Equipment DSLR's - the best, or not?

Money = not an issue, merely a mental limit. I'm buying first-hand, period. On the subject of stepping-stones, this is probably going to be destroyed at some point down the road. This camera has to last through a year and a half of high school, and probably all of college (at least 4 years). If I really need a great camera down the road, IE, it'll be a source of income or fun or I have the disposable funds, then I'll get it down the road. I'm not going to spend $10k+ on Olympus lenses, the most I'm ever going to buy would be the 2-lens E-510 kit, an FL-36 or FL-50, and MAYBE the F/2.8-3.5 14-54mm down the road, if there's a good deal. This camera is going to be used by a teenager, and even if I handle it like I normally handle my possessions (VERY carefully), it'll get broken, and I'd rather a <$700 camera and lens set get broken than a $1500+ camera, to say nothing of the lens(es).

Hexanons are merely paperweights now, unless I can find/fix an old Autoreflex T. I don't want a G9, I want the heft/feel/usability of a dSLR! Believe me, I looked at the G9, it's not really what I want, as far as I can tell.

Of course I'm waiting for PMA, who knows what's coming out. I don't need to decide until the summer. Let's say I went crazy for a short period, and bought a 40D for $1100 at 42nd Street Photo. I would NOT get such an expensive piece of glass to start, again, I'm not crazy (I think). I'd buy something a bit more reasonable. The issue is that I don't want to spend $1100 on a body! I want to get a nice low- to medium-range dSLR, and have some fun. It's honestly not worth the money for something that good for me right now, and since the Olympus is ~$700 with 2!! lenses, it's perfect. If something breaks, it's an "Oops, crap." instead of a "OH F*CK!" Besides, Olympus is fairly good quality, they occupy a nice little niche between the low and mid-range dSLRs from Nikon and Canon, and I like the reviews.

That's the whole point of buying a dSLR. If I did something that ghetto, I lose 100% of the point of going digital, and I go back WAY into the past, into the early days of film. It's not worth it.

The real thing is, as I've said, I am 16 (going on 17), and this camera will probably not be with me long, due to teenage stupidity. If, by some huge chance, it survives, I'll spend my money and get something nice, like a Nikon D120 (the successor to the successor to the D80), or a Canon 70D, or something like that. YES, THOSE ARE MADE UP. YES, I KNOW. The point is, why spend relatively oodles of money for a camera that has features I don't need, at a price point I don't like, with a weight compromise I don't prefer, and with a performance-to-price ratio of absolutely nil. Do you see what I'm driving at? This is just a starter camera, for bringing around and taking pictures and getting comfortable with. That's why I like the reliable and dirt-cheap E-510. Of course, I value your opinions, so if you have a better camera, please say so. Also, if PMA (or a different trade show) brings the E-520/Pentax K20D/whatever, that's cool too.

 

I bought a Nikon D40 with the 18-55 kit lens last year after weighing up the cost of additional lenses between it and a Canon 350D. The Nikon won as I was able to get a brand new 55-200 for a bargain price. The only other lens I use is a Sigma 10-20. I haven't had much of a chance to really test the Sigma, but the two Nikon lenses have produced some stunning photos, particularly as the 55-200 doesn't have VR and at the 200 end, it can still be very sharp handheld (have a look at the yellow and red Renault Megane Sport on my flickr).

I find the camera easy to use and, whilst it's heavier than a point and shoot, feels solid and balanced when in use.

I sometimes wish I had handled a Canon 350 or 400 before buying the Nikon, as many people on here prefer them, but I feel as though I'd have gone for the Nikon anyway

 

Can I just ask.

I'm seriously thinking about buying myself a little set i.e. Camera + Lense(s). I've read the Nikon and Canon 400 are the best for around that price, but is £500 enough to get a decent camera and lense? Cheers.

 

I did. I have a Canon EOS350 and switched to Nikon D80.

 

yeah nikons are very nice. i'd be rather tempted to switch over to a d300 (probably its late successor) tbh.
although canon may do something awesome with the 5D successor - here's hoping!

 

Honestly, and no offense, you don't really seem like you know what you want. If you get a DSLR, you are going to have to invest a rather large sum of money into it...so if you are to drop it you better bet there will be an "OH F#CK". If this is something that is going to be abused and knocked around like you say it will, then I personally don't see any reason to spend even $700 let alone $1500 when you can pick up something that will do the job for around $400. Earlier, you seemed concerned with the physical size and weight, which as you know a DSLR isn't necessarily a feather weight pocket cam. Anyways, that is why I recommended the G9. It is small, BQ and IQ are excellent, it handles like a DSLR with a full range of manual functions, and it is the perfect antidote for anyone looking for a DSLR, but doesn't have the money (or does not want) to invest. For a camera with a 12mp Digic III processor, IS, 35-210mm effective, and RAW formatting for under $450. Save the extra money for a time when the teenage shenanigans are over and then get your self a "big boy's toy" (not to belittle you, just sounds good) and some decent glass. The Olympus is a good Camera, I'm just not entirely sure what its future will hold, and for $700+ it doesn't make for the best rag doll. In the end, it comes down to you. You do what you will with your money and advice from me and the others. Good luck in your future endeavors.

 

I say get a 400D with kitlens and a 50 F1.8 prime. It's a dSLR, it's a cheap one as well and it gives you access to one of the biggest range of lenses available today. In case you did want to get a better lens, then you could without having to worry about the future of the mount. And in the future you can upgrade any part you want (body/lens/flash/acc) without too much worries.

If you've really got your mind set a dSLR then I'd go with that. If not, then take the proper advice given and get a G9.

 

In this review, the D80 beats the 400D + Sony A100. But to be fair, it is a bit more expensive than the others...

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/10Megapixel_DSLR_test/page6.shtml

 

Yeah, I'm definitely getting a dSLR, but I think the 4/3 mount from Olympus has a definite future, I don't see it going away if there are other manufacturers supporting it (I think there are). The E-510 is just as cheap, and frankly, I'm probably not going to be buying a whole load of lenses for any camera I buy for the next 5-10 years, until such time as I can (A) afford them and (B) carry them everywhere. With the E-510 kit, I get two great lenses, and the ability to upgrade if I ever feel the need. A 50 F1.8 prime seems a bit extravagant, would I really use that lens that much to justify it?

No offense taken, I know I don't know what I want. Or something.

There is no requirement for how much I have to invest in a dSLR past the opening price, and "a rather large sum" is a matter of opinion. The question is where does extravagance fall for me. I KNOW what I want, but the real question is what do I need, IE, what is best for my situation. Yes, I am thoroughly exaggerating the damage that my camera will suffer. I promise not to use it as any sort of blunt hammering object, or to test centripetal motion by swinging it around my head on a thread. I was exaggerating to show that as someone whose job and money do not depend upon a camera, I will naturally have moments of carelessness. Everyone can assume a certain level of wear and tear, and I was trying to imply that a sturdy camera might be a good idea for me. I WANT a D300 with great lenses or a 5D with great lenses. I WANT a D200 or 40D with great lenses. I would love a D80 with a great set of lenses. However, what I need is entirely different. I need a reasonably compact dSLR, with good image quality, and the overall cost to be relatively low. If I was silly, I could splurge on a D300 or a 5D and 6,000 different lenses, but then I'd be left with a $5k charge in my brain, and a camera that's way over the top for me. The phrase I'm looking for is entry-level. I'm not an idiot, I understand where everything goes, how it works, why it works, how to judge a situation, how to frame correctly, the rule of thirds, etc. However, to buy these types of cameras is just dumb for me. Yes, they would be fun, but I have to balance my options. In a few years, when I am making more money, and have a place where I can store a camera without being afraid of theft or wanton destruction, then I will certainly buy a much better camera with a better lens system, etc. I just don't see a purpose now, and that's why I want to get the E-510, or a camera of its ilk.

What's with all the Nikon/Canon plugging here? They're both great camera companies, but Olympus/Sony/Pentax do have models that rival them in some areas. Is there really something I'm missing here? I don't care about lens compatibility, I'm not going to buy any ridiculously expensive glass that I would regret leaving behind when going to another manufacturer.


From what I've seen, I really like the E-510. The built-in IS is great, as some form of image stabilization is a must for me (no negotiation, it must be there, in some form). Since I'm not going to be making my money from the camera, I don't mind that image quality is a hair lower than Nikon or Canon, and the same for all of the other features. Unless someone can give me a really good reason to not go with the E-510 (it's radioactive, it causes herpes, it was cursed by a witch), I think I'm going to buy it.

 

I've not read all of this thread, but I figured i'd throw this out there: You ask why the nikon/canon plugging, and there's a simple answer to that. They are really the only two brands of "serious" dSLR, and lenses switch from camera to camera. So as you improve and take photography from a hobby to an art, you tend to stay in one camp.

Olympus, Sony and Pentax all make dSLR cameras that are every bit as good as the nikon and canon base models in certain respects. However, the lens selection is DRASTICALLY weaker and the quality of those lenses is considerably lower - particularly toward the high end. If you look at any sporting event, press conference, or other photo-heavy event, you'll rarely ever see anything but canon or nikon. In fact, ever since I became interested in photography a few years ago, I've watched for just that.

It's just the way it is. It's part of why you're hearing subtle pushes away from the olympus 4/3. It's part of why every recommendation in almost any forum focuses around the lineups of those two brands. When you move from something that takes pictures to a photography tool, there's just nothing in the same class as Canon or Nikon. Full stop.

The question, though, always comes down to - what do you need? If, in the end, it's something to just take a good picture here and there that's better than a crappy point and shoot, any of them can fit the bill. It's only once you start getting used to glass, understanding how much of a difference the lens (and therefore the selection of) makes, that you need to look at one of the two big brands.

 

Ignore the given advice, you have proven its all wrong anyways. Buy the olympus...have fun in Alaska. Send a post card.



Is this thread over now?

 

When I rebrowsed, I just saw that this was THAT thread after the alaska comment...