DSLR with sharpest lens and best optical zoom, under $1000?

[MTVision]

I'd avoid Ebay for something like this. I understand there's a lot of "gray market" and I could wind up with no warranty. But thanks on the rest.

The other stores mentioned offer refurbished cameras and you might be able to get a warranty for that.

 

[PapaMatt]

HI,
You can find something that will fit your budget and still have a pretty good camera and lens to start with. Just look around in the papers etc. A good used camera you can get around $500.00 with low shutter count and a good lens can be also found used around the same price zoom 2.8 Tamron, Sigma etc. Just go for it.

Feel free to contact me anytime.

Matt

 

[Melissa2012B]

(the camera you've listed from Nikon is 1.5crop from 35mm and Canon entry level bodies (rebels) are 1.6crop).

Crop? Not familiar with the term the way you used it.
...
Oh never mind, I just looked it up. Hmmm. Narrower field of view because of the sensor.

The EOS T3i looks interesting though.

I saw something about the D3200 not having a focus motor? Hand focus only?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

Not pretentious, but all these replies sound so snobby and elitist. Because some of you can afford $4000 cameras doesn't mean everyone can.

I'm asking about relative sharpness of lenses in the price class I can afford, and instead, I get "you're living in a dream world". Gee thanks.

That is not an excuse.

I bought my D700, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, Mamiya 645AFD, Contax 645, speedlights, computer, and other various grip and equipment amounting to over $10,000 working a part-time, minimum wage hourly income, while I was in college and renting out a house and driving. Zero assistance except for student loans paying for tuition only. If you know how to be resourceful, you can do anything regardless of your income.

 

[Melissa2012B]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

Not pretentious, but all these replies sound so snobby and elitist. Because some of you can afford $4000 cameras doesn't mean everyone can.

I'm asking about relative sharpness of lenses in the price class I can afford, and instead, I get "you're living in a dream world". Gee thanks.

That is not an excuse.

I bought my D700, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, Mamiya 645AFD, Contax 645, speedlights, computer, and other various grip and equipment amounting to over $10,000 working a part-time, minimum wage hourly income, while I was in college and renting out a house and driving. Zero assistance except for student loans paying for tuition only. If you know how to be resourceful, you can do anything regardless of your income.

Yes, if we want to borrow money. But like I mentioned, we have a small part time business, and business is actually down about 60% with this economy. And we're likely facing a global economic collapse soon. We're running the business without borrowing since 2006. Don't want to be out on a limb at this point.

 

[Melissa2012B]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

Just another comment on this: No, I'm looking for the most bang for the buck in a budget range.

Frankly I'd LOVE a D3X ( $8000 - body only...oh, you want a lens with that too?... )

But if someone could please help me with this, I've refined on it some:

Under $1000, the best for:
I like natural light and low light photography.
So sharpest lense and best natural and low light performance possible in this price range?

 

[Netskimmer]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

Not pretentious, but all these replies sound so snobby and elitist. Because some of you can afford $4000 cameras doesn't mean everyone can.

I'm asking about relative sharpness of lenses in the price class I can afford, and instead, I get "you're living in a dream world". Gee thanks.

I would have to dissagree here. SOME of the responses are rude but some people did respond with suggestions within your price range and without saying anything unfriendly. A D5100 or D3200 would be more than enough for good family photos. You could look at the D3100 or D5000 as well. There are plenty of acceptable lenses to be had for $300 or so, not near top of the line, but good enough for general family photos. If you are wanting to use the camera in low light for indoor family stuff then a fast 50mm prime can be had for a reasonable price. A cheap flash such as the Vivitar 285HV would be really helpful as well.

 

[Melissa2012B]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

Not pretentious, but all these replies sound so snobby and elitist. Because some of you can afford $4000 cameras doesn't mean everyone can.

I'm asking about relative sharpness of lenses in the price class I can afford, and instead, I get "you're living in a dream world". Gee thanks.

I would have to dissagree here. SOME of the responses are rude but some people did respond with suggestions within your price range and without saying anything unfriendly. A D5100 or D3200 would be more than enough for good family photos. You could look at the D3100 or D5000 as well. There are plenty of acceptable lenses to be had for $300 or so, not near top of the line, but good enough for general family photos. If you are wanting to use the camera in low light for indoor family stuff then a fast 50mm prime can be had for a reasonable price. A cheap flash such as the Vivitar 285HV would be really helpful as well.

Yes you're right, and thanks to all of you.

Did I just flash across something saying the D3200 had been recalled for some problems?

 

[MTVision]

Crop? Not familiar with the term the way you used it.
...
Oh never mind, I just looked it up. Hmmm. Narrower field of view because of the sensor.

The EOS T3i looks interesting though.

I saw something about the D3200 not having a focus motor? Hand focus only?

The canon camera doesn't have a focus motor either as far as I know.

The d3200 doesn't have an autofocus motor but the lenses do. That's why you need to get af-s lenses. Not all lenses have a focus motor so you need to be aware of that. But no it's not necessarily a manual focus camera.

 

[o hey tyler]

The canon camera doesn't have a focus motor either as far as I know.

The d3200 doesn't have an autofocus motor but the lenses do. That's why you need to get af-s lenses. Not all lenses have a focus motor so you need to be aware of that. But no it's not necessarily a manual focus camera.

It is worth noting that all of Canons lenses autofocus. With the exception of the tilt shifts and the MP-e

 

[Melissa2012B]

Yes, it looks like the D3200 comes standard with AF-S.

 

[Dillard]

I would try to get a used D5100 or D90 (slightly older, but will be cheaper and still a great camera) and try to find a used Sigma 70-200 2.8.....

The 2.8 will give you an advantage in low light, while still giving you the reach. That may be slightly over budget, but you may luck up and find some deals!

 

[Melissa2012B]

A D5100 is the same price new as a D3200.

 

[StandingBear1983]

Get the D3200, it has a guide mode which can help you a lot at the begining, has a new sensor, has mic in as in the d5100, only thing it doesnt have is the D5100 articulated screen which no Nikon camera has apart from the D5100. so if you do a lot of films you might want to go for the D5100, but if you take more pictures, get the D3200, it will help you also as i said, with the guide mode.

 

[Melissa2012B]

Thanks for the interesting thread, people!