In addition to my earlier post...which camera?

[blockhead]

You've asked what, exactly, I'd like to do with photography. Right now, my focus would be on portraits and some landscape. My budget for a camera is about $800. I know I will be getting a 50mm lens in addition to the camera. That being said, what camera would be good? I've already thought about a Sony and the Nikon D3200, but what other camera would be good to begin and grow with? Thanks so much for your input!

[Donald]

Just to help people understand the discussion that's already taken place, this is the link to the previous thread posted by Heidi.

[rpcrowe]

Heidi,

If you can eliminate the need for video from the equation, one of the best "bangs for the buck" is a used Canon 40D. I still shoot with one and I consider it a very-very capable camera.

You can get a used 40D for between $300 and $400. Here are the recently completed eBay sales of body only 40D cameras, which is the way I would recommend anyone to buy any camera.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Digital-Came..._dmd=1&_ipg=50

A Canon 50D body only is another good buy, although it is more expensive than the 40D. The 50D has a few bells and whistles than are not found on the 40D.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Digital-Came..._dmd=1&_ipg=50

In reality, I consider the 40D as a better buy for a person on a strict budget and a camera which you can grow into...


You can get a used Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, non-VC, lens for $300-$400 and a new one for about $500.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Digital-Came..._dmd=1&_ipg=50


The combination of Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and either a 40D or 50D camera will, IMO, provide the best image quality and the most versatility of any outfit in that comparable price range.

If you selected a 40D + 17-50mm Tamron, you could possibly have enough left over for a good hotshoe flash, either a used 430EX or a new Metz 50-AF2 flash which is an excellent unit.

IMO, you could not do any better than getting a 40D, 17-50mm Tamron and the Metz flash for your $800 or so budget.

[Manfred M]

I know I will be getting a 50mm lens in addition to the camera.

Just be aware that on a crop-frame sensor camera in the class you are looking at, a 50mm lens acts like a short telephoto. Most crop-frame cameras have a multiplier of 1.5, while Canon has 1.6; 50mm x1.5 = 75mm or 50 x 1.6 = 80mm on a Canon. If you want a "normal" lens, you should be looking at the 30mm - 35mm range to give you a similar field of view to a 50mm lens on a full-frame or 35mm film camera.

Another consideration is that Canon and Nikon have by far the largest market share, so there tends to be a larger selection of accessories, including ones supplied by third party manufacturers, made for these two brands. That was ultimately why I did not consider other makes when I bought my first DSLR almost four years ago.

[DanK]

I agree with Richard and Manfred. Given your interests, and your budget (which precludes two lenses), I would not buy a 50mm prime. I think a 17-50 is a very sensible starting point for a crop sensor camera. It will give you the same 50mm length as the prime, which is not bad (a tad short) for portrait work, while giving you shorter focal lengths for landscape. Landscapes can be shot at any focal length, but you will find that a lot of situations call either for fairly wide-angle or moderate telephoto (which could be a later purchase.)

Any reasonably modern camera will have ample resolution (megapixels).

See if you can try a few before you buy. Cameras that have similar features can nonetheless feel very different, and the controls vary from brand to brand and model to model.

[rpcrowe]

You will achieve very good to excellent image quality with both the Canon entry level cameras and the Canon Prosumer DSLR cameras like the 40D and 50D I mentioned above. You will actually be able to achieve very good to excellent image quality with virtually any DLSR camera of any major brand if you combine it with a very good to excellent lens..

However, using them is a different thing! I find that the dual dial (main dial and quick control dial) system is a lot easier and more pleasant with which to work than the single dial of the Rebels. You can adjust many of the camera parameters using a combination of these two dials that you would need to go into the menu to adjust using a Rebel. The viewfinder of the xxD cameras ia also better than the Rebels. The xxD series Canon DSLR cameras have many bells and whistles which are not present in the Rebel series cameras. One of these is the top LCD which I find extremely handy while shooting.

If I were choosing between a new Rebel and a used xxD camera at the same price, I would select the xxD model hands down...

[Designer]

Hullo, there! I wish to add my own $0.02 worth. I decided on a D5000, and when I bought my kit, it included the body, two VR lenses (the 18-55, and the 55-200), a cheap tripod, a small bag, and the usual software and warranty. I would have to double-check, but when I bought this deal at Best Buy on line, I seem to recall that it was less than $600.

The D5000 has been replaced with the D5100, Which is advertised at less than $600 without a lens, so if you bundle in a "kit" lens (either the 18-55 or the 55-300), you could probably get it for well under your stated budget.

Another thing; do not get hung up on pixel count, per se, unless you routinely make poster-size enlargements. Compare the various features that you are likey to use, and be aware that the two main manufacturers use different terms for similar features.

While those "entry level" lenses are not the fastest, they are still capable of making acceptable pictures, and the VR is technology that will help you get sharp pictures in marginal circumstances. I don't understand why you say are going to get a prime 50 as possibly your first lens. Do you have a particular use planned for such a lens?