I have $1000 for a DSLR camera body

[bchamorro]

Its that time for a new Digital SLR. I just sold my 4 year old Canon Rebel and I honestly didn't like it much, it felt very plasticky. DSLR technology must have improved a lot by now...

What body would you recommend me?

$1000 budget.
I don't own any lenses, so I will need a lens too. I have a $700 budget for the lens. Need something very versatile.

I do a lot of high speed shots (horses) as well as landscape/waterscape.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So you said you don't have any lenses and I assume you don't have any other canon only stuff that you need, would you mind jumping ship to Nikon?

I have an xti and love it, but you sound more advanced than I. Have you seen the Nikon D90 (I think that's what it's called) it records pretty high quality video.

 

[Abstract]

If I were in the market right now for a DSLR, and I had your budget, I'd get the Nikon D90. Judging from the photos, it seems to be an excellent camera.

As for lenses, it depends on how far away you'd be standing from these horses. I think something like a Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 would be outstanding. It doesn't have VR, but then again, you don't need it to shoot photos of moving horses.

 

[bchamorro]

I don't mind going with Nikon. I don't own anything right now.

The D90 looks like a great camera, and the HD movie mode seems like a great addition. I don't think I'll be using the movie mode much since I already own an HD camcorder (Canon HF10), but I will consider it just for the image quality.

I'll wait for more recommendations.

 

[Zieg3rman]

I would also go with the D90. I am just getting into photography but I think that from what you are saying, you are an aspiring photographer and the D90 should be everything you could possibly use. As for lenses. The 80-200 looks good. There is also an 18-200 VR which may suite you better incase you want to take an up close picture. I myself will hopefully get my new D80 in the mail tomorrow! Yessss!

 

[eji]

I have a Pentax K10D and it's a great camera, especially when you pair it with the 1.4/50mm Pentax prime instead of the 18-55 kit lens. You get an awful lot of features for your money -- including weather seals, which have been handy when I've been caught unawares in a drizzle.

 

[bchamorro]

I would also go with the D90. I am just getting into photography but I think that from what you are saying, you are an aspiring photographer and the D90 should be everything you could possibly use. As for lenses. The 80-200 looks good. There is also an 18-200 VR which may suite you better incase you want to take an up close picture. I myself will hopefully get my new D80 in the mail tomorrow! Yessss!

very nice! enjoy it!

I really want to go with either Canon or Nikon. So far the D90 is my top choice. I've also been looking at the Canon 40D. Any opinions on this one?

 

[radiantm3]

very nice! enjoy it!

I really want to go with either Canon or Nikon. So far the D90 is my top choice. I've also been looking at the Canon 40D. Any opinions on this one?

The only thing I don't like about the 40D is the horrible resolution on the LCD display. You will never know how sharp your photos are from viewing them on the LCD (even when zoomed). All you can really judge is the exposure. This is sort of an issue for someone like me who doesn't have the steadiest hands.

 

[UMHurricanes34]

The only thing I don't like about the 40D is the horrible resolution on the LCD display. You will never know how sharp your photos are from viewing them on the LCD (even when zoomed). All you can really judge is the exposure. This is sort of an issue for someone like me who doesn't have the steadiest hands.

That is 100% incorrect. The 40D's LCD is an extremely high resolution display, the issue comes with Canon's review algorithm. It shows a much lower resolution copy of the image just captured, thus resulting in the discrepancy between sharp or out of focus. The 50D is said to have an improved algorithm.

To prove my point, take a 40D and put it in Live View. This shows just how nice the LCD is. You can pinpoint your focus on it, no problem. Take the picture, and then see the previewed image. Is it sharp? Well you know it is because you just saw that it was perfectly in focus, but the preview image is making you scratch your head. That's the result of the algorithm, not the LCD.

If I were on a budget of $1000, I'd take a 40D or even a Canon XSi (what I'm using now until the 50D or 5D MKII come out). The 40D is dropping in price now that the 50D has been announced, and it's a fabulous camera. And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

I'm not anti-Nikon in any way, but I've always felt Canon has offered better lenses and better IQ from nearly all of their DSLR bodies. The XSi is astounding in IQ for a $600 camera.

My 2 Cents.

 

[wheezy]

If you're shooting at a horse track and need a very fast, very sharp lens then I recommend the 135F2 L by Canon. I own this lens and it is sharp, and plenty fast for horse racing. The only downside is the lack of zoom, it is a fixed, prime lens. I've never let that slow me down though. You can pick it up on Amazon for $900.

And sticking within your $1700 (total) budget, you can grab a 40D body for $775. With what's leftover you could probably pick-up the must have bang for the buck 50mm 1.8 so you can use your camera for something other than horse races.

OR, you could go for a 70-200F4 and and the 40D with the 28-135 IS Kit lens, but those are both slower lenses for really taking fast shutter shots.

Oh, and the Rebel was the beginning, Canon has come a LONG way in quality feel. That was my first DSLR as well, and stepping up to just the 20D was a world of difference.

 

[UMHurricanes34]

snip

Very good suggestions, the 135 f/2L is a fantastic lens and will probably be my next purchase.

I have a few L lenses and I can give some thoughts on each, but for that budget, the 135 f/2L or even go a little bigger for the 24-105 f/4L (on a crop body you'll get a little more distance).

The 24-105 f/4L is a bit slower, but it provides the flexibility of a zoom. But once you start to see the IQ prime lenses provide, you'll start using them more and more.

The 50mm 1.8 is a must have for every Canon shooter, and at about $80, there's no reason not to have one. When you get more experience with better lenses, the 1.4 is a great upgrade. More speed, USM, and much better build quality. But it is more expensive, and not worth the upgrade to some shooters.

And if you ever want to drop the big bucks, the 50mm f/1.2L USM is a breezy $1400 on amazon. Sadly, once you get your first L lens (or lenses), you get addicted to them.

 

[Edge100]

The 24-105 f/4L is a bit slower, but it provides the flexibility of a zoom. But once you start to see the IQ prime lenses provide, you'll start using them more and more.

The 135/F2L is not just "a bit" faster than the 24-105; it is a full two stops faster. That is, the difference between having to use ISO1600 vs. ISO400; or the difference between 1/200s vs. 1/100 (critical if you want sharp photos at these focal lengths on a crop body, or even a FF body). Depending on the intended use, the difference is absolutely enormous. The 135/2 will also focus much faster and have much shallower DOF than the (admittedly very good) 24-105/4.

Prime vs. zoom is always difficult, and the L zooms are great, but when you need the fastest, highest-quality glass, always choose primes.

 

[wheezy]

The 135/2 will also focus much faster and have much shallower DOF than the (admittedly very good) 24-105/4.

The focus on the 135 is VERY fast, I shoot drag racers right on the side of the track and when I'm not paying attention and miss the start, I'm still able to pull the camera up to my eye, center focus on the nose of the car and get a crystal clear shot before they're too far off the line. The other night I whipped around as a car passed me, focused on the license plate in the rear and got a shot sharp enough to read the telephone number on the plate holder, and that was approaching dusk when there wasn't a lot of light.

The 24-105 is an L so it's going to be good, but the 135 is one of the top 5 Canon L lenses.

 

[ChrisA]

$1000 budget.
I don't own any lenses, so I will need a lens too. I have a $700 budget for the lens. Need something very versatile.

When someone says "Which $1000 Canon dSLR body should I buy?" they have answers their own question. Canon only makes one dSLR body at each price point.

How did you decide on the 1000/700 split? Why not 700/1000? If you are starting from scratch why Canon? Why not Nikon? What kinds of subjects do you want to photograph and how will you use the camera.

Buying digital bodies is not like film bodies. Don't expect the digital body to last as long. Technology changes and you will want to upgrade. Not that the body will break but it's like with computers. Not many people would want to use a 10 year old computer. Same here not many will want a 10 years old dSLR body. Llenses can last decades. So again why the 1000/700 split.

No to answer the question: Buy the body with a "kit" lens. Shoot that combo for at least 1,000 or so frames then buy a second lens that will get the picures you missed with the kit lens. Maybe that will be a fast wide angle zoom or a 35mm prime maybe it waill be a Canon speedlight. You won't know untill you've shot 1,000 frames. Resist the temptation to by a cheap 300mm f/5.6 zoom beginners always think they need one of these and they don't.

 

[UMHurricanes34]

The 135/F2L is not just "a bit" faster than the 24-105; it is a full two stops faster.

Excuse my use of "bit" and the offense it brought to you. How does a "good bit" sound to you? Better?

 

[compuwar]

And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

What a load of crock. Show me one Canon lens with an MTF chart that *comes close* to the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 VR. Heck, show me *any* manufacturer's lens that compares to it- including Zeiss.

Perhaps you can explain why Hollywood uses Nikkors on their movie cameras instead of "much superior" Canon lenses?

Canon makes wonderful lenses, but they're not "much superior" to Nikon's line of equivalent lenses. With innovations like the Nano-coating Nikon has developed, the latest round of professional lenses from Nikon have unbelievable flare resistance, while keeping that contrasty punch Nikkors are known for.

Here's what Photodo has to say about Canon's own MTF scores:

Please have in mind when you compare the Zeiss and Canon articles about MTF that they have a different approach to the subject. Zeiss exhibits achievments from the real world lenses, while Canon exhibits design ideals for each lens.

Perhaps you can explain why the 20-35mm Canon L scores lower than the Nikon on Photodo if it's "much superior?" (Photodo shows lenses all over the map, Nikon has lots better than Canon, and visa versa- though they rarely have the latest incarnations and don't have all that many matches for Canon 'L' series glass and the equivalent Nikon lens in that focal length/aperture.)

 

[jaduffy108]

Another vote for the Nikon D90. With the 18-105 VR, it's $1300.

 

[mac 2005]

I don't mind going with Nikon. I don't own anything right now.

The D90 looks like a great camera, and the HD movie mode seems like a great addition. I don't think I'll be using the movie mode much since I already own an HD camcorder (Canon HF10), but I will consider it just for the image quality.

I'll wait for more recommendations.

I also would go with the Nikon. The D80 may be a better buy right now; with the D90 new on the market, the D80 has a nice price drop. That said, the D90 is worth the price and offers some obvious benefits over the D80.

With respect to Nikon vs. Canon. I've found the Nikon offers greater tactility than the Canons. I find the Canons too plasticky and do not feel good in the hand.

 

[UMHurricanes34]

snip *anger*

By superior L glass, I meant superior to the standard line of Canon lenses. People on the internet are so swift to explode for absolutely no reason.

Let's try reasonable discussion before jumping on one another, shall we?

 

[AlaskaMoose]

That is 100% incorrect. The 40D's LCD is an extremely high resolution display, the issue comes with Canon's review algorithm. It shows a much lower resolution copy of the image just captured, thus resulting in the discrepancy between sharp or out of focus. The 50D is said to have an improved algorithm.

To prove my point, take a 40D and put it in Live View. This shows just how nice the LCD is. You can pinpoint your focus on it, no problem. Take the picture, and then see the previewed image. Is it sharp? Well you know it is because you just saw that it was perfectly in focus, but the preview image is making you scratch your head. That's the result of the algorithm, not the LCD.

If I were on a budget of $1000, I'd take a 40D or even a Canon XSi (what I'm using now until the 50D or 5D MKII come out). The 40D is dropping in price now that the 50D has been announced, and it's a fabulous camera. And Nikon can't even compare (at this moment) to the lenses available from Canon and the much superior L glass is always a beautiful thing to use.

I'm not anti-Nikon in any way, but I've always felt Canon has offered better lenses and better IQ from nearly all of their DSLR bodies. The XSi is astounding in IQ for a $600 camera.

My 2 Cents.

You are correct about the 40D screen.

I will add the following: this lower resolution screen (except when used with Live View) saves battery power.

 

[cube]

The D80 is now $700 with the 18-55 VR.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I also would go with the Nikon. The D80 may be a better buy right now; with the D90 new on the market, the D80 has a nice price drop. That said, the D90 is worth the price and offers some obvious benefits over the D80.

With respect to Nikon vs. Canon. I've found the Nikon offers greater tactility than the Canons. I find the Canons to plasticky and do not feel good in the hand.

That's nonsense. A person who has small hands finds the XT series perfect, while the 40D feels better in large hands. "Feel" does nothing for image quality, however.

 

[bchamorro]

Im going to go to the store and check these cameras out. I want to feel them in my hand too. Just to make it clear, lets say a I have a $1700-1800 budget for everything.

Btw, I won't be shooting horses at a race track. I'll be shooting slower movements like Dressage. Also landscape, waterscape and a lot of nature. So would you like to rethink your lens recommendation for those of you that made some?

 

[Edge100]

Excuse my use of "bit" and the offense it brought to you. How does a "good bit" sound to you? Better?

No offense, but let's be accurate. The 135/2L is one of the best lenses Canon makes. While no slouch by any means, the 24-105/4L isn't in the same league. The ability to get very wide apertures means allowing vastly more light to hit the sensor, which may mean a lot in terms of high ISO noise on a $1000 body.

 

[cube]

Im going to go to the store and check these cameras out. I want to feel them in my hand too. Just to make it clear, lets say a I have a $1700-1800 budget for everything.

Check out the D200 too then. If you don't find one there, the D300 should give you and idea of what it feels in the hand.

A NEW body is $950 at the Cameta ebay store.