need opinions about entry-level DSLR purchase

[Zach England]

I have decided I must have an SLR. I want it mostly for photographing my ceramic work, but I also want it for general photography and maybe shooting a bit of video, but the video is not a big priority.

I'd like to get a camera and general purpose lense for between $500-$600.

I am thinking Nikon d3100 or Canon EOS T3.

Thoughts?

[Jerome Stanek]

Check out one sale a day .com today they have a Nikon D3100 refurbished for $428.98 including shipping.

[Dick Latshaw]

If you are thinking d3100, you may want to wait a few weeks. The d3200 is due out 'real soon now'. You may also want to check out KEH for top quality used equipment.

[Larry Edgerton]

I have a Canon DSLR that I use on site to document progress and it has taken a beating for years and still works perfectly. It will be covered in dust when I forget to throw it back in the bag and I just blow and go. Its been great. My sister in law just bought the latest version and it does have some nice improvements over mine.

I also have a collection of Nikons, both digital and 35mm, and they are great cameras as well. I put one Nikormat in paticular through hell hiking and hunting in all kinds of weather. I actually wore all the paint off of it and it still works 35 years later, so I can't knock that choice either.

I just bought my wife a compact Panasonic Lumix though that impresses the hell out of me. It has a Leica lense that goes from 28mm to 398mm and takes pictures every bit good as most any camera, but with just one compact lense. Takes movies as well. It was about $400. This or one like it will be my next job site camera.

Larry

[David Weaver]

I am a fan of the panasonic cameras also if someone doesn't need SLR.

I have an old FZ-3 12x optical leica lens lumix that only takes 3.1mp pictures, but if the resolution is good enough for what I'm doing, they are still better pictures than anything else I've gotten since. In the house, it is "my" camera, everyone else thinks it's clunky and ugly. I don't know how long ago I got it, probably 10 years ago. If it breaks, I will try to get something as similar to it as possible.

[Bill Huber]

Do you really want an interchangeable lens camera? The problem is you will want a telephoto lens and then a close up lens and then a wide angle lens and before you know it you will have a case full of lenses.

There are some really great cameras out there with like 25mm to 600mm that do a great job and you don't have to get more lenses for it. The Panasonic FZ150 is an example of this, great camera and all it all built in.

The Canon ProwerShot SX40 is another example of a great little camera with it all built in, 24mm to 840mm which covers it all.

Go to DPReview and look them all over.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/cameras

[Zach England]

I do think I am set on interchangeable lenses, but I will look into the ones you mention and do a bit of reading when I get a chance. I am really leaning towards the Nikon right now, and am ready to pull the trigger as soon as I get confirmation from the federal government that my tax return is accepted.

Thanks for the opinions and keep them coming. When I get some free time this afternoon I will read up on what people have suggested.

I need another expensive hobby, right?

[Andrew Pitonyak]

The people that I know that own Nikons seem to love them, and the same is true of the people that I konw that own Canon. I am left with the impression that the professionals are more likely to use Canon, but I make that judegement on silly things like looking to see how many sports photographers have those nifty white lenses that Canon makes.

Criteria 1:
I use Canon and I like them very much. I have Canon point and shoot and Canon DSLR. The menus are very similar. So, if you own a Canon point and shoot, or a Nikon point and shoot, you may want to go that route for your DSLR because the base menus are likely similar.

Criteria 2:
What lenses will you purchase (and how well do they integrate with the camera)? At the moment, I own only Canon lenses. I own one lense that cost me about $2000. I chose Canon lenses because I am less likely to need to be concerned with how well things work together. That said, most aftermarket lenses seem to work well when they say so (I owned some in the past) and some are pretty nice. If you consider the lenses that you intend to use that match what you will shoot, then you can buy the camera that will use those lenses. I specifically wanted to be able to take indoor shots without flash, so I wanted my lens to be usable at f2.8 (whic is why they are expensive). If you will not shoot things like indoor weddings or performances where you are not allowed to use flash, you can probably get away with a slower lens.

Criteria 3:
Do you know people with camera gear? if so, what do they use? A friend wanted to try a specific lens that I happened to own, so, he was able to try it for a week.

[Zach England]

I am looking at a Nikon package that has two lenses--a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-200mm f/4-5.6. I am mostly interested in shooting still objects, especially me ceramic work indoor. That's easy. I also want to be able take general nature/city/landscape shots and outdoors zoom shots. I don't really have much interest in photographing weddings and such and have no aspirations to ever do anything close to pro photography. I figure those are pretty basic needs and I think those lenses would be a good starting point. Am I on the wrong track?

[Bill Huber]

I do think I am set on interchangeable lenses, but I will look into the ones you mention and do a bit of reading when I get a chance. I am really leaning towards the Nikon right now, and am ready to pull the trigger as soon as I get confirmation from the federal government that my tax return is accepted.

Thanks for the opinions and keep them coming. When I get some free time this afternoon I will read up on what people have suggested.

I need another expensive hobby, right?

You know what they say about clamps, "You never have enough of clamps" well a DSLR is the same, you never have enough lenes.

[Ole Anderson]

Canon T2i, $649 at B&H with the 18-55 lens. Highly recommended, even by the camera shop in Sarasota that only sells Nikon. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...i_Digital.html

This is where I got my camera, a 18-55 and a 75-300 lens, filter bag and 8 gig Sd card, currently around $750, $100 less than I paid a year ago.

http://www.profeel.com/cameras/pc/Ca...-KIT-3p533.htm

[Joe Angrisani]

With all due respect to Bill: You are missing the point on dSLRs. It's not about the lenses. It's about the sensor size (physical size, not megapixels) and shutter response time. Larger pixel sites mean cleaner images with greater dynamic range. The sensor in the Panasonic FZ150 is roughly 1/3rd the size of the sensor in a Nikon or Canon dSLR, so you're losing detail, clean high-ISOs, and any control over depth of field. One should also keep in mind that those "all in one" superzoom cameras almost always have electronic viewfinders - a tiny screen that you look at through the eyepiece - and EVFs all suffer from slow refresh rates and a grainy look. Additionally, just about every Panasonic all-in-one, going back years, have had a reputation for soft images (especially at wide angles and longer zoom lengths). Jack of all, master of none, as the old story goes.

Zach.... You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. I shoot Nikon dSLRs because I already have Nikon lenses, and I believe Nikon is better as far as accessing controls (FWIW, I think Canon point and shoots are better, so I'm not "all Nikon all the time). If I had to list a list, I'd say this:

$400? Used D40 with the 18-55 lens. The ultimate budget dSLR. Superb performance to ISO 800, and nice managable file sizes.
$550? New D3100 with the 18-55VR lens. Try Amazon or B&H.
$700? New D3100 with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR lenses. Amazon or B&H.
$800? New D3100 with the 18-55VR and 55-300VR lenses. Again, Amazon or B&H.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I am looking at a Nikon package that has two lenses--a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-200mm f/4-5.6. I am mostly interested in shooting still objects, especially me ceramic work indoor. That's easy. I also want to be able take general nature/city/landscape shots and outdoors zoom shots. I don't really have much interest in photographing weddings and such and have no aspirations to ever do anything close to pro photography. I figure those are pretty basic needs and I think those lenses would be a good starting point. Am I on the wrong track?

I believe that you are looking at a reduced size sensor, so the 18-55mm is a very good range for say wandering around at a party in a house. f/3-5.6 is pretty slow (from my perspective), but for indoor use with good lighting, you will shoot in this range anyway. I shot for years with lenses very similar to what you are quoting (with good effect).

When I train firearms usage, I sometimes hand a student a handgun with a three foot wooden down sticking out the end. I then tell the student to point the gun at a target and hold it steady. The dowel shows very clearly how much that gun is really moving because that movement is magnified over the distance. The same is true for a camera when you are trying to hold that lens still and your arms are tired. When the lens shakes, you need a fast lens. Newer lenses frequently have stabilization circuits built into them so that those shakes are canceled out. This can make a HUGE difference when shooting things that are not moving. Do the lenses have any sort of stabillazation built into them? If not, it is worth spending an extra $100 for this. Note that the shake will be far worse at 200mm than at 55mm, so if only the longer lens has it, call it good and move on. Note that the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX NIKKOR has this and rates well, no comment on which lens is included in your kit.

[Dick Latshaw]

To reiterate what Joe said, the all-in-one, do everything, 10 - 600 zoom, point and shoots are the camera equivalent of the ShopSmith.

The Nikon D3200 is due out tomorrow and is supposed to be in the $500 range.

In addition to Amazon and B&H, also look at Adorama, although prices from these three usually are very close.

[Prashun Patel]

I've had a DSLR for a couple years now (Canon Dig Rebel only 6megpix). The quality of my pix are fine. However, in my next camera, I'll be looking for the following features:

1) compact size. Having it marginally smaller and lighter means I'm more apt to take it to events and to leave it on my neck.
2) improved user interface. If the variables (aperture size/speed/etc) are intuitive and quick to navigate and control, I will do it more, which improves the quality of the pictures.

Not saying I have a particular recomendation for you; just look for these features. I think you should get one in yr hands b4 purchasing...