Beginner with $2,000. what to get?

[KirkS]

I wouldn't bother with the Rebel line. Don't get me wrong, they're good cameras, but if you find you really are into it, and want to move up, the Rebels don't hold value for very long. As for being idiot-proof, you're right. They're essentially geared towards folks how want to take pictures of their kid's birthday without having to think much, aka - the average consumer.
Your goal seems to eventually be a more proficient photographer than Aunt Mary, and you'll soon realize the differences between the Rebels and the XD's and the XXD's are worthy. Remember, you may feel like a photographic idiot today, but after some time, you'll want more as you progress.
I'd look at a used 7D (about $750-900), or something in the XXD series (40D/50D/60D ($300 - 700)). These are tougher cameras, and tend to hold their value well, but you probably won't be looking to upgrade as quickly as you would with a Rebel.
For lenses, (and I'm trying to stay within $2k total, all used), you could try for a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (the L is important), and the 24-70mm f/4 (tough within budget). These are premium level quality lenses, and you'll probably never need to upgrade them until you want to, not because you need to.
Another set could be the Sigma 10-20mm ($300), 40mm 2.8 ($130) 85mm f/1.8 ($325) and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 ($300). These are all very good lenses, and the 40mm & 85mm give you speed (low light capabilities, and action), the 10-20mm for you landscapes, and the 70-300mm gives you good IQ and a long reach for sporting or wildlife.

I'm a Canon guy, but I'm not anti-other brands. The Nikons and Sonys have great sensors with a little more DR then the Canons, so they kind of have the edge there. However, IMHO, Canon's lenses out perform the Nikons and Sonys overall. Lenses can last you a lifetime, whereas bodies you'll be replacing/upgrading with time. Glass don't become outdated, whereas sensor technology does. I also prefer the in-lens vibration control/image stabilization of the Canons over the in body control on the others.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[KirkS]

Some adjustments to the above -

Scratch the 10-20mm, and get the 17-55mm f/2.8 ($500-600). Then ditch the 40mm (it's cheap, and you can always pick one up).

 

[raventepes]

If you want to spend $3000 on a set up, I would seriously consider getting something like either a Nikon D7000, or a Canon 60D. I like the Nikon lenses Goodguy pointed out, and for Canon, I'd go with the 15-85, 70-300 f/4-5.6, and a 50mm 1.8, to start with. I'd also invest the rest in a GOOD tripod, and possibly a decent flash. A sturdy tripod is a must though.

 

[texkam]

Lots of questionable advice in this thread.

 

[GrandMasterK]

Whys that texkam?

 

[Juga]

Go play with the cameras at a local shop or best buy to get an idea of which feels good and whatnot. This topic is very subjective and people will give what works for them but may not work for you.

 

[hirejn]

If you have mastered the fundamentals, you can make a great picture with any camera. If you haven't, no camera will make a great picture for you. About $450 for an entry-level DSLR, maybe $550 with kit lens and about $50 for a CF card. That leaves you with about $1,500 left to spend on taking courses and workshops to learn how to actually make great images. If you can't make a professional quality image with an entry-level DSLR, then it doesn't pay to upgrade because the camera is capable of producing only what you tell it to. What changes are the tools and the quality of the file. But a great file of a bad exposure is still a bad exposure.

 

[texkam]

If you have mastered the fundamentals, you can make a great picture with any camera. If you haven't, no camera will make a great picture for you. About $450 for an entry-level DSLR, maybe $550 with kit lens and about $50 for a CF card. That leaves you with about $1,500 left to spend on taking courses and workshops to learn how to actually make great images. If you can't make a professional quality image with an entry-level DSLR, then it doesn't pay to upgrade because the camera is capable of producing only what you tell it to. What changes are the tools and the quality of the file. But a great file of a bad exposure is still a bad exposure.

Absolutely. Buy the basics and learn how to use them. At that point you will know exactly what you need/want to add.

 

[GrandMasterK]

how do you feel about this deal fellas? Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Body 3 Lens Full Kit New USA 0013803105384 | eBay

 

[o hey tyler]

how do you feel about this deal fellas? Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Body 3 Lens Full Kit New USA 0013803105384 | eBay

Two of the three lenses aren't really lenses. And the one lens it does include isn't really worth putting on a 5D2 unless you're going to be shooting at a studio f/8 or something like that. You won't use half of the stuff in that kit and its pretty junky stuff IMO. Bad deal.

 

[play18now]

As said above, most of that is junk. The tripod probably isn't study enough to accomplish it's real purpose, and while the 5DII is a great body, it's outdated, and you could find a good used one for $1500, and the lens that they're selling with it retails for $125. Nothing else in the packages is really worth much.

 

[GrandMasterK]

So would you say go with a 6D over a 5D mark ii?

 

[TCampbell]

As TiredIron advises... that thrift store price isn't a good deal. Especially when you can get a T3i refurbished direct from Canon and that would actually come with a 1 year warranty... for the same price!

Also... the eBay deal on the 5D II is likewise a terrible deal. You should be able to find a 5D II for around $1400-1500... 1600 tops (because if they're selling for more than that... I've got a 5D II that I'd suddenly be extremely interested in selling!) Those "bundles" are generally loaded with really cheap junk (and this is no exception).

See: Refurbished EOS Digital SLR Cameras | Canon Online Store

Of the models you mentioned...

The 6D will have by far the best performance for using high ISO in low light and yet still having very low noise levels. This will not be a modest difference (not something that requires careful analysis to notice... the difference will be huge, apparent, and will blow you away.) The 5D II will likewise be extremely good but not as good as the 6D. They don't make the 5D II anymore, so that would have to be a used camera. I noticed Canon is selling the refurbished 6D at their online store for about $1600 (new it's about $2k -- these are "body only" prices.)

The 7D will have the fast frame-rate for sports/action. It's not as desirable for video as compared to, say, a 60D. The 7D has 19 AF points which are all "cross type". The 60D has 9 AF points which are also all "cross type" (cross type is better than single-axis focus points because it's harder to fool... single-axis points have difficulty focusing objects when the contrasting edges in the subject run parallel to the focusing points split-prism axis -- think "picket fences" or "tall grasses").

The 60D and 7D both have Canon's 18 MP sensor which is an APS-C size. This sensor is a bit smaller than the sensor in full frame bodies such as the 5D series, 6D, and a few of the 1D bodies (1Ds and 1D-X are full-frame.) The 60D and 7D can use _any_ Canon EOS lens (well... except for the new EF-M lenses designed specifically for the EOS-M mirrorless camera). The full-frame bodies can use any EOS lens _except_ the EF-S lenses (the "-S" suffix means the lens has a short back-focus -- that's the distance from the rear-most element to the focus plane on the sensor). Those lenses protrude slightly into the camera body and there's isn't enough space for the reflex mirror to swing clear of the rear-most lens element when sooting. Consequently, Canon designed a lip on the lens mount of their full-frame cameras specifically designed to prevent an EF-S lens from being mounted on a full-frame body.

If you like video, the 60D and 6D will be better than the 7D. The 7D was being introduced just about the time Canon was only beginning to include video in DSLRs -- so it does video, but video has been refined a bit since then.

The 6D has built-in GPS and WiFi and there's a free Canon smart-phone app that can be used to remotely control the camera.

The 70D is brand new -- just started shipping this month. It's big new feature is the ability to do phase-detect auto-focus directly on the sensor while shooting video. This is a huge advancement if you're into video and want continuous tracking and autofocus. If you're only interested in still images, it wont be used. The 70D does, however, have the same 19 point all cross-type AF system that the 7D has ... and shoots at only 1 frame per second slower (7fps on the 70D vs. 8fps on the 7D).

If I were buying, I'd probably go for a 6D and maybe the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens. That combination (refurb'd) will still run around $2500. The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens is a fantastic prime lens for the camera. I'd avoid the EF 50mm f/1.8 -- this is an entry-level lens. It has good image quality but poor build quality (it doesn't take abuse) and it has a much slower focusing motor and poor quality in the out-of-focus background blur.

 

[GrandMasterK]

Amazingly useful response Tim. What do you think of this deal:USA Canon EOS 6d 1 2 Day Usage w 28 200 Lens in Box with Bundle Accessories 013803204131 | eBay

 

[play18now]

Amazingly useful response Tim. What do you think of this deal:USA Canon EOS 6d 1 2 Day Usage w 28 200 Lens in Box with Bundle Accessories 013803204131 | eBay

I wouldn't buy that personally because the seller notes that the lens doesn't autofocus very well. The 6D is a wonderful camera, but can only do so much if it's looking through a subpar lens. The all-in-one "super zooms", such as this one, can be very convenient, but what you gain in that department, you lose in image quality. Canon also doesn't make that particular lens anymore, and although I've never personally held one, a quick Google search makes it sound like theres's a very good reason it's discontinued: It just wasn't very good. I'd say it's worth it to invest in a better lens. Canon sells a kit with the 6D and a 24-105mm f/4L lens for $2600. I'd expect the selling price of the ebay bundle you linked above to be very close to $2000 because the best thing you would get from the kit would be the body, which is worth about $2000 seeing as its basically brand new. The kit I mentioned with the 24-105mm lens gets you a brand new camera and lens, both of which carry warranties, and will work properly. The 24-105 is also a great piece of glass (I own one myself) that you could easily sell for $600 (retails by itself for $1150) if you decide you don't like it and would like something else.