Ok, I got the Sony A-200 at Walmart recently and I kept it for about a week and just didn’t like it. My little hand held 5 megapixel Olympus took better pictures (I thought). I carried it back.
Now, I almost traded it for the Nikon D-40 they had back there, but didn’t. I just got my cash back and walked. I’ve seen some great pics taken with the D-40 and D-60 and BOTH are in my price range. In fact, Sams Club in Annapolis MD has it in stock for 699.99.
What is THEE best DSLR in the 500-800$ price range? The one that take the prettiest pictures? I’m not doing anything professional with this camera, I just want something that takes great, clear pics.
In your opinion, which one is this? Also, what camera has gotten the best reviews from sites?
Bear in mind - a lot of ‘little’ point&shoot cameras will take ‘better shots’ because they do a lot of post-processing and also make a lot of decisions about the shot for you.
My old Nikon Coolpix 8800 has taken some cracking shots which I have struggled to get with all my true SLRs.
edit:
coolpix…
(admittedly - Yorkshire did a lot of the work)
SLR…
I’m a bit of a Canon Nazi. I’ve owned about 7 of them. The Canon Rebel XTi is a bargain at $629.99. I own the precursor to this camera, and it is I, not the camera that limits my photograph taking abilities.
I have the Nikon D40, and am supremely pleased with it. I have only two gripes, that there are only 3 autofocus zones, and that you can’t use older autofocus lenses in it. But for the price of it compared to the other ones, you could add the 55-200mm VR lens to get some extra zoom, or even a wide-angle lens, depending on what you want to do with it.
I don’t think there’s a lot of difference between the A-200 and the other DSLRs in the same price range. Maybe you can describe what specifically you didn’t like about it?
I’m (mostly) a Nikon guy, but when it comes to the consumer level DSLRs, for my money, I like the Canon XTi the best in terms of image quality and ease of use.
Honestly, you really can’t go wrong either way. The reason I prefer the Canon XTi to the equivalent Nikons is the lower noise at the higher ISOs (800-1600).
There’s no such thing as THE best entry-level dSLR. They’re all much the same in output. Aside from a few things like which models have “Live View” and which lines use in-body vs in-lens stabilization, the relevant differences are mostly the extensiveness of the systems they’re a part of. In that category Nikon and Canon lead Sony, Olympus, and Pentax substantially, but for basic amateur use even there the differences are slight. If you want a basic body, mid-range kit zoom, and perhaps one budget tele zoom, any of the systems will meet your needs pretty much as well as any other.
If you can’t take better pictures with a dSLR than a pocket point’n’shoot, the issue is not the camera but the photographer. I mean this as no slight whatsoever - many (most, even) people have neither the time nor the inclination to master the skills required to exploit the SLR’s advantages. The one exception to this is low-light capability: any dSLR will absolutely blow any p&s out of the water in low light with their vastly superior image quality at ISO settings beyond 200. Doesn’t matter who trips the shutter in those cases.
There are a couple functional advantages to SLR’s - viewfinders that actually useful, little to no shutter lag, can take pictures almost instantly upon being turned on, write files to storage cards quickly, etc. These don’t have a whole lot of impact on image quality however, except insofar as you’ll catch the goofy expression on the toddler’s face rather than the mundane expression a half-second later.
Other than that, the real strengths of the dSLR are in superior optics (if you spring for the good lenses), much greater control over depth of field, autofocus systems that can track moving subjects and various other neat tricks, control over aperture, shutter speed, flash settings, and various other features that allow you to override what an automatic camera would choose to do in order to obtain specific results. The last is the really big thing. Even with p&s cameras offering full manual modes, you just don’ thave the control. Over focus in particular, because of the crappy viewfinders. However, these are all things that you have to devote a bunch of time to learning if you’re going to use them to take better pictures. If you’re not interested in doing that, the only reason to prefer a dSLR to the p&s is the utilitarian considerations such as low shutter lag and better high ISO capability allowing clean shots in low light. If those don’t matter to you, there’s no reason not to shoot with a compact.
Agreed – the problem with DSLRs is that the pictures generally look less impressive than the point and shoots right out of the camera because the cameras don’t perform as much, if any, in camera sharpening. So the pictures don’t “pop” when you first look at them. So if you really want to get the full benefit of your DSLR, you have to develop some kind of work flow where you sort your pictures and process them.
On the flip sound, because the pictures aren’t pre-processed, they have fewer artifacts from the digital processing, and you have more leeway to make your own decisions about what should be done to the picture.
That said, I admit that I’m often a bit disappointed with the results from my Canon 20D. It may be due to the fact that I often shoot with a long telephoto and don’t have the real high end lenses, but I never feel that my pictures are quite as crisp as they should be, even after unsharp masking.
I agree with the others, you’re expecting a DSLR to act like a Super-P&S. To get the most out of an SLR you need to do a bit more work yourself. You can actually set up one to act like a P&S, but if that’s the case you’ll probably be happier with a good P&S.
Depends on how you have your camera set up. But DSLRs have plenty of options for sharpening levels, color, contrast, etc. You can get punchy images out of a DSLR without any post processing, especially the Canons, which are much more aggressive in processing JPEGs than Nikons.
If you’re shooting RAW, this is true. Otherwise, the images are preprocessed. On your 20D, you should have options for contrast, saturation, and sharpness.
The camera isn’t necessarily the one key ingredient, it’s the lens. The Canon XT, XTI, or XSI will do you good, but only with decent glass. (I have the XT - the ‘old’ model, which you can get on Ebay for maybe $400.) The lenses are what will make-or-break your pictures.
Whatever camera you get, throw away any lens that comes as part of the “package.” All of the ones I’ve seen are super cheapolas that retail alone for about $50. If you purchase a half-sensor camera (like the XT, XTI, XSI), you can get a digital-only lens for a little bit less.
If they weren’t out of stock, I’d recommend this one as a good starter lens, and this larger one as an upgrade.
Sadly, I can’t even find my one “work-horse” lens that I use 75% of the time. It’s a sigma digital only 18-125mm, f3.5-5.6 - It cost ~ $280 when I got it.
Good luck. (Says the guy who just let’s his dad upgrade and gets the old lenses for free…)
Actually the D40 kit lens is pretty good too. Optically, at least. It’s a cheap little plastic thing and almost impossible to manual focus because of very short travel on the focus ring, but it makes surprisingly nice images. The previous generation Canon kit lens was pretty much loathed, though. If I’m not mistaken Olympus has a fairly well-regarded kit zoom too.
Sorry, wasn’t aware that you could get a D40 with an 18-135. I meant specifically the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II. (I just love lens designations! ) The new VR version that comes with the D60 gives up the ED element, and I’m not sure how much it loses optically because of that.
Completely off topic, but check out the part on Rockwell’s “About” page where he essentially tells you that his entire site is full of shit. I can only agree with him on that point.
I have nothing to contribute here, except that I love my Canon Rebel XTi, which I use with a Sigma18-50mm 3.5-5.6 DC (digital only) lens that I bought from B&H for about $120.
I have a photographer friend whose skill far outbounds my own, who swears by his Nikon kits. Really, anything name-brand should do you fine, so I’d say shoot for the D40 or the XTi with equal enthusiasm.
Of course, if you like this first camera, you’ll probably be “stuck” with that company, since the lenses and flashes tend to be compatible with later cameras from the same company, and that is where much of the cost of buying cameras comes from. Chances are, if you like the first camera, you won’t mind this too much.
I’ve been an old Nikon guy, with FTns, FGs, F3s, lying around the house, starting 40 years ago. My first digitals were Olympus PnS, with which I was mostly happy. However, for a variety of reasons, I went with the Canon Xsi just a few weeks ago when I wanted to get into the DSLR world affordably. So far it has done all I have asked of it, and there are boatloads of things I need to learn about it. Optics seems good, as noted above. However, I think that going with Nikon, Olympus, or Canon at this price point will get you something that you won’t have buyer’s remorse for.
You really can’t go wrong with any of the major player’s cameras. I have a Nikon D70, and am about to get the D300, but I’m sure I would be happy with the image quality of Canon, Sony, Fuji, Sigma, etc. What really separates these cameras is the feature set, how they fit in your hand, and ease of use.
Try all that you can until you find the one that you like the best.
) The new VR version that comes with the D60 gives up the ED element, and I’m not sure how much it loses optically because of that.
