Thinking of buying an SLR!! Any thoughts??

[Todd L]

Hey Everyone!!

So, Ive always Loved checking Out peoples photos on This site and have to say Im floored by the talent some people have ...Not easy to take a great picture im sure.


I am considering Buying a Decent Digital Camera. Ive been to the local chain stores and seem to really Like the Nikon slr's.

Can anyone tell me what I should be looking for in a camera and maybe turn me onto a good online site to buy stuff??

Im looking at the $600.00 'ish range and would be willing to go a little more.

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[celticdog]

I've been a Nikon guy for many years, so I'm a bit biased toward them. If your looking to get into the DLSR world, the Nikon D3000 is a good entry level camera. It's not very complicated and is great way to start learning full digitial and SLR functionality. The D90 and D70 are also good options, however both are much older cameras. You may even find a D40 at a very reasonable price. It is an older model as well.

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

Buy some photo magazines + check out the camera reviews.

Before considering buying online, check out your local dealers, handle the cameras, do they feel "right" ?

Then start asking about pricing and whether they will match other dealers prices or the (usually cheaper) online prices

 

[Disney's Mom]

I got the Nikon D5000 about 8 months ago and I am loving it. It is much different from the small camera I had, but I read the manual cover to cover and I am doing pretty good. I will also say that my kids both have the Nikon Cool Pics and they are great little cameras. We are very pleased with Nikons.

 

[NowInc]

Nikon recently released newer models to replace the now discontinued D3000 and D5000 (the D3100 and the D5100 respectively).

I would say either is a GREAT camera to get for a beginner. The D3100 is more "hold you hand through it" than the D5100, but at the cost of a better sensor and less features. If you can shell out the extra 300 bucks for the D5100, I'd say go for it, but if not..you will NOT be disappointed with the D3100. I would say stay away from the older models as Nikon is flushing out all the older models for the new...and seeing how most people don't buy a new DSLR every year, you'd want one thats at least "new" that will be the current model for the next few years.

Just to give you a quick list of the advantages of the D5100 over the D3100 (again..both are GREAT cameras..so don't see this as a bash on the lower model).

Better low light sensor on the D5100 (good for dark rides and nighttime)

AEB (or auto bracketing) on the D5100 (if you eventually want to dive into HDR photography...plus the D5100 has an "auto HDR" function)

Better build quality on the D5100 (a little bit heavier too..which some may see as a negative)

Swivel Screen on the D5100 (comes in handy more than you realize)

Better video control and output on the D5100 (tho the video on the D3100 is fantastic at 720 24fps)

Faster autofocus on the D5100 (but not by THAT much)

External Mic input on the D5100 (in case you eventually want to go that route for video recordings)

Built in camera effects (which are neat to play with and easy for a beginner to utilize)

That being said, the D3100 isn't without its advantages as well..

First off..cost. Its 300 bucks cheaper. Which can be spent on new lenses (may I suggest a 35mm 1.8 or the new 50mm 1.8..both are amazing..and inexpensive)

Second...The "guide" function. It's a great learning tool only available on the D3100. You say what kind of picture you want to take, and it sets it up for you, and tells you how to do it yourself manually next time.


Now I don't personally have a D5100 (it just came out last month) but I do own a D3100 and the higher D7000, and I just always bring the 3100 with me to parks (less expensive so I don't worry about it AS much as I would the much more expensive higher model). So I can tell you first hand that it works fine for theme parks...

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreggs/5547635058/" title="DSC_1020.jpg by DreGGs, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5547635058_381b9606c9.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="DSC_1020.jpg"></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreggs/5547068849/" title="DSC_1277.jpg by DreGGs, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5547068849_7cb518d532.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="DSC_1277.jpg"></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreggs/5547650640/" title="DSC_1285.jpg by DreGGs, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5547650640_b788cffd81.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="DSC_1285.jpg"></a>

All taken with my D3100.

 

[CP_alum08]

Nikon and Canon are both great. Obviously people have their opinions on which is better, but honestly with the 2 companies competing with each other both have to try and stay ahead.

For a $600 budget, I would look at buying used. Even if it's a used, newer model. The Nikon 3100 and 5100 are both excellent choices and can always be found used on ebay and the like.

Sit down and try to come up with a list of things that are important to you and what you like to shoot. If you're just diving into photography this may be more of a challenge, but you can still come up with a list of what you would like to shoot. I just upgraded from a Nikon D40x and I can say with confidence that it was an awesome learning tool. Not much for features; no video, no auto-bracketing, etc. but still a great camera to learn on.

I don't know 100% (maybe someone else will) but I THINK the 5100 has a built in autofocus motor. This means that you will be able to auto focus with any lens, not just the 'AF' lenses. Not important for your first lens (assuming you buy a kit) but when you start looking at new lenses, it's a big deal.

 

[CP_alum08]

oh, and www.bhphotovideo.com and www.adorama.com are my two favorite sites for camera gear.

 

[NowInc]

I don't know 100% (maybe someone else will) but I THINK the 5100 has a built in autofocus motor. This means that you will be able to auto focus with any lens, not just the 'AF' lenses. Not important for your first lens (assuming you buy a kit) but when you start looking at new lenses, it's a big deal.

Negative. The D7000 has an AF motor, the D5100 does not (most likely in an attempt to make the D7000 more attractive to those pushing past "beginner" status from settling for the lower model).

 

[SewIn2Disney]

Negative. The D7000 has an AF motor, the D5100 does not (most likely in an attempt to make the D7000 more attractive to those pushing past "beginner" status from settling for the lower model).

That feature works for me-- as soon as I've saved up enough, I'm upgrading to the 7000 from the D50, and having an internal focus was important, as the D50 has it, and when I purchased lenses I saved a few bucks by buying the model that didn't have internal focus.

To the OP-- I love my Nikon- they feel more solid to me as compared to a friends Canon. But, even before I was a SLR shooter and only used point and shoots, I was a die hard Nikon fan.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Hey Everyone!!

So, Ive always Loved checking Out peoples photos on This site and have to say Im floored by the talent some people have ...Not easy to take a great picture im sure.


I am considering Buying a Decent Digital Camera. Ive been to the local chain stores and seem to really Like the Nikon slr's.

Can anyone tell me what I should be looking for in a camera and maybe turn me onto a good online site to buy stuff??

Im looking at the $600.00 'ish range and would be willing to go a little more.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Between Nikon and Cannon I almost always find myself going with Nikon. Neither company manufactures in Japan (besides their pro level full frames at about 4X your budget body only). It's really hard to work with a 600 dollar budget, mainly because kit lenses are just bad... and glass is more important than a body.

I recently upgraded from a D80 to the D7000. I am starting my own photography company and it was really hard to go with the D7000. I would have preferred to invest in FX glass and then eventually upgrade to the D3 or the expected D4. But that's about 9K in glass.body.

 

[CP_alum08]

Between Nikon and Cannon I almost always find myself going with Nikon. Neither company manufactures in Japan (besides their pro level full frames at about 4X your budget body only). It's really hard to work with a 600 dollar budget, mainly because kit lenses are just bad... and glass is more important than a body.

I recently upgraded from a D80 to the D7000. I am starting my own photography company and it was really hard to go with the D7000. I would have preferred to invest in FX glass and then eventually upgrade to the D3 or the expected D4. But that's about 9K in glass.body.

I think calling kit lenses 'bad' is a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously you are getting what pay for but for what I would call normal photography, there is nothing too wrong with them. Actually the 18-55 has some pretty stellar reviews out there.

However, I couldn't agree more with the second half of that statement; the glass is definitely more important than the body. The rule of thirds not only applies to taking photos, but actually buying gear as well. Spend 1/3 of your budget on the body and the other 2/3 on glass.

I think all of us Nikon shooters are holding our breath a little for the D4 and the D400!!

 

[wdwmagic]

I think it is all relative with the kit lens. For someone coming from a point and shoot, a DSLR with the kit lens will yield considerably better images than what they are used to. For someone who has owned SLRs before and has a preference to certain lenses, a kit lens will appear inadequate in terms of build quality and optical performance. Either way though, I think kit lenses are a great way to get started at a price point that is very attractive.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I think calling kit lenses 'bad' is a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously you are getting what pay for but for what I would call normal photography, there is nothing too wrong with them. Actually the 18-55 has some pretty stellar reviews out there.

However, I couldn't agree more with the second half of that statement; the glass is definitely more important than the body. The rule of thirds not only applies to taking photos, but actually buying gear as well. Spend 1/3 of your budget on the body and the other 2/3 on glass.

I think all of us Nikon shooters are holding our breath a little for the D4 and the D400!!

prices versus quality has a massive disparity...
if the kit package run 1600 and a body only runs 1200, if you went body only and spent say 6-700 on glass (so an extra 200-300 dollars if you were considering the kit) you're getting much better build quality and optical elements

 

[ddbowdoin]

I think calling kit lenses 'bad' is a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously you are getting what pay for but for what I would call normal photography, there is nothing too wrong with them. Actually the 18-55 has some pretty stellar reviews out there.

However, I couldn't agree more with the second half of that statement; the glass is definitely more important than the body. The rule of thirds not only applies to taking photos, but actually buying gear as well. Spend 1/3 of your budget on the body and the other 2/3 on glass.

I think all of us Nikon shooters are holding our breath a little for the D4 and the D400!!

the tsunami / earthquake screwed that all up... and I cant imagine what the MSRP on a D4 will be....

Honestly though the D7000 is where I draw the line... I dont see how a D400 will be worth the money. Once you cross that threshold or get to that point you're better off saving and upgrading to a full frame Nikon like D700. I just don't see the point of spending THAT much on a DX camera.