Help me choose my first DSLR

[DanFrank]

For years Ive always used a point and shoot Canon. Ive always had the desire to buy a DSLR, but just never pulled the trigger. Untill now! I prefer Canon, because Ive used to the interface. But Im not oppose to Nikon. My budget is around $1700 give or a take a few bucks. I know for a body I want to go used. (7D,60D or D7000). Ive read Canon lens are slightly better, but with such amazing review for the D7000, im willing to give Nikon a try.

Here are my questions:
-should I buy the cheapest of the 3 (60D) and add 1 monster prime lens, or two difference lens?
-for someones first DSRL is the all metal body a big deal?

I know Ill be happy with either body and which ever glass I choose. Id like to have for 4-5 years and not WANT to upgrade after 1 or 3 years. Any help with picking a combo of body and lens would be helpful. I love the whole shooting at night. (bars, street lights, restaurants, monuments) but also want a good all around lens for parties, holidays, backyard events.

 

[Solarflare]

I prefer Canon, because Ive used to the interface. But Im not oppose to Nikon.

With a DSLR, you will collect a lot of lenses that bind you to either Canon or Nikon. Changing to the other brand will include selling all these lenses and get them new for the other brand. So if you prefer Canon, go canon.

My budget is around $1700 give or a take a few bucks.

Impressive.

I know for a body I want to go used.

I will interpret that as "I want to get a used body".

Ive read Canon lens are slightly better [...]

Or slightly worse. I doubt anyone can know this for sure. Both have a LARGE amount of available lenses. AND both have two other companies (Sigma and Tamron) doing alternative lenses to choose from (which are thus the same for both Canon and Nikon).

but with such amazing review for the D7000, im willing to give Nikon a try.

D7000 is indeed to my best knowledge a good camera, but I rely on information from others here.

-should I buy the cheapest of the 3 (60D) and add 1 monster prime lens, or two difference lens?

I will interpret this as "Should I get a superzoom 18-200 or 18-300, or multiple lenses ?" Because prime lenses are lenses with a fixed focal length, which you probably dont want, at least not as only option. Superzooms are unnecessary. More to that below.

-for someones first DSRL is the all metal body a big deal?

I know of no DSLR that doesnt have metal. Its the only way to make them that stable that one may attach such huge lenses to them, after all.

I know Ill be happy with either body and which ever glass I choose.

... then why do you even ask ? lol

Id like to have for 4-5 years and not WANT to upgrade after 1 or 3 years.

I'll interpret this as "I want to use this camera for 4-5 years and not even think of getting a new one for the next 1-3".

I love the whole shooting at night. (bars, street lights, restaurants, monuments) but also want a good all around lens for parties, holidays, backyard events.

Okay, lets see:

Night / low light = normal / slight wide / slight tele prime lens with f/2.0 or better, or high quality zoom with f/2.8 over the whole zoom range.

Parties = normal prime or normal zoom

Holidays = normal prime or normal zoom, plus telezoom

Backyard events = ???

I think you dont have enough money for a high quality zoom (with f/2.8 over the whole range), so I would suggest a normal prime (28-35mm with 1.5 crop factor, or 40-50mm relative to full frame) and a telezoom (pretty much the same setup I use myself).

 

[Dao]

Note: Not all DSLR cameras have metal body. Some of the low end DSLRs have plastic body only (with metal mount).

For metal body, it looks something like this.

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS40D/Images/sidebyinwhite.jpg

 

[pixmedic]

getting a D7000, even used, wont leave you a lot of money leftover for lenses with a $1700 budget.( I don't know much about the prices on the Canon bodies used) however...if you go with the better camera body, you can always just get an affordable prime lens like the 50mm or 35mm 1.8, and maybe a decent used zoom lens. you can always pick up other lenses later. If you don't want to feel like you need to upgrade body's for a while, I recommend getting the best camera body you can afford.

Don't discount older cameras though. with good lenses and practice you can still take wonderful pictures. My old D100 still produces good pictures with a 50mm 1.4 and 17-50 2.8 lens. and that thing is only 6mp. Im sure there are some photography veterans around here that could take killer photos with an Sony Mavica.

 

[brian_f2.8]

im a nikon guy because i invested in nikon. i have thought about converting to canon because long glass is cheaper. HERE IS THE THING THEY ARE BOTH DAMN GOOD AND I MEAN DAMN GOOD.

 

[fjrabon]

For casual use, all metal bodies aren't that big of a deal one way or another. They're mostly for pros who are pretty rough on their gear, and use it a lot, in adverse conditions. Same thing for metal mounts on lenses.

The interface on a Canon dSLR is going to be so different from the interface on a Canon point and shoot as to render any familiarity you have with that moot. Try both out.

To me, the biggest difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon has a lot more lens/body combos that work. Which is good in some ways, but can overwhelm. Canon has a more streamlined approach to lenses. Essentially Canon seems to mostly just make two versions of most of their lenses, a consumer grade and a pro "L" grade. Nikon might have 6 different versions of particularly popular focal lengths that will work for you camera, not even counting Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses.

If you're ever in doubt on what to spend more money on, spend it on glass. That's not to say you should totally get the worst body you can, just that if in doubt, go cheaper body/better glass. That being said, you probably don't know what glass you want yet. So, I'd just get the camera with the kit lens, and maybe one good midrange fast prime, and then see what you end up 'wanting' for lens wise down the road.

My advice: D7000 with the kit lens and 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor Prime + a good speedlight (add on flash).

Maybe this flash: Amazon.com: Metz 50 AF-1 MZ 50314N Digital Flash for Nikon Cameras: Electronics

This Prime: Amazon.com: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

and Amazon.com: Nikon D7000 16.2MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens: Electronics

would put you basically right at your budget and give you a really high quality starting point.

 

[Bukitimah]

This question on which is the best value for money, flexible, best camera is always asked and I asked the same. In your case, you have somehow zero in to a sector and I believe that is due to the budget. Your question now is which is the right one or should you increase that budget? Again there is no answer. Both brands are equal and may appeal better to some individual. If any is indeed superior, the other will be out of business as you can see of the other brands. Buying these 2 brands also give you that advantage of getting pre-owned lenses or when you want to sell yours. So what you pay is what you get. If you can buy the highest model to avoid having to upgrade later unless this is just a short term fun thing. The body is just to get you hook on this hobby. Be prepare to pay more for the rest. Lens can cost 2 times or more than you body. I am just referring to some basic prime or fast lens. You also need many other stuff as you progress. Tripod, flash, etc. Without the body, nohing get started. So we will wait for your first post.

 

[greybeard]

With the money you have alotted I think you should get a d7000 with a 18-105mm and a 55-300mm. flame on

 

[o hey tyler]

60D kit, with a 50/1.4 is where my vote goes.

 

[IByte]

60D kit, with a 50/1.4 is where my vote goes.

Surprise, surprise lol.

 

[TCampbell]

The 7D is metal (magnesium alloy). The 60D is plastic (polycarbonate). The Nikon D7000 is actually a hybrid... not completely metal like the higher end Nikons.

The metal bodies are usually also physically larger and, for some people the size is important based on how easily you can reach all the controls with your hands on the camera. You won't start out this way, but if you shoot a lot, you'll get the "feel" for the body and you'll instinctively reach for controls with your fingers without really having to look.

They're all good cameras. And don't fear the polycarbonate bodies. It's an extremely durable grade of "plastic". I've never actually heard of one breaking from normal use unless they took quite a blow.

As for Canon vs. Nikon having better glass.... that's really nonsense. You can't make a generalization about one being "better". If you really split hairs, you can find certain features that are better with certain Nikon bodies or lenses... while other features are better on the cameras. Nobody is the sweeping winner -- and a glance at the press pools of pro photographers you might occasionally see on TV will reveal that there's a pretty broad mix of the two. If one was clearly superior than that mix would probably show a strong bias.

Both companies make camera bodies that you could fit into an "entry level / beginner", "mid-level / pro-sumer", and "advanced level / professional" -- and that's true of both their camera bodies and their lenses. The entry level bodies are very good performers. The entry level lenses tend to have great optics.... and it's usually the NON-optical features of the lenses (with some exceptions) that set them apart (e.g. the number of aperture blades and the roundness of them, the speed of the focusing motor, whether or not it's weather-sealed, whether it has internal focusing or internal zoom (lens doesn't rotate or telescope out as you focus or zoom), or whether a zoom has a 'variable focal ratio' or a 'constant focal ratio' (which is usually also a lower focal ratio.) Just keep in mind that the best glass with the best focal ratios, focusing motors, etc. etc. can get VERY expensive (easily more than what you'll pay for an entry-level or mid-level camera.)

The good news is that since these are modular systems, you don't have to buy it all at once.

If this is your first DSLR, I'd suggest you buy a body with a "kit" lens. You may eventually want to buy more lenses, but there's a good reason these things are typically paired with those particular lenses. The optics of the kit lens are usually very good. They usually have a "standard zoom" range meaning they offer a modest wide-angle through modest telephoto reach which is great for most common walking-around general photography (nothing too specialized.) They keep the price on these lenses down by NOT including the fast focusing motors, internal focus or zoom features, etc. So they're good general use optics designed to be very affordable.

Get to know your camera... look at the types of photos you typically take, and THEN decide what lens(es) should be next on your list. Don't buy too much all at once.

Remember that in the order of importance, the elements that will have the biggest impact on your photos are:

(1) YOU... your skill, technique, and experience as a photographer.
(2) LIGHTING... lighting will more dramatically influence the look of a shot than a lens.
(3) LENS... the optical qualities (contrast, resolution, etc.) and the focal length & ratios available.
(4) CAMERA -- in last place

Don't agonize too much over the camera choice. It's not like there's really a "wrong" decision here.

 

[Like_Breathing]

Not familiar with the Nikon; the 7D would get my vote. :thumbup:

 

[gryffinwings]

You could buy a used Nikon D300 or D300s, magnesium body, and you would have more money left over. The D7000 is a great camera as well to consider.