I need some help..

[Khailie_Amae]

im noob here and im just wonderin if someone can give me a couple advice..

what is the best camera i can buy with about $1000.???

 

[jemmy]

i recently bought the canon 350D SLR - 8megapixels, beautiful camera... for $1420aus including a twin lens kit 18-55mm and 75-300mm... and i'm loving it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 xx

 

[Big Mike]

Look at the Canon Digital Rebel XT, the Nikon D50 or the Nikon D70s. There are also some entry level DSLR cameras from Pentax & Sony (formerly Minolta).

Go into a camera shop and hold them in your hands, try the menus and play with them as much as they will let you. If a camera feels good in your hands, that is more important that comparing all the little details of one camera vs. another.

 

[bytch_mynickname]

I recently bought a Canon Rebel XT too and I really like it. It is my first SLR so I really don't have much to compare. I have heard basicaly nothing but good about it plus I paid a lot less than you have to spend. I got mine from Dell for about $590 for the kit, you have to watch for the sales though. I got my camera in May and they just had another sale about a week ago but it was the silver one. I agree that it is best to see how the samera fits your hand and which feels best but not everyone has that opportunity. Where I am from, we have no camera stores and the best I could do was go to Walmart and hold the Rebel. Good luck and keep your eyes open, something will pop up.

 

[Rolleistef]

he didn't say he wanted a digtal camera...
The best camera you can have for 1000$ is a Leica M2 or M3 with a Summicron 2/50 or Elmar 2.8/50 or Summaron 2.8/35 lens on it, if you are patient, on ebay (which seems quite over-priced nowaydays) or (even better) in a shop.
You'll keep it for (at least) 20 years, or tilll the end of film. The camera is eastetically perfect, and "great" is too weak a word if you want to describe the lens quality.
Besides, it's incredibly quiet and everybody will assume you're a great professional photog;
I'd rather take the M2 because you can use wide angle lenses on it.
have fun!

 

[markc]

The best camera you can have for 1000$ is...

Not exactly. There is no "best" camera for everyone. The answer is way too individual, and will often even vary depending on what you want to shoot with it. Sometimes it might be a field camera or even a Holga.



We can't answer that question for you, Khailie_Amae, but we can give you some suggestions as to how to determine that for your own needs. I would recommend looking though past threads and using the search function. This question comes up quite a lot. If you still need help, it would be good to know if you want to go with film or digital and if there is any kind of specific photography you have an interest in.

 

[Rolleistef]

All right then. I should have wrote "the nearly objectivly best camera is..."
But would this M2 or 3 the best camera for you, Khailie_Amae?
I think I reported my dream on somebody else, Mr. Freud would talk so much better about it
But an unmetered, completely manual could be quite frustrating for a newbie (or I assumr you are) : under or over exposed pictures, focusing issues...
The best choice for a someone who starts photography, is a camera you can learn most with.
Preferably manual focus, with a built-in meter (well, an unmetered camera is out of a question nowadays), and why not an aperture priority function?
If you really want to learn fast and get good results, I would advise you to get :
-a film camera. Why not digital? Because, you have to be careful not to waste film, and thus you'll learn much faster how to frame, focus, expose etc correctly on first try. With a digital camera, you check the picture, delete it and try again if you're not satisfied.
And you can experience (youhou!!=) processing and printing!!
-a manual focus camera. First advantage : the same as for a film camera. You've got to think before shooting. And with a correct use of hyperfocal, you can shoot much faster than with an af-lens!
And lenses are so much cheaper!
-manual exposure : again, same as before. Think and shoot. but you can cheat by having an aperture-priority camera...
reflex? rangefinder? if you want to travel light, take a RF. otherwise take an SLR.

If I had 1000$, i'd take :
SLRs a Nikon F3 or Nikon FE2, with a 50mm, a 28mm and a 85 or 105mm
A Leica R5 with a couple of lenses (50 and 28 for ex.)

A Cosina-Voigtlander R2a or R3a and their 2.5/35mm lens, and a 50mm as well
if you are really really patient, you can get a Leica M6 with a lens for that price, but it's it doens't seem to happen very often.

Why always "old cameras"? well, I find new ones too bland. You know, they lack personnality nowadays. Of course it's nice having the latest thin, but it wont remain the latest thing for ever, and in 2 years you'll have to sell you brand old Canikon eos Dxxxs and buy another one.

that's "my point of view"
have fun
stéphane

 

[Torus34]

One final thought:

From what I can gather from your question, you are new to photography.

You do not yet know what types of prints you wish to make. And unless you're an artist, you don't know what your compositional abilities are.

This being the case, there is no such thing as a 'best' camera for you. A 'best' camera depends on the tasks asked of it. Your first job is to define those tasks.

I suggest you look for something in the $200 range, digital or film, used or new.

Then use it for a couple of years. Really get to know it.

At the end of that time, you'll still have $800 plus interest to spend on a camera. And you will have a much better idea of what you really want,
and why you want it.

 

[Rolleistef]

another point of view...
now is the great debate : has a photo newcommer got to buy a low end camera first and then try more advanced ones? or is it better starting with high quality gear and then stick for it?
My opinion balances to the second one. Of course, the camera doesn't make the photographer, but it much more encourageing to get good pics (technically talking) from the beginning.
The first camera I got was an all-auto, motorized, fixed zoom camera (an Olympus IS200), and though the lens quality was really good, it had a quite repulsing plastic feeling, besides being incredibly noisy and slow to focus.
I really got to like photography when I bought my first Rolleiflex, with its amazing sharp lens, its all metal, leather-feeling, and beautiful craftmanship.
Even more, the picture quality really started to increase since that purchase, and it can be considered as the turning point between photo and photography.
any other opinion?

 

[markc]

now is the great debate : has a photo newcommer got to buy a low end camera first and then try more advanced ones? or is it better starting with high quality gear and then stick for it?

It depends on how you define "low end" and "high quality". I alway recommend starting with high quality, whatever it is. But that doesn't have to mean feature rich or expensive. When you can pick up an M42 mount camera and lenses for so cheap, I think it's a great way to start.

I bought a Mamiya 1000 DTL with 55mm and 28mm lenses for less than $50 several years ago. It's a great little camera. I sold my EOS5 and A2e bodies when I bought my 10D, so if I ever need to shoot 35mm, I use the Mamiya. I also use it as a loaner to friends.

Sure, it doesn't have a 1/8000 shutter speed, vertical grip, or 5 fps motor drive, but it does what it does very well and is solidly built. I think that's the key. If you have a camera that delays when you hit the shutter, or has poor focus, is cheap feeling, or any of a number of annoying tidbits, it can put you off using it.

 

[Rolleistef]

we both have the same point of view. High quality doesn't mean expensive, it means good construction, good lenses, sturdyness. It has nothing to do with price, but with feeling.
you can have a very high quality camera for nothing (say, a pentax SP1000 and its 1.4/50 STak) and a pay a lot for a bad camera (a digital point and shoot ).

someone once said "i'm not rich enough to buy cheap bodies and lens"....

 

[Unimaxium]

As a beginner I started out with a Pentax K1000, and in my opinion is was a great tool to learn on. The fact that it's fully manual made it really easy to learn the basics, and to not become reliant on autofocus and autoexposure and auto-everything. But after a while I started to feel like I was outgrowing the camera, and started to long for something that was more modern and could help me shoot faster. So I moved up to a Canon Elan 7n, and more recently I have gotten a DSLR (Canon 30D). But I am still glad I had the chance to learn on something that was fully manual.

That said, if you want something modern and feature rich for the $1000 price range, I would recommend a 20D for you. I'm not sure exactly what the price is on them these days, but they recently underwent a big price cut due to the release of the 30D (which is almost the same exact camera but with a couple of small enhancements). I would definitely recommend a 20D over a 350D. The Nikon D70 and D50 are good cameras as well, but personally I'm a canon guy ;-)