Help me pick out first SLR

TiMie74 · 05-01-2005, 11:47 PM

I want to get into photography. Mainly as a hobby taking pictures of bands, landscapes, city structures, wherever I happen to be. Ill have about $700-$900 to spend and I dont mind buying used. What do you all have to recommend?

Sacintimidator06 · 05-02-2005, 09:15 AM

Nikon d70

TiMie74 · 05-02-2005, 01:42 PM

Thats a bit above my price range.

Just Ingen · 05-02-2005, 02:07 PM

Wait a month and get a nikon d50 then.

Or, if you wanna shoot film (it'll work for class!!) get an old f5 or f100 on ebay

STORMTIMMY · 05-02-2005, 02:15 PM

canon 300d

TiMie74 · 05-02-2005, 07:24 PM

Definitly dont want film. Was reading up on the d50. Does that compare to the normal Digital Rebel at all?

MdkSniper · 05-02-2005, 07:44 PM

Why dont you get a Digital Rebel XT(350D)? It's 8.0 MP and produces almost flawless pictures.. You can't even tell the difference between the pictures from the 20D and the Rebel XT and I think it might be in your price range.

Just Ingen · 05-02-2005, 09:31 PM

I'll answer both 2k2 questions at once

To the first. The d50 spanks the crap out of the 300d in LITERALLY every dimension. And it's nikon, and you can get it in black, and it doesn't feel like a toy (yes, I've already held one).

Don't get the xt. It's 8 MP, but that doesn't really matter because that's only about 400 pixels in each direction, and won't make any difference for anything but printing or really intense photoshopping. Plus, even though they've updated it, it STILL starts up slower than 37 miliseconds, which is what the d70 can do (it's main competition) and the d50 isn't made to compete with it anyway IMO. Trust me... if you know what you're looking for, you can tell the difference between the 20d and the 350d. Just jack it to iso 800 and shoot them both and see what happens. The 350d will be something like looking thorugh an hourglass (grain).

Deimus85 · 05-03-2005, 01:47 AM

What are your reasons for not wanting a film camera?

Also:
What are you planning on using the camera to shoot?
How much are you willing to spend?

-Michael

MdkSniper · 05-03-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just Ingen
Just jack it to iso 800 and shoot them both and see what happens. The 350d will be something like looking thorugh an hourglass (grain).

I beg to differ XT @ iso 800

and

20D @ iso 800

Yes, there is some noise difference between the two, but it is barely noticable.....

Just Ingen · 05-03-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MdkSniper
I beg to differ XT @ iso 800

and

20D @ iso 800

Yes, there is some noise difference between the two, but it is barely noticable.....

bleh, you'll never be shooting at iso 800 and still have that much light to work with

And if you resize something (which seems to be what's happened here) the noise is compressed and removed by the resizing, which makes them equal..er. Blah, I still say the 20d is better, because the professionals I know who've farted with it say it does and they know more than I do. It's faster, too

TiMie74 · 05-03-2005, 03:02 PM

Speed will definitly be helpful. Im going to wait for some reviews on the d50.

Thanks so far.

MdkSniper · 05-03-2005, 03:02 PM

I never said the XT was better then the 20D. I said it has no *huge* difference in image quality from the 20D.

MdkSniper · 05-03-2005, 03:03 PM

and it is really easy to use for beginners and the five hundred you save from getting it over the 20D could be used towards a good lense.

MdkSniper · 05-03-2005, 03:06 PM

and check this link out.. it compares the XT and 20D from 100 iso up to 1600 iso http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6179

difference isn't really noticeable until iso 1600

MdkSniper · 05-03-2005, 03:10 PM

injen, you seem to be the only person who knows anything about cameras in here.. what is your opinion on the Olympus e-300

Just Ingen · 05-03-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MdkSniper
and check this link out.. it compares the XT and 20D from 100 iso up to 1600 iso http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6179

difference isn't really noticeable until iso 1600

Well, since he had the exposure compensation wrong on the XT and didn't manual white balance either, AND metered the center of the can and left that big glare, and finally resized them so much, It's pretty hard to tell who wins that contest.

I've held my d70 (woah, no ****?) a 300d, and a 350d, and I don't really think either of the latter feel that well built.. everythign wiggles a little and the flash recoil on the 300d surprised me (jerked like someone flicked it really hard). Sure, both are light and all, but I still say nikon wins the competition. D50 ain't too bad neither

Anyway, about the evolt. I've heard good stuff and bad stuff... Good stuff is that USW filter (god I want one so ****ing bad in my d70!!) and some other stuff. But the bad stuff is about exposure sometimes and the noise can be weird. I'm not totally sure about any of that, check out dpreview.com. It's a great concept, and damn is that thing small