lenses and increase the focal length without having to put out the extra cash.

TIP: get a LENS PEN, very effective cleaning product(cheap too), and does not use any chemicals, or solvents.(tip: twist the cap to recharge the cleaning tip)

[handy]

i research for about 4 months and settled on getting Nikon's D90. from everything i read it had the most number of features that you would find on a more expensive/professional DSLR, but stayed in my budget.

I also have a D90 & I use an 18->200mm lens.



PLUS: The D90 is a DX format sensor (APS-C) and can be use will most all of Nikon's FX (full frame) lenses, thus giving you a greater focal length. example: if you get Nikon's 70-300mm VRII FX lens, and attach it to the D90 you get an effective 105-450mm focal length. This might help later if you want to get lenses with longer focal lengths, as you can get FX lenses and increase the focal length without having to put out the extra cash.

You may have confused some details re. using the DX & FX lenses on a DX camera.

If you use an FX lens on a DX camera the FX lens automatically downgrades itself for the DX. In so doing it only uses the centre of your sensor & your viewfinder. Which is really quite a drag.

To clarify another thing.

Nikon's DX sensors measure 15.8 x 23.6 mm, while 35mm film and FX digital sensors measure 24 x 36mm. DX sensors are 1.5x smaller than 35mm film.

Because these sensors are 1.5x smaller than film, they show an area equivalent to the area shown by a lens 1.5x as long on 35mm film.

A 100mm lens on one of these cameras shows the same area of view that a 150mm lens would show on a 35mm film or full-frame camera. It matters not whether the lens is FX or DX the same mathematics function here.

Multiply a lens' focal length by 1.5 to get the focal length of a lens which, when used on a full-frame or 35mm film camera, gives the same angle of view as that lens does on a DX camera.

E.g. My 18->200mm used on the DX is equivalent to 27->305mm.

FX cameras can crop their sensors to use DX lenses. This wastes much of the capability of the FX cameras, but it doesn't waste the DX lenses. (DX lenses have reduced image circles that only cover the smaller DX sensor.)

Most of the above was nicked from various places on Ken Rockwell's site.

[t0p]

I was into photography in the 20th century. Back then, digital photography was a joke, so I shot slide film on a SLR. My SLRs were very basic (like the Pentax ME Super, my fave camera of all time) - manual focus, manual aperture and shutter speed, etc... but this meant I really had to know what I was doing. Most of my favourite photographs were made with the ME Super. But I averaged maybe 3-5 good shots per 36-exposure roll of film, and the lack of instant replay made it hard to learn what did or didn't work.

After a break, I got back into photography in 2007. DSLRs were very expensive, so I got myself a Fujufilm S5700 "bridge camera" (a kind of compact camera with manual settings control as well as the "program" and "auto" settings). It has a 7-megapixel sensor, which was (and still is) good enough for prints up to A4 size; and the LCD screen on the back give instant replay, so I can shoot away to my heart's content, then go through the results and delete any I don't like. And, of course, instant feedback so I can quickly learn what does or doesn't work.

But a bridge camera is not a DSLR, and I really miss some SLR features. For instance, manual focus on the S5700 involves holding down 3 buttons at once and the LCD screen and electronic viewfinder makes it very difficult to judge just how sharp an image is. And no bulb setting - I think the longest shutter speed is 4 secs, which is useless for many scenes (such as fireworks displays, and shooting in gloomy interiors). I'd love to upgrade to a DSLR, but they cost so much! Even a used decent SLR costs several hundreds of pounds; whereas 15 years ago I could get a good used manual focus SLR for less than £60!

I still own a couple of SLR bodies, and a small but good collection of lenses. But the cost of processing and printing makes it too expensive to use them at all regularly. And I tend to take a lot of pictures, as I take my camera almost everywhere and frequently take photos of anything interesting I see. I'd love it if someone released a very cheap DSLR body that used Pentax lenses (most of my lenses are manual-focus Pentax lenses). But in the meantime I'm stuck with the bridge camera. Damn fiddly thing!

[Poppyann]

I do photography in College. If you don't want to spend a lot of money on an SLR camera, you could always buy a "bridge" camera. These are sort of inbetween SLRs and your standard compact, however they do not have an interchangeable lens.

They have pretty much the same controls as an SLR, for example Macro, shutter priority, aperture priority, manual, auto, night mode, program auto, and most of them should have settings specifically for taking pictures of portraits, landscapes, sports, fireworks (Slow SS) etc.

A lot of people in my class have these types of camera, and I personally used to have one. They bring good results! Only con is you cannot change the lens, but if you are not interested in that then you should consider one.

I have an SLR for my photography because I like you, wanted something a bit better. I personally have a Sony. A lot of people overlook Sony as a camera supplier, but let me tell you, they are VERY good! Mine is on par with my friends Nikon D5000 (An award winning camera), and sometimes can perform better. Sonys also do NOT break the bank. Some are very reasonably priced, but some can be expensive.
Mine is the a450 (the a stand for alpha). It is pretty new, I got it for over £300 here in the UK, which I think is cheap for an outstanding SLR, but your opinion may differ.

I hope I helped a bit, good luck with finding your perfect camera :KS

[mips]

Also have a look at cameras like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 etc, they are essentially dslrs but without the mirror.

[cblnchat]

Providing you don't have sausage fingers the 3100 should be great.
Most commonly the pro's that use DSLR's are newspaper, sport & wildlife photographers, they are people that need tough, often tripod less cameras that can take a lot of photos quickly, auto focus quickly & have a range of lenses available that are suitable to their needs.

People that are serious about landscapes & portraiture use large format cameras & often adore film.

I dont have sausage fingers :lolflag:
And thats generally what i want my camera for. Something fast.


And to everyone thats posted on this. Thank you very much. This is a lot of helpful information! Its much appreciated! :D