Help please. Looking for entry level SLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by woobles, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. woobles

    woobles Guest

    Hello,
    I am looking for suggestions on an entry level SLR.
    I will be using the camera mainly for
    1) Massive amounts of pictures of my family which I often print.
    2) Periodic weddings that friends ask me to shoot being that they like
    my pictures ect..ect..
    3) I do a lot of photo printing mainly 4x6's but occasionally 8x10's
    and am looking for very good quality at 8x10.
    4) I take holiday 4 times a year and keep my camera with me at all
    times averaging 500 pictures in 7 days.

    I am not a professional but do not mind learning what's needed to
    handle an SLR.
    I have all of adobe products and do a lot of editing and retouch when
    needed such as wrinkle removal, trimming down the bride and the like.

    I am looking for something that will fit the following needs.
    1)Accepts standard rechargeable AA's
    2)Optical viewfinder
    3)Prefer to handle compact flash but not a decisive factor.
    4)Is pretty fast at continuous shooting, but rapid fire not really
    needed.My old DC280 could take 3 shots at about 2 seconds apart, then
    I had to wait 20 seconds before I could shoot again.
    5)I would like to stay under $1000 for the camera itself.

    In general, I'm just looking for a good solid camera that has some
    weight to it and that offers a good quality shot. Advanced settings
    would be nice for I can learn as I go. I do not want a tiny point and
    shoot type, and I want to avoid
    manufacturer specific memory and power systems. When shooting at a
    wedding, I like to shoot, wait a few seconds, shoot, and repeat
    without problems.I consider myself somewhere between amateur and
    professional and am looking to move up to the next level.

    Thank you very much in advance,
    any input appreciated.
    Robert
    woobles, Dec 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. woobles

    Don Coon Guest

    "woobles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello,
    > I am looking for suggestions on an entry level SLR.
    > I will be using the camera mainly for
    > 1) Massive amounts of pictures of my family which I often print.
    > 2) Periodic weddings that friends ask me to shoot being that they like
    > my pictures ect..ect..
    > 3) I do a lot of photo printing mainly 4x6's but occasionally 8x10's
    > and am looking for very good quality at 8x10.
    > 4) I take holiday 4 times a year and keep my camera with me at all
    > times averaging 500 pictures in 7 days.
    >
    > I am not a professional but do not mind learning what's needed to
    > handle an SLR.
    > I have all of adobe products and do a lot of editing and retouch when
    > needed such as wrinkle removal, trimming down the bride and the like.
    >
    > I am looking for something that will fit the following needs.
    > 1)Accepts standard rechargeable AA's
    > 2)Optical viewfinder
    > 3)Prefer to handle compact flash but not a decisive factor.
    > 4)Is pretty fast at continuous shooting, but rapid fire not really
    > needed.My old DC280 could take 3 shots at about 2 seconds apart, then
    > I had to wait 20 seconds before I could shoot again.
    > 5)I would like to stay under $1000 for the camera itself.
    >
    > In general, I'm just looking for a good solid camera that has some
    > weight to it and that offers a good quality shot. Advanced settings
    > would be nice for I can learn as I go. I do not want a tiny point and
    > shoot type, and I want to avoid
    > manufacturer specific memory and power systems. When shooting at a
    > wedding, I like to shoot, wait a few seconds, shoot, and repeat
    > without problems.I consider myself somewhere between amateur and
    > professional and am looking to move up to the next level.
    >
    > Thank you very much in advance,
    > any input appreciated.
    > Robert


    Other than item #1, you're best off with the Canon Digital Rebel. Body
    costs $900. Coming from my "AA" only roots like you, I think you'll be
    extremely happy with the BP-511 Lithium-Ion battery. It seems to last
    forever. I haven't yet recharged a battery AFTER it died in the camera (10D
    here) --- I can't wait that long : ) With AA NiMhs I had batteries go dead
    in the camera all the time. And you can get a pair of backup batteries for
    $25 on Ebay or one at Walmart for about the same price. Not much shelf-life
    issues as with NiMHs either.
    Don Coon, Dec 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. woobles

    Banjopikr1 Guest

    > Looking for entry level SLR

    Robert
    Look at the Canon digital rebel. Not exactley entry level, but is under $1000
    and should meet your needs.
    Banjopikr1, Dec 21, 2003
    #3
  4. woobles

    tron Guest

    Thanks, It looks like the digital rebel is the prime choice since the only 3
    responses suggested it.
    tron, Dec 21, 2003
    #4
  5. "tron" <> wrote in message
    news:_dlFb.8606$...
    > Thanks, It looks like the digital rebel is the prime choice since the

    only 3
    > responses suggested it.


    ... but the rest of us might ask: "Do you really need an SLR?". I didn't
    see anything in your requirements list that mandated an SLR.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 21, 2003
    #5
  6. woobles

    tron Guest

    You make a valid point. Perhaps I do not need an SLR. I assumed that by
    going with an SLR, I would get higher quality materials, overall better
    picture quality, shorter shot-to-shot delays and an overall smarter camera
    that would give me a better picture on average in all conditions.
    Perhaps I do not need an SLR if the above is not true. Can you then suggest
    a non SLR that can satisfy my original needs?
    Thanks
    Robert
    "
    tron, Dec 21, 2003
    #6
  7. woobles

    tron Guest

    Perhaps I'm looking for the possiblity of using advanced SLR features while
    also having the option of simple point an shoot.
    Any suggestions?
    Robert
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote in
    message news:TslFb.2806$...
    > "tron" <> wrote in message
    > news:_dlFb.8606$...
    > > Thanks, It looks like the digital rebel is the prime choice since the

    > only 3
    > > responses suggested it.

    >
    > .. but the rest of us might ask: "Do you really need an SLR?". I didn't
    > see anything in your requirements list that mandated an SLR.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >
    tron, Dec 21, 2003
    #7
  8. woobles

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <l_lFb.8607$>,
    says...
    > You make a valid point. Perhaps I do not need an SLR. I assumed that by
    > going with an SLR, I would get higher quality materials, overall better
    > picture quality, shorter shot-to-shot delays and an overall smarter camera
    > that would give me a better picture on average in all conditions.
    > Perhaps I do not need an SLR if the above is not true. Can you then suggest
    > a non SLR that can satisfy my original needs?
    > Thanks
    > Robert
    > "


    You are correct in your assumptions, especially the ones about better
    picture quality and shorter shot-to-shot delays. You need an SLR. Look
    at the 300D.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker, Dec 21, 2003
    #8
  9. woobles

    Guest

    I really don't think you need an SLR. Yes they may produce marginally
    better pictures but the difference certainly won't be noticeable if you are
    using this primarily to take pictures of your family. I own the Fuhi s602
    and most people can't tell the difference between those prints and prints
    from higher end cameras. There are several excellent prosumer SLR like
    cameras that would do very well for you.

    These are in no particular order

    Sony f828
    Fuji S7000
    Minolta Dimage A1
    Nikon Coolpix 5700.

    All of these have long lens length, quick autofocus, quick picture to
    picture lag time. They also have many of the features that you would find
    on an SLR. Check them out at a bestbuy before spending money on an SLR
    that you probably don't need.
    , Dec 21, 2003
    #9
  10. "tron" <> wrote in message
    news:l_lFb.8607$...
    > You make a valid point. Perhaps I do not need an SLR. I assumed that by
    > going with an SLR, I would get higher quality materials, overall better
    > picture quality, shorter shot-to-shot delays and an overall smarter

    camera
    > that would give me a better picture on average in all conditions.
    > Perhaps I do not need an SLR if the above is not true. Can you then

    suggest
    > a non SLR that can satisfy my original needs?
    > Thanks
    > Robert


    I would agree with the non-SLR list that others have suggested.

    My concern is that by getting "entry-level" you would be getting the worst
    of both worlds, the expense of an SLR without the high build quality and
    features you seek. You need to factor in the very expensive lenses
    required (1.6X shorter focal length for the same effect (you want 20mm you
    need to buy 12.5mm) as well. Your money, your choice.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 21, 2003
    #10
  11. woobles

    Mark Johnson Guest

    (woobles) wrote:

    >Hello,
    >I am looking for suggestions on an entry level SLR.


    You mean a dSLR. Not a film camera. This is a digital camera ng.

    I haven't used one, myself, but might try one next year. And that
    would be the Canon 10D. It's apparently something like a 'grown-up'
    version of the 'digital rebel' that they are now advertizing on
    television.

    I think you might want to double think the whole dSLR thing. Do you
    really need it? It's over $1000 for lenses and flash. Well over $1000
    dollars. That's real money.

    The advantage would seem to be more for specialty situations - rapid
    shots to buffered memory, generally lower noise, low light
    performance, and sharper optics, supposedly. I haven't been that
    impressed with photos I've seen posted from dSLRs compared to various
    digicams. But that might just be bad photography and careless or
    ignorant photographers.

    Frankly, your 'looking for' requirements would be satisfied by a Oly
    C5050, or various others. That might be where you'd look, instead of
    dSLR. If you look around, and think there's less noise to deal with in
    dSLR shots, to begin with, particularly for indoor wedding photos,
    without a strong flash, or bounced flash, etc, then that might be
    enough for a dSLR. But if you're not backpacking on your "vacation", I
    wonder if you'll still think it was wise to go dSLR. It's just like a
    film SLR, but with a charge-coupled device instead of film. That's
    all. If I, myself, went on vacation, like that, it would probably be
    just for the sake of taking more photographs. But not everyone is like
    that.
    Mark Johnson, Dec 21, 2003
    #11
  12. Digital SLR under $1000: Cannon has one and Nikon will offer one quite soon.
    If you have any glass of either brand the choice is easy. otherwise suppose
    it's a matter of taste.

    -Michael
    Michael Schnell, Dec 21, 2003
    #12
  13. (woobles) writes:

    > Hello,
    > I am looking for suggestions on an entry level SLR.
    > I will be using the camera mainly for
    > 1) Massive amounts of pictures of my family which I often print.
    > 2) Periodic weddings that friends ask me to shoot being that they like
    > my pictures ect..ect..
    > 3) I do a lot of photo printing mainly 4x6's but occasionally 8x10's
    > and am looking for very good quality at 8x10.
    > 4) I take holiday 4 times a year and keep my camera with me at all
    > times averaging 500 pictures in 7 days.


    Depending on how far you go quality wise with the wedding, you might not need a
    SLR. Note, SLRs can be heavy, particularly if you have multiple lenses. For
    what its worth, I get great 8x10's out of my 2 megapixel Olympus C-2100UZ.

    Instead of an SLR, I would recomend you look at the following cameras (which
    are SLR-like, but are prosumer cameras), which have an electronic viewfinder
    (viewfinder is a miniture LCD). Most of them take proprietary batteries.

    Minolta A1 -- 28-200mm equivalent camera with anti-shake technology. Takes CF
    cards. Has a proprietary battery, but takes an external battery holder which
    takes 6 AA batteries. Some problem with noise, but probably not like the
    whinners portray.

    Sony 828 -- just released, so may be in short supply, and pushing your budget
    range. Lots of complaints about noise. Rather heavy and large. Has
    proprietary battery and takes either CF or MS cards.

    Sony 717 -- previous generation camera, now reduced in price. Good at low
    light shots. Has propitary battery and takes MS cards.

    Panasonic FZ10 -- 35-420mm equivalent camera with anti-shake technology. Takes
    SD cards and a proprietary battery.

    Fujifilm S7000 -- 35-210mm equivalent camera, takes AA batteries and either CF
    or xD cards.

    Use E-10 or E-20 -- fixed lens SLR. Takes AA batteries and both SM and CF
    cards.

    From here on, I will stick with SLRs.

    > I am not a professional but do not mind learning what's needed to
    > handle an SLR.
    > I have all of adobe products and do a lot of editing and retouch when
    > needed such as wrinkle removal, trimming down the bride and the like.
    >
    > I am looking for something that will fit the following needs.
    > 1)Accepts standard rechargeable AA's


    Pentex *st or Olympus E-10/E-20 (note the E-10/E-20 do not have a removable
    lens). Possibly Fuji S2pro if you buy the external battery pack (the Fuji is
    built on a Nikon film body and uses 2 types of batteries, AA for the digital
    part, and CR123's for the body part, but the Nikon battery holder can evidently
    be used). Note, except for a used E-10/E-20, all of these are more than $1000.

    > 2)Optical viewfinder


    Note, I suspect you mean a TTL (through the lens) viewfinder. An optical
    viewfinder is a parallel lens to the camera's lens, and suffers from parallex.
    As I mentioned above an electronic viewfinder uses a miniture LCD in the
    viewfinder hole to give you the same view that the back LCD would. In a real
    SLR, you look through the camera's lens via a mirror or pentaprisim, which
    swings up when you take the shot.

    > 3)Prefer to handle compact flash but not a decisive factor.


    All SLRs take CF, some may take other format cards as well.

    > 4)Is pretty fast at continuous shooting, but rapid fire not really
    > needed.My old DC280 could take 3 shots at about 2 seconds apart, then
    > I had to wait 20 seconds before I could shoot again.


    Different models have different speeds. The Canon digital rebel/300D/KISS
    camera (its named different in different parts of the world) can do 4 shots in
    continous mode at 2.5 frames per second.

    > 5)I would like to stay under $1000 for the camera itself.


    Without getting into used equipment or going with the prosumer cameras, your
    only choice for a SLR is the digital rebel/300D/KISS, which in the USA goes for
    $899 without a lens, or $999 with the starter lens. Note, no CF comes in the
    package, so you will have to buy at least one card.

    > In general, I'm just looking for a good solid camera that has some weight to
    > it and that offers a good quality shot. Advanced settings would be nice for I
    > can learn as I go. I do not want a tiny point and shoot type, and I want to
    > avoid manufacturer specific memory and power systems. When shooting at a
    > wedding, I like to shoot, wait a few seconds, shoot, and repeat without
    > problems.I consider myself somewhere between amateur and professional and am
    > looking to move up to the next level.


    Unfortunately many manufacturers are moving away from AA batteries. Other than
    Sony's memory stick all of the current flash memory cards (CF, SD, and xD) are
    supported by multiple manufacturers, though xD is still somewhat exotic.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Dec 21, 2003
    #13
  14. > I am looking for something that will fit the following needs.
    > 1)Accepts standard rechargeable AA's


    Such things are not on the market. You might be able to get an
    external battery back though.

    > 2)Optical viewfinder


    All SLRs, otherwise not an SLR. HP also had the 935 or so
    with optical-like viewfinder. Not sure with Minolta A1.

    > 3)Prefer to handle compact flash but not a decisive factor.


    Canon and Nikon does that.

    > 4)Is pretty fast at continuous shooting, but rapid fire not really
    > needed.My old DC280 could take 3 shots at about 2 seconds apart, then
    > I had to wait 20 seconds before I could shoot again.


    All DSLRs are that. The "slow" 300D takes 2.5 pictures sec for
    4 pictures, then the speed will slow down if you continue to something
    like 2 secs pr picture, and after 8 large pictures, it will start to
    flush the buffer. Takes like 7-8 secs before next shot ready.

    So 4 shots in < 2 secs, 8 shots in 10 seconds, and then you wait
    7-8 secs between pictures, unless you allow it to finish up.

    > 5)I would like to stay under $1000 for the camera itself.


    Only Canon EOS 300D fulfills that as new.

    > In general, I'm just looking for a good solid camera that has some
    > weight to it and that offers a good quality shot. Advanced settings
    > would be nice for I can learn as I go. I do not want a tiny point and
    > shoot type, and I want to avoid
    > manufacturer specific memory and power systems. When shooting at a
    > wedding, I like to shoot, wait a few seconds, shoot, and repeat
    > without problems.I consider myself somewhere between amateur and
    > professional and am looking to move up to the next level.


    Heavy and solid, then you need to get the Canon 10D, more expensive
    than the drebel/300D, better body and more features.
    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 22, 2003
    #14
  15. woobles

    Mark B. Guest

    "woobles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello,
    > I am looking for suggestions on an entry level SLR.
    > I will be using the camera mainly for
    > 1) Massive amounts of pictures of my family which I often print.
    > 2) Periodic weddings that friends ask me to shoot being that they like
    > my pictures ect..ect..
    > 3) I do a lot of photo printing mainly 4x6's but occasionally 8x10's
    > and am looking for very good quality at 8x10.
    > 4) I take holiday 4 times a year and keep my camera with me at all
    > times averaging 500 pictures in 7 days.
    >
    > I am not a professional but do not mind learning what's needed to
    > handle an SLR.
    > I have all of adobe products and do a lot of editing and retouch when
    > needed such as wrinkle removal, trimming down the bride and the like.
    >
    > I am looking for something that will fit the following needs.


    <snip>

    > 5)I would like to stay under $1000 for the camera itself.
    >


    Well, we can stop right there. Right now, there's only one choice and
    that's the Digital Rebel - $900 for the body, unless you go to a used D30 or
    D60.

    Mark
    Mark B., Dec 22, 2003
    #15
  16. woobles

    tron Guest

    Thanks for all the suggestions all. Still deciding.
    Have a great holliday!
    Robert
    tron, Dec 22, 2003
    #16
  17. woobles

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    tron wrote:

    > Thanks, It looks like the digital rebel is the prime choice
    > since the only 3 responses suggested it.


    Wait for the Nikon D70 and then decide what's best for
    you.
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 22, 2003
    #17
  18. woobles

    R2D2 Guest

    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote in
    news:WtwFb.1521$:

    > tron wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks, It looks like the digital rebel is the prime choice
    >> since the only 3 responses suggested it.

    >
    > Wait for the Nikon D70 and then decide what's best for
    > you.
    >
    >
    >


    Stay away from Sigma.
    R2D2, Dec 22, 2003
    #18
  19. > Instead of an SLR, I would recomend you look at the following cameras
    (which
    > are SLR-like, but are prosumer cameras), which have an electronic

    viewfinder
    > (viewfinder is a miniture LCD). Most of them take proprietary

    batteries.
    >

    You could also have included Nikon 5700 in your list. Should be at a good
    price.

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2003
    #19
  20. woobles

    MarkH Guest

    Michael Meissner <> wrote in
    news:-meissners.org:

    > (woobles) writes:
    >> 2)Optical viewfinder

    >
    > Note, I suspect you mean a TTL (through the lens) viewfinder. An
    > optical viewfinder is a parallel lens to the camera's lens, and
    > suffers from parallex. As I mentioned above an electronic viewfinder
    > uses a miniture LCD in the viewfinder hole to give you the same view
    > that the back LCD would. In a real SLR, you look through the camera's
    > lens via a mirror or pentaprisim, which swings up when you take the
    > shot.


    I think that you may be getting a little confused here. A D-SLR TTL
    viewfinder is definitely an optical viewfinder and is not a parallel lens
    to the camera’s lens, therefore it does not suffer from parallax. SLR
    viewfinders are TTL but that doesn’t mean that they are not optical
    viewfinders.

    I think the OP was stating a preference to not have an electronic
    viewfinder.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Dec 22, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Digital Camera Buyer's Guide - Entry Level

    Silverstrand, Oct 18, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    678
    Silverstrand
    Oct 18, 2005
  2. Jerold Pearson

    Entry level DVD players

    Jerold Pearson, Dec 4, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    661
    LASERandDVDfan
    Dec 7, 2004
  3. Al Dykes
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    311
    Al Dykes
    Sep 21, 2004
  4. jamie kim
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    320
    dj_nme
    Mar 6, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    754
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page