ok, so after poking about at some camera shops, she is interested in digital. After some question and answer with a few sales folks, it looks like the 2 contenders are Nikon and Sony. one has vibration reduction in the body (Sony) and the other in the lens(Nikon). which is better? Sony has a better price point, but Nikon is a name im personally more familiar with, so i feel like its a better quality unit. am i crazy? opinions? looks like 5 bills is where my budget is now and no more than 750 ...which is a lot for me. but for something i feel she will get a lot of enjoyment and use over a long period of time, its worth it...not to mention a few hundred on a transmission for a project is easier to argue after this camera is in her hands 
1
2
-
Sept. 5, 2010 7:25 p.m. 4cylndrfury SuperDork
-
Sept. 5, 2010 7:39 p.m. Wonkothesane Reader
Now you're in the area qwhere you can go crazy trying to decide... there's more tech info out there for cameras than there are for cars!
My recommendation is to get whatever one feels right in your hands. Either will probably be way more than you neede any time soon.
I'm shooting a nikon, I wasn't a huge fan of the alphas' feel. Around here, used glass is cheaper for the nikons as well.
-
Sept. 5, 2010 8:37 p.m. Toyman01 SuperDork
I got the wife a Nikon D3000 for her last birthday. She likes it because it shoots good pictures. I love it because it will shoot anything you want. Low light, action, anything. It has taken a little playing to get it down pat, but it is a great camera. The price was $479.00 at Sam's. Since getting it the Pentax and the Cannon have been collecting dust. It's about time to put them on Craigslist.
-
Sept. 5, 2010 8:58 p.m. oldsaw SuperDork
4cylndrfury wrote:
ok, so after poking about at some camera shops, she is interested in digital. After some question and answer with a few sales folks, it looks like the 2 contenders are Nikon and Sony. one has vibration reduction in the body (Sony) and the other in the lens(Nikon). which is better? Sony has a better price point, but Nikon is a name im personally more familiar with, so i feel like its a better quality unit. am i crazy? opinions? looks like 5 bills is where my budget is now and no more than 750 ...which is a lot for me. but for something i feel she will get a lot of enjoyment and use over a long period of time, its worth it...not to mention a few hundred on a transmission for a project is easier to argue after this camera is in her hands
Sony bought Minolta's camera division a few years ago. Some of the old lenses will fit the new bodies but there may be issues with "total" compatibility. That may be true of older Nikon/Canon lenses on newer digital bodies, too.
Not trying to cloud the skies, but there are always things to consider when a budget is included with decision-making.
I prefer the digital format, but I've kept my old Pentax and Fujica film SLR's/lenses - just because.
-
Sept. 6, 2010 9:14 a.m. Spinout007 Dork
dyintorace wrote:
This thread has a lot of help in it. I ended up buying my wife the Nikon D40 and she's been thrilled with it. I would think you could find a used one near your price range.
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/learn-me-digital-slrs/...
We've got the same camera and I've used it for everything from trackday pictures, shooting paintball scenario games(not as safe or easy as it sounds), to family pictures. Absolutely love it.
http://picasaweb.google.com/m/viewer?source=androidclient#album/Spinout007/5329527...
-
Sept. 6, 2010 9:17 a.m. Spinout007 Dork
Keep an eye on Cl. I've been hunting for that perfect upgrade, and have found a few that qualify. Just out of my price range ATM.
-
Sept. 6, 2010 9:46 a.m. 4cylndrfury SuperDork
yeah, now that we have narrowed it down, all i see on CL is overpriced older stuff or "sealed" stuff for what i can get it at a brick and mortar for. looks like i may finance one instead of used... im running out of time. her bday is in less than three weeks
-
Sept. 6, 2010 11:26 a.m. Marty! Dork
I haven't read every post in this thread but I will throw in my .02 as I was a semi-pro photog at one time. I used to shoot Minolta and then Sony when they sold their line. Sony makes a very good camera even starting in the lower price points. IS (image stabilization) in the body vs. the lens is a debate that has been around forever. Neither will trump each other in quality but having it in the body will help if you by making every lens a IS lens, not just the super pricey ones.
Nikon's along with Canon's are pretty sweet too. To me their biggest appeal is that there is just so many used accessories out there and some can be had pretty cheap. The downside to that is that there are also a lot more users looking for those same bargains.
As far as financing I would look at where your shopping. I've bought cameras from HSN and QVC before and the prices were just as good as B&H if not better. The best thing is that they have "easy pay" (they just bill your credit card the same time every month for however many payments you agreed too). It's no interest also.
I see right now QVC has Canon and Olympus camera kits with lenses available for 3 to 5 payments. HSN also has some Pentax kits for good prices and easy pay. While these are not the brands you are looking for they are still some pretty quality cameras and may be a way to get a new camera and accessories in time for her birthday.
-
Sept. 6, 2010 1:20 p.m. ddavidv SuperDork
David S. Wallens wrote:
What Wallens said. I know the OP elected to choose digital but I learned all my photog skillz y0! on a Pentax K. In fact, the entire setup with multiple lenses is in my closet not being used...anyone interested? A lot of bang for very little buck.If you're going to go film, why not go totally back to basics and pick up a Pentax K1000--manual focus, manual exposure, manual film winding. The only thing the battery does is power the light meter. The early ones have metal bodies, too. We used them in high school. You can pound nails with one.
-
Sept. 6, 2010 1:21 p.m. Spinout007 Dork
Wow never thought I would see an endorsement for a cable shopping network ln here. That being said its how my wife got he first laptop. Gotta love interest free payments.
-
Sept. 6, 2010 1:37 p.m. deadmeat New Reader
I'm a bit of a camera guy myself, but suck at taking pictures :P
I'd highly recommend if you're just getting into digital, go with something cheap first to learn the ropes, then go from there.
I started with a Nikon D70s. It's a VERY rugged, and robust body for as old as it is, and you can get them for CHEAP. Probly around $300 now with a lens and a few other accessories. It's only a 6.1 MP camera, but is still capable of taking great photos.
I'd recommend sticking with either Nikon or Canon, as they have some vintage glass that you can still use with some of the newer digital bodies. Nikons will use the F-mount lenses, (basically from the release of the nikon F series camera on).
Now, the reason I recommend the Nikon D70s is because it's one of the earlier bodies that has an autofocus motor built into the body of the camera. Some of them don't, like the D40 and D60 series. You have to buy G series lenses wich have built-in autofocus motors in the lenses, thus making them pricier. That's something else you have to remember when buying the camera. The cheaper ones won't have many advanced features compared to the ones up higher on the price scale, and subsequently having to spend a bit more money to keep up.
Sony camera's are nice, and you can use some of the older Minolta glass, and Zeiss makes some really nice glass for their camera's. Not to mention, if you get the IS bodies, ALL glass is going to be image stabilized, which is very neat.
Proof is in the pudding:
Nikon D70s taken handheld with a manual focus zoom lens I bought at GoodWill:
Taken at Sebring in 2008 with 70-200 lens at 105mm f4.5.
-meaty
-
Sept. 6, 2010 11:28 p.m. neon4891 SuperDork
1988RedT2 wrote:
Darkroom, eh? I was making very nice 8 x 10 color prints in the kitchen of my apartment back in the (gulp) mid-1990's!
I'm interested in how you had things set up, as when I did color photo, it required near-pitch black, and our color developer wasn't the type of set-up available to the average amature.
-
Sept. 7, 2010 12:42 a.m. BoxheadTim Dork
You need pretty good temperature control for colour (and transparencies) but if you've got something like a Jobo CPE2 processor or similar, you can do that at home.
Not sure I'd have the patience for that, though.
-
Sept. 7, 2010 3:25 p.m. 4cylndrfury SuperDork
Deal of the century?
http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/pho/1939255127.html -
Sept. 25, 2010 10:24 p.m. 4cylndrfury SuperDork
ok, so just to follow up, she ended up with a sony alpha 500, new on closeout for her birthday. I found it for <$550 with an extended warranty and a 18/55 lens. its got the range of features she wanted without video or some other fluff she didnt need, so basically we didnt pay extra for stuff she didnt want. after about 300 shots now with only a dozen that are worth a turd, i know dslr was the right choice. we are already scoping out some macro glass, and some accessories like tripods and remote triggers. the nice thing is that i know she loves it, and that makes it worth the cost to me. will post some shots soon.
