Good digital SLR camera for $500-600?

[Westside guy]

I'd personally recommend the Canon Digital Rebel (300d). It's a step down from the XT but is a truly fantastic camera for beginners.

Oh, man - that original Digital Rebel is amazingly SLOW in almost every way. If you got this route, I strongly recommend you find one (same model, not the newer ones) and try it first.

We have one of these at work, and I own a Nikon D70 - you wouldn't believe how much slower everything on the Rebel feels, seriously. It drives me nuts! I've taken to using my own camera for work purposes.

 

[Mr.Texor]

the original rebel does suck a little.. but, it's not as slow as you imply..
anyway, the new rebel (400d) is really really nice. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

 

[cgratti]

A used Canon 10D can be had for well under $600.

 

[RojoLeo]

the original rebel does suck a little.. but, it's not as slow as you imply..
anyway, the new rebel (400d) is really really nice. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

I agree. Surprisingly, the CF card makes more of a difference on speed than anything.

 

[sjl]

A used Canon 10D can be had for well under $600.

I'm not convinced that a 10D is worth the money - personally, I'd rather have a 300D. Why? EF-S. The 300D can mount EF-S lenses; the 10D cannot. Simple as that.

I know that the 300D has issues, mostly to do with the shutter release button, but considering that the only way to get a lens that is as wide as most people expect onto the 10D is to spend the money on the 17-40mm f/4L or 16-35mm f/2.8L, both of which will probably blow the original poster's budget on their own (the 16-35mm certainly will; the 17-40mm probably will as well.)

Having said that, though, if you can live with a field of view equivalent to 45mm on a 35mm SLR body (28-whatever), or 38mm (24-85mm), by all means get a 10D. The 20-35mm (field of view equivalent to 32-56mm) is probably going to be too expensive, although it may be workable - it would come down to whether the range is acceptable.

What it comes down to is the sort of shots the original poster wants to take.

Note that I very strongly do not advocate modifying an EF-S lens to mount on the 10D. If you can modify the 10D to accept EF-S lenses, then by all means go ahead ... but changing the lens to mount on the 10D is not a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Westside guy]

the original rebel does suck a little.. but, it's not as slow as you imply..
anyway, the new rebel (400d) is really really nice. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

I agree, and the 350D is well-liked as well (and is available for pretty much the same price as the Nikon D40).

 

[GoGoSamGo]

I went with the Nikon D40. I've only owned it for 2 days, but wow is it a lot of fun. I'm just starting out with this Digitial SLR world and have A LOT to learn, but photography wise, this camera has really helped me learn quite a bit (now I see why everyone said it's a great DSLR to start off with if you are just entering). Only thing I'd suggest is to just try it out hands on, due to some people which told me that this camera was too small for them, but for me it was just perfect. Good luck with which ever choice you decide to make.

 

[b0ned0me]

I always tell people to shop for the lens fist. Figure out what set of lenses you are going to want to own. Buy the camera body that will fit the lenses you like. People here are saying "D40" It's ok but look at which lenses fit the D40. Many that you might like don't work on the D40. The D50 will work with a wider selection of lenses

Your budget, if it is inclusive of the lens means you are looking to buy a used camera system. There are plenty in that price range. You need to decide "Nikon or Canon". Base that decision of what used lenses you can find.

For a fixed budget buy the best lens yo can and go cheaper on the body if you have to.

QFT. People who are seriously into photography have a giant investment in lenses, and the cameras are semi-disposable attachments. Even a mid-range DSLR is cheap as chips in comparison to good lenses. I was looking at the D40 but the selection of lenses for it seemed very limited - then a friend lent me his 30D and that was my budget consigned to history...

 

[shieldyoureyes]

You can't go wrong with any camera you chose, whether it is Pentax, Canon, or Nikon. Just a thought...don't leave the Nikon D50 out of the question. Its still a great camera and actually has an auto focus motor, allowing you to use many more lenses that the D40 you let you.

Also, if you are on a budget, check out used gear...that could save you a few hundred dollars easily. Ebay can be a little sketchy. I've had wonderful experiences buying from forums such as Fredmiranda.com and nikoncafe.com

 

[Butters]

I recently got a good deal on a canon 350D [silly name: digital rebel XT] and i'm certain it was a great choice. It was £350 which I'm guessing is probably in your price range, the best thing is that it's an excellent camera that isn't much different from the newer 400D but since it's not the latest model anymore you can find it very cheap.

 

[AlexH]

I recently got a good deal on a canon 350D [silly name: digital rebel XT] and i'm certain it was a great choice. It was £350 which I'm guessing is probably in your price range, the best thing is that it's an excellent camera that isn't much different from the newer 400D but since it's not the latest model anymore you can find it very cheap.

Yup, that's what I did. I found a good deal on a new Rebel XT. Very capable camera.

 

[Westside guy]

I think a point a lot of people here seem to be missing is that these lower-end SLR purchasers may not be particularly interested in eventually owning a huge outfit with multiple lenses. They want the additional flexibility an SLR can provide; but they're not planning to even buy a second lens for years.

You may argue that these people are making the wrong choice; but with the cost of a "one step back from the current model" system (e.g. Canon 350D or Nikon D40) being so low - they're no longer paying a significant price premium by choosing the SLR over a high-end point-and-shoot.

I'm basing this on a couple discussions I've had recently with co-workers that are currently camera shopping.

 

[devilot]

They want the additional flexibility an SLR can provide; but they're not planning to even buy a second lens for years.

I agree.

I've taken two classes on film B&W photography and picked up my dad's Nikon D80 and felt overwhelmed. A dSLR is different. And there is a learning curve.

For me, personally? Even though I'm used to a film SLR, when it comes to a digital camera right now? I'd rather a more advanced P&S that also has amazing video capabilities, such as Canon's S3 IS. I love that camera! Sad I sold it, but ya know, a MB has a bit more appeal to me.

OP, take a look at that camera, and take a look around online-- some of the images from that "silly P&S" can be just amazing.

 

[OceanView]

Go with the Canon XT or XTi if you can afford it.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The Olympus SP-550UZ (with 28 - 504 mm eq. zoom!) would probably be a very, very good starters camera, and it shouldn't cost you more than $400-$500. No need for additional lenses, full automatic or manual settings should allow you to take the pictures you want...

 

[cgratti]

I'm not convinced that a 10D is worth the money - personally, I'd rather have a 300D. Why? EF-S. The 300D can mount EF-S lenses; the 10D cannot. Simple as that.

I know that the 300D has issues, mostly to do with the shutter release button, but considering that the only way to get a lens that is as wide as most people expect onto the 10D is to spend the money on the 17-40mm f/4L or 16-35mm f/2.8L, both of which will probably blow the original poster's budget on their own (the 16-35mm certainly will; the 17-40mm probably will as well.)

Having said that, though, if you can live with a field of view equivalent to 45mm on a 35mm SLR body (28-whatever), or 38mm (24-85mm), by all means get a 10D. The 20-35mm (field of view equivalent to 32-56mm) is probably going to be too expensive, although it may be workable - it would come down to whether the range is acceptable.

What it comes down to is the sort of shots the original poster wants to take.

Note that I very strongly do not advocate modifying an EF-S lens to mount on the 10D. If you can modify the 10D to accept EF-S lenses, then by all means go ahead ... but changing the lens to mount on the 10D is not a good idea in my opinion.

I have owned both, and the 10D is a much better camera. I sold my 300D and kept the 10D. I use it as a backup camera for my 30D.

 

[drgnmstrnik]

I have to say, if you are going to get a camera that has replaceable lenses do not waste your money on the Nikon 40D or 50Ds. They are way too limiting so anyone who is moderately serious about photography will run into problems probably within a year. Spending $700 on a Nikon D80 or a Canon Rebel XTi is MUCH cheaper than buying a 40D and then having to upgrade.

If you don't know what you want to do, I suggest buying an upper end point and shoot like the Nikon S series. They have a lot of manual functionality and it won't be obsolete if you decide to get an SLR. That fits within your budget and it won't be trash when you upgrade.

 

[compuwar]

I have to say, if you are going to get a camera that has replaceable lenses do not waste your money on the Nikon 40D or 50Ds. They are way too limiting so anyone who is moderately serious about photography will run into problems probably within a year. Spending $700 on a

While I love my D2x, I can't think of a picture I've shot in the last year that wouldn't have come out just as well on a D40, what limitation(s) are you describing?

 

[Clix Pix]

I have to say, if you are going to get a camera that has replaceable lenses do not waste your money on the Nikon 40D or 50Ds.

There is no such thing as the "Nikon 40D or 50Ds."

However, there IS the Nikon D40, D40x and D50....

 

[sjl]

I have owned both, and the 10D is a much better camera. I sold my 300D and kept the 10D. I use it as a backup camera for my 30D.

I don't deny that the 10D is a better camera. I'm just pointing out that it has one drawback compared to the 300D, and that's its lens mount - it takes EF lenses, but not EF-S, despite being a 1.6 crop body. For me, as for some other people, that's a deal breaker. For yet other people, it isn't. All I ask is that anybody looking at buying a second-hand 10D be aware of what they are buying, and what it can, and cannot, do.

 

[cnybud]

I bought the Nikon D50 as a compromise with my wife. i wanted the D80 (still do), but settled for this one because the price was right. So far i have enjoyed taking photos with it, but there is a huge learning curve going from a point and shoot like my old Sony f717, to this one. I actually had more fun with the older one and took more photos with that one than with th Nikon, just because I want to make sure i get the shot.

I guess I cannot give you an opinion about the others that i have seen, only what i have used and the Nikon D50 is a good camera. It feels solid, and takes great pics as long as you know what you are doing.

 

[wmmk]

The Pentax *istD is not a bad camera. It's basically the K10D (the flagship of the current Pentax line) with a 6MP (instead of 10MP) sensor. Of course, the fact that it uses the less pixel-dense sensor means that you can crank up the ISO more without noise, which lets you get sharper low light shots.