Can you recommend an entry-level DSLR for me?

[sovietdoc]

So are you saying nikon is going the wrong way their new entry level design?

I'm not saying this, but I am saying that upping megapixels doesn't necessarily increase quality. Big MPix are usually just a marketing thing to get people who have no idea about what it is, to buy the gear. I've seen this many times at BestBuy "Oh this has more megapixels, well I want quality photos so I'll buy this" This is the same thing as when people buy TVs. Do you think your average soccer mom or Joe understand things like progressive vs interlaced, dynamic contrast, ISFccc calibration and THX? No, they just go to the store and buy the cheapest possible TV that is the biggest size they can afford. Size is the only thing most people care about. Or Like when people buy paining not because they like the art but because it will look nice with their interior in the dining room.

Actually Nikon is doing this more right than Canon because they're upping the only stat that matters for most people who buy this camera. 80% of all people who go and buy an entry level DSLR because "it's a better quality camera" aren't trying to start their photographic career. They are merely looking to buy a better quality camera and because they don't know anything about photography, the only "stat" they always looked ad in a camera is the amount of megapixels. And considering how nikon has more now, they will buy nikon because it's "better quality" what ever that means in their head. So, Nikon is actually doin' it right because they're upping the stat most people look at above all else.

Well. First of all, no. You don't load down cameras with applications which are built to modern standards. A previous generation camera will last just as long as a current generation camera provided that they are taken care of. All you'll be missing are the bells and whistles. But the camera will 'last' and the only reason why you'd want to upgrade a camera that 'works' is gear envy.

Second lower capture resolution will not improve the quality of the lens when printed at a similar size as a larger file. A scaled 24mp file will likely look similar to an unscaled 12mp file provided that the lens resolves at or below the pixel pitch of the 12mp camera. However, while a 12mp camera would not fair any better with a lens of higher resolution than it's pixel pitch, a 24mp file scaled to 12mp may be slightly sharper.

But in the end, if you use a lens which can resolve 12mp of data, it won't perform better on the 12mp camera or worse on teh 24mp camera - only that you will not be able to resolve 24mp data. This really has more to do with how large an image you can effectively print, rather than overall image quality.

If by "bells and whistles" you're talking about things like Better AF, metering sensor and ISO performance then you must not think those are important. Every next gen entry DSLR you look at now has modified AF, metering and ISO in comparison to it's predecessor. Usually, the newer the camera is, the longer it will stand up to each next generation of DSLRs that bring better AF, ISO and etc. Now, maybe you don't care about those upgrades and you're fine with an older camera as it still takes amazing photos, but if you were given 2 cameras to choose from, except 1 was newer than the other one and you could pick either assuming they cost you the same, you would get the newer one unless it was worse than the older model, somehow.

 

[belial]

Well soviet any camera from about three years ago will have a decent enough af and low light performance for the casual user.

 

[sovietdoc]

Well soviet any camera from about three years ago will have a decent enough af and low light performance for the casual user.

Yes, but given a choice of a 3 year old camera for the same price as a brand new camera from 2012, which would you choose? Assuming the new one is no worse than the old.

 

[belial]

Yes, but given a choice of a 3 year old camera for the same price as a brand new camera from 2012, which would you choose? Assuming the new one is no worse than the old.

Really depends. They're apt to be different in at least some way. I would choose whichever for my needs the most and that isn't always the newest toy. And I did make this choice actually. I chose a 3 year old camera when I could've gotten a newer model for a similar price. The features and style of my t1i fit me more for the price range

 

[unpopular]

You kow. All I really need is a focus control, apeture control and a spot meter at a maximum of ISO 1600. Everything else is nice, but completely unneccesary. I'd much rather get a the last generation's mid to high end than the current generation's low end. In practice, you get more bang for your buck. You don't always save money, but dollar for dollar it's a better deal.

I'm not saying you'd want to go too far back, but there is a premium for new.

 

[maaatter]

You kow. All I really need is a focus control, apeture control and a spot meter at a maximum of ISO 1600. Everything else is nice, but completely unneccesary. I'd much rather get a the last generation's mid to high end than the current generation's low end. In practice, you get more bang for your buck. You don't always save money, but dollar for dollar it's a better deal.

I'm not saying you'd want to go too far back, but there is a premium for new.

That. When you compare an older mid range body to a new entry level, you'll see why some of the mid-level bodies are still selling like crazy. You wont get a body with 25 clicks, but you can find a great deal if you look around. And they'll be around the same price that you'll be spending on a new entry level.

 

[jrizal]

Less expensive compared to non AF-S lenses? Or compared to Canon lenses? Of course AF lenses are cheaper than their modern AF-S counterparts. I'm not sure I buy that Canon lenses are less expensive overall vs Nikon and if they are then they are probably cheaper quality. For instance Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6L is $1500 compared to Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR is $590. Some Canon lenses are more, some Nikon lenses are more.

You're comparing Canon's top of the line L lens to a plastic Nikon variant. Of course the L will be more. Compare something a little more equal, like 50 1.8. Canon's 50 1.8 is $119, Nikon $219. Both are pretty much all plastic besides Nikon's mount is metal compared to Canon's plastic.

That's my point exactly, the lineups are different and there are pros and cons to which ever lens you are trying to buy. Canon's 50mm 1.8 uses a cheap 5 bladed aperture design and cheaper build quality. So in both cases, you pay more, you get more. But I agree its not fair to compare an L lens, I didn't realize Canon has the cheaper variant for $620, which is still $30 more than the comparable Nikon version.

Amazon.com: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo ($589) or
Amazon.com: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo ($407)

Still Nikon is a lot more expensive. I cannot say the same for higher end lenses as I am not familiar with their prices. As mentioned, Canon has a practical aspect in terms of price. And any discrepancies in IQ between the two brands is relatively negligible for newbies on a tight budget. Once you get serious in photography and the need and budget for your gear changes. But IMO, for newbies this may be the better path.