Best DSLR for ~$500

[miloblithe]

I kind of wish I'd thought that through more before I'd bought my camera (Canon 400D), since there's no real possibility of me buying an IS lens any time in the near future.

On the other hand, I'm really happy with my camera, even if I don't have stellar lenses attached to it.

 

[Abstract]

If you sell your Canon 400D and buy a Pentax or Sony, I doubt you'd lose a lot money on the swap. You may lose some money going to a Sony Alpha-100, but not much when going to a Pentax K100D.

 

[ChrisA]

True, but what ChrisA is saying is that in-lens VR/IS/OS is only better if you can afford these lenses. They're better, but since most people can't afford to buy all-VR lenses, having an in-body VR/IS/OS system is great, even though it's not the best in absolute terms.
I believe he also meant that he would buy a Nikon or Canon body with VR/IS built into the body if it was offered, even if he owned a lens with VR. Why? Because you can turn off the VR on the body when you have a VR lens attached, while also being able to have VR even when using non-VR lenses. You get the best of both worlds. You can have VR in-body, but shut it off if you own a 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR for example, since the in-lens VR is better.

Wow, some one can actually understand my ramblings

But you know, it's all "bunk" and you can prove it to yourself. Go to the public library and pick up a stack of one years worth of National Geographic from the 1970's Look at the pictures. All of them were taken with a manual focus camera with no VR/IS and likely not even automatic exposure modes.

Slides I took in the 1970's are as good or better then what I get now with a DSLR

 

[Phatpat]

I think it's really important to go out to a camera store and try them out. I did.

The Pentax does everything you need, but it has some little drawbacks here and there. Focusing is noisy. It uses AA batteries. Build quality feels a bit subpar. It uses the flash as the autofocus assist lamp in low light, which can be annoying.

The D50, in terms of size, is just fine. Though the stats say it's much bigger than the D40, it's not a problem. Build quality is good. It's cheaper than the D40.

I was really impressed by the D40's build quality. Very solid and easy to use. But it lacks the top LCD which the K100d and D50 have, though I felt the main LCD's info screen was very informative and pretty easy to use. And it's the most expensive of these three.

 

[cube]

The K110D/K100D using AA batteries is an advantage. You can use AA or CR-V3 rechargeables, and buy disposable ones from any kiosk in the world if you run out of power.

 

[Abstract]

Or buy wickedly good AA batteries out there. NiMH batteries recharge in minutes, too, although I don't know what sort of battery life you'd get when using them in a camera. I used NiMH batteries in my old Canon A40 p&s (2 MP camera, 4x AA batteries), and the camera was good for around 200 shots, which was great back then, since I always used my LCD, and batter capacity isn't as good as it is today.

Abstract, you're so smart.

Marry me?

Got life insurance?

 

[cube]

Here you have the autonomy for the K100D with different types of batteries (except rechargeable CR-V3):

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K100D/K100DA6.HTM

Note that rechargeable CV-V3 are normally Li-Ion. They are also lighter than any AA's.

 

[cube]

Hm. From here:

The operating manual suggests four AA-size lithium, Ni-MH, or CR-V3 batteries but warns that the camera may not support all the camera functions when using AA alkalines and recommends them only for emergencies. It also warns against using Panasonic’s Oxyride batteries or rechargeable CR-V3 because they may cause malfunctions.

In the manual it actually says "nickel manganese", not Oxyride.

 

[cube]

There are some rechargeable CR-V3 that claim to operate within the safe voltage of a disposable CR-V3.

At your own risk.

 

[balofagus]

I have the K100D and couldn't be happier. I love that it uses AA's, I bought a set of NiMH's from energizer (rechargeable) and get somewhere around 200 shots a charge I'd say. I appreciate the in-body SR, but I would still be happier with in-lens. The reason I chose Pentax was I already had some Pentax lenses (thanks to relatives) that still produce amazing images even if they are MF and 20+ years old. AF is a little noisey, not unbearable though, and if you buy the K10D, the new lenses coming out next year with in-lens focus will work that way, otherwise it will revert to in-body.

 

[ltcol266845]

personally, I would reccomend a Canon 10D. It is probably about a 1-2 year old camera, and the image quailty is on-par (and usually a little better) than a 350D (rebel XT). Why i would reccomend the 10D? It will have a much better build construction and overall design versus the 350D. check out http://www.dpreview.com for really good reviews. also, check out http://www.fredmiranda.com for used 10D's, last I check there were a bunch for about $450 or so.

BTW- let it be known that I am partial to Canon. I do not (yet) own a Canon DSLR, but I really like their lense offerings (boy, there are a TON) and their cameras (based on reviews). I will say however that I "palmed" a Rebel XT and XTi once at a best buy and they felt a little... light.

EDIT:: i would also add, as a rebuttal to the Pentax from the above post... think long and hard about using AA batteries. For me, I will never use AA batteries in a camera again. bad experiences... I am MUCH happier with a single battery, even if it is a little less flexible.