Hey all, just a quick post before i go.. i am really interested in taking up some photography as a hobby, i have $1500 budget and wondering what D/SLR you reccomend?

Any help would be muchly appreciated.

Canon 400D.

Yeh, they can be had for under $1400 with twin lense kit.

Go the 400D.

yes go 400d

Lol ill add to it, Yes the Cannon 400D is awsum!

howee

DISPOSABLE!!!



























400D

okay everyone is saying 400D, hmm, go the nikon?

*waits for Harry to read thread* lol

Go buy yourself a 2nd hand 300D ($450-$500)

Spend the rest of your $ on a good Lense. You will be able to get a nice 'L' series. Buy genuine Canon lenses. Sometimes you can get a good lense 2nd hand.... but most photographers keep them forever.

It is the lenses that is the important bit. It is like having a really good stereo and $10 speakers on the system......is bad.

lol, oh yeah, you guessed my suggestion.

2nd hand D70 for around $700 and a couple of half decent bits of glass eg. 18-70mm and 70-300G. They will bit shitloads better than anything with the p.o.s lens kits lenses you will get the 400D.

I am out-numbered on this forum so u'll have to judge for urself... have a look at the first few pages of Moment's thread, they are all using that setup, then compare it to what you have seen from a 400D with a lens kit and you decide. I think you will find that the Nikon is alot better, the extra megapixels don't do shit if you don't have good glass.

Harry

I'm with Harry a second hand D70 would be a better option then a 400d IMO and a lot cheaper so you spend the left over on glass.

Have a think about Nikon.

I'm not saying they are no good.... but I am biased towards Canon.

A lot of people use Nikon.... however everyone I know.... uses Canon.

Putting aside differences, it is a bit like the Beta / VHS argument, both work just fine. There IS a lot of stuff available for Canon..... even though there is nothing wrong with Nikon.

I personally have side by side tested a Nikon and Canon DSLR camera. There is IMO a slight egge with Canon. Bright and high contrast foregrounds against a coloured background are cleaner around the edges with the Canon. It was the only thing I noticed...... and not enough to bag out Nikon by any means.

no matter, who ever owns what brand at one point will still say and think there camera brand/model is better, its human nature.

mate, go to a camera shop and have a play or find second hand ones and just have a feel, if you like it then buy it, lenses are something to adapt to, no dount L series and image stabilizer lenses are going to better, but it depends on your usage of them, if your going to pick up your camera every now and then during the year or month, i wouldnt get to carried away with dearer lenses, then again qaulity counts, dont forget about memory cards, a bag, tri-pod stuff like that, you will be pushing your budget,

have fun

*Jumps on the bandwagon* 400D

*sigh* How many people here know what they are actually talking about? I assume not many.

I am a canon guy, but I say fuck the 400D. I think when you look at it, a second hand SLR is the way to go for a first SLR. Just remember, its not the megapixels, its the glass you put in front of it as Harry said. Shit glass = shit photos. I learnt that quickly. hence buying a 17-55 f2.8 soon.

exactly

It is like mac and pc. A never ending argument.

I could argue that I have used a canon and a nikon next to each other and i got better contrast and color from the nikon, but it was a D80 and they are renowned for creating very saturated pics, despite using a D200 sensor.
As Lance said. It is ALL in the glass. This is the real comparison you should be looking at: http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70vsRebelXT_pg2.shtml -> The kit lens for the 350D/400D (18-55mm) compared to the D70s kit lens (18-70mm).

It does not matter if you have a 1d mkIII or a 300D bolted to that thing, if you are shooting at low ISO, the lens will determine the quality, not the body! That is why i think you should go for the Nikon D70/D70s. The kit lens is not just better in terms of image quality, but in terms of build quality and smoothness, it is incredible compred to the noisy, slow 18-55, it has silent wave motors, wider aperture, internal focussing etc. - you get nothing like that in the Canon. Go to a camera shop and try the two out, ignoring bodies, just look at the lenses available as a kit for that price range. I bet you'll go for the 18-70 in heartbeat. Anyone would!

Harry

Well I kind of agree. Everyone knows macs are better, just everyone buys a PC.

As per my initial post.... what he said is true, but I would take it a step further.

Forget consumer lenses if you are going into this as a long term hobby.

Look at the semi-professional (L for Canon or Nikon eq.) and decide from there.

If you decide Canon.... get a 2nd hand 300D ($500) + a 50mm prime f1.4 ($135) and save and put the remaining $ ($865.00) towards a nice L series medium lense later $1200.

A 50mm prime, even in a budget range is sharp as..... due to the fact is is a prime by design. I've got the whole family of Canon L series.... but I still pull out the 50mm prime from time to time and get great pics with it....it is underestimated !

I'm sure the above could be found in the Nikon range as well.

I have the 50mm f/1.8 and for $100 I cant complain. I think primes lenses are the way to go. let your feet do the zooming But yes, i still own zoom and telephoto lenses

wat'r. You have the WHOLE 'L' series? Fark! How many and which lenses are they?

Yeah.... re-word that I will

17-40 f4 L
24-105 f4 L IS
70-200 f 2.8 L IS

There must be 20 odd in the complete collection. I got something to cover up to 200.

I would like the 100 - 400 ..... maybe one day

Still a nice little collection you got there. Grab a 400mm f/2.8! That thing is sweet.
Ronza showed me a Nikon 400 f/2.8 the other day for sale for $3,500!! bloody bargain!! I wish I had the cash, i would had bought it straight away.

Harry