Thoughts for a good digital slr

colormesilly · Apr 16, 2006

I'm thinking of getting an SLR digital camera soon, but I'm not sure what brand to get. I need something that is good in all types of photography. I'm looking to spend around $2,000. I also expect this to get me through a 4-year college in photography, so it should be dependable and what not.
Just wondering what people's thoughts are.

Thanks.

photogoddess · Apr 16, 2006

Does that $2000 need to buy you lenses as well? If you have lenses, what do you already have? Once we get those little details out of the way, picking a camera for you should be a relatively easy process.

Canonmanpro · Apr 16, 2006

Yeah Sure, Its great buying a new camera isnt it. I prefer Canons as they simply have never let me down. I shoot professionally on one when not in a studio environment and the 350d is highly recommended in your budget range. Try to budget for extras like tele lenses and a sturdy tripod and a good case.There are some great quality second hand equiptment out there. Also always rember to add a UV filter to your lens to boost sky quality and protect the lens from scratches. Enjoy!

colormesilly · Apr 16, 2006

well, i planned on buying the camera from ebay if i could. Mainly b/c I need to save money. they usualy come with a package with a couple extra lenses. btw is Sigma a good lense maker? I'm not familiar with lenses, but I'm willing to sacrafice some quality to save hundreds of dollars for now.

Rob · Apr 16, 2006

colormesilly said:
well, i planned on buying the camera from ebay if i could. Mainly b/c I need to save money. they usualy come with a package with a couple extra lenses. btw is Sigma a good lense maker? I'm not familiar with lenses, but I'm willing to sacrafice some quality to save hundreds of dollars for now.

IMO..... buy a Canon 30D from a shop with the kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime and possibly one other zoom.

Rob

ksmattfish · Apr 16, 2006

It would be hard to go wrong with either a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Lenses need to be judged on the individual model. Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc... have all put out fantastic lenses and crappy lenses in all price ranges. After shooting a few dozen shots with each lens, I couldn't see a difference between the results of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. Since the Sigma is is almost $700 cheaper, I went with it.

Besides a DSLR body and lenses consider the other necessary accessories: plenty of memory cards, extra batteries, dedicated flash, more hard drive space, and so on. Depending on what you already have, and what you can't live without, a $1000 DSLR can quickly jump to $2000.

thebeginning · Apr 16, 2006

matt has a great point there. If you cant see yourself buying more equipment (like lenses) later, then you should go with a slightly lower priced dSLR, like the canon 350d as someone mentioned earlier. If you know you'll be improving your setup later, then I'd say go with a more rugged, more capable body and just get one or two lenses to start off with. I would not recommend ebay, as the prices there are really not that cheap (i got my cam cheaper from dell than anything I saw on ebay). There was a deal for the 20d a couple weeks ago that had the 20d body for just under $1k I believe, which is incredibly low. Those discounts come rather regularly, so you might want to look into that. From canon, the 350d, the 20d, and the 30d would all be great cameras for your price range. just google 'dell discounts' and look at some websites that record all of the coupon codes and such for dell.

For lenses (i'm going to be continuing with canon for discussion purposes, but a nikon camera would also be terrific), I'd say definitely get a nice prime to start with. It might be good to start with a kit lens or a cheap zoom since there is more flexibility, but if you are ever stuck in a situation where you want the best sharpness and quality you can possibly dish out, the zoom would fall short. Rob had a good suggestion - check out canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens. you can get it for as low as $75, which is a killer price for its quality. other focal length ranges would depend on what you like to shoot. if you like portraits or animal/nature shots, a wide angle wouldnt be as beneficial as a telephoto. you could get a 'superzoom', such as an 18-200mm that could cover both ranges, which would be very handy. Their optical quality (sharpness, etc.) isnt usually that great, but you wouldnt buy that type of lens for that usually, as they are more useful for their flexibility.