I'm looking for a DSLR at entry price point (<$1K). The guy at Future Shop showed me a Canon Rebel T1i but wouldn't sell it to me. Instead suggested I start shopping around. I thought these guys were on commission, but clearly not. I started out looking at the Olympus PEN cameras but was quickly steered away for various reasons.

So, any thoughts for a DSLR n00b who was into SLR film years back and has had crappy/disappointing results with various other digicams in the intervening decade. I'm not particularly worried about the size of the rig as it would be used specifically for pix during planned events. Canon G11 was another thought but...

Primary use is for normal close range and non-telephoto work. Good low light and a decent HD movie mode are the basic 'nice-to-haves'.

 

well at under $1k you really cant do better than a T1i/T2i (If the T2 is on any sort of sale) or a Nikon D5000 new. Those two will do all that you want them to. But you can also shop around the used market, maybe you can find a nikon D90

The olympus is good also, but i think that lenses are gonna be more difficult to find than the canon/nikon mounts.

 

You're in Calgary, go downtown to "The Camera Store". I am sure you'll get better help from more knowledgeble staff and better prices. I am in Toronto and order most of my gear there.

 

No expert here, but I agree you can't go far wrong with the T1i and it's a great price these days. You could post up in the photo area, lots of experienced photogs in there that will give good and honest advice. Of course there are also lots of "How to choose a DSLR" articles and I think bigwilly has a good idea to talk to people in various 'real' camera stores.

Curious why FS guys wouldn't sell you the T1i.

 

This is where I do most of my shopping as well. Over the years I've met many of the staffers, and one of them outside the store as well (photo workshop in the Rockies).

I have a Rebel XTi and I had the original digital Rebel before that. I'm very happy with the results I get.

 

Thanks for the tips everybody. I saw a good comparison with the Nikon D90 which walked all over the Canon. http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/...ikon-D90.shtml

I shall make my way down to The Camera Store forthwith.

 

I have a friend in Vegas who I think shoots a D90 and even though he's not all that experienced, he's taught himself a bit about RAW and post-processing and gets fantastic results.

And since I know you pervs will ask, afaik he shoots landscapes and stuff, not

 

I strongly recommend you to avoid the Nikon D3000 and D5000. These bodies lack internal autofocus motors, so if you decide to buy lenses in the future that do not have autofocus motors built into the lens (EG. prime lenses like the 50mm F/1.8), you can only manual focus with them.

The problem with kit lenses (the lenses that come with the camera, for example, at Future Shop) is that they are poor performers in low-light conditions. With a $1000 budget, I would make the following recommendation:

Canon Xs or Xsi BODY ONLY. Do not buy the package that contains the kit lens.
Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8

Considering that you are just entering the DSLR world, I think that you should invest more in the lenses than in the body. To invest $1000 in a DSLR with only the kit lens would be a bad idea. It is more important to understand each and every one of the functions on your camera, so that you can understand the limitations of your body and get the most out of the camera that you can. Increased capabilities of the higher priced DSLRS will give you a marginal increase in image quality if you don't know what you are doing. Investing in lenses will give you more flexibility and possibilities in your photography. The Tamron 17-50mm is an extremely sharp lens, especially when stopped down. It is also good in low light (Constant aperture at 2.8, 2 stops faster than the kit lens at f/5.6), and is a very capable walk-around lens.

I am by no means a professional photographer, but I consider myself an advanced enthusiast who has done countless hours of research through reading camera books and guides. Don't let the Future Shop salesmen try to convince you to buy something that you don't need. The majority of Future Shop employees that work in the camera department know nothing about cameras beyond specifications. I advise you to do your own research on your camera options. You can read in-depth reviews about diffrerent cameras at www.dpreview.com.

Side: As a shameless act of advertisement, anyone who is interested can visit my flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/a****aka88

the URL has been censored. It should read ...flickr.com/a s h i t a k a 8 8

Thanks~

 

VancouverG88 made a good point about the internal focusing motors - however, i think you'd buy any DSLR with internal focusing motors to use OLD lenses and not newer ones. The companies will all make lenses with focusing motors on the lens instead of the camera because that's their way of making more money.

I like my D5000. The price difference with the kit lens and body only was 30$ - so in effect that's the cost of the first lense that I used to learn 18-55VR (enough for what you need). If you can afford the D90 though, that would be the best camera under 1k.

The wave of the future though would be the four-thirds (olympus PL1 at 599). They are interchangeable lens cameras, smaller than DSLRs, but without the viewfinder and separate buttons for manual controls. The picture quality is as good as a traditional DSLR

 

I highly doubt that every lens in the future will be made with autofocus motors. And why would interalian be restricted to using new lenses? How old would a lens have to be to be considered old? The current Nikon 85mm F/1.8 lens is an excellent lens, perfect for budget portraits on a crop sensor. However, this lens does not have an autofocus motor. Anyways, this is besides the point.

The point at hand is what interalian will decide to spend his budget on now and in the near future. He has stated that he would be using the camera specifically for planned events. Assuming at least some of these events are indoors, it would be beneficial to get something that performs decently in low-light settings.

The D90 is a beautiful camera, I very much recommend this camera. But for interalian's purposes, a D90 with a kit lens would not suffice. The Tamron is 2 stops faster on the long end. That could be the difference between having a picture and missing it. A cheaper body with a decent low-light lens would suit interalian better.

If you used the kit lens, you would only have 2 options:
1) Try to take the shot at low iso's and hope you get lucky, but you'll probably end up with motion blur. In the photography world, there is nothing worse than motion blur.
2) Try to take the shot at high iso's and end up with a noisy picture, although this option would be less likely to have motion blur. This would be my preferred route if I were to use the kit lens in this particular situation.

However, if you had the Tamron, you could shoot at shutter speeds that are 2 stops faster, or at iso's that provide 2 less stops worth of noise.

NOW, if interalian chose to go with the Tamron 17-50, we would need to consider that the tamron does not have an autofocus motor. This would rule out the D3000 and D5000. I'm not saying that the D3000 and the D5000 are bad cameras, they just do not suit his purposes. They may be superior to other cameras in other applications with other considerations.

I hope that made sense ><

 

Dear Op:

Could you please leave a more specific description of what your intentions are? This way, we would be able to leave you with more useful and straightforward advice.

Are you willing to buy multiple lenses, or just stick with 1 lens?
Are you considering buying an external flash?

In indoor events, a flash is invaluable, as you would be able to bounce light, and this would give you much more flexibility. In indoor situations, I would pick "Kit lens + Flash" over "Faster lens + no flash" in a heartbeat. A regular Pop-up flash on your camera forces you to shoot straight, which gives harsh shadows and head-on directional light, which is why external flashes are better.

Don't listen to people who say "Flash is ugly, I only use ambient light." Many of these people just don't know how to use the flash. I am not saying that flash is always better than ambient, I am just saying that it can be if you know what you are doing. Granted, there are practical applications where ambient light is superior to flash.

 

vancouverg88 - your advice is good - but for an intermediate / serious photographer. for someone going into dslr, the cheapest way to have a decent working set is to get one with a kit lens. figure out what type of shots they'd be more likely to take, and then buy the next good lense based on that.

 

So many options. To start:

1) Lightweight hobbyist here. Photos nearly always taken of stationary rather than action, mostly outdoors but a degree of inside shots of electronic equipment and such for ebay auctions etc. That being said, shutter lag would be an annoyance if noticeable.

2) Would be willing to purchase a (small) number of lenses suitable for more specific purposes rather than try and have an 'all in one'/compromise lens. Not married to the idea of a kit lens either.

3) External flash would be a near term rather than immediate purchase

4) As originally noted, HD movie and low light are 'nice to have' but may be deciding factors

Cheers,
Anthony

 

Regarding lenses for portraits, the Tamron 17-50 will cover the wide portrait and group portrait range (35mm on crop sensor).

Many people will suggest getting a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens for portraits. It is cheap and cost between $100-200. However, contrary to what many fanboys think, the 50mm on crop sensor is not a good range for individual portraits. With a crop factor of 1.5, 50mm would translate to 75mm on full frame (or 35mm film equivalent), and at this focal length, distortion is still quite visible, especially considering how close you must stand for a head and shoulder shot. Ideal for individual portraits (head and shoulder) would be ~135mm on full frame. An 85mm lens would translate to 127.5mm on full frame, so this lens would be ideal.

In conclusion:
Small group/Wide Portraits: ~35mm lens (tamron 17-50 will cover this)
individual shots: ~85mm

They'll both come with around f/1.8 max apertures.

These are the focal lengths of the lenses you are looking for. However, if you have a very limited budget, then just get the 50mm f/1.8.

 

To be honest, I probably would have opted for a Nikon if my wife didn't already have some Canon gear. We now have two Canons, the T1i and an older XTi. What I really need now is some good glass. Got a steal of a deal on a Sigma 75-300 a while back, but man I'd love to get hold of a Canon 100-400L for primarily wildlife shots but also distance motorsports/airshows etc.