What is the least-expensive DSLR that...

Alex_B · Oct 6, 2008

JerryPH said:
That's wasted effort... lol

Plus that I know P&S users who take great images, and I am 100% sure if they would switch to a dSLR they would produce rubbish all day.

Senor Hound · Oct 6, 2008

I want live view because... well, I want it. I have a point and shoot, and use live view exclusively on it. I know a lot of people say "real photographers" don't use it, but I don't care. I like it, and that's why I take photos.

So far, the least expensive one I can find is the Olympus 410. But the 420s have a different style of live view, I'm not sure how.

Thanks for the answers.

epp_b said:
The whole point of an SLR is that you're looking straight through the glass and what you see is not degraded by some crappy LCD screen.

I want it for the larger, higher-quality image sensor, the interchangeable, high-quality lenses, and if I'm in a situation where putting the camera up to my eyes is doable, I will. But live view rocks, and I REALLY think I'd have buyer's remorse if I ever spent a serious amount of coin on a DSLR, and DIDN'T have the option to use live view. I think I want it more than image stabilization...

Sw1tchFX · Oct 7, 2008

Well if you go with olympus, just be aware that the body might be cheap but the lenses are ungodly expensive, and i'm talking even in comparison to L glass, high end Nikon glass, also Zeiss lenses, not just the sony ones either. Their version of the 70-200 is over $5000. I'm sorry, but that's compeltly rediculous, who the hell would pay that to use on a 4/3rds ratio camera?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/405348-REG/Olympus_261013_90_250mm_f_2_8_ED_Zuiko.html

Senor Hound · Oct 7, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
Well if you go with olympus, just be aware that the body might be cheap but the lenses are ungodly expensive, and i'm talking even in comparison to L glass, high end Nikon glass, also Zeiss lenses, not just the sony ones either. Their version of the 70-200 is over $5000. I'm sorry, but that's compeltly rediculous, who the hell would pay that to use on a 4/3rds ratio camera?

I know... I know... Grrrr

I want the Sony a300. But I have problems spending 600 clams on a camera. I know to most people around here that's a drop in the bucket, but to me that's literally about 60% of what I make in a month, which is significant. I think most anyone on here would flinch at spending something that cost 60% of their monthly salary, no matter what it is.

But that Sony looks SOOO nice. I really want it!

But six HUNDRED dollars. The only thing I've ever bought that cost that much had four wheels.

Live view totally changed the way I look at photography. I know its not popular amongst the REAL camera users, but for me it made shooting fun again. And I keep downplaying it like I don't really want it, but I do. And I even have enough money for the a300, but I just have problems pushing that much money away.

Sw1tchFX · Oct 7, 2008

Whatever floats your boat

Overread · Oct 7, 2008

Senor - one reason a lot of people don't use liveview with a DSLR is not class or elitist, but weight and stability.
Consider that your average point and shoot is very very light whilst a DSLR with a decent lens on it is a considerable weight. Now its not impossible to hand hold, but at arms length for using live view I could not image using my 400D and a (for example) 70-200mm without getting some serious handshake (even with IS).
Holding the camera to the eye helps with weight distribution (its closer to your centre of gravity) and also with balance - held out far from you and you have to put more effort into holding it still.
Liveview works fine for tripod use and also some macro handheld (mostly where you are on the ground so have some support from sitting as opposed to standing, but most times again its tripod use)

Dao · Oct 7, 2008

Very good point Overread!

skieur · Oct 7, 2008

Overread said:
Senor - one reason a lot of people don't use liveview with a DSLR is not class or elitist, but weight and stability.
Consider that your average point and shoot is very very light whilst a DSLR with a decent lens on it is a considerable weight. Now its not impossible to hand hold, but at arms length for using live view I could not image using my 400D and a (for example) 70-200mm without getting some serious handshake (even with IS).
Holding the camera to the eye helps with weight distribution (its closer to your centre of gravity) and also with balance - held out far from you and you have to put more effort into holding it still.
Liveview works fine for tripod use and also some macro handheld (mostly where you are on the ground so have some support from sitting as opposed to standing, but most times again its tripod use)

Total bull! :lol:

The fifth camera I bought recently was a Sony A350. As far as weight and stability are concerned my latest successful image was shot at 1/4 second at f. 2.8 handheld. Needless to say it was sharp.

skieur

F1addict · Oct 7, 2008

epp_b said:
I've tried live view on a Rebel XSi Trust me, it's a gimmick. There's no AF with live view and, because the mirror has to flip up in order for it to work, the viewfinder blacks out. Factor in Canon's inferior LCD screens, and the conclusion is that live view is pretty useless.

That may be true about the AF with Canon but with Sony you do get full auto focus with live view.

and Senor Hound, those are exactly the same reasons why I want a camera with live view. If it makes it more fun then why not. I used my uncles Canon Rebel XS for a couple days and it was a great camera and took great pictures, but for the entire time I used it I just kept thinking, "I wish it had live view"...and the tiltable screen that the Sony has. It realy just makes some shots a lot easier.

And you shouldn't worry about the price that much. Just save your money for a little while longer and get the camera you really want. If you don't you'll probably regret it in the end.
When I bought my Canon Powershot SX100 last December I thought I was getting what I wanted, I really wanted a DSLR but I didn't think I wanted to spend the money and I figured this camera would do just fine for my purposes. But within weeks of buying the camara I regreted not just saving my money for another couple of months and getting a DSLR like I really wanted. My canon is still a great camera but its no DSLR. And now I'm back to saving so I can buy a DSLR...after spend a couple hundred dollars rebuilding my computer :grumpy:

. Now obviously the difference between getting a P&S or a DSLR is MUCH greater then getting one DSLR over another, but when you're spending that kind of money on something you should be 100% positive that it is what you really want and that you are going to be happy with it for a long time to come. I think you'd be much happier if you waited a little while and saved your money to buy what you really want.

usayit · Oct 7, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
Well if you go with olympus, just be aware that the body might be cheap but the lenses are ungodly expensive, and i'm talking even in comparison to L glass, high end Nikon glass, also Zeiss lenses, not just the sony ones either. Their version of the 70-200 is over $5000. I'm sorry, but that's compeltly rediculous, who the hell would pay that to use on a 4/3rds ratio camera?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/405348-REG/Olympus_261013_90_250mm_f_2_8_ED_Zuiko.html

Question...

Considering the crop factor of the Olympus 4/3rds system, don't you think the appropriate comparison to the 70-200mm high end zooms from Canon and Nikon is actually the Zuiko 35-100mm f/2 zoom?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html

Cost is also more competitive...

Steph · Oct 8, 2008

Senor Hound said:
What is the least-expensive DSLR that has live view on the back screen? Is it the E-410? Also, what about the least-expensive one that ISN'T an Olympus?

I've been researching this myself, but I'm having problems. All I can find is the E-410, and for 700 bucks, an Sony a350...

Would someone else help me?

If Live View is a big selling point for you, try before you buy. I tried the Live View on the E-410 and it is not very good IMHO. The whole process is very slow: the mirror has to be flipped up and the AF is then much slower than through the viewfinder (even in fairly bright conditions). It might sound like a great idea on paper but in reality it is a bit cumbersome to use (less efficient than a P&S IMHO).

Behemoko · Oct 8, 2008

Senor Hound said:
I know... I know... Grrrr

I want the Sony a300. But I have problems spending 600 clams on a camera. I know to most people around here that's a drop in the bucket, but to me that's literally about 60% of what I make in a month, which is significant. I think most anyone on here would flinch at spending something that cost 60% of their monthly salary, no matter what it is.

But that Sony looks SOOO nice. I really want it! But six HUNDRED dollars. The only thing I've ever bought that cost that much had four wheels.

Live view totally changed the way I look at photography. I know its not popular amongst the REAL camera users, but for me it made shooting fun again. And I keep downplaying it like I don't really want it, but I do. And I even have enough money for the a300, but I just have problems pushing that much money away.

You make more than I do and I bought an XSI. It depends on what it's worth to you. I payed $640 for it with the kit lens, and there was free shipping, but I wanted it faster, so I payed for shipping as well. ($18 gets it to me more than a week faster.)

Overread · Oct 8, 2008

skieur said:
Total bull!

The fifth camera I bought recently was a Sony A350. As far as weight and stability are concerned my latest successful image was shot at 1/4 second at f. 2.8 handheld. Needless to say it was sharp.

skieur

what lens you using?
a 50mm or a light kit lens?

with them one could shoot liveview mode for a while - but for a full day shooting (for fun of course) I would get very tired arms shooting like that.

Senor Hound · Oct 19, 2008

Overread said:
what lens you using?
a 50mm or a light kit lens?
with them one could shoot liveview mode for a while - but for a full day shooting (for fun of course) I would get very tired arms shooting like that.

I keep my elbows tucked in, put the left hand on the left side of the camera (or sometimes the bottom), put the right hand, well, on the shutter, and take my shots. My live view screen is probably about a foot away from my face when I take a shot. But to me it really makes all the difference. My contacts don't dry out, I don't have to keep squinting, I can see things more clearly, and also, I can see what's going on around me while taking my shot. At social events and crowded areas, this is really great.

I think I'm gonna go with the a-300. Its what I want, and I don't know why I keep trying to talk myself out of it. I know once I get it I'll be as happy as can be.

Thanks for the answers, people.

skieur · Oct 19, 2008

Overread said:
what lens you using?
a 50mm or a light kit lens?
with them one could shoot liveview mode for a while - but for a full day shooting (for fun of course) I would get very tired arms shooting like that.

Kit lenses are not 2.8 lenses as I am sure you know. I am sure you also know that fast lenses are usually heavier too.

As far as live view is concerned, the Sony has the best implimentation of it, according to Popular Photography. I like to use the viewfinder but I have to admit that for street photography, low and high shooting with a tiltable LCD screen such as what is on the Sony, this cannot be beat.
Even shooting babies or children is easier without your eye to the viewfinder and the result is a more natural, less posed looking shot.

I braced a Sony A350 on the overhead beam of a coal mine and used the tilted LCD screen for framing. I could not have got the shot any other way.

skieur