choosing which camera

[rostislav_zvarych]

<p>I am looking into picking up photography and I was wondering what are some good dslr's to start out with.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>There are no bad DSLR's on the market now. Decide how much you want to spend on a camera and lens. Go to the websites for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus and look at what they offer in your price range. Then go to a store where you can handle the models that interest you. Make your choice based on features, how the camera feels in your hands, how you like the controls, and whether or not it offers all the lenses and doodads you may want.</p>

<p>If money is tight, put more into the lens and less into the camera. Don't let the salesperson talk you into something. Some don't know what they're talking about and some may be selling you something for their own reason. If you're not sure of something ask us.</p>

<p>One important point is the issue of stabilization. Canon and Nikon put the stabilization in the lenses. Pentax and Sony put it in the camera. The advantage of having it in the camera is that any lens you put on the camera becomes stabilized. The advantage of having it in the lens is that you can see the effect of the stabilization and the image in the viewfinder does not bounce around.</p>

[bueh]

<p>My advise for anyone who wants to learn photography:</p>

<ul>

<li>Avoid entry-level cameras as the poor ergonomics and limited options actually make it harder to learn and take good pictures (this does not apply if you are a seasoned photographer who understands photography).</li>

<li>Get a camera with a good and extended system behind it. Canon is here the best, then Nikon and then Pentax. Everything else offers too little, especially when it comes to a good selection of primes.</li>

<li>If you are going to buy second-hand (which I personally always do and therefore recommend), you need to be aware of the situation of the used market for your prospective system. Again, everything from Canon is common on the used market, Nikon a little less and most other manufacturer's gear is rather rare in comparison when it comes to non-consumer/entry-level stuff. Canon also has the only affordable full-frame dSLR here, too (the EOS 5D).</li>

<li>Other things also might apply. Nikon has an excellent flash system, Pentax's dedicated crop-factor primes are a big plus and Olympus/Panasonic's small 4/3rd system has wonderful, tiny cameras (but which also have a much smaller sensor than "regular" dSLRs). Also backwards compability and adaptability of manual focus gear is different for the various systems.</li>

</ul>

[kerry_grim]

<p>digital SLR Buying Guide at dpreview:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I disagree with Bueh's first two points. Entry level cameras are capable of outstanding results as long as you work within their limits, some of which are mentioned above. They offer great value and are easier to learn the basics on because they are designed for DSLR beginners. You can also upgrade later if need be and use it as a second body or sell it. Landscapes and people are good subjects for entry level cameras because they usually don't require advanced features like high rates of frames per second, very high ISO's, or weather sealing. Also the money saved on the body can be put toward other things like a lens, a flash, or groceries.</p>

<p>All of the brands mentioned have all the lenses, flashes, and doodads that most amateurs will ever need. If you think that you may want to turn pro one day, then Nikon and Canon are better choices. If you're looking for a creative hobby, any of them along with independent manufacturers should offer all that you need.</p>

[ellery]

<p>Bueh - I disagree with Bueh to a degree as well (not to bash on you Bueh, :) - To be clear, you can learn many photography basics even with a point and shoot. You can learn to recognize quality of light, conditions, exposure, how a meter works, learn composition, and pick up on post processing skills, etc.....I have seen some amazing photos with a darn simple point and shoot from folks online - most of the time people who knew their stuff. I am not saying that you shouldnt get a DSLR though - they will give you more freedoms and creative input than that of the point and shoot, but now that I have learned a bit more about photography in the past couple of years, I go outdoors and take my point and shoot on some outings, bring along a reflector perhaps, and get some great photos on the go......The cameras are just simple tools, it will be up to you to learn the principles necessary and provide your vision/inspiration to make your art :)<br>

But I am rambling philosophical blah blah blah - to answer your question - I would agree with Mark really - I know some peeps with cannon - I have a nikon - I have a friend with a olymptus 4/3 and another with a pentax....yeah there are differences in features, performance in low light, the lenses, etc....but in the end, it will be up to you to use whatever tool you buy and you will just learn to work it.</p>

<p>I obscessed over reviews, technical details, forums, and all that jazz for months before buying my nikon D90 (nikon is the best FYI ;D - kidding - anyway, I was between a 40D cannon and the nikon D90 - Did I make the right choice? Who knows, but I am having a ball and learning alot and I would have done just the same with one or the other - the deciding factor in the end of it all was simply holding one and the other and I really (at that time) loved the hi res screen on the D90 - although in retrospect it didnt really matter all that much I think for the most part.</p>

<p>My point is, go with Mark's rec's - figure your budget - look at the camera, hold it, read up a bit on it, and take the plunge. </p>

<p>What is your budget anyway and what are your ambitions with buying this camera?</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"...Canon is here the best, then Nikon.."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might have been a true statement 4 or 5 years ago, but it's no longer correct. There <em>is</em> no clear winner in terms of an overall DSLR system, and either one is excellent. If there's any current advantage in terms of number of lens offerings, etc., it's Nikon at the moment (71 vs 67), and more Nikon lenses will interchange between camera models. It's a pretty safe bet that any overall system lead by one or the other <em>will</em> change from year to year.</p>

<p>As to the OP, defining the kinds of things you want to shoot <em>and</em> your budget would really help us to answer your question in a meaningful way.</p>

[rostislav_zvarych]

<p>My budget would probably up to $650 (give or take). As for the things i would like to shoot would probably be anything, but more towards landscapes, nature, things like that, and possibly people.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>You can get an entry level DSLR with the kit lens, usually a stabilized 18-55 for that much. You can go up a level in camera and/or lens by buying used or refurbished. Adorama and B&H have current and recent model cameras and lenses refurbished and warrantied by the manufacturer for a very good price. keh.com is a very good source of used gear.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Depending on where you're shopping that price will get you a Pentax K-x with a two-lens kit (18-55 + 50-200/55-300 depending on the kit). It is competent, competitive with other entry-level bodies. Typically the entry-level bodies are designed to be more compact and lighter weight and a bit simpler on the surface with fewer dedicated buttons/controls, but generally have all the basics for general purpose photography. One can learn photography on a point & shoot but I think one reason people like using SLRs is that with the optical viewfinder and a real degree of depth-of-field control and good access to the meter and shutter speeds you gain a greater feeling that your input makes a difference.</p>

<p>To get a substantially better body will probably require that you spend more than that on the body alone. The next level up would generally be a bit larger & heavier, would have a better pentaprism viewfinder, some improvement in autofocus performance (but still well shy of pro-level), and additional dedicated controls, usually two e-dials for controlling both shutter and aperture without having to hold down a button. Probably some additional performance improvements in terms of continous shooting as well.</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>The camera is the least important thing a beginner should think about. Nearly any camera will do until you see what interests you, or whether you even ENJOY photography at all. Great pictures can be taken with a $100 dollar camera. There is so much to learn about "seeing pictures", finding interesting subject matter, composing a picture, understanding light, understanding that camera's don't "see" the way the eye-brain sees, and so much more. I would call that the "software" side of photography versus the hardware of cameras and lenses. A lower cost camera might be augmented by some excellent books.</p>

<p>Once you have your feet wet, and have discovered subjects of interest, and types of photography you enjoy, then you'll be much more likely to know what sort of hardware will fit your needs. To use an analogy, imagine buying a car before getting a drivers license? Do you get a sports car, truck, SUV, sedan, convertible? There are many, many varieties of camera that all have interesting reasons to use them. Rangefinders, SLR, point and shoot, manual (no batteries needed), electronic, autofocus, film, digital, 35mm, larger formats, etc. I wouldn't necessarily guess that every new person in photography should automatically end up with a dSLR.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[craig_cooper7]

<p>If you're thinking about getting into photography with a view to being a professional, your choice is basically Canon or Nikon. These brands have the biggest systems, support and supplier networks and R&D budgets. <br>

You can waste many, many hours arguing the merits of each, but both brands are easily good enough to get the job done. However, once you start buying expensive lenses and accessories you'll be pretty much locked into the system you choose. <br>

If you are not so concerned about the professional aspect, I really like Olympus SLRs. Their kits are good value, and have a reputation for better than average optics for the price. <br>

Most cameras have the same basic features these days, and lots of features are pretty unnecessary. A high flash sync speed (ie 1/200 or 1/250 sec) is probably worth paying a bit more for, and dust reduction is a must if you plan on having more than one lens. <br>

I also don't believe in spending a lot of money on camera bodies, at least at the beginning. You will get more mileage from a cheap body and a high quality lens. Put your money into glass.<br>

Craig.<br>

[jim_manganella]

<p>No one camera does everything perfectly. For clarity it's Nikon all the way. Skin tones I think would be associated with how good the camera's white balance is. I use a Nikon D3 which excels at both.</p>

[nik_r]

<p>If you are interested in photography and want to start than I think its good investing in a entry level DSLR and a quite good amount of lenses. In market the best one to choose from are Canon and Nikon. Some of the good one are Nikon D3000 or Canon XS also Nikon has just launched its new camera <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730210-REG/Nikon_25472_D3100_Digital_SLR_Camera.html/BI/6846/KBID/7390">Nikon D3100</a> have a look at those specification and features and choose which suits best to your needs.</p>