could we please stay on topic here? OP wants to learn about photography, take the GB crap somewhere else.

Max, I have a 30D body I don't mind parting with if interested. Could save some there and get a better lens. Email in profile.

When the kids started crawling I realized that my point-n-shoot sony cybershot couldn't keep up even on fast mode. Kept getting blurred picts. I did some research and ended up choosing a Pentax K20 DSLR. This one is backwards compatable with my Pentax 35mm lenses that I had already. We've had a lot of fun with this one and I've only gotten into the basics.
Priced it at several places, but ended up ordering from Walmart online.

I've used Canon DSLR for years and love them. You will be able to get into a Canon T2i and an Canon 200mm zoom for that price. You will be happy. I would save the money and get the T2i over the T3i because I did not see a new feature set that warranted the price. Oh, and you will be getting good quality HD video too.

Be sure to save some money for Photoshop Elements. It's every bit as important as that new camera.

Costco had some pkgs with lens, bags etc in nikon and canon in your price range

IMHO, the Nikon pro-sumer line has more going for it than the similarly priced Cannon, while the top of the line Cannon stuff is probably superior. I would suggest that you focus (pun intended) on either the D3100 or D5100. Once that decision is made, start reading lens reviews.

KenRockwell.com is a favorite of mine.

Spent 12 months selling dslr cameras. no commission. if you can swing it get Nikon d7000. best thing anyone has going. Canon / Nikon is Ford / Chevy ad nauseum but I love Nikon. either will be great but d7000 is better than Canon equivalent.

regardless what you do.. leave room in your budget for either 35mm 1.8 or 50 mm 1.8. glass makes a bigger difference than a body ever will. get some fast glass. with a prime lens your shuffling feet serve as your zoom but it will teach you to frame your shots.

speed lights are more than worth the money. even ones from China have come a long way. if you get Canon or Nikon respectively you are paying fir wireless off camera ability. nothing more.

All the hd video is a bunch of crap. don't care what soccer moms say otherwise. sensor gets too hot and AF sucks . any hd iPhone is better than even a d7000 video bc 9/10 people wont manually focus and use light meter like they should

megapixel argument is mute too unless you're into framing above your fireplace mantle

I agree. The wife has a D700, and really wants the 7000. Next generation, and they really took a big step ahead with the electronics, though the D700 still has quality optics.

Not to derail the thread, but what capabilities do the DSLR cameras have in terms of shooting video?

I would assume most are in 1080P, but do any of you dabble in videography? I have been wanting to get into it and have considered getting a DSLR for both photos and videos...

i hear the canon T4i shoots great video, but you need to use manual focus, b/c the motors are so noisy, and if something moves across the frame, it might lock onto it.

In my bag
Canon D60
70-300 IS f4-5.6 Lens
17-55 IS f2.8 Lens
50 f1.8 Lens

I do alot of travel/outdoor photo, really use the 17-55 75% of time for walk around. The 70-300 is my animal lens, love it and the IS rocks.

Upgraded from digital rebel series, always had issues with white being blown out, much improved with D60

Finally getting quality back to film days, I was very frustrated with my first digital experience. Just could not get the color depth or contrast that I could with film. Definately takes alot of practice and experimentation

Oh and here is website for Bob Atkins does a very good comparison of lenses and bodies.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html

This thread has got to page 2 and no one has mentioned dpreview yet. I am disappoint.

First, start here:

http://www.dpreview.com/

This is literally the best website in the world for digital camera reviews, but, I warn you, it can be very addictive reading all of their reviews and sample pictures.

When you get there, you should probably read this first:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm

For your budget, you're essentially looking for a entry DSLR. Right now, the best two out there are:

1)Canon Rebel T4i

2)Nikon D3200

Either of these are great cameras. To keep this post from turning into a long, long, entry, after working with both Canons and Nikons for several years, I have recommended Canons for upper echelon DSLRs and Nikons for entry DSLRs. This advice is somewhat outdated now, particularly with Nikon's D800, but Canon and Nikon have had two different arcs the last few years:

Canon makes fantastic DSLR sensors (and thus better images), but with software and menu screens that make it impossible for the amateur to learn quickly and shoot in anything but auto.

Nikon makes very, very good sensors, but their software is very user-friendly and easier to navigate.

Again, this is outdated now, but keep in mind how you will use the camera and how much time you will place in learning proper technique - like with a gun.

Also - when you get your camera, check out this website. I know it sounds Mom oriented, but I know seasoned professional photographers who reference this website frequently - it is very, very good for training you how to use a DSLR.

http://www.clickinmoms.com

Good luck.

Didn't read everything above, but I have a Nikon D3100 and it covers everything I need it for. I paid 550 online with a starter kit and bought the upgraded lens with the extra money to round me under 1000.

pick a brand and stick with it. accessories and lenses are interchangeable.

If you arent a professional/wedding photographer...why do you want a DSLR? People think DSLR=good pictures. wrong.

Look in to micro 4/3rds. The high end DSLRs have the APC and bigger sensors. For the most part, that's where they get their better image quality from. They're also archaic, and the more cost effective models use a smaller sensor anyway.

Panasonic and Olympus are the Micro 4/3rd pioneers. Interchangable lenses with a good line to choose from. HD video, and image quality that will never leave you saying "i wish i had a better camera." They offer full manual settings and are compatible with 4/3rds lenses via an adapter.

The large bulky DSLR crap never appealed to me, and i've taken a fair amount of decent pictures.

Give micro 4/3rds a look.

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/cameras-and-camcorders-lumix-digital-cameras-interchangeable-lens-models


[This message has been edited by c0rn_d0g (edited 8/15/2012 9:01p).]

get a DSLR, don't listen to above.

I can't stand the u4/3's. The sensor is a joke....... its barely larger than a PnS, and drastically smaller than mid and some entry level dSLRs. The entry dSLR can fit in a small bag and the u 4/3's cannot fit in your pocket. So if you gotta carry it around anyway...

If you want an awesome PnS, get canon s95 or s100. Limited on zoom but more than makes up for it on aperture ( f 2.0)

FWIW the memory card speed is all a big joke too. Matters 100% for VIDEO, and almost 0% for photos. The bottom line is the limiting factor for fast photos will be the buffer of your camera which is fixed, and no memory card changes that.

memory card speed is important if you doing rapid fire in RAW format.

Sony Nex line- Micro 4/3rds. APS-C sensor.

It's no secret I prefer the technologically advanced benefits of the micro 4/3rds platform.

But inane opinions and gross misinformation aside...

OP- Just do a little research on the opinions in this thread. micro 4/3rds may be an option for you. Maybe you'll hate it. But get some facts and not misinformation from miscreants who can't fathom camera design, light physics, and technology in general and just jump in to a dying breed of camera based on...nothing.

I had a friend hire a photographer for her wedding. Took pics with his Nikon D300 ($3000 camera) And all his pictures look like trash. I'm having to go through and fix them in Photoshop. Point being- Your camera really doesn't matter. It's not a magic instant device to make you a good photographer.

Best of luck in your search.

Remember that "photographers" are a pretentious, pompous bunch who collectively throw out tips and all-encompassing requirements- "shoot in raw. use Photoshop. etc, etc"

Secret of photography- Learn what people say. Don't necessarily do what they say.

quote:

---

I had a friend hire a photographer for her wedding. Took pics with his Nikon D300 ($3000 camera) And all his pictures look like trash.

---

This is a photographer problem, not an equipment problem.

quote:

---

But get some facts and not misinformation from miscreants who can't fathom camera design, light physics, and technology in general and just jump in to a dying breed of camera based on...nothing.

---

quote:

---

Remember that "photographers" are a pretentious, pompous bunch

---

pot, meet kettle....

quote:

---

Took pics with his Nikon D300 ($3000 camera) And all his pictures look like trash.

---

quote:

---

Your camera really doesn't matter. It's not a magic instant device to make you a good photographer.

---

contradiction much?

02. You are completely right about RAW. Something your wife probably uses a lot. For the amateur and even light hobbyist jpg is fine.

I tweak camera settings between U1 and U2 with custom settings - mainly outdoors nature vs people, and they come out so great I've almost quit post processing.

Are you guys on PS or aperture? I wouldn't even call myself an apple fan boy but love aperture

quote:

---

Something your wife probably uses a lot.

---

huh?

my wife takes pictures with an iphone. I started taking photos with a Minolta X-370 12 years ago, and recently moved to digital. I love the latitude that shooting RAW gives you.

The OP stated the he outgrow his very nice point and shoot, and is ready to take the next step. I believe that part of that step should be learning how to shoot manual and in RAW. RAW requires post processing, but if you cannot afford photoshop or aperature, Google Picasa will actually open RAW files.

A lot of people talk about Auto and JPEG, there is no point in owning a DSLR if you are going to do that. In that case, a point and shoot is all you need.

RAW is really only for two sets of people:

1.) The professional photographer.
2.) The amateur who doesn't mind wading into a lot of post-processing (i.e. Photoshop/Aperture).

An entry-level DSLR owner does not need to learn to shoot in RAW, and lossless JPEG has gotten to the point of rendering RAW somewhat a moot point.

MFT is neat in concept, but is really a niche application at this time. Until Nikon or Canon embrace it, it will stay that way.

The full size sensor is still where it is at due to the amount of light it captures, allowing higher Fstops to be used. You simply need surface area to capture enough photons in a small time. That's the reason why good DSLR are still pretty big bodied, even with years of technological improvement.

I agree with the RAW comment. My wife spends days after a shoot processing stuff in Photoshop.



[This message has been edited by MouthBQ98 (edited 8/16/2012 3:02p).]

02

Misreferenced you for Mouth. My bad

Max....step up your camera and get back taking and posting pictures. You have a great eye and that's pretty important in the grand scheme.
One of my favorite pictures was taken by one of my best friends......with a Kodak disposal. We jumped out on a wade and I started fishing and he looked back.

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=814020&forum_id=30

Here is the digital photography FAQ. It is somewhat out of date, but I tried to write it mainly in concepts rather than technology.

Feel Free to ask whatever questions you have.

quote:

---

So, out the door you should be:
Camera - $600-700
200 mm Zoom Lens - $150
High performance memory card - $50
UV Filters (one for each lens) - $30

---

Spend on lenses, not on cameras. For a $1000 budget, you are going to want to get a used camera and newer lens.

And I would skip the UV Filter. I don't own a single one. Why put a cheap piece of plastic in front of my $2k lens?

For used Nikons, I would probably look at the D90. For used Canons, I would look at the 40D. The Nikon is a bit newer and will have some more bells and whistles, but the Canon will be cheaper and will afford you better lenses.

quote:

---

I'm just warning you, it can start small, then you "need" something else, ad infinitum.

---

This times a thousand. I started in photography as a hobby. It eventually turned into a career and somewhere along the way, I invested over 60k into it.

quote:

---

Also, 80% of professional photographers use either a Nikon or Cannon, so I would narrow your search to those brands.

---

I agree. Sony is making some really interesting stuff right now, but their equipment is hard to find and rental houses don't carry it.

quote:

---

Some brands have AF & IS in the body, some in the lens. Do your research. The AF/IS in body systems make for smaller, cheaper lenses.

---

It also doesn't work as well in the body for a larger sensor. In-body stabilization is achieved by moving the sensor. But the sensor can only move a couple mm, so when you have a longer lens, the stabilization doesn't work as well.

quote:

---

Also take a look at an advanced point and shoot, the Canon G12 does everything my Rebel DSLR does except change lenses (with a 140 mm tele limit), for the price of the DSLR body alone, in a package that you can almost put in your pocket.

---

I agree with this whole heartedly. If you aren't going to spend the time to learn how to use your camera with manual exposure, just get a really great point and shoot.

quote:

---

One thing to look at, make sure a DSLR is the way to go for you. Guitarsoup will even admit to not wanting to lug his DSLR around with him, but rather has a "Point and shoot" that will do most of the shots that he wants to take.

---

Absolutely. I don't carry it unless I am getting paid or I am trying to do something specific. It is too much of a pain. So I just use my cell phone.

quote:

---

I carry a prosumer with more money in lenses than I should but I think the future is in mirrorless.

---

I think the physical limitations of mirrorless will prevent it from overtaking DSLRs for a long time if ever. For day to day stuff, they are very attractive.

quote:

---

You won't out grow a good DSLR, but you may outgrow a fancy, glorified point and shoot.

---

You will outgrow a DSLR pretty easily. But a really fancy point and shoot has a life span of 5-7 years. The Canon G9 is still a very solid camera and sells for 200-300. It was released 5 years ago. And a fancy PnS will likely still be used by SOMEONE if you decide to upgrade. Kids, grandparents, nephews and neices, etc. You can always switch it back to automatic everything and anyone can use it or you can go all manual and get creative.

quote:

---

It is a well known fact that Canon makes the best lenses in the business. Camera bodies are all pretty equal but glass is what seperated the good from the best.

---

Some Canon lenses are better and some Nikon lenses are better. It really depends on the individual glass. Canon's 24-70mm 2.8L is a POS. Nikon's is way better. But Canon's 24-105 4L IS is way better than Nikon's 24-120 F4VR. There is all kinds of give and take there.

quote:

---

Guitarsoup is a great reference. He convinced me to buy a older cannon as opposed to one of the rebels. This was about 4 years ago and a I got a 20D with some good glass purchased separately.

The only reason I want to upgrade is to get a camera with video and gps. Besides that, my rig takes great photos.

---

Glad it is working out! Right now, the only three Canon's with GPS natively are the 7D, 5D3 and 1DX, and you have to buy the little GPS deal. I've got it but haven't been anywhere worth testing it.

quote:

---

KenRockwell.com is a favorite of mine.

---

He is an idiot. His entire website is created to generate click throughs and get people to click his purchase links. He even has a disclaimer that says not to take him seriously and he doesn't even use a lot of the stuff he 'reviews'. Ignore that site.

quote:

---

IMHO, the Nikon pro-sumer line has more going for it than the similarly priced Cannon, while the top of the line Cannon stuff is probably superior.

---

I disagree. Different cameras have different advantages over each other and both manufacturers are careful not to let them line up too much. The Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX are pretty similar and perform about equally according to a friend of mine that is a Pulitzer winner and just got back from the Olympics where he got to put both through the ringer.

The Canon 5D3 has some big advantages over the Nikon D800, but the D800 has really great DR and more pixels. Give and take.

quote:

---

if you can swing it get Nikon d7000. best thing anyone has going. either will be great but d7000 is better than Canon equivalent.

---

What do you consider the Canon equivalent? The 60D and 7D are both very good cameras.

quote:

---

The wife has a D700, and really wants the 7000.

---

Moving backwards. Keep the D700. That is a fantastic camera.

quote:

---

Not to derail the thread, but what capabilities do the DSLR cameras have in terms of shooting video?

I would assume most are in 1080P, but do any of you dabble in videography? I have been wanting to get into it and have considered getting a DSLR for both photos and videos...

---

Video with a DSLR is a huge pain in the ass. The autofocus is pretty much worthless, so plan on learning how to push and pull focus. And since the camera is so light, you are going to want serious support. That means a tripod, shoulder rig, video monopod, glidecam or all the above. Video accessories add up. And with poor audio, you have poor video. So don't forget the microphones and external recorder because the recorder in the Canon and Nikon kinda sucks.

quote:

---

First, start here:

http://www.dpreview.com/

This is literally the best website in the world for digital camera reviews, but, I warn you, it can be very addictive reading all of their reviews and sample pictures.

When you get there, you should probably read this first:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm

---

Just stay away from their forums. The forums are populated by YouTube commenters.

quote:

---

Nikon makes very, very good sensors, but their software is very user-friendly and easier to navigate.

---

Nikon doesn't make sensors. Sony makes them and sells them to Nikon. But anyway

quote:

---

Look in to micro 4/3rds. The high end DSLRs have the APC and bigger sensors. For the most part, that's where they get their better image quality from. They're also archaic, and the more cost effective models use a smaller sensor anyway.

Panasonic and Olympus are the Micro 4/3rd pioneers. Interchangable lenses with a good line to choose from. HD video, and image quality that will never leave you saying "i wish i had a better camera." They offer full manual settings and are compatible with 4/3rds lenses via an adapter.

---

And Olympus is currently bankrupt

I sure wouldn't buy any of their stuff until that is all settled down. You may end up with a dead format.

It is also much harder to find lenses for M4/3 than Canon/Nikon.

I would honestly pick whatever close friends or family has. Being able to trade lenses/shoot together is nice.

quote:

---

FWIW the memory card speed is all a big joke too. Matters 100% for VIDEO, and almost 0% for photos. The bottom line is the limiting factor for fast photos will be the buffer of your camera which is fixed, and no memory card changes that.

---

Depends on the camera and card.

quote:

---

Sony Nex line- Micro 4/3rds. APS-C sensor.

---

The NEX line isn't M4/3.

quote:

---

It's no secret I prefer the technologically advanced benefits of the micro 4/3rds platform.

But inane opinions and gross misinformation aside...

OP- Just do a little research on the opinions in this thread. micro 4/3rds may be an option for you. Maybe you'll hate it. But get some facts and not misinformation from miscreants who can't fathom camera design, light physics, and technology in general and just jump in to a dying breed of camera based on...nothing.

---

If anything is dying, it is Olympus. I promise you I have much more time invested in learning photography than you do. M4/3 has some benefits, but the future of Oly is very much up in the air and it has no where near the support that Canon and Nikon do.

Anyone that says a DSLR is a dying breed has absolutely no clue what they are talking about and are just peddling misinformation. Really sad to see an Ag stoop to that.

quote:

---

Took pics with his Nikon D300 ($3000 camera) And all his pictures look like trash.

---

A Nikon D300 was never anywhere near $3000. Closer to half that. And you could put the $7000 Canon 1DX in the hands of an idiot and you would be lucky to get anything usable.

It has nothing to do with camera and everything to do with the user.

I'm lucky to heat a Totinos Party Pizza right in my oven, but I bet Julia Child could make something that tastes pretty ****ing awesome. Same principle.

quote:

---

Are you guys on PS or aperture? I wouldn't even call myself an apple fan boy but love aperture

---

The only software I use is:
1. Photomechanic [organizing/culling/captioning/keywording]
2. Adobe Lightroom [mass edits of exposure/WB/etc]
3. Adobe Photoshop [Fine edits]
4. Autopano Pro [Panoramas]

quote:

---

02. You are completely right about RAW. Something your wife probably uses a lot. For the amateur and even light hobbyist jpg is fine.

---

Just note that if you shoot JPEG, you are losing data and can never get it back. I used to exclusively shoot JPEG and have a ton of stuff I tried to go back and edit, but there was just not enough data.

quote:

---

The full size sensor is still where it is at due to the amount of light it captures, allowing higher Fstops to be used. You simply need surface area to capture enough photons in a small time. That's the reason why good DSLR are still pretty big bodied, even with years of technological improvement.

---

Not quite how it works.

A 35mm sensor (like in a Nikon D3, D700, D4, or D800 or Canon 5D-series, 1Ds-series or 1DX) generally has a reduced pixel density. Reduced pixel density generally gives less noise at higher ISOs. It also lets you get closer with a longer lens, which will give you a more blurred background.

</two weeks late>

Its kind of hard to follow up a post from GuitarSoup so I just throw in my 2 cents.

OP I was were you are at about 4 years ago. Looked at Canon, Nikon and Sony. Settled on the Sony A100 because 1) it felt best in my hands 2) I've always loved Sony products 3) got a good deal online and 4) most importantly it offered everything I was looking for compared to the Nikon and Canon.

I use it mainly for work but it produces high quality shots that i've hung in a couple art galleries in Dallas.

You're on the right track with your questions and research. Its time for you to make a decision and get out there and start shooting.