Should I buy a SLR Camera?

[Overread]

Well Canon and Nikon don't sell any DSLRs with in camera image stabilization. They prefer to put that feature into their lenses (it is said to be more accurate when placed into a lens rather than into the camera body). This does mean that lenses with IS re going to cost you a bit more than without.

If your really dead set on IS built in then I suggest looking at Olympus DSLRs - they make a good range of them with built in IS. The downside is that Olympus has a more reduced lens range than Canon or Nikon - a good range though. I suggest checking out thier website and range of lenses and seeing what they offer you - a DSLR is very much a longer term investment and sometimes it might be worth starting on the lower kit and saving for the top guns.

 

[Frequent Traveler]

There are great in-body Anti-Shake/Vibration dSLR's available and every one of them offer a range of lenses that will meet your needs - especially as you begin your SLR photography journey.

I don't know where you currretly live, but generally speaking i believe you can find a gently used second-hand dSLR that meets your 10mp, anti-shake criteria, $400-$500 range without too much problem.

Unfortunately, your Canon/Nikon criteria will not be met given a conflicting Anti-Shake/Internal-Stabilization criteria. However, for my useage, i choose in-body vibration-resistance b/c every lens i use is vibration-resistant instead of a very few super expensive lenses.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes some of the more passionate "fan-boys" to chime in with a reference to the f1.8 5mm rectilinear fish-eye lens or the f1.8 800mm super-tele blah, blah, blah lens or the 17 different flash models only available with their pet brand. Closely followed is some sage advice that to consider any other brand except the "other" mainstream brand is foolish b/c the less mainstream brands are soon to perish.

On the contrary, i would not hesitate to recommend Olympus (w/their array of excellent Zuiko lenses), or Pentax (another huge array of excellent lenses) or Sony (formerly Minolta and my personal choice) or, excepting the anti-shake/internal-stabilization criteria, Canon or Nikon. Every one of these companies have excellent lens offerings and a growing list of available accessories. In fact, if you're willing to pony-up for good lenses, it is an amazing time to enter digital SLR photography because there isn't really a bad choice to be had.

Incidently, at this point in the dSLR market-development these less-mainstream brands are clearly here to stay as the market continues to become more stabilized and affordable.

 

[KD5NRH]

Well Canon and Nikon don't sell any DSLRs with in camera image stabilization. They prefer to put that feature into their lenses (it is said to be more accurate when placed into a lens rather than into the camera body).

Not sure how much faith I'd put in that; I took a few handheld .5s shots at 200mm with my Sony, and there weren't any issues with shake. (Noise at 3200ISO and the washout from lights in the really dim scene pretty much killed the shots, but I could read signs in the background.)

This does mean that lenses with IS re going to cost you a bit more than without.

My reasoning behind getting the Sony, aside from already having a couple of good Minolta lenses, was that I'll buy a lot more lenses than bodies, so it's a lot more economically feasible to have IS in the body. It also means that I can put the money saved on IS glass into overall better glass.

 

[Iron Flatline]

... It also means that I can put the money saved on IS glass into overall better glass.

This in turn assumes that a wide selection of good glass is available. There are great KM lenses, but you may have to do a lot of manual settings. I prefer that some times, but other times I prefer Aperture or Shutter priority modes. Not sure if the Sony allows that with older lenses.

 

[JerryPH]

If the person themselves doesn't even know if they need/want something, how can some stranger in another part of this world that visits this forum know? I suggest the www.we-area-all-psychics.com forum to help get you the right answer. By the time you get there, they will have already answered your question. :lmao:

 

[rubbertree]

Hello friends!

If pictures are much better and one doesnt need to be technically very strong to use a SLR,

What? I don't get this.
Yes, you have to be technically strong to use a SLR. Otherwise if your plans are just to use the presets, what is the point?
I say stick with your P&S.

 

[epp_b]

As I am just a starter, I dont want to invert a fortune on it but on the otherhand dont want to buy any dying technology.

If you plan on buying Canon or Nikon, you needed worry: neither is going away any time soon.