[kabelshik]

Right, the storey goes, I used to have a Fuji s9500 absolutly loved that camera, but due to being in a poor financial situation at the time I had to sell it and make do with a Samsung compact. So now (1 year on!) all my money is sorted out I can finally afford a new camera, so what would you reccomend?

This would be my first digital SLR (but I've already got a analogue SLR, so i am not compeltly unfamiliar with them).

I see the 400D has now replaced the 350D, are there any worth while improvments, or should i take advantage and get a cheap second hand 350D body? also there are other ones on the market now like sony and olympus, how are they?

I will be needing some glass as well, looking for maybe a 50mm prime and something with upto 200-300mm zoom, what can you reccomend me in this department?

Thanks for the help, Paul

[Dndjzirw]

It really depends on your budget.

The 400D does bring some improvements to the table, but you would also be just fine with a 350D body, which would leave you some additional money to spend on lenses.

As for lenses, I totally recommend the Canon 50mm 1.8ii Prime. Its cheap (IRO 90 euro), and its optical quality is outstanding - as is its lowlight performance. Its a prime, meaning you;ll have to zoom with your feet, but don't let that put you off.

Here are a couple of my shots taken with this lens - all handheld and without flash - even the concert shots:

http://www.picturepunk.com/music_images/music2.jpg
http://www.picturepunk.com/music_images/music4.jpg
http://www.picturepunk.com/music_images/music7.jpg
http://www.picturepunk.com/barcelona_images/bar11.jpg
http://www.picturepunk.com/barcelona_images/bar12.jpg

As for a longer zoom lens, again - it depends on your budget. At the cheaper end, something like the EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM would be an OK choice (best price I have seen is about 219 euro). At the expensive end, you should look at Canon's 70-200 L series lenses (either the F4 or the F2.8 depending on your budget).

I would avoid the Tamron or Sigma 18-200 zooms, as in order to fit that range in one lens, there are some serious optical tradeoffs (barrel distortion at 18mm and softness at 200mm).

If you need more info just shout.

[DzjwMKo5]

nice pics, what iso/shutter speed are the concert ones taken at?

[Corporal White]

nice pics, what iso/shutter speed are the concert ones taken at?

IIRC the concert ones were ISO 800, with shutter speeds of about 1/60 or there abouts.

For crop cameras like the Canon 300/350/400 10/20/30's a good rule of thumb when handholding shots, is that you should aim for a minimum shutter speed of 1.6x your focal length. So officially for the 50mm lens, you min shutter speed should be about 1/80. You can shoot a bit below that (like I did at 1/60) - but be prepared to take more shots, as less of them will be keepers. Obviously if I have a lens with IS, then you can break that rule completely [rofl]

[invasuant]

Pentax K10D with the Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 AF lens.

[Drugmachine]

In All honesty look around at all the cameras, pick them up feel them and find the one that best suits you. Personally i would recomend the Sony Alpha, great features, and a really great camera, with some really serious glass out now, and even more on the way. Features like Image stabalization and the fact that it uses the old Minolta mount means there are TONS of great lenses around that you can use from the new ones from sony, to the older ones from Minolta. Not to mention dust reduction, 10MP. All in all it has a very nice feature set for the money. But like i said, try them all out and see what one works for you

[broksaksaak]

In All honesty look around at all the cameras, pick them up feel them and find the one that best suits you. Personally i would recomend the Sony Alpha, great features, and a really great camera, with some really serious glass out now, and even more on the way. Features like Image stabalization and the fact that it uses the old Minolta mount means there are TONS of great lenses around that you can use from the new ones from sony, to the older ones from Minolta. Not to mention dust reduction, 10MP. All in all it has a very nice feature set for the money. But like i said, try them all out and see what one works for you

I too recommend the Alpha - i have it, and I love it. Anjel mentioned many of the benefits, and i want to expand a bit more on them.
1) In body stabilization: I don't think this feature is as respected as it should be. The technology is sensor-shifting, where the camera physically moves the sensor to adjust for camera shake. What this means, is that ANY auto focus lens gains the benefits of stabilization. This is a big plus over Canon and Nikon, where you must buy more expensive lenses to get any stabilization.

2) 20+ years of Minolta glass. As also pointed out, the Alpha used Minolta's trusted A mount. This means that any Minolta AF lens from the last 20 years will work on the camera (image stabilized of course). This means there are ALOT of good used lenses available on the market, ranging from cheap, entry level, to $4000 G glass. You say you want a 50mm prime? They can be had on the market for less than $100 (50mm f/1.7). You can also get the legendary Minolta "Beercan" 70-210 f/4 (constant) for less than $200.

3) Dust reduction: Not too much to say, as many cameras do have this feature now. But, it does work, and is something to look for in ANY camera.

4) The sensor - the Alpha features the same Sensor that is found in the Nikon D200 (Sony makes it for Nikon). It is a great little 10MP sensor. It does not have the best high ISO (800-1600) performance (hey, it can't be all good, right?) , but in "regular" ISO (the speeds you would have shot with film (80,100, 200, 400) the noise is handled very well.

5) The ergonomics - Not for everyone, but personally, this camera is a joy to hold. It is well designed, and feels great. I held bother the 400D and D50, and neither appealed to me ergonomically. But, that is only preference. Whatever you buy, make sure you have tried it out first in person. Don't just buy something because it says Canon & Nikon - make sure YOU like it.

6) The community - now, this is merely an opinion, but I find that the Minolta community (and Pentax and Oly as well) is far more welcoming than the Canon or Nikon communities. Back when I was first looking, it was very hard to get a polite answer from many communities; I don't know if it was them being snobbish, but it wasn't pleasant. Once again, this is something for you to look into.

If you want to see some pictures I have taken, let me know, and i can link you to some. [thumbup] . No matter what you choose, all i can recommend is this. All the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly) produce good gear; do some research, and buy what fits your needs first and foremost - worry about brands later. Far too many people choose only based on brand, and may be disappointed when they didn't get what they were expecting.

[daasayse]

All the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly) produce good gear; do some research, and buy what fits your needs first and foremost - worry about brands later.

That's probably the best advice here. In all honesty I doubt you'll be disappointed whatever camera you get. They will all meet your needs but see what suits you, especially see which feels best in your hands and get some good lenses. Although you may have a point about a cheap 350d.

[MatueHarton]

That's probably the best advice here. In all honesty I doubt you'll be disappointed whatever camera you get. They will all meet your needs but see what suits you, especially see which feels best in your hands and get some good lenses. Although you may have a point about a cheap 350d.

That's really the most sound recommendation anyone can give in a "recommend me an SLR" thread, but it's entirely true. You can scarcely go wrong in a general application manner with any current DSLRs, but be warned that some of them do perform poorly or very well in certain situations (for example, Canon's cameras are known for superb low light performance). This is what I would, today, base my buying decision on. Read reviews and examine photographic tests (like those at DPreview, which also has a nice side-by-side comparison function under the buying guide tab), then make a decision based upon the strengths and/or weaknesses or each camera as they apply to your shooting needs.

*edit: spelling

[drycleden]

All the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly) produce good gear; do some research, and buy what fits your needs first and foremost - worry about brands later. Far too many people choose only based on brand, and may be disappointed when they didn't get what they were expecting.

I'm going to deviate from the popular opinion here and say that you should worry about brands now. Remember, you are buying into a system here, and Oly with their ridiculous 4/3 system will give you nothing but headaches and an empty wallet down the road. The same could be said for Sony with their Minolta/Zeiss lenses. The new lenses are incredibly expensive, and if you research a bit, you'll notice that there is very little 3rd party support for the Alpha mount compared to Canon/Nikon/Pentax. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't go with the Pentax system which has a strong system with about 30+ years of lenses easily available, unless you are a professional photographer, which I doubt. The cameras themselves handle as well/better than anything out there. And if not Pentax, buy into Canon or Nikon. There really is no reason to go with anything other than those three systems. Sony or Olympus is a loser's bet at this point. Hopefully that will change down the road to create more competition, but I doubt it at this point.

[Hoijdxvh]

I'm going to deviate from the popular opinion here and say that you should worry about brands now. Remember, you are buying into a system here, and Oly with their ridiculous 4/3 system will give you nothing but headaches and an empty wallet down the road. The same could be said for Sony with their Minolta/Zeiss lenses. The new lenses are incredibly expensive, and if you research a bit, you'll notice that there is very little 3rd party support for the Alpha mount compared to Canon/Nikon/Pentax. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't go with the Pentax system which has a strong system with about 30+ years of lenses easily available, unless you are a professional photographer, which I doubt. The cameras themselves handle as well/better than anything out there. And if not Pentax, buy into Canon or Nikon. There really is no reason to go with anything other than those three systems. Sony or Olympus is a loser's bet at this point. Hopefully that will change down the road to create more competition, but I doubt it at this point.

I'm sorry, but i must disagree with your assessment of Sony.
1) First off, support will only be increasing, not dropping. Sony is bringing out two new bodies, and more lenses are arriving soon.

2) New equipment is a bit expensive (why deny it); then again, the gear is also top notch. Equal Canon and Nikon is priced the same. Any digital SLR is an investment, and i would hope any buyer realizes that.

3) The biggest disagreement i have, is that there is no good 3rd party support. Just like Canon and Nikon, Minolta/Sony is supported by Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma - all have good lenses for the A mount; I'm not sure why you say its not there. Not to mention, there is there is the EXCELLENT supply of Minolta lenses that are EASILY available (a quick eBay check will show that). ANY minolta lens made in the last 20+ years will work (not as long as Pentax, but a bit longer than Canon and Nikon - remember, Minolta had AF first (Maxxum 7000.)

I really think it is this misunderstanding that hurts Sony the most. People don't realise just how much of a good system they really have, and just how much is coming. I don't wish to sound like i am preaching, but I do wish that people would take a little more time, and see what really is coming, and what is out there. The Minolta mount is only set for growth, not failure. A quick preview of the new models:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/m...dslrs-surface/
Anyway, take it for what its worth i guess.

[TimoDass]

My recommendation would be a Pentax K100D with sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro and Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 lenses.

[Eugen80]

My recommendation would be a Pentax K100D with sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro and Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 lenses.

Nice lenses but why do you suggest the Pentax over other cameras?

[GentlieGant]

Nice lenses but why do you suggest the Pentax over other cameras?

Pluses:

Very affordable (new with kit lens under $500 + $50 rebate)

Great Image Quality, Arguably the best of the 6mp sensors

Built-in shake reduction, thus all the lenses are IS

Lots of older, manual lenses that can be bought for nothing

11 point autofocus system

Minuses:

Slow af, but precise

small buffer, 3 raw or 5 jpeg.

[hLabXZlK]

Forgot to add:

Great Primes!

[Vokbeelllicky]

It should be noted that the general consensus is in-body IS is slightly less effective than in-lens IS.

Whether or not the difference outweighs the cost and vice versa is a matter for debate of course.

[ovH9wfSJ]

It should be noted that the general consensus is in-body IS is slightly less effective than in-lens IS.

Whether or not the difference outweighs the cost and vice versa is a matter for debate of course.

A canon lens with IS would cost as much as new k100d, at least. That's a rip off.

[WelcomeMe]

A canon lens with IS would cost as much as new k100d, at least. That's a rip off.

It all depends on the lens, a persons budget, and their expectations / quality requirements.

If Canon's IS lenses were indeed a "rip-off", then they would not sell.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Canon's system is better for everyone - but rather pointing out that Canon's IS implemented in lenses does perform better than any current in-body IS. Yes, you pay for that performance of course!

[hiedeemom]

It should be noted that the general consensus is in-body IS is slightly less effective than in-lens IS.

Whether or not the difference outweighs the cost and vice versa is a matter for debate of course.

It may be a bit better (though, i don't know about that either..), but in my mind, it still has the huge disadvantage of having to be purchased for EVERY single lens. Even if the In body was not quite was good, you get it with every lens; having every lens stabilized makes it much more affordable for the consumer who wants the features, but may not have $600+ to drop on one lens...

[Pelefaifs]

It may be a bit better (though, i don't know about that either..), but in my mind, it still has the huge disadvantage of having to be purchased for EVERY single lens. Even if the In body was not quite was good, you get it with every lens; having every lens stabilized makes it much more affordable for the consumer who wants the features, but may not have $600+ to drop on one lens...

The Canon/Nikon route isn't an inexpensive one, and in order to get what I think can be reasonably be considered the best quality, you have to reach a little deeper into your pockets than most people would like. Current generation Canon IS lenses offer upwards of four full stops of motion reduction, even in the telephoto realm, where camera shake actually becomes an issue. In-body IS is not used because it simply isn't as effective; I would drag up a source on that, but I trust that anyone reading this will be able to understand that a single IS system designed to operate with every compatible lens simply cannot be as effective as that implemented in the lenses themselves. That said, it does not make sense for most people to spring for the lenses that are themselves equipped with IS. Additionally, rather than buying a non-IS body and intending to, but never actually (based probably on price), buying these IS lenses, a user will ultimately hurt himself. In-lens IS is better, but only for people who can afford to pay exorbitant sums on it, which makes in-body solutions like Sony's a much better system for most users, but not because it's necessarily any more effective.