DSLR around $600

[thegisguy]

I'm on my 3rd Digital camera right now. All three have been the "Ultra" zoom type. My current camera is a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z6, 12x zoom 6 megapixal. I've had it for a few years and never been too happy with it. I now have a toddler I'm always shooting pictures of and the speed on this camera drives me crazy. It seems like by the time the thing is focused I've missed my chance. So I'm looking to upgrade. I should note I'm not really a camera guy, about all I do with my current camera is change modes.

I've been reading tons of reviews and am honestly driving myself a little crazy. Right now I'm looking at the following:

Olympus E-520:

Sony A200:

Canon EOS 1000D:

Nikon D60:

Anyone want to weigh in? Anything else I should be looking at in the sub $600 range?

Thanks in advance.

 

[magomago]

Check out Pentax as well...huge bang for the buck

 

[alfa147x]

look for a canon 30d or 20d with a decent lens

They still are great camera's, spend more for a fast lens IMO

 

[kyzen]

I had a Nikon D60 that I liked a lot, but had to return it after a couple of days due to stuck pixels on the sensor.

When I finally got around to buying a camera again, I was stuck trying to decide between a D40, D60, and Sony a200. Anandtech recently called the Sony a200 the best value in its class, and that's worth considering. I actually probably would've ended up with an a200, but a coupon I had wasn't good on Sony or Nikon cameras, and I ended up with a Rebel XSi, which I absolutely love.

So, I suggest the Canon or Sony personally

 

[Heidfirst]

I suggest that if possible you visit a shop & handle them to find what suits you as they do vary considerably.

You may also want to consider the A300/A350 for their particular implementation of Live View as I know that some people find it useful to be able to engage children's interest (read keep eye contact) whilst still being able to compose a photo in the LCD screen (rather than having your eye stuck to an optical viewfinder all the time).
Other DSLRs have Live View but only Sony's unusual version will AF fast enough to keep up with a moving toddler.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
look for a canon 30d or 20d with a decent lens

They still are great camera's, spend more for a fast lens IMO

Seconding this. A Canon 20D and a Tamron 17-50 lens should run you about $600-650 if you buy both used. VERY good image quality and loads and loads of features. I plan on picking up a 20D next year as a 2nd camera.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: alfa147x
look for a canon 30d or 20d with a decent lens

They still are great camera's, spend more for a fast lens IMO

Seconding this. A Canon 20D and a Tamron 17-50 lens should run you about $600-650 if you buy both used. VERY good image quality and loads and loads of features. I plan on picking up a 20D next year as a 2nd camera.

I would recommend trying for the 30D, the screen is too small on the 20D IMO

 

[996GT2]

Nikon D200: 10 MP, 5 FPS, weather-sealed magnesium body, 0.94x viewfinder magnification (larger than the 30D's), and metering with AI and AI-S lenses dating back to the 1970s.

I got my D200 on eBay for only $455 after 30% live cashback, in like-new condition with original box and everything else+some cool and useful accessories.

For Nikon lenses, look at the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8, Nikkor 18-55mm VR, and Nikkor 18-105mm VR.

Make sure you check out MS live cashback; you can save a lot of money by using it.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

I would recommend trying for the 30D, the screen is too small on the 20D IMO

Ehh it never really bothered me. I never use the screen for anything but checking the histogram anyway.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: magomago
Check out Pentax as well...huge bang for the buck

Yup, Pentax K200D, sucha deal, combine with the 50mm F/1.4 lens...

And with IS built-in to the body, every lens is stabilized.

That said, all of the current DSLRs are wonderful. Biggest factor with photographing a toddler - or any erratic-moving mammal - is to learn to anticipate.

 

[dnuggett]

In your price range and if all your shooting is your toddler running around there are a ton of great choices. I'd go with the 20/30D, and if you can swing it stay away from the kit 18-55.

From the Nikon side I'd go D40/60 with the 18-70. It's a fantastic lens.

 

[Alienwho]

I've wanted to break into the DSLR ring for a few years now, but never wanted to spend $500+ on a decent camera. I got my D40 a few weeks ago for $375, refurb off of adorama.com It's great and I couldn't be happier with it.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

My only real qualm about the Nikon D40/60 is the lack on an in-body focus mechanism. This decimates your AF lens choices. However, if the available lenses suit you, then it can be a good deal.

 

[thegisguy]

Wow lots of great input. My biggest fear with going with something like a 20d or 30d is how much longer is the functional life. I'm looking at add the camera now for around $650, but plan on adding lens later as birthday and Christmas presents. So the $650 doesn't really need to factor lens in.

Heidfirst, your suggestion of getting something with Live view makes a lot of sense.

Right now I'm strongly considering the Olympus E-520, put the images look a little soft. The Sony looks great on paper, but images seem to have alot of noise and blur from what I have seen in samples.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: thegisguy
Wow lots of great input. My biggest fear with going with something like a 20d or 30d is how much longer is the functional life. I'm looking at add the camera now for around $650, but plan on adding lens later as birthday and Christmas presents. So the $650 doesn't really need to factor lens in.

Heidfirst, your suggestion of getting something with Live view makes a lot of sense.

Right now I'm strongly considering the Olympus E-520, put the images look a little soft. The Sony looks great on paper, but images seem to have alot of noise and blur from what I have seen in samples.

If you're talking $650 for camera body alone, then you should be looking at the Canon 40D: 10.1MP, blazing fast 6.5 FPS, sensor cleaning, and live view. It's about $820 brand new HERE, so factor in the 25% Microsoft Live Cashback and you're at $615. The 40D will last you for quite a few years to come, and will produce excellent results if you pair it with some nice lenses.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: thegisguy
Wow lots of great input. My biggest fear with going with something like a 20d or 30d is how much longer is the functional life. I'm looking at add the camera now for around $650, but plan on adding lens later as birthday and Christmas presents. So the $650 doesn't really need to factor lens in.

The 20d or 30d can last awhile still if there shutter actuations are on the lower side. Some people buy theirs and just never use them a whole lot.

My only qualm about the 20d, as mentioned by alfa147x, is the 1.8" LCD with only 118,000 pixels. Where as the 30d has a 2.5" screen and 230,000 pixels. I guess you just have to see the difference to make your own decision.

 

[thegisguy]

One Question, How much extra work is involved in shooting in RAW mode? Looking at reviews it seems like most of the cameras gain a great deal of detail shooting in RAW (With the Olympus being the exception). My only concern is does shooting in RAW mode add many extra steps. If my wife can't just download the images from the media and view/print them she's not going to be thrilled.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: thegisguy
One Question, How much extra work is involved in shooting in RAW mode? Looking at reviews it seems like most of the cameras gain a great deal of detail shooting in RAW (With the Olympus being the exception). My only concern is does shooting in RAW mode add many extra steps. If my wife can't just download the images from the media and view/print them she's not going to be thrilled.

Yup, RAW introduces extra steps. RAW images need to be viewed in software that supports the format - I think there is a RAW viewer for Windows - and RAW images generally look flat, as they are not processed by the camera. RAW in meant for processing by the photographer.

As far as the Olympus's "soft" jpg images go, you can simply go in the camera's menu and increase the sharpness. A pet peeve of mine are camera review sites that refuse to adjust things in-camera in order to optimize output. It's like they don't want to credit consumers with being able to adjust anything.

Olympus has a reputation of having excellent lenses, and also the best kit lenses in the business.

Edit: honestly, the problem with asking people about which camera to buy, especially DSLRs, is that almost everyone becomes a fanboy/girl of the brand they are using. All of these cameras are very good. You should really try to handle some of them so you can get a feel for what you like.

Edit #2: if you are seeing bad images from the Sony, then probably the camera/lens is defective, the in-camera settings are messed up, or the photographer isn't doing a good job.

 

[ivan2]

looks like an XSI with IS lens on ebay after 25% rebate will fit your bill. Grants you access to huge collection of lens in the canon used market, and has a very usable liveview with contrast detection AF.

 

[thegisguy]

One more question... The Olympus uses 3/4 lens. Is that going to be a problem? It seems most cameras use a 2/3? Am I over thinking things?

This weekend I plan to head to a camera shop to get my hands on a couple of the ones I've mentioned to I have play with them. I'm just the type that likes to know everything I possibly can before I set foot in a store.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: thegisguy
One more question... The Olympus uses 3/4 lens. Is that going to be a problem? It seems most cameras use a 2/3? Am I over thinking things?

This weekend I plan to head to a camera shop to get my hands on a couple of the ones I've mentioned to I have play with them. I'm just the type that likes to know everything I possibly can before I set foot in a store.

Olympus uses the 4/3 (not 3/4) system, because their DSLRs have smaller sensors than Nikon or Canon's crop sensor cameras.

A full frame camera like the Nikon D3 or Canon 1Ds Mark III has a 1x field of view crop because the sensor is the same size as 35mm film. This means that a 24-70mm lens mounted on one of these cameras will still work as a 24-70mm lens, with an effective focal length of 24mm (moderate wide angle) to 70mm (normal range).

However, Nikon's APS-C DSLRs (D40, D50, D60, D70, D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, D1, D2, D2x, etc) have a 1.5x field of view crop because their sensors are smaller than the size of 35mm film; as such, only the center portion of a 35mm "field of view" is captured. Because of this, when you mount a 24-70mm lens on one of these cameras, it actually turns into a 36-105mm lens due to the FOV crop. This means that the lens is no longer a moderate wide to normal...it's more like a normal to slight telephoto now.

Canon's APS-C DSLRs (Rebel series, 10D-40D), are similar, but have a 1.6x FOV crop instead of Nikon's 1.5x due to having a slightly smaller sensor. When you mount a 24-70mm lens on one of these cameras, the effective focal range is about 38.5-112mm.

Olympus's DSLRs use a 4/3 sensor, which is smaller than both the Canon and Nikon APS-C sensors. Because of this, Olympus DSLRs have a 2x FOV crop. This is why you often see Olympus kit lenses starting at 14mm instead of Nikon or Canon's 18mm. The view is not really wider; when mounted on the camera, a 14-45mm Olympus lens works like a 28-90mm lens.

If you were to mount a 24-70mm lens on an Olympus DSLR, the equivalent range would be 48-140mm...VERY different from the focal length written on the lens body.

Also, the smaller sensor is why Olympus's DSLRs don't perform as well at higher ISOs as competing models with larger sensors.

 

[thegisguy]

Thanks that helps explain a lot.

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: thegisguy
One more question... The Olympus uses 3/4 lens. Is that going to be a problem? It seems most cameras use a 2/3? Am I over thinking things?

This weekend I plan to head to a camera shop to get my hands on a couple of the ones I've mentioned to I have play with them. I'm just the type that likes to know everything I possibly can before I set foot in a store.

Olympus uses the 4/3 (not 3/4) system, because their DSLRs have smaller sensors than Nikon or Canon's crop sensor cameras.

A full frame camera like the Nikon D3 or Canon 1Ds Mark III has a 1x field of view crop because the sensor is the same size as 35mm film. This means that a 24-70mm lens mounted on one of these cameras will still work as a 24-70mm lens, with an effective focal length of 24mm (moderate wide angle) to 70mm (normal range).

However, Nikon's APS-C DSLRs (D40, D50, D60, D70, D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, D1, D2, D2x, etc) have a 1.5x field of view crop because their sensors are smaller than the size of 35mm film; as such, only the center portion of a 35mm "field of view" is captured. Because of this, when you mount a 24-70mm lens on one of these cameras, it actually turns into a 36-105mm lens due to the FOV crop. This means that the lens is no longer a moderate wide to normal...it's more like a normal to slight telephoto now.

Canon's APS-C DSLRs (Rebel series, 10D-40D), are similar, but have a 1.6x FOV crop instead of Nikon's 1.5x due to having a slightly smaller sensor. When you mount a 24-70mm lens on one of these cameras, the effective focal range is about 38.5-112mm.

Olympus's DSLRs use a 4/3 sensor, which is smaller than both the Canon and Nikon APS-C sensors. Because of this, Olympus DSLRs have a 2x FOV crop. This is why you often see Olympus kit lenses starting at 14mm instead of Nikon or Canon's 18mm. The view is not really wider; when mounted on the camera, a 14-45mm Olympus lens works like a 28-90mm lens.

If you were to mount a 24-70mm lens on an Olympus DSLR, the equivalent range would be 48-140mm...VERY different from the focal length written on the lens body.

Also, the smaller sensor is why Olympus's DSLRs don't perform as well at higher ISOs as competing models with larger sensors.

 

[996GT2]

Keep in mind that you are basically tied in to one system of lenses with any particular camera. For example, if you buy a Nikon you are tied into lenses that use Nikon's F-mount. If you buy a Canon, you're tied to Canon's EF mount. If you buy an Olympus, you are tied to the 4/3 system and its selection of lenses. Sony uses the Konica Minolta mount.


Also keep in mind that just because a particular company has a long history of lenses, that does NOT mean you will necessarily be able to use them on your DSLR.

For example, even though Canon has made lenses for a very long time, their EF mount only dates back to 1988. So, to use Pre-EF manual focus lenses, you're basically out of luck unless you buy an adaptor, and then you lose metering and other important features.

With Nikon, you need to have a D200 or above to have matrix metering on older lenses, even though they all use the standard Nikon F Bayonet Mount. Also, the D40 and D60 won't autofocus with Nikon AF or AF-D lenses, only AF-I and AF-S lenses. That limits your choice of lenses with one of those cameras, since they do not have an internal AF motor. This is why a D200 is recommended if you are interested in using older Nikon glass: it offers matrix metering on AI and AI-S lenses, and autofocus with AF, AF-D, AF-I, and AF-S lenses.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: thegisguy
Heidfirst, your suggestion of getting something with Live view makes a lot of sense.

Right now I'm strongly considering the Olympus E-520, put the images look a little soft. The Sony looks great on paper, but images seem to have alot of noise and blur from what I have seen in samples.

try the Oly & Sony in Live View mode & I think that you'll see a difference in AF speed with the Sony compared to the Oly.
The A350 has a sensor with very high dynamic range at lower ISOs but is necessarily more dense (more Mp in same area) so suffers from more noise at higher ISO than the 10Mp A300 (which really is the competitor to the E520).
& Sony's JPEG engine is well known not to be very good at higher ISO anyway - so shoot RAW & post process.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
A full frame camera like the Nikon D3 or Canon 1Ds Mark III has a 1x field of view crop because the sensor is the same size as 35mm film. This means that a 24-70mm lens mounted on one of these cameras will still work as a 24-70mm lens, with an effective focal length of 24mm (moderate wide angle) to 70mm (normal range).

well, that's not quite accurate. a 35 mm lens will always be a 35 mm lens and will throw the same image regardless of what is behind it.

with a smaller format you're using a smaller portion of what the lens throws. so it'll resemble or be equivalent to the image a longer lens on a larger format would make.

the lens manufacturers have taken advantage of the fact that they only need a certain amount of coverage to design a lens that can be smaller than what a simple 35 mm lens would be.