Help me pick between two DSLRs

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: jpeyton
None of the above. For $500, I'd get a used Nikon D40 body ($250) and a used AF-S Nikkor 18-105 VR ($250). That would be a great all-in-one travel combo.

is that even easy to find? I don't think i've seen many D40's floating around

Used "deals" are never easy to find on short-notice. You should be able to get those prices when they do pop-up (I actually sold a D40 and 18-105VR for $225 each earlier this year).

The OP is really approaching the problem all wrong. He's buying the body and thinking of the lens as an afterthought. The only nice inexpensive Canon mid-zoom is the new 18-55mm IS. I honestly don't know anything about Pentax's kit glass. I do know that Nikon has at least three great options; the 18-105VR, the 18-70, and the 18-55VR.

Or if the OP can track down a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for ~$300, he *might* be able to squeeze a budget body like a Rebel XT or D40 into the scenario.

The point is, I'd start shopping around for used lenses first and see what kind of bargains you can come up with. Check Craigslist often, as well as forums.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: jpeyton
None of the above. For $500, I'd get a used Nikon D40 body ($250) and a used AF-S Nikkor 18-105 VR ($250). That would be a great all-in-one travel combo.

is that even easy to find? I don't think i've seen many D40's floating around

Used "deals" are never easy to find on short-notice. You should be able to get those prices when they do pop-up (I actually sold a D40 and 18-105VR for $225 each earlier this year).

The OP is really approaching the problem all wrong. He's buying the body and thinking of the lens as an afterthought. The only nice inexpensive Canon mid-zoom is the new 18-55mm IS. I honestly don't know anything about Pentax's kit glass. I do know that Nikon has at least three great options; the 18-105VR, the 18-70, and the 18-55VR.

Or if the OP can track down a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for ~$300, he *might* be able to squeeze a budget body like a Rebel XT or D40 into the scenario.

The point is, I'd start shopping around for used lenses first and see what kind of bargains you can come up with. Check Craigslist often, as well as forums.

How exactly am I doing this wrong? Isn't this exactly the situation entry-level DSLRs cater themselves to? And for example, the Rebel SX I am strongly looking at has the exact kit lens you just said is a pretty good one.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: aphex

That alone might be the one thing that keeps me from getting it as I used different AF points quite often with my old D80.

I checked it. You are right. Yeah IMO that would be a huge deal breaker for me. I always selected my point constantly. I could probably get used to also recomposing and learning to strafe...but its precisely this: something i have to get used to.

IMO if you had a D80, you need atleast a K200D or higher, otherwise it will feel like a movement downwards...

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: jpeyton
None of the above. For $500, I'd get a used Nikon D40 body ($250) and a used AF-S Nikkor 18-105 VR ($250). That would be a great all-in-one travel combo.

is that even easy to find? I don't think i've seen many D40's floating around

Used "deals" are never easy to find on short-notice. You should be able to get those prices when they do pop-up (I actually sold a D40 and 18-105VR for $225 each earlier this year).

The OP is really approaching the problem all wrong. He's buying the body and thinking of the lens as an afterthought. The only nice inexpensive Canon mid-zoom is the new 18-55mm IS. I honestly don't know anything about Pentax's kit glass. I do know that Nikon has at least three great options; the 18-105VR, the 18-70, and the 18-55VR.

Or if the OP can track down a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for ~$300, he *might* be able to squeeze a budget body like a Rebel XT or D40 into the scenario.

The point is, I'd start shopping around for used lenses first and see what kind of bargains you can come up with. Check Craigslist often, as well as forums.

How exactly am I doing this wrong? Isn't this exactly the situation entry-level DSLRs cater themselves to? And for example, the Rebel SX I am strongly looking at has the exact kit lens you just said is a pretty good one.

Its about spending time to look around and taking some risks on 2nd hand gear vs just buying it from a store.

jpeyton has a point in that bodies, in general, bring pretty decent IQ if that is all we are looking at (ie: not looking at features). An XT still has good image quality, as does a D40. Sensor wise not P&S will keep up with a DSLR. But if you pair a crap lens on the front, then it doesn't matter how good the body is. There are plenty of crap lenses to pair them with.
Now, luckily, I don't think that, for the average user, the kit lenses (at least canon and pentax. I don't know Nikon, but I'll take jpeyton's word) are crap. I actually believe that the work pretty decently. I ended up stepping up in my kit lens and while I noticed SOME IQ increase....the gain is never as much as they are pimped out as. Images slightly sharper (gains diminished as you stopped down, but that naturally makes sense), and I get better aperture settings to work with, and a slightly wider range.
When you print things get even less noticeable. But would I honestly recommend someone who is really into casual photography to blow hella cash on lenses? Not really. I wouldn't reccomend you blow cash on expensive bodies either. Looking at the entry level makes sense.
Of course, this discussion of 'its decent' completely ignores things like purple fringing and other artifacts that would drive photographers crazy but are not really noticed by a casual user.
IMO for what you need, I think that you do not need to invest heavily in glass or a body. Keep it nice a cheap. Hell I've seen many people with their DSLRs only using their kit lens and they are happy with it.
It looks like you are a 'starter' in this and you have no idea how far you will go into this. Even if you decide to jump in deep, an entry level model will carry you a LOOOONG way by the time you really understand how ot use it. If that means getting a 250 dollar XT in order to save money, then get a similarly cheap lens providing it isn't a 'crap' lens. And if its a kit lens (I have direct experience with Pentax 18-55 I [I believe there was a second revision with the release of the k20d that has 'better IQ'] , the canon 18-55 II, and olympus kit lenses) I'm sure its fine for your intended purposes

Sorry for respectfully disagreeing with you Jpeyton

 

[Agentbolt]

Well another thing keeping me from buying "used" per se is that A) I don't have time to wait for a deal to pop up, I need to order this thing by Tuesday at the latest, and B) If I get something used and it's broken/not as advertised, then again, I don't have time to get it sent back and figured out. I also need a few weeks to figure out how to use it even kinda-sorta properly.

Now refurbished, on the other hand, I'm fine with. Sure there's a small chance I'll get something that's broken, but in my experience it's far less likely for something to have gone terribly wrong with it if I buy refurbished over used.

So anyways, here's what I'm currently looking at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...X:IT&item=230351907940 - Canon Rebel XS

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKK2000KT - Pretty good deal on the Pentax K2000, thanks pdo!!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...3D1218089165724&loc=01 with this lens http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-1...ref=dp_cp_ob_p_title_1

edit: weird, in the link it says 150 bucks, but the seller I'm looking at has it for 99 bucks.

They're all gonna have great image quality, now I'm just torn over what to get. I hear a lot of great things about all three.

 

[jpeyton]

I have a Rebel XS kit, so don't think I'm badmouthing Canon for no reason.

I just think that if I was going on a trip, and needed one body/lens combo to cover all my photography needs, I'd prefer a bit more range on my zoom lens.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Or, C: buy used gear.

For example Rebel XS with an 18-55 IS lens $460, or Canon 20D (although no integrated flash), or Basically everything you need (and more) for $650, or Canon G10 with extras for $550 shipped.

I don't know how critical a DSLR is, but I'd look into the G9/G10. If you *need* a DSLR, I'd look to buy used. If you're against used, I'd go with Canon over Pentax. More widely available and a ton of lenses. You may want to look into Nikon as well.

Honestly sir, unless its about size, I have no idea wtf you are thinking suggesting a G10 over a DSLR. Give me an old used XT with a 18-55 kit lens over a G10. a 1/1.7" sensor will not stack up to APS no matter how you want to cut it.

Regarding picture quality that's obviously true. The OP didn't state what he was looking for outside of price and for a road trip. His sig says "2 coasts 2 wheels" though, so I'm assuming it's a motorcycle. If that's the case, then space/size might be a concern. I wouldn't have said to get the G10 if I didn't think size was a concern.

Also, I didn't look too much at the 20D but from the minute I was looking at it I didn't notice anything about the flash. Now that you mention it though, Canon xxD lines do have integrated flash (which I didn't ever pay attention to before).

OP, after reading the responses to this, I would judge it kind of on if you think you might get serious into it or not. If you think you might get heavily into it, then I'd opt for the Canon/Nikon setup because it offers much more in the way of lenses/aftermarket type accessories. They also have a huge base for used gear. If you don't know, or are fine with selling equipment and switching brands then Pentax might be a good option. Personally, I'd stick with Nikon/Canon, but Pentax/Olympus would be viable options if it was a $ concern and didn't know/care about how "into it" I might get.

 

[twistedlogic]

To the OP...

What will you be shooting? lol

Landscapes? Wildlife? People?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned primes.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
To the OP...

What will you be shooting? lol

Landscapes? Wildlife? People?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned primes.

I'll be shooting landscapes, people, AND animals. Pretty much anything I'll run into on the road.

Virus, you were close, it's actually a bike, not a motorcycle. I've got plenty of room for a camera no matter how big it is though

I do not think I'll ever go much farther with the camera than this. Cameras are an expensive hobby and I already have several expensive hobbies.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Or, C: buy used gear.

For example Rebel XS with an 18-55 IS lens $460, or Canon 20D (although no integrated flash), or Basically everything you need (and more) for $650, or Canon G10 with extras for $550 shipped.

I don't know how critical a DSLR is, but I'd look into the G9/G10. If you *need* a DSLR, I'd look to buy used. If you're against used, I'd go with Canon over Pentax. More widely available and a ton of lenses. You may want to look into Nikon as well.

Honestly sir, unless its about size, I have no idea wtf you are thinking suggesting a G10 over a DSLR. Give me an old used XT with a 18-55 kit lens over a G10. a 1/1.7" sensor will not stack up to APS no matter how you want to cut it.

Regarding picture quality that's obviously true. The OP didn't state what he was looking for outside of price and for a road trip. His sig says "2 coasts 2 wheels" though, so I'm assuming it's a motorcycle. If that's the case, then space/size might be a concern. I wouldn't have said to get the G10 if I didn't think size was a concern.

Also, I didn't look too much at the 20D but from the minute I was looking at it I didn't notice anything about the flash. Now that you mention it though, Canon xxD lines do have integrated flash (which I didn't ever pay attention to before).

OP, after reading the responses to this, I would judge it kind of on if you think you might get serious into it or not. If you think you might get heavily into it, then I'd opt for the Canon/Nikon setup because it offers much more in the way of lenses/aftermarket type accessories. They also have a huge base for used gear. If you don't know, or are fine with selling equipment and switching brands then Pentax might be a good option. Personally, I'd stick with Nikon/Canon, but Pentax/Olympus would be viable options if it was a $ concern and didn't know/care about how "into it" I might get.

Point taken on the first part.

I'm chill with your advice, although I honestly find it discomforting that you have to refer to Pentax as a brand that 'people start off with and then switch' or 'aren't sure how far they want to go in photography'. There are many people, using Pentax and/or Olympus, that get very involved in their photography and produce stunning work. You don't need a canon or nikon to make magic.
Now huge base for used gear - yup you got a point. Bigger userbase means bigger used market. But suggesting that a brand isn't a real camera brand, and its for people 'who aren't sure how deep they'd get into it"...that is simply not true.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
I'll be shooting landscapes, people, AND animals. Pretty much anything I'll run into on the road.

If you want to fill the frame with the entire animal, a longer telephoto is a must. I know Canon has a very nice 55-250mm IS (image stabilized) that can be found for ~$200 refurbished. A great compliment to a 17-55 kit lens.

As others have mentioned, most newer bodies are too close in Image Quality to care between one brand or the next. My suggestion is to find the cheapest body you can and spend the rest on one or two lenses. If you don't feel like swapping lenses, there is several super zooms (18-200 or 28-300) that will get the job done. Of course you'd have to go with the Tamron versions as they are the cheapest and will be the only one in your budget.

As far as IS, VR, or any other image stabilization, yes they work great, but they are not the end all to blurry pictures. They will not stop blur caused by animals and people moving.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: aphex
I was going by the dpreview review of the k2000

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk2000/page17.asp

Have you come across (or taken) any long exposure night shots with the k2000? I'm curious to see how they compare to my old d80.

dpreview uses jpegs and doesn't alter the default NR settings. not a very good way to measure noise, imho.

Originally posted by: pdo
if you want the Pentax kit lens it's cheaper to buy the K2000 wit kit 18-55 lens rather then buy the body and kit lens separately. The Pentax kit lens is much better then Nikon's and Canon's kit lens.

i dunno if that's the case. certainly previously, if you got a good copy of the pentax kit lens it was better than a good copy of the canon kit lens. however, pentax's QC seemed lacking. their QC has improved so the ratio of good ones is very high now.

but, the canon 18-55is is a pretty decent little lens, optically. canon went from being probably the worst kit lens to maybe the best behind olympus (technically the leicas that come with the panasonic SLRs are the best but they're not really 'kit' lenses).




edit: what can a K2000 be had for, refurbed/used?

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i dunno if that's the case. certainly previously, if you got a good copy of the pentax kit lens it was better than a good copy of the canon kit lens. however, pentax's QC seemed lacking. their QC has improved so the ratio of good ones is very high now.

I've never actually heard of a "bad" Pentax kit lens. The Pentax kit is one of the better ones out there - both in IQ and build.

I have no firsthand experience with the DA-L lenses though. Same optics, but more plastic in the body.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GoSharks

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i dunno if that's the case. certainly previously, if you got a good copy of the pentax kit lens it was better than a good copy of the canon kit lens. however, pentax's QC seemed lacking. their QC has improved so the ratio of good ones is very high now.

I've never actually heard of a "bad" Pentax kit lens. The Pentax kit is one of the better ones out there - both in IQ and build.

I have no firsthand experience with the DA-L lenses though. Same optics, but more plastic in the body.

there were comparison tests between a typical of the 'old' pentax kit lens and one of the hoya QC version on DP review. the shingles were much sharper in the newer one.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
A great compliment to a 17-55 kit lens.

just to be clear, the canon 17-55 IS is NOT a kit lens. it's a $800+ would-be-L-if-sealed-and-not-crop lens.

the 18-55 IS is the kit =)

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Or, C: buy used gear.

For example Rebel XS with an 18-55 IS lens $460, or Canon 20D (although no integrated flash), or Basically everything you need (and more) for $650, or Canon G10 with extras for $550 shipped.

I don't know how critical a DSLR is, but I'd look into the G9/G10. If you *need* a DSLR, I'd look to buy used. If you're against used, I'd go with Canon over Pentax. More widely available and a ton of lenses. You may want to look into Nikon as well.

Honestly sir, unless its about size, I have no idea wtf you are thinking suggesting a G10 over a DSLR. Give me an old used XT with a 18-55 kit lens over a G10. a 1/1.7" sensor will not stack up to APS no matter how you want to cut it.

Regarding picture quality that's obviously true. The OP didn't state what he was looking for outside of price and for a road trip. His sig says "2 coasts 2 wheels" though, so I'm assuming it's a motorcycle. If that's the case, then space/size might be a concern. I wouldn't have said to get the G10 if I didn't think size was a concern.

Also, I didn't look too much at the 20D but from the minute I was looking at it I didn't notice anything about the flash. Now that you mention it though, Canon xxD lines do have integrated flash (which I didn't ever pay attention to before).

OP, after reading the responses to this, I would judge it kind of on if you think you might get serious into it or not. If you think you might get heavily into it, then I'd opt for the Canon/Nikon setup because it offers much more in the way of lenses/aftermarket type accessories. They also have a huge base for used gear. If you don't know, or are fine with selling equipment and switching brands then Pentax might be a good option. Personally, I'd stick with Nikon/Canon, but Pentax/Olympus would be viable options if it was a $ concern and didn't know/care about how "into it" I might get.

Point taken on the first part.

I'm chill with your advice, although I honestly find it discomforting that you have to refer to Pentax as a brand that 'people start off with and then switch' or 'aren't sure how far they want to go in photography'. There are many people, using Pentax and/or Olympus, that get very involved in their photography and produce stunning work. You don't need a canon or nikon to make magic.
Now huge base for used gear - yup you got a point. Bigger userbase means bigger used market. But suggesting that a brand isn't a real camera brand, and its for people 'who aren't sure how deep they'd get into it"...that is simply not true.

I never said they weren't real camera brands, because all 4 brands are very good and have pros/cons to each. That said, if I'm looking to get into prosumer level stuff I would go with Nikon/Canon simply for that wider user/used equip base. That's not to say that Sony, Pentax, and Olympus are *bad*, in fact they are generally about level playing field with their Canon/Nikon counterparts.

Now, personally I'd stick to Nikon/Canon because I can easily find stuff for them. For example, on a road trip if I'm in a town there is more likely to be a way to get a Canon/Nikon repaired or parts replaced. Or, if I decided I want something else for it I can find stuff for those two brands much easier than one of the other brands. Once again, not saying that any of them are bad (hell I think Pentax has the better sensor than Nikon/Canon from a tech standpoint). Unfortunately, it's harder to find stuff for those brands.

It's like motherboards. Tier 3 manufacturers aren't bad, but simply not quite as popular as tier 1. Tier 3 companies aren't bad, and I have mobos from Tier 3 that have worked great. Each have pros and cons, but I personally tend to stay with Tier 1 products. Nothing against Tier 3, just my personal preference. So, getting back to cameras I'm going to suggest Nikon/Canon, because of their wider user base. It's also much easier to find used/rental gear for those two, so you can easily find basically whatever you want for either one of those two used fairly quick.

 

[aphex]

Well that sucks. I called a few local ritz stores and none of them stock Pentax any longer, so no luck trying the K2000 out in person first. Hrmph.

 

[Agentbolt]

So much for that. After actually playing with one at Ritz, I ended up grabbing a Rebel T1i. I know, right? Not even kind of what I was looking to spend before. God this thing is sweet though. It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit, but if I end up getting super into this whole photography thing, I can always spring for a better piece of glass.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
So much for that. After actually playing with one at Ritz, I ended up grabbing a Rebel T1i. I know, right? Not even kind of what I was looking to spend before. God this thing is sweet though. It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit, but if I end up getting super into this whole photography thing, I can always spring for a better piece of glass.

Congrats on the purchase.

Make sure to post pics of your trip, and have fun

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Make sure to post pics of your trip, and have fun

Ditto, have fun and be safe!!!

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
So much for that. After actually playing with one at Ritz, I ended up grabbing a Rebel T1i. I know, right?

I thought you said your budget was <500,

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
but if I end up getting super into this whole photography thing, I can always spring for a better piece of glass.

And I thought you said you weren't going to get into potography,

LOL

Trust me, if you had any interest in using your old P&S to capture moments before, the speed and quality of your new Canon will make it such a pleasure to shoot. Just a warning, an interest in photography leads to LL, CAS or NAS, and there is no cure,

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit

Body rich, lens poor. Did I call it or what?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
So much for that. After actually playing with one at Ritz, I ended up grabbing a Rebel T1i. I know, right? Not even kind of what I was looking to spend before. God this thing is sweet though. It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit, but if I end up getting super into this whole photography thing, I can always spring for a better piece of glass.

FWIW, I think photography is actually a relatively inexpensive hobby. Certainly, the startup costs can be teh suck. But a well cared for body and a couple decent lenses will continue to perform as well as they did since day one for years and years.

Compared to....say...persistent bike maintenance.
(or winter skiing in my case).

I've been wanting to upgrade my EOS 300D (original digital rebel) for years, but the fact is that picture quality and camera performance are still quite adequate for my usual needs...so I just can't justify the cost. *sigh*

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit

Body rich, lens poor. Did I call it or what?

The 18-55IS is fairly highly regarded, though. It's not the original 18-55 that was considered junk, heh. even still, in the right hands, I've seen some spectacular images from the original kit lens.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit

Body rich, lens poor. Did I call it or what?

Yes, yes. I DID take your advice and looked very strongly at a few sub 300 dollar bodies to pair a good lens with. Frankly there weren't any all-purpose zoom lenses that didn't weigh in at 400 dollars or more that were ANY better reviewed than the Canon kit lens. So I'd be spending the same 800 dollars and losing video recording and a bunch of other fancy things the Rebel can do, all for image quality that's going to super completely blow anything I'm used to out of the water, instead of just completely blowing it out.

Maybe you're thinking of the old non image stabilized Canon kit lens, which I found a few curse word-ridden reviews of. The kit lens I got is considered fine and dandy for a start lens.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
So much for that. After actually playing with one at Ritz, I ended up grabbing a Rebel T1i. I know, right? Not even kind of what I was looking to spend before. God this thing is sweet though. It does come with the standard kit lens, which is probably gonna be holding back its performance a bit, but if I end up getting super into this whole photography thing, I can always spring for a better piece of glass.

FWIW, I think photography is actually a relatively inexpensive hobby. Certainly, the startup costs can be teh suck. But a well cared for body and a couple decent lenses will continue to perform as well as they did since day one for years and years.

Compared to....say...persistent bike maintenance.
(or winter skiing in my case).

I've been wanting to upgrade my EOS 300D (original digital rebel) for years, but the fact is that picture quality and camera performance are still quite adequate for my usual needs...so I just can't justify the cost. *sigh*

Man bike maintenance strikes me as being cheap in comparison. If I get into this big-time, I'm going to need more lenses, not to mention a better computer to mess with the images, and I'll also need a flash, filters, wide-angle adapter, etc etc...

My bike just needs new tubes and brakes every once in awhile

 

[jpeyton]

The 18-55IS should be fine for landscapes and people. That isn't enough reach for animals, unless they happen to be in a cage or petting zoo.