DSLR time again...

So my wife and I agree it is time to move on from our old 3.0mp point-and-shoot to a real camera. I'm currently comparing the following -

Nikon D60

Sony Alpha 300 & 350

Canon EOS Rebel XSi (aka 450D)

Any other recommendations in this range?

I've been using B&H's website for general info and browsing but I know there is a good digital photo resource website, I just can't find or remember it.

Also, what "essential" accessories should we consider? Already have a decent tripod. Monopod? External flash? What type of case? Cleaning supplies? Anything else?

TIA.

For an SLR, I like the idea ofsticking to a camera company - ie, Canon or Nikon. OTOH, I've seen some great pictures out of a Sony, so it's not a bad choice.

Some must-have accessories:

A good external flash.

Lots of memory cards.

A good bag. (I favor Tamrac; not cheap but they last forever.)

+1 for Sony. I have an a100 with over 25,000 pics on it and a new a700 with almost 5,000.

The a350 is a perfect amateur/hobbyist dSLR. It makes the transition really easy with the Live-view and the tilting LCD.

It got great reviews from all the photo mags this year.

It also has the ability to use pretty much all of Minolta's lenses and the Anti-shake is the best in the industry.

Another +1 for David's recommendations...

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA350/

I would actually suggest looking at the Nikon D80, the prices have dropped through the floor since the announcement of the D90. Nikon is my preferred brand and one of the really nice things is the fact that you can use lenses all the way back to the old Ai and Ai S lenses from the 70's, it gives you a massive variety of lenses to play with. None of the other camera manufacturers allow for that much backward compatibility.

As far as SLR's go I own a Nikon FE, FM, D40 and D70 and I'm about to order an old F3HP film body (getting back into shooting film for fun). I'm also more than likely going to pick up either a used D300 or a D90 soon as well. The D90 is very tempting with its HD video capability.

D90 video is a bit limited, be sure to read up on it before taking the plunge.

Really, you can't go wrong with any of the dSLR makers out there. What suits you best is up to you. I think most casual shooter will do quite well with Olympus, since they have that 2x crop ratio that effectively doubles focal length for all lenses. Great way to get you in close to the action. Best way to see? Go into a camera store and try each in your hands. If you have small hands, you may not like the way the Rebel or low-end Nikon fit.

I have shot Pentax in the past, currently shoot with a Rebel XT. Spending a ton on a body isn't exactly necessary. If you can get a 1-2 year old body new for a song, do it. The new bells and whistles (live view, movies) are all things you wouldn't really miss. Instead, spring for a decent normal zoom lens like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, a good external flash, and maybe a longer zoom. That will cover all your bases until you're ready to move on to bigger and better things.

But hey, what do I know? I still use a Polaroid!

rebelgtp wrote: Nikon is my preferred brand and one of the really nice things is the fact that you can use lenses all the way back to the old Ai and Ai S lenses from the 70's, it gives you a massive variety of lenses to play with. None of the other camera manufacturers allow for that much backward compatibility.

Actually, Pentax goes one-up on Nikon - they mount every Pentax lens ever made, from the old screw-mount lenses to the high-end Pentax 6x7 lenses. Heck, with an adapter, the Canon EOS mount will mount just about any lens made period.

I'm not a big fan of using manual focus lenses on these digital bodies, however. I find their viewfinders too small and dim to try to focus manually unfortunately. If you want to use those old lenses, best to stick with that F3HP, which is a great camera.

bastomatic I did not know Pentax was that backward compatible very nice

Yeah the other day I shot my first roll of film in 10+ years using the FM. I was out in the field working on a biology project, the day was questionable so I took my FM instead of the D40 or D70 and I'm glad I did. It started POURING down rain once I got out there. I still would take the camera out and shoot some without worrying unlike with the DSLR's.

This winter I'm hoping to go out and shoot at the dog sled race, which last year I think it was around -10 - -20 degrees F at the time.

Love, love, love my Rebel XTi. But no modern camera is truly bad. Touch as many as you can in person, then buy what you like and you probably can't go wrong.

And +1 on all David's suggestions. Also add a good high-speed card reader.

jg

David S. Wallens wrote: Some must-have accessories: A good external flash. Lots of memory cards. (They're so cheap now, it's a no brainer) A good bag. (I favor Domke; not pretty but they last more forever.)

fixed it

I'll also vote for spending more on glass than the body. Avoid cheap lenses. Even the low end Canon and Nikon lenses are a shame. At the job over the weekend they gave me a Nik 18-70(?). I hated it, it had the fit and finish of a quantery lens from back in the 80's and the manual focus was done by turning the front barrel where the lens hood attached . After shooting 5000 images and losing my focus point everytime i bumped the hood, I was ready to toss the thing against the building after the the second hour

I'm in the same boat. Loooking to spend $400 on something entry level to take pictures of the bun in the oven when it comes out.

So far I've thought about the d40 due to ken rockwells site, but I'm waiting to see what happens on black friday. I don't like the idea of no autofocus motor in the body and might go for the D80.

One big caveat is that I need to have somehting that my wife can use without her getting too confused. It needs to have a good auto mode for her.

Have been looking at the rebel xsi as well.

I'm not a pro and don't need tons of glass, atleast in the beginning.. We'll see how it goes.

The more I look and read the more it seems to be coming down to the D80 or the Rebel XSi.

Microsoft's live.com 30% / $200 rebate is looking very tempting right now... must resist....

Any recommendations on flashes? My BIL has two flashes that are wireless and can be setup remotely, how's that work?

bastomatic wrote: Heck, with an adapter, the Canon EOS mount will mount just about any lens made period.

More info on this please.

A few things to keep in mind...

• DSLR bodies, like most consumer electronics, get outdated/one-upped regularly
• because of the above, last year's design is usually a better value than the latest/greatest
• good lenses are EXPENSIVE
• kit lenses are usually not very good
• skip the kit lens, and make sure you budget for quality glass

Also, the best camera to own is the one you will actually use. A DSLR doesn't do you any good if it's too bulky to carry, to valuable to risk losing, and too heavy to pull out of your luggage.

So, think really long and hard about the purchase - you might find you're better off with a top-notch point and shoot, like the Powershot S5 IS, which is a bit smaller, less complicated, and hundreds of dollars cheaper.

All that said, I'm quite happy with my Rebel XT. I've had it a few years with no problems. I wanted the SLR mostly to shoot my son's sports. For vacation snapshots, I use my point and shoot Panasonic just as much, of not more.

fastEddie wrote:

bastomatic wrote: Heck, with an adapter, the Canon EOS mount will mount just about any lens made period.

More info on this please.

Ok, an adapter like this will allow you to use an old Pentax screwmount (M42) lens on the Canon, which gets my vote for most plentiful and cheap great glass. Look around for things like Pentax Takumars, which are quite simply some of the best lenses ever made, and you can get them as cheap as $10. Carl Zeiss also made, and still makes, lenses in this mount. You can find other lens mount adapters, just search for "EOS xxxx adapter," where EOS is the canon mount, and xxxx is another brand, Nikon, Pentax, you name it.

Finally, when shopping for a new AF lens, you don't have to restrict yourself to the manufacturer's offerings. Like I said earlier, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is killer sharp, and I got a really nice used example for $250. If I was looking for a telephoto, I'd look at the Canon L 70-200 f/4, or maybe a 3rd party lens maker.

For a flash, in Canon you have lots to choose from. If you want to go wireless, with the flash off the camera, you can either do it automagically with Canon's system, using compatible flashes only. Google 580EX and 420EX for current pricing, I would think a full system with flashes, light stands, umbrellas, transmitter, would probably cost $1000+. I used just this system this weekend, and while it did all the thinking for me, the results are all over the place and you have to do a lot of tweaking to be happy, and the flash units have to be oriented so they can "see" each other, which means indoors it only works up to about 30 feet tops, outdoors it often doesn't work period.

You can also go manual flash, which is a lot cheaper and more reliable. Problem is, it doesn't do any of the thinking for you. You have to learn flash ratios, angles of light, falloff, all that good stuff. You can use any flashes you want for this, as long as you can dial down the manual mode, so a flash costs $50-75. You'll want some way to pop the flashes, and the systems most pros use are pocket wizards, quite expensive. There are other RF options out there, ranging in price from $20-$300, so look around.

Look at Strobist for a great resource in off-camera lighting. You can spend weeks months there though, I'll warn you.

Oh, and if pocketability is a concern, Olympus is sweet. Their E-420 is tiny, and they just introduced a pancake lens for it that makes it very easy to take around with you.

What's really nuts is the Micro-4/3ds system they are coming out with, that features interchangeable lenses with P/S-size bodies. Panasonic's G1 is the first example of this, looks like a great option to take on vacations:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

I happen to agree with ken of www.kenrockwell.com that the d40/d60 is more camera than most people need.

(buy a nikon )

I have had a d40, and now have a d80, loved em both!

I am not the biggest fan of Ken Rockwell, to be honest.

CrackMonkey wrote: - good lenses are EXPENSIVE

Actually there are some of the less expensive lenses that are great. One example is the Nikkor 50mm 1.8D, the lens costs just over $100 and produces great shots. There are many "budget" lenses out there that can produce great quality shots, and then there are some that are more expensive that are complete trash. The biggest thing is do the research on any lenses that you plan to buy.

As far as kit lenses go yeah some are good to pass by, others make for good lightweight packages that don't cost much for travel. The Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200VR lenses are quite nice for the money. The 55-200 without VR is far worse optically than the model with VR.

Also another funny thing is there can be multiple lenses over time that use the same optical range and specs. The thing is they are not always equal, sometimes you will have several models that seem the same but some are trash while others are great. Again do your research.

The D40/D60 line from Nikon is great just remember you will not be able to use autofocus on the older AF lenses. The lenses will still meter just fine you will just have to focus manually. If you get this body set make sure any lenses you buy are AF-S (if Nikon), HSM or motorized (if Sigma) or in general from any lens manufacture that they say they have an internal focus motor.

Nikon's shutter makes a cooler sound than the Canon's do.

rebelgtp wrote:

CrackMonkey wrote: - good lenses are EXPENSIVE

Actually there are some of the less expensive lenses that are great.

Absolutely. The Canon "nifty fifty" (or that "thrifty fifty"?) is another example.

Then, there are lenses like the latest iteration of Sigma's 70-300. It's ok for the money, I own one, and won't be replacing it anytime soon. But Canon's 70-200 L is leagues better, but at several times the cost.

The Canon 50 1.8 is also one of the lenses you alluded to that has changed over time. The current version uses more plastic in the body and isn't quiet a good optically as the previous version. But, for $75, it's a fantastic lens. I use it frequently for shooting basketball, since it deals with the crappy indoor gym lighting better than any of my other lenses (and I don't have the budget for anything else).

I bought a D40 a few months ago, and I love it. I looked at the Rebel, but the Nikon fit my hand better. Also, I bought a Nikon 55-200mm lens with image stabilization. It has worked out great, too. As far as bags go, I looked at a few, and decided on a LowePro Microtrekker 100.