I'd suggest Nikon D3000 for a start. Won't break your bank & cost ard 800$+.
Hi, imho, you don't need a DSLR for good land / city scape or candid shots (unless you have already made up your mind to dive into a DSLR and in this case, welcome to the family! )
I would recommend for starters, Panosonic LX3 or even Canon S90 (soon to be launch), both come with full manual features. Practice more and in time, you will realise whether you need / require a DSLR.
Canon EOS 40D | EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
some people have money but don't like carrying such a big object around, especially if they're not going to be using it a lot of the time.
to TS: I think it's great that you're willing to spend $ to invest in this hobby. Sorry if some of us (myself included) are giving you a bit of a hard time. Just that from your posts so far, it doesn't seem like you've put enough thought into this. The last thing I wish to see is someone spend so much, then give up photography soon after for whatever reasons (too heavy, pics still not sharp, not really that keen, etc).
Granted, I myself bought a DSLR without too much prior knowledge. So on hindsight I hope you will consider the decision carefully.
Even $699 is a lot of money. That's 1-2 years' salary for a labourer in India, just to put it in perspective.
If you're really sure a DSLR is for you, or you really have $1-2K to burn (regardless if you give up this hobby), then by all means go ahead and make the plunge. Can't go wrong with any of the entry-level models.
i agree with zerocool.
must think first before getting DSLR.
personally i owned a small compact cam, that is pretty cheap but it has all the manual functions you ever wanted. i played with it for a period of time and pretty happy with it.
recently, i wanted to get a semi-pro cam. but then i was shopping ard and realised that prices for semi pro cams are no different from a entry level DSLR......
i changed my mind and decided to go for entry level DSLR, in the end, bought a Sony DSLR.
semi pro cam, cannot upgrade..... the only good is it can zoom very far.
i was thinking that it's not worth to get semi pro then..... might as well get a DSLR for the same price and i still can upgrade lens next time........ more versitile
and i wouldnt want to buy another compact cam... not worth paying $500 for a compact cam.... it cant do anything at all
that's great you've decided to "take the leap" and invest in a DSLR.
Certainly the possibilities are far greater with a DSLR.
Enjoy your camera!
On a recent trip to KL (and even around Singapore streets for that matter), I did notice a far greater number of people carrying DSLRs around.
Sadly, most don't seem to know how to use them well. Just hang around Esplanade/merlion area to see for yourself.
If got a 2k budget, can buy a brand new Sony a500 / a550 with a 2nd hand Carl zeiss 16-80mm lens!
The cz 16-80 will be one of the sharpest lens u can get for ur budget.
Or if u like brand new stuffs, u can get brand new a330 with brand new cz 16-80, might still be within ur budget.
If 1k budget, u can get brand new a230 (or 2nd hand a330) with tamron 17-50mm, very Sharp lens and 17mm should be not bad for landscape until u can afford more expensive wide angle lenses...
Both the cz and tamron will be sharper than any kit lens from any brand. So getting a good lens is very important.
Last edited by android17; 30th October 2009 at 02:24 PM.
my sincere advice: don't waste too much time thinking about which camera to get. buy one and start shooting. at the beginner's level, the camera won't matter much cos most DSLRs are about the same.
I would suggest canon 500d. It has all features of 50d and competitively priced for entry level photographers. Besides, it has HD video recording option. Check out their specs. Trust me you wont regret for buying it.
To TS, if you want to get the most out of your hard earn cash, get a Sony (A500/550) or Pentax (K-x, K20D). If you want to follow the mass then get a Canon or Nikon.
yes, i feel for beginners, any DSLR is all right. just get the common brands in the market, wont go wrong.
the only deciding factor is your budget for future expansions and add-ons.....
Ahhh... good old memories.. allow me to digress a little into my digital experience.
I started out with a Olympus D430 zoom camera. It has a whopping 1.3 MP and 1.8" LCD screen. Cost me US$640. After that I upgraded to the Kodak DC280 zoom after reading dpreview.com (yes it was already around back then). I got almost double the resolution at 2MP for less (US$450)!
After a long time, I finally went the prosumer way with Fuji S7000 for US$400, bought it when it was just released. I still remember the original Canon Digital rebel (300D) was released back then, selling at US$1k. I debated whether to go for the Rebel but did not want to burn my pocket with lenses and the hassle. I was working in California back then and I knew one day I will return.
After my return to SG, I upgraded to the Fuji S9500 and stayed there till late last year.
The S9500 followed me all over the world but in the end I decided to move to DSLR after repeatedly failing to get the quality and effect I wanted in some of the shots. And it helps when my dad give me his Nikon D40x which he did not want.
BTW, I was already shooting film Range finders before my move into digital. And all my old cameras with the exception of the 2MP Kodak and the D40x, are still with me. And yes, the Olympus 1.3MP camera refuses to break. It is still working well even when I let my nephew play with it and he drop it again and again and again. They don't make them like they used to.
I did have access to quite a number of old N glasses. And I did get my D40x free...But I never knew it was a cult... until I ran into some young C punks and they mentioned how bad my pictures will turn out because I am using N. Too bad my dad gave away his Dynax and all the Minolta glasses to my cousin years ago. If not, I might even be an Alpha user now!
TS, in the end any brand is fine. The best brand to go for largely depends on your personal preference and situation... Though I agree that Olympus, Pentax and Sony do give a lot of bang for the buck. But in the end, you have to like the camera to use it.
BTW, if you do not know yet, PnS can shoot ok pictures too...
Last edited by daredevil123; 31st October 2009 at 09:15 AM.
I still give a vote for ergonomics.
No matter what, you gotta grab each of the models in your shortlist, manhandle 'em, and see which one you feel most naturally attracted to.
At the end of the day, the extra features are good to have but often hardly/never used by newbies.
My camera body doesn't have any in-built stabilisation. Neither do any of my lenses... but guess what? Neither did my film SLR nor its lenses! And I still got pretty sharp pictures most of the time. Mostly I'm either shooting landscapes (sometimes with tripod) or people with flash photography, so my shutter speeds are usually still decent.
Hear Hear!!My camera body doesn't have any in-built stabilisation. Neither do any of my lenses... but guess what? Neither did my film SLR nor its lenses! And I still got pretty sharp pictures most of the time. Mostly I'm either shooting landscapes (sometimes with tripod) or people with flash photography, so my shutter speeds are usually still decent.