Equipment can someone suggest a reasonable, cheap DSLR?

Im having problems choosing a new dslr.

I've currently narrowed it down to a Nikon D60 or SOny alpha 300or350. I tried a canon but didnt like the feel, and my hands are too big for the grip.

The sony 350 is slightly dearer than the nikon, but has higher specs. Is it worth it. I know sony are new to the dslr market, but they bought out minolta (i used to have a dynax film slr)

any recommendations,

cheers

 

Get whatever fits your budget, and fulfils the needs you have. Remember that a DSLR is an investment, and you are not just buying a camera but a lens system as well. These are all things that you need to take into account. Personally I wouldn't bother with the D60, and just chose between the D40X or just take the leap for the D90.

IMHO, if you plan on getting a semi pro DSLR later down the line/will keep buying lenses and other photographic gear, I'd go with one of the big two Canon or Nikon now, and chose whichever feels best to you.

 

Cheers,

I guess it may well be a nikon then. I just dont like the canon, feels really small in my hand. Cant see me wanting to go for a semi pro later, its just that I want something better than a point and shoot.

 

Entry level Canon or Nikon will both treat you well as a starter body. I'd suggest avoiding other brands only due to the lower availability of glass. Try them out and make sure that they'll work well for you ergonomically - you mentioned the Canon was too small (I agree on the 300-450 bodies; the 40D is quite a bit more comfortable IMO, and fairly affordable even as a first body these days) and that's definitely a problem you want to avoid.

 

I must say though that I was really surprised by the Sony. The alph felt solid, fitted nicely and the menu was intuitive. I picked it up in the shop and within minutes i could work my way round the buttons and menus. The nikon on the other hand i was still stood there with a WTF look on my face and couldnt work it out at all.

As for availabilty of lenses, the sony uses all teh old minlota af lenses, so shoudn't be a massive problem, plus sigma and tamron seem to support them so Im in a real quandry. The sony a350 is 14Mp, 3fps and i LIKE it, BUT will it be as good as the nikon, or is it really just a battle of names and the fact that nikon have earnt their reputation over years whilst sony is the new kid on the block that noone wants to talk to (yet)

 

It's really just a matter of being forward-thinking. Despite what you're saying now, you'll almost certainly ending up investing more in the system down the road, and Nikon and Canon both have far better options in that regard as compared to Sony. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Sony gear, but one of the reasons they're not a big player is because of the lack of lens/accessory selection (which is caused by them not being a big player - nasty little loop they've gotten into).

If you like the Sony body the best then by all means go for it, just be aware that if you're looking to make upgrades down the road, you'll probably be relatively limited as compared to Nikon or Canon.

 

cheers firehed, i see what you're saying. I think i may ned to go to another shop and try them all out again.

 

They will all do the same thing, and thats take pictures. Get what feels best to you. If you thought the Nikon menu was fiddly, have a go with a Pentax dslr

I never played with the menu on the Canon DSLR I first picked up, it just felt cheap and uncomfortable in my hands. I didn't get to try out the menu on the D80 either. I just picked it up and it felt right. I read loads of reviews from all over the net at the time and the D80 was a winner, a cut above the entry level budget DSLR's.

The Nikon menu system is actually pretty intuitive for most people, and while it may not be as 'idiot proof', no offence, as the Sony alpha models, it's nowhere near as complex as what's out there.

Short answer, Yes, it will be as to you. 'As good' is a subjective term. What I like and wouldn't trade for the Sony Alpha, you probably wouldn't trade for the DSLR that I have. A DSLR is something personal that YOU buy. If you like it, no one else can tell you it isnt YOUR DSLR. Know what I mean? A DSLR is a means to taking the photos you want to take. If you say you won't be buying a semi pro body later, and I'm guessing you like the sony enough to settle for older lenses, then I'm sure you'll be happy with the sony. If on the other hand you try out te 40D, and can increase your budget a tad, the 40D has a lot to offer. The D90 has just been released, with live view, video recording albeit with manual focus, and a bunch of cool other features. Only problem with that it will be on the shelves by october or so.

 

Don't let the layout of the menus be the big decision point. You will be able to learn them anyway. The software bit in an SLR isn't complicated at all, really.

What you should look into is ergonomics and availability of accessories. You will most probably figure out that you need more stuff when you use the camera, and it's nice to have a good range of stuff to choose between.

 

Yup. (That and Sony is evil)
But you've got a very fair point concerning old lenses.

The reason most here will recommend either Canon or Nikon is because of the massive availability of glass.

I think perhaps you should look into what you might risk having on your wishlist within the first couple of years and look at what things will cost and perhaps their availability on the Sony. This is of course a hard task as you don't yet have a DSLR but if you ask here what is likely you'll want to buy soon after I think there will be some fairly good suggestions from ppl here.

IMO if you get a camera with kit lens (~17- ~55) you'll "soon" (in a year or two perhaps. Maybe sooner) be looking for a tele (~55 - ~200+) and after that either a wide-angle lens or a better lens than the kit one.

 

I honestly found it extremely over-whelming and confusing for a long time. I stuck to changing the few things I understood and then progressed from there by reading and taking pictures. 2 years after getting my Canon 350D I got my 40D and it has been pretty much a breeze to use the entire options. So yeah it's easy... when you know what is what

But you wouldn't believe how many ppl buy and even extensively use a DSLR without ever learning all the kinks and settings in the camera. My dad who used his old Nikkormat for years and years didn't know about AF/exposure lock on their Nikon D200 until I taught him this weekend.
And the camera was set to continuous focus and I didn't have a clue as to how to set it to single focus right there and then. So yes it's easy when you know how

 

If you don't need/want LiveView then it's hard to beat an Alpha 200 for vfm (~£230 body only or ~£270 with the kit 18-70mm).
If you do want LiveView then Sony's implimentation of it is very different from either Canon or Nikon's & both approaches have their pros & cons.

All will take good photos (there isn't a bad current DSLR) but handling is different & what suits 1 person may not suit another so get down to a shop & try them all. It doesn't matter how good a camera is if you never take it out & if you are uncomfortable with it then that's what will happen.

As for the Sony system, yes it's not yet as large as either Canon or Nikon's but it's more than enough for probably 95% of potential users. & some of the gaps can be filled by buying old Minolta products, many of which tbh I expect to reappear in updated form as Sony's market grows.
They are however, the no.3 in the DSLR market (albeit way behind) & have been adding kit probably faster than any of the others. Photokina in 3 weeks (announcements expected before then, probably 9th or 10th) should see a no. of new lenses & at least 1 new body (24Mp FF).

 

I hadn't tried pentax lol I had read it in a few reviews. (o.t my D80 has dual wheels as well)

 

heh, had the same problem... canon just felt terrible in my hands, nikon seemed as made for my big hands....
i was also in the same spot as you last year... searching for really cheap dslr for getting into photography... figured i wont be buying any lenses and stuff anyway( high$) so i went for d40... exellent camera... and a year later, i have already planned out a lens and flash purchase... this thing is an addiction!
but if the d90 had been out then, i would of bought it in a heartbeat.... has everything i want... most important is the video ofc... doubles as a high def camera! ^^ and 24fps.... beginner dslr's 3fps is just ridiculous when it comes to sport/moving objects. and all those other goodies...

 

The D90 does not offer 24fps for still images, it offers 4.5fps. When they refer to 24fps they are speaking of video--its still uncertain, and very unlikely, if a high res image can be pulled from a video file; even if it were possible you'd have to capture it using MF. In the end its still considered a 'beginner body', only difference is a few extra nooks and crannies.

 

I purchased my nikon d40x in may and have had a blast using it. There may be some out there who say it is too much of a beginner back but I bought it for that reason. It was a way to get my foot in the door without breaking the bank. I am pretty sure I will end up selling the D40 and go with a better back down the road but for now it is something that fits me both in size and capabilities. Has been great to learn on. Good luck in your search.

 

Indeed. The D90 records video at 720p. That translates to 1280x720 pixels, which comes out to just under 1 megapixel. In this case, "hi-res" is a very subjective term. But you're right, sports photographers won't be shooting stills at 24fps.

-monkey

 

hehe, guess i got carried away... skipt through the description fast and this probably got me "24 frames per second in motion JPEG format"
but yeah, 4,5 is also pretty damn good... double compared to mine ^^

but the video looks pretty good... theres lots of samples online....

 

Have you thought about an Olympus E-510 or 520? I have a 510 and I love it. Built in sensor Image Stabilization was the deal-breaker for me...better image quality than the Sony too, but that's only my opinion.

edit: also a 510 can be had super cheap and the stock lenses aren't half bad, the 14-42 is actually a pretty decent lens.