Hey photographers.

for a semi professional user i would recommend to wait for the eos 450D.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012 ... os450d.asp

since i own a eos300D for years now and i still can make nice photos with it (probably better than many other cameras), i can recommend this brand.

the eos 450D is avaible for 850euro with a 18-55mm lense. that's not too bad for the beginning, but a better tele zoom would be nice. you can add like 250 or 300 euro for another additional zoom lense and if you go for the eos450D a SD-Card would be required. additional batteries are recommended too.

the previous eos400D is getting really cheap now but the main difference is that it uses Campact Flash/Microdrive as memory. so if you run low on budget i'd recommend buying now a cheap eos 400D.

probably you can ask someone in your neighborhood to check out the camera by doodling around.

Canon EOS 400D too got one and I'm very happy.

first of all buty only a body (without kit lens), then look for a cool lens. if you want to shoot some architecture photos I suggest you tu buy sigma 17-70 :>

Are you taking these for print or online?

I hate Canon's, to me the build quality feels much inferior. It just doesnt feel right in my hand either, plus the scroll wheel on the back of the more professional ones feels exceedingly cheap for the price.

I'd recommend the D60 or D80 kit, both have various selections of kit lens'. Perhaps a D40X with the Double Zoom Kit, gives you a 18-55 and the quite frankly amazing 55-200mm Vibration-Reduction lens for around £400-500 ($700-1000).

If you can wangle it, A D300

Once you use a D300 for an hour or so, any Canon camera feels useless until you get to the EOS-1Ds Mark III and thats £6k for the body....

As a Nikon supporter, I feel like I should stick up against the Cannon crowd.

I'd go with the D40 or the D60. I had a D50 (which is now discontinued), and now have a D200. The D40 is pretty much the replacement for the D50. If you're just doing stuff for the web, it's the way to go. You can even print up to 8x10 fairly well if you do need to do print work. It shoots RAW really well for color correction, and the 18-55mm lens that comes with the kit is a great bargain. It's not near zero distortion, and shoots in a variety of environments very well. You can also get the D40 starter kit with both the 18-55 lens and the 55-200 zoom lens for under $650. For web-only work and shooting shots in the weekend, that's going to cover you 95% of the time.

0.

The D60 is coming out soon (mid-march I think) and has some more professional style options and shoots at a higher megapixel. If you want some more bells and whistles at a higher price, you could go with that as well.

I'm not going to advocate Canon or Nikon. They're both really good. Just go to the store and ask to use one from each to find out which you like the feel of better. Ask for the cheaper ones because you probably won't notice a difference and they use the same sensors anyway. The more expensive ones just let you do the same thing a little faster. Take the saved money and buy a nice lens because a better lens is better than a nicer camera every day. And since you're not doing much/anything for print the number of megapixels your camera has is basically irrelevant. 3mp is more than enough for any online application. No amount of megapixels will make up for an inferior lens. You could also invest in a tripod and maybe a few filters (when you know what lens you're getting).

hmm im about to buy a canon 300 digital rebel. with a broken flitser and only the body, because im a poor bastard. is the kitlens recommendable or should i go for another one? any tips? and do you guys offenly use the built-in flitser? is it any good (i might want to get it repaired then)..

Quote from killertomato

hmm im about to buy a canon 300 digital rebel. with a broken flitser and only the body, because im a poor bastard. is the kitlens recommendable or should i go for another one? any tips? and do you guys offenly use the built-in flitser? is it any good (i might want to get it repaired then)..

I don't have much experience in Canon cameras but I personally wouldn't want to buy a 300d because there are alternative options in three newer generations of that product line with better attributes and stats (higher res, better af, etc.) Of course it depends very much on the bargain you're getting. You can probably get a new 300d for around 500€. Drop half of that away because it's used and another half for it being broken. Yeah so it's probably not worth paying much over 100€.

Flitser=flash? Not sure how much it would cost to fix. I'd guess relativly much. Also, external flashes aren't very cheap so buying a new one would probably cost as much as you'll be paying for that camera.

It's usually best to look out because you're appetite is likely to get bigger. If were talking about the 18-55 kit lens, it might do the job in the beginning but you'll soon start wanting something better. I also personally hated the way that lens feels in hand when I tried it. Getting something better is of course again pricier. I've heard that the 17-85 which comes with 40D is pretty decent.

thanks, that reply was helpful and yes, flitser is a flash (sorry)

but the pricing isnt exactly what you'd call a bargain im afraid. the camera (only the body) is priced €175 ($265). but these cameras are even 2nd hand VERY expensive here in holland. the 2ndhand 300d price begins at around €250 and still theres even higher bidding..

anyway, id be willing to save extra for the lens. i dont want the lens to limit the qualty of my photos..

to conclude this post: i think ill look a bit further for a camera thats not broken. it might cost me less on the longer run.

YES. It will cost less in the long run. I bought my 20D used and had to repair a broken shutter box (500 USD). Ouch. Especially after I already paid 1k for the camera itself. Get new if you can and inspect carefully the equipment you buy used.

I'd reccomend a Canon too, I have a 350D and I think it's awesome.

I have a 350D. Good stuff man, it's really easy to use and feels 'right'. My dad's Nikon just feels uncomfortable.

I use a 350D as well and as much as I appreciate that cam I'm not sure if I would go for it another time. Try the cam but try some nikons as well. They both feel completely different. And try to get a rechargable battery with it and a fitting recharger. I had it with mine and a friend of mine didn't and she had to buy another 50 bucks for that I saved by buying a kit with everything included (apart from the lenses ofc)

The new D60 is getting some pretty good reviews and is looking to be very worth the money, especially with the kit 18-55 with VR.

only if you don't need to buy some lenses - you'll need to chose those with a motor for AF

i had it in my hands and it's like a toy - a lot of "WYSIWYG" picture changers etc. if you wan't to upload photos on myspace it's a good choice.

Quote from seir

only if you don't need to buy some lenses - you'll need to chose those with a motor for AFi had it in my hands and it's like a toy - a lot of "WYSIWYG" picture changers etc. if you wan't to upload photos on myspace it's a good choice.

The lens thing isn't an issue anymore, back when the D40 originally came out but theres now a decent selection of AF-S lens' to choose from, except in the macro area. Then again using AF on macro shots its a bit dumb, should have a tripod and MF anyway.

The WYSIWYG thing is on pretty much every Nikon DSLR, not just something the D60 has, even the top end consumer stuff like D200,D300's have it. Its certainly not a reason to not buy it, I've never used those features on my D40 as its much inferior to tweaking the .NEF files by hand.

Edit: Heres a list of len's that support the D40/D40X/D60 AF function:

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard ... c_id=13319

70 odd which pretty much covers every eventuality, if you need something thats not on the list then you probably shouldnt buy the D40/D40X/D60 to start with

E-freak, Pogop, snipamaster and Belgarion, thanks for your replies, they were -again- very helpful to me.

ive looked around and found that the 300d has the best bang for my buck but not too long ago i came across the olympus e-500, wich is also in this price segment. although scoring better on lower iso values, there seems to be a lot of noise on the higher values. i intend to use my camera alot for live acts for music etc, so i guess canon seems better fit for the job. except that i havent tried out the e-500for myself jet, plus it has other pro's, like a bigger lcd, automatic lens cleaner etc.

anyone has experiences with the e-500?

To be honest if you want a DSLR, get a Nikon or a Canon. Anything else and you'll be kicking yourself for years to come.