Suggestions for amature DSLR

[rjpierrard]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I'm looking for a beginner/amature DSLR camera, preferably under $1000, with a few specific features I'd like to use:<br />bulb shutter (most of the cameras I've seen in the style I'm looking at already have the 1/4000-30 second speeds, so I won't add that here)<br />no burst limit in JPG (when I'll be using the burst when I'm concerned about a limit, I won't be needing the RAW format, so a limited RAW burst is okay)<br />burst rate (preferably 3fps or higher, but that's not priority)<br />and if there's a lens kit, that would be good too (although I'm not very well versed (at all!) with different types and qualities of lenses, but basically the normal 18-55 (or 18-70), and a 55/70-something (I guess 200 or 300)).</p>

<p>Right now I'm leaning towards the Nikon D40X, but from what I've found on the internet, it doesn't have the best autofocus. My other options/cameras I'm currently looking at are the Sony DSLRA300X lenskit (I'm wondering if the battery pack is rechargeable, and if it has bulb mode), the Sony DSLRA230L (same question about the bulb function), and the Canon EOS 1000D (again same bulb question).<br />Just wondering, do any of the cameras I mentioned above have video capabilities? It probably wouldn't affect my choice as I already have a camera with 720p video (and a very 15X zoom to use it with), but it would be interesting.</p>

<p>Thanks very much!</p>

<p>EDIT: does the Nikon D80 really have a burst limit of only 23JPGs? or do the D40X and D60 not have an infinite burst? It seems a bit of a contradiction what I've picked up from dpreview.com.</p>

[kari v]

<p>Nikon D3000, unlimited jpg burst at 3fps. $600 with 18-55 VR. Entry level model like D40 but has the much improved AF system from D90.<br /> You wanted D40X with better AF, well, here it is and the price is fair.</p>

<p>Canon 500D, unlimited jpg at 3,4fps and video. $900 with 18-55 IS kit lens. Nice camera I'm sure but do you want to pay $300 for video?</p>

<p>Sony A380, unlimited jpg at 2,3fps. $1000 with 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses (camera body is stabilized).<br /> edit: also A300X has unlimited jpg.</p>

<p>I think all dslrs have bulb. 30 seconds is just the normal upper limit for camera automation, after that you can keep the shutter open as long as you want manually / with external timer / whatever.</p>

[kari v]

<p>Can I ask what you're planning to shoot? I've never seen anyone actually needing unlimited continous shooting. :)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Kari's got a point: unlimited continuous shooting would be video. Perhaps the application really calls for a camcorder.</p>

<p>I think just about every major manufacturer would have a camera model that met the specs outlined. One of the things that caught my eye was "does not have the best autofocus." Hey, "the best" of pretty much everything is going to command the higher prices. As in, it's going to cost thousands. Medium and large format cameras are clearly commanding the top 10% when it comes to structural features that generate a strong image structure, and those cameras will cost you about as much as a medium sized car.</p>

<p>So, I'd encourage you to be practical, accept from the beginning that what you will find will not be "the best." I know I'm using equipment that could easily be looked down upon, with a critical eye, just by posing the question, "Is it the best?"</p>

<p>Inferior garbage. Junk cameras. Cuss-able processes. I use 'em. A lot of us do. And, they often work out just fine.</p>

<p>I'd like to encourage you to take a different approach, and look at features with respect to utility. Utility is what a lot of this is about. You don't need the best of everything most of the time. You need what works. You need to get it working. You need to <em>use it.</em> That's what brings the images.</p>

<p>Go back and look over the features in the structures with respect to utility. I think you'll find that there's an amazing array of it out there. There have been a few exceptions where manufacturers briefly produced a lemon; every industry has its Edsels. Yet, overall, there is a lot you can do with the most basic equipment, if it is in good working order.</p>

<p>From that perspective, I think you'll find just about every camera maker will offer something to fit your outlined needs.</p>

<p>Also, if you have a $1000 on hand for the camera, does that budget include utility? Spitball or brainstorm some of those costs associated with using the camera. Going to places, printouts, software, anything that is a cost you might have to pay to use the camera would count in a budget that considers utility. Idea there is, that you do not spend so much on equipment that you paralyze your project before you get out there. So, if you haven't already, consider utility. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>If on a budget I wouldn't spend extra for video, since the video features on these things aren't that good anyway. None of the budget models can use AF while shooting video. I'd spend extra on a tripod and maybe a flash, a copy of Lightroom, a lens, or whatever else is going to help you add some real value to your kit.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Of course when I said 'may not have the best autofocus' I meant that I read a review online that the camera did not have an autofocus as good/fast as other cameras in it's class.<br>

I don't expect or want to pay for the best (or even the great) right now. There's no need for me to have a 25MP camera because I won't be making poster pictures with it, and the extensive lenses are also a luxury since they're extremely expensive and I have a 15X digital camera.</p>

<p>I expect to get something around 10MP, like normal, but with a few specific features I might use.<br>

The unlimited burst (aka movie, as one of you noticed ;) is for time lapse purposes (because, yes, I don't want to pay an extra $300 for a movie function). Ideally the camera has a built-in time lapse setting in it, otherwise I'll have to find some sort of program to do that for me (or use the movie setting, and a program to take every nth frame and make a new movie).<br>

I made a short time lapse movie a few days ago (1800 frames = 1:40), but because each frame was around 1-2 seconds apart during continuous shooting, the movie ended up being very jittery (also, it was handheld and taken while on a small boat ;). Something like 3fps unlimited JPG (even if the quality is down to 600x800) would be perfect.<br>

Again ideally, if there is a time lapse function I would be able to set how long between each shot, instead of relying on the fps rate differences between different qualities of picture.</p>

<p>Utility is definitely a big thing. I'm going to be needing a decent/good tripod for a lot of what I do (the time lapses and long exposure), and I really want to try out different lens filters to see what effects can be made. But I'm deciding on something now because when I eventually do have the money, the price will have gone down slightly, and I'll know I'm happy with my decision for the specific camera and lenses (and I'll have some more experience with at least the theoretics of it ;).</p>

<p>Thanks for your advice!</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>Again ideally, if there is a time lapse function I would be able to set how long between each shot, instead of relying on the fps rate differences between different qualities of picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no difference, x fps means full quality jpg... unless you want to look into special features in some models like Pentax K20D: "Burst mode, allows 21fps shooting at 1.6MP resolution (up to 115 frames)". And: "You also have the option of setting the K20D to an alternate continuous shooting mode that slows the capture rate to 2.3 fps but allows you to shoot an unlimited number of JPEG images (to your card's capacity); perfect for extended capture sequences. <em>And, for extended time lapse sequences, there is an interval timer that can be set to capture images at a specific time interval, starting at a specific time</em> ."</p>

<p>K20D is one fine camera and pretty cheap at the moment. Perhaps more than a beginner needs but features don't hurt either.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>I'll have a look at that, thanks (I haven't checked out the Pentax camera reviews/specs yet, but I'll add that to the list and figure out which are good candidates).</p>

<p>I should probably find out also which camera models accept Minolta lenses (I just found out my stepdad has an old Minolta camera complete with a nice lens kit and some filters). It was bought new maybe 20-30 years ago but seems to have barely been used. If I can't use them, I guess I could sell them, but obviously I don't know their value.</p>

<p>I am wondering though, I thought that the zoom lenses allowed for dynamic zoom (ie while changing the focus; I think I remember this on a school SLR camera), while the lenses I have here are static but have very precise focus.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

[kari v]

<p>Minolta = Sony. I don't know what kind of limitations (if any) come from using those old lenses. What camera body and lenses does he have?</p>

<p>I don't quite understand "dynamic zoom" issue.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>The body is a Minolta X-700 (has a 'MPS' on the other side of the body).<br>

Lenses:<br>

50mm Minolta 1:2 (f2-f22)<br>

80-200mm Makinon 1:4.5 (f4.5-f22)<br>

28mm Magnicon macro 1:2.8 (f2.8-f22)<br>

Makinon 2X converter<br>

Magnicon 3X macro auto teleconverter</p>

<p>By 'dynamic zoom' I meant to say that while changing the focal point of the lens, the FOV becomes smaller ('zooming in'). That's part of what put me off using lenses (aside from the pricing) earlier; is that not standard? Or do most range lenses (eg 18-55mm) not actually zoom in on the subject?</p>

<p>So basically with the lenses, they will fit any newer Sony body, right? Are there any general guidelines/rules of thumb to know about, eg. Canon lenses don't work with Nikon, but with regard to either the Minolta/Sony lenses and specific manufacturer's camera body?</p>

<p>Thanks very much</p>

[avery1]

<blockquote>

<p>I made a short time lapse movie a few days ago (1800 frames = 1:40), but because each frame was around 1-2 seconds apart during continuous shooting, the movie ended up being very jittery (also, it was handheld and taken while on a small boat ;). Something like 3fps unlimited JPG (even if the quality is down to 600x800) would be perfect.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't think this is a time lapse movie. The idea of time lapse photography is to speed up motion (like taking a picture every hour of a flower and then turning it into a movie to show the flower blooming). Then there's stop motion photography, which is taking individual pictures and then turning them into a movie so that it appears that you're doing something you shouldn't be able to do (like taking lots of pictures of someone who has jumped up in the air at different places and then splicing them together into a movie that makes it look like the person is flying).</p>

<p>By the way, there's lots of software to help you do time lapse photography, but I don't know of any cameras that will do this on its own.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>I've seen some cameras that do have a built-in time lapse function, however I'm not trying to describe animated stop-motion photography, but exactly what you mentioned with the flower. <br>

What I prefer (as opposed to what happened with the boat time lapse) is around 2-4 fps (instead of the 15, 24, or 30 fps of a movie) to speed up the motion, just like taking every nth frame (eg 2nd, 5th, or etc) and making a movie out of those frames to seem like it's sped up.</p>

<p>Do you have some names for the programs you referred to? I haven't found anything that looks really good online, but I could easily be looking in the wrong places...</p>

<p>Does anyone know what the burst limit is for the Sony alpha 230 or 330, or if they have a bulb setting? I couldn't find them on retail store websites or dpreview.com.<br>

Also: Nikon D60: does it have unlimited jpg continuous shot, or just 100?</p>

<p>Right now it looks like the Nikon D3000 is the definite first candidate. Others in the running include: 3 other Nikons, 2 Canons, 5 Sonys, and 2 Panasonics (whew!), but the D3000 and D60 are the top two (Canon EOS 1000D in 3rd).<br>

If the Sonys have the infinite continuous shot and bulb settings they'll also go to the top 5, since I already have some Minolta lenses for them.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for everyone's input!</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>By 'dynamic zoom' I meant to say that while changing the focal point of the lens, the FOV becomes smaller ('zooming in'). That's part of what put me off using lenses (aside from the pricing) earlier; is that not standard? Or do most range lenses (eg 18-55mm) not actually zoom in on the subject?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Umm... all zooms zoom, longer focal length - smaller FoV. They work just like your video camera zoom lens.<br>

Or am I still missing the point here? :D</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So basically with the lenses, they will fit any newer Sony body, right? Are there any general guidelines/rules of thumb to know about, eg. Canon lenses don't work with Nikon, but with regard to either the Minolta/Sony lenses and specific manufacturer's camera body?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ouch, it seems that Sony's are totally compatible with Minolta AF glass but you need a quality losing adapter for old MD manual focus lenses. (Same as Canon FD below.)<br>

Not a great loss though. Your dad's lenses can be replaced by normal 18-55/70 and 55-200/250 set and if you want fast 50mm it costs only about $200 ($100 for Canon 50/1.8).<br>

2X converters reduce image quality quite a bit even with highest quality tele primes (think four figures price tag) and you lose two stops of light, not useful with consumer zooms. 3X = very likely rubbish or meant to be used with camcorders, not with high resolution cameras.</p>

<p>Pentax and Nikon work with their own old manual lenses but there are body/lens type specific restrictions in functionality. (You need at least Nikon D200/D300 for best support.)<br>

Canon EOS bodies (film or digital) don't take Canon FD lenses. There are adapters but you lose either infinity focus or quality, basically only usable lenses are for macro work no matter what the e-bay sellers claim. Then again EOS cameras take almost any other lens type with an adapter, including abundant m42 mount stuff and even modern Nikon.<br>

4/3 cameras (Olympus, Panasonic) can take the orphaned FD lenses with an adapter, Minolta too I guess.<br>

And if you want to play with dirt cheap tilt/shift lens you can use medium format lenses with special adapter with pretty much any 35mm or smaller format camera.</p>

 

[steve_bennett8]

<p>I would suggest purchasing the Nikon D5000. I bought one when i was learning photography and getting a grip on the basics. I've now moved on to a Nikon D3, but i keep this one handy. It has a 12-megapixel sensor and is really versatile. Great for a learner.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pixmonix.com">slide scanning service</a></p>

[avery1]

<p>I don't have a lot of experience with time lapse photography, but the program I've used is SAM animation. To use SAM with a dslr, you'd take all your shots and then import them into SAM. SAM will help you align your frames and turn it into a movie. SAM also has the ability to take a movie and show it as frame by frame shots, which would be another option for you.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Robert if I were you, I'd consider the Canon T1i kit, but only if you have to get a new camera and want to spend all your budget. Otherwise, go for a used Nikon D70 and buy some old Nikon lenses. You might want auto focus, but it's really not all it's cracked up to be (if you can see at 20/20 or even 20/40). Remember that fixed focal length lenses will usually be brighter (with larger apertures as you're focusing), and they'll work with a full-frame camera, for when you have the money to move up to a used D700 in a couple of years. At that time you'll find that you have an excellent camera for a bargain price again.</p>

<p>I used to shoot with a Canon 20 D, and then I bought a Sony R1 (not an SLR, but similar - just too slow). Then I bought a Canon 5 D (Nikon didn't have their full-frame SLR bodies out yet). The 5 D is EXCELLENT, but still too expensive for your budget. I shot with a Nikon D70 in RAW, and I found that it was not limited anywhere near as much as my Canon 20 D was. With the Nikon I could shoot and shoot, never running into the buffer, like I did all the time with my 20 D. In fact, the buffer limitation was the main reason I decided to get the 5 D.</p>

<p>Ultimately, Nikon's 14-24 and their fast full-frame cameras are the big reasons you may want to go with Nikon. But if you want to eventually shoot video with your DSLR lenses, you may prefer to go with Canon. The T1i does great 720p video, and it even does 20 fps 1080 video with good results (it looks very smooth when I play it on my MacBook Pro). Canon does have an advantage in that they have a very high quality image stabilized lens that zooms from wide to tele (the 24-105 f4 L IS). It's expensive though. I have a friend who shoots with the T1i and that lens, and his results are excellent.</p>

<p>Since you already have a video camera, I suggest you get cheap old Nikon stuff. It will get you started in the right direction, and you will get much more bang for your buck.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>@Kari: Thanks, that makes sense :) I'm not sure why I thought a zoom lens wouldn't be dynamic :S I'll get into the lenses and everything as soon as I choose a brand ;)</p>

<p>@Steve: Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately the D5000 doesn't have the unlimited burst, and for $350 more than the D3000 (which I suppose is mostly due to an extra 2MP), I think I'd prefer the D3000.</p>

<p>@Avery: Thank you for your suggestion! I've downloaded the program and will see what it can do :)</p>

<p>@Scott: the Canon T1i looks pretty nice as well, but also doesn't have the unlimited burst; it does seem better value than the Nikon D5000 though, but I'm judging mostly on price, megapixels, and buffer. I'm wondering though, are the quality of those lenses so much better than the Nikons of the same variety/price range? A lot of the ones I'm looking at (none specific at the moment though, as I need to find a brand first ;) have either IS or VR, and from what I've heard, Nikon lenses are right up there in quality as well.<br />Again, the D70 doesn't have unlimited burst (but it looks like a very nice camera!) I don't know what my eyesight is, but it's bad enough that I have to guess who people are by their clothing at around 5m :(<br />Canon 5d: I'm liking the extended ISO range and unlimited burst (at least in low quality which is all I need for the movies). I can't find a price for it on Futureshop or London Drugs, but based on the Mark II prices, I'm guessing it's way over the $600 that the Nikon D3000 is priced at.<br />Thanks very much for all your information!</p>

<p>So right now the top three are:<br />Nikon D3000 with 18-55VR lens, $600<br />Nikon D60 with 18-55VR lens, $550*<br />Canon EOS 1000D with 18-55 lens, $560.<br />*(although: does it have unlimited burst, even at lower quality? I haven't been able to find this out yet.)<br />All are 10.2MP, have the same 3fps burst rate, bulb shutter, and an 18-55mm lens with them (although the Canon doesn't have VR/IS, I think), and the D3000 has ISO 100-3200, with the other two 100-1600.<br />Very likely it will be the Nikon D3000.</p>

<p>Again, thanks very much to everyone who's commented/suggested/informed me about things to consider and options out there :D</p>

<p>EDIT: any word on the burst limit on the Sony alpha230 or alpha330? Those are my other two final choices.</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon D3000 with 18-55VR lens, $600<br /> Nikon D60 with 18-55VR lens, $550*<br /> Canon EOS 1000D with 18-55 lens, $560.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skip D60, improved AF and other smaller features are well worth that $50.<br>

1000D with non-IS lens at that price? Simply put: don't. Older Canon kit lens is about the worst and 1000D body is a cost cut version based on 400D.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and the D3000 has ISO 100-3200, with the other two 100-1600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just keep in mind that ISO 3200 of lower end bodies starts to look quite shabby, it's not within sensor's real sensitivity range. It might come in handy at reduced resolution though.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering though, are the quality of those lenses so much better than the Nikons of the same variety/price range? A lot of the ones I'm looking at (none specific at the moment though, as I need to find a brand first ;) have either IS or VR, and from what I've heard, Nikon lenses are right up there in quality as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon makes fine optics. Choosing Canon/Nikon is more about lens line-up than quality.</p>

<p>Sony has some really sweet Zeiss lenses but high end stuff comes with a price. CaNikon have more versatile consumer range.</p>

[kari v]

<p>You can make your own "ISO 3200" by underexposing 1ev at ISO 1600 and bringing it back in post but this requires some practise and processing from RAW for best results.</p>

<p>D60 doesn't seem to have unlimited burst.</p>

<p>A230, A330 and A380 shoot unlimited jpg.</p>

[andylynn]

The D3000 is the best of the ones you've listed (worth it for the AF upgrade alone) but if you enjoy getting creative on

eBay get the Sony A330 and score deals on Minolta AF lenses.

[rjpierrard]

<p>Alright! Just a few more questions, and I think I'm done:<br>

Does the Sony A330 have bulb shutter (couldn't find that, again)?<br>

What are the creative options the A330 have? <br>

and What's the difference between the A230 and A330? Almost all the specs on dpreview looked the same, but the A330 is $100 more. </p>

<p>As for lenses: Yeah I've heard/seen online that the Zeiss and Sigma lenses are very good quality, but as you said, also expensive. I'm not a professional photographer, so I think the consumer range would be a better option for me anyways (and if I do end up wanting one of them, Sigma at least has Nikon-mount lenses).<br>

The extended ISO isn't really a big thing for me, since I don't plan on taking a lot of pictures where I'll need a high ISO (most of them would be long exposure at lower ISO, instead of the other way around).</p>

<p>I look forward to using one of these (for hours on end until the batteries die) :D</p>

[dan_south]

<p>By the way, it's amaTEUR, not amature.</p>

<p>Amateur comes from Latin and effectively means "lover," i.e. someone who does something for the sheer love or pleasure of it.</p>

[kari v]

<p>Zeiss makes high-end lenses but Sigma (and Tamron) is mostly known from price/performance type gear, eg. Sigma 18-50/2.8 (Tamron 17-50/2.8) $400, Nikon 17-55/2.8, $1300 - Nikon may be better but for many people it's definitely not $1k better.<br>

Interesting exception is Sigma 50/1.4 which is $100 more expensive (in the US, equally priced here in Europe) than the Canon equivalent and actually better when you want great background blur, f1.4-2 performance and build.</p>

<p>If you buy a body that has in-built stabilization, like Sony, you get Tamron 17-50/2.8 "IS" for $400 vs. $1000 Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. Or Sigma 70-200/2.8 "IS" for $800 vs. $2000(!) Canon 70-200/2.8 IS. Yes, Canon is better but look at the price, come on...<br>

For amateurs third party lenses and stabilized bodies make a lot of sense.</p>

<p>That said, Nikon is a very good option for your needs and there's plenty of used gear going around. Nikon's less expensive zooms are very good, you can go far with D3000 and basic 18-105 VR alone. (And should you find $600 burning in your pocket Nikon 16-85 VR offers best resolution there is over such a wide range and 16mm vs run-of-the-mill 18mm difference is visible.)</p>

<p>I think Andrew meant that you can find a lot of cheap Minolta AF lenses and play around with them. A330 doesn't have any super special creative features I know of.</p>

<p>A230 is slightly smaller and lighter than A330 and A380. It lacks the special construction that 3xx bodies use for fast live view AF and articulating lcd screen. Also, controls are simplified. A380 has higher resolution sensor than 230 and 330 (10 vs 14Mp).<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA230/AA230A.HTM<br>

Too bad A330 screen isn't tilt/swivel.</p>

<p>Hmm... about for hours on end use, you sound like a person who wants a battery grip. Brand name ones usually go for about $150 and third party options for $70-100.</p>

[rjpierrard]

 

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, it's amaTEUR, not amature.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Amateur comes from Latin and effectively means "lover," i.e. someone who does something for the sheer love or pleasure of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow :S I wasn't sure so I put it into word and google, and neither said I spelled it wrong, but I guess there's a second word. Oh well, thanks :)</p>

<p>Battery grip: most likely yes. For things like camping, or even just long days out making panoramas or timelapse movies, I'd like to be able to do all that I wanted without running out, or having to go home or etc.<br>

Do Tamron or Zeiss make lenses compatible with Nikon mounts? I know that some Sigma lenses are made specifically for Nikons, but I'm just starting to get into the world of the lens.</p>

<p>Alright, so the Nikon D3000 it is :)<br>

On to lenses! (should I make a new thread for this, as it isn't the thread title?)</p>

 

[kari v]

<p>Sigma makes lenses to pretty much every mount, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus (4/3). And of course for their own SD-series dslrs.<br /> Tamron caters for Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax.<br /> Zeiss ZF series is for Nikon mount (and lately Canon) but these are manual focus, autofocus lenses are only for Sony. ZFs are high quality primes (non-zoom lenses) and corner-to-corner optimized for 35mm sensor/film, not the most beginner or wallet friendly options and a lot of good glass gets wasted on smaller sensor.<br /> Then there's Tokina. Some good stuff there too like the excellent 11-16/2.8 ultrawide and the only fisheye zoom that I know of 10-17/3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>I'd start with simple 18-55 VR + 55-200 VR or 18-105 VR kit. Shoot for a while, get familiar with the gear and workflow and think what you need to upgrade later.<br /> For shallow depth of field / large aperture there's 35/1.8 AF-S DX for $200, small size and very good quality. Other similar lenses either won't autofocus on D3000 body or cost $400-500.</p>