$500 camera need suggestions

[ZX7891]

ive got 500bucks for a camera and i want to do scenery type things that id hang on a wall. you input is appreciated.

[Vapor]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1....native 16:9, 8.3MP (3840x2160, 4x 1080HD res!), great Leica lens, good scenery modes, great image stabilizer (not an issue for scenery though). One problem is that it is slightly noisy, but a few quick clicks in photoshop cleans that right up.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/

[IYP]

olympus 8080 , thats the one maxx has and i think it can be had for ~500

[Vapor]

Those are like ~$700, at least they were when I was looking a few weeks ago.

[IYP]

i remember thinking that and then talking to max about it...it was either 500 or 600 but i forget

[ZX7891]

im considering buying a cannon d60 without any lenses for 450 ive used and i like it a lot

[MaxxxRacer]

C-8080WZ is 500 in local shops and if you look around on the net you can get it for 450 shipped.

[Delirious]

Thats a good way to start, but you'll need to invest in good glass, dont go cheap on the lenses, thats the worst thing to do.

[Vapor]

Agreed, I've used a Rebel for the past two years and didn't find it worth it until I was using the nice lenses.

I've since downgraded to a much smaller, more convenient camera that I love in the Panasonic Lumix DM-LX1.

[charlie]

N-i-k-o-n

[Kaiser_Sose]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/CamInfo-Select-2005.htm

[AeroSquid]

N-i-k-o-n


i usually say C-A-N-O-N but in this case, $500 gets you a DSLR from Nikon-

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&ci=1&kw=NID50&shs=NID50&Q=&O=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&ci=1&kw=NID50&shs=NID50&Q=&O=

[Rabidmoose171]

i usually say C-A-N-O-N but in this case, $500 gets you a DSLR from Nikon-

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&ci=1&kw=NID50&shs=NID50&Q=&O=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&ci=1&kw=NID50&shs=NID50&Q=&O=

DSLR's are no good without another thousand to spend on lenses.

[Vapor]

DSLR's are no good without another thousand to spend on lenses.Agreed....had a Rebel and didn't find it worthwhile without L-series lenses.

[comrad]

DSLR's are no good without another thousand to spend on lenses.
Wanna bet?

If you compare the kind of photos you can take with a SLR camera and one of those point-and-shoot cameras you will be amazed at the difference. Due to the manual control you have over the aperture, shutter speed, iso, etc. You dont need a good lense to get awesome pictures. Oh and btw the only way you will notice the diiference between a very expensive lense and a cheap lense is if you examine at microscopic close-ness. Of course you can see the difference between a wideangle lense and a telephoto lense but when you compare two of the same kinds of lenses, you will not notice the difference.

[comrad]

Oh and a good DSLR would be the Nikon D50: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=D7yw1CQmnp!-66514295?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=381587&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

A good lense for it would be the Tamron 18-200mm, its 400$ but its worth it.

[Vapor]

Wanna bet?

If you compare the kind of photos you can take with a SLR camera and one of those point-and-shoot cameras you will be amazed at the difference. Due to the manual control you have over the aperture, shutter speed, iso, etc. You dont need a good lense to get awesome pictures. Oh and btw the only way you will notice the diiference between a very expensive lense and a cheap lense is if you examine at microscopic close-ness. Of course you can see the difference between a wideangle lense and a telephoto lense but when you compare two of the same kinds of lenses, you will not notice the difference.There are PLENTY of "point-and-shoot" cameras out there with full aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus, etc. control....at $500, getting a DSLR and crippling it with a kit lens is a freaking crime, especially when a much smaller camera with a better built-in lens can take the same picture at equal or higher detail and quality.

Yes, it is for scenery, and that's where a better lens will help a lot.

[setyotomo]

for a little more money (about $80) you can get panasonic DMC-FZ30 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/)

just my 2c

[MaxxxRacer]

Olympus C-8080WZ... just search for thread I have started in wampeters and Photochop and you will be convinced to buy it.

Only issue I have with it is that I wish it has a longer zoom and that the manual focus was adjustable with the SLR like ring grip.

[Vapor]

I'd agree with you Maxxx....except I still can't find one for $500. I was looking around and really liked your camera (didn't care about the 'lack' of telephoto zoom frankly), but it was just too much at the time....settled on a something with a small sensor (more noise), but also a MUCH smaller package and lower price and just love it, especially considering I haven't met a photo it takes that either Noise Ninja or "Reduce Noise" can't COMPLETELY remove the noise and still keep detail 100% there. Its JPEG settings are a little borked (does a mosaic-like post processing that's really weird on medium quality), but it shoots RAW and I have a 2GB card, so it's all good :D

Also has full manual controls, but no ring-focusing, like on yours. Also has a GREAT widescreen 848x480 movie mode and the native 16x9 format for pictures is also great.

For sports photos, I *do* wish I had an SLR with a better telephoto lens and a larger sensor for high-ISO settings, but for everything else, the Lumix I mentioned a few posts up is just awesome, simply awesome.

[comrad]

There are PLENTY of "point-and-shoot" cameras out there with full aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus, etc. control....at $500, getting a DSLR and crippling it with a kit lens is a freaking crime, especially when a much smaller camera with a better built-in lens can take the same picture at equal or higher detail and quality.

Yes, it is for scenery, and that's where a better lens will help a lot.
Well first of all, I know there are point and shoots with all the settings of a DSLR but even when those settings are adjusted, the picture quality and lighting on a DSLR will always be better. I have a Canon EOS 20d, Canon sd500, and a Nikon D50. I will tell you one thing, The pictures that come from my Nikon D50 with the stock lense compared to the pictures of the sd500 which has full control over all of the settings, the Nikon pictures are like 20x times better. The nikon pictures have depth and the lighting on them is so much better. And you can later buy a new lense for a DSLR once you get more money.

And then the fact that bigger cameras have better stability and dont shake as much which also produces better pictures. And dont get me started on the reliablity between a DSLR and a point and shoot. Oh and another thing is that for DSLR the stock flashes are better and they are upgradeable. I will take some pics today to compare the 20d, sd500, and the d50 to show you all, with STOCK lenses.

[Vapor]

Oh I know DSLRs are better....I wish I had one.

I am going to argue that at the $500 price point, that they actually are worse.

The sensors on DSLRs are GREAT, the kit lens is awful.

The entire Lumix line, for example, has complete control of every setting. They come in various packages, from the prosumer-sized (aka, SLR body with a permanent lens) to the handheld. They also have various sensors....all of which have one problem: noise. Panasonic implements an below-average sensor in terms of noise and has a horrible noise reduction algorithm (blur the crap out of it). However, the sensor does do a great job with shadows, color fringing, tones, color correction (white balance), etc....they really are good.

I've used a lot of Canon's DSLRs and I can tell you, when you get the noise under control (a little PS plug-in called Noise Ninja does it perfectly), that 6-8MP Lumix cameras beat the Rebel and the Rebel XT with kit lenses, HANDS DOWN. That said, get a better lens on it and the Rebel catches up and the Rebel XT starts to pull away.

My little Lumix is great for me because portability was an issue....the onboard stabilization allows me to hold it in one hand and shoot. Pure and simple. There are larger Lumixes with ring-focuses, mega-flashes, etc. They are larger, but the same price. Take your pick. I've used them both and they're great.

I can't comment on the D50 as I've never used one nor do I have any intention of using one.

The one camera, outside of the Lumix line, that I'd recommend at this price is Maxxx's Olympus. Image quality is better than the Lumix line (i.e., amazing--perfectly sharp and so little noise at stock--after post-processing of both, the Lumix oh-so-nearly closes the gap) but it has a larger body and is why I didn't get it.

DSLRs are only good when you put down 800+ up front for the body and at least a DECENT lens and plan to continue putting down more and more money for the lenses. That said, if I could afford it, I'd have a DSLR in my stable for use with more scenery/staged photos, as well as sporting events to shoot with ISO 1600.

They are indeed better....but you're paying a lot just for 'being the SLR' and not paying for the best IQ at the $500 price point.

[MaxxxRacer]

^^ wise words here.

[irev210]

My recommendation is to get a canon 300D digital rebel, used off of eBay.

The kit lens is NOT as bad as vapor makes it out to be. I would also buy the EF 50mm F1.8 lens, which is only 60-80 bucks.

[comrad]

Dont get the Digital Rebel... Way over rated, The Nikon D50 is ALOT better, even with the stock lense it it awesome.

Vapor- Trust me, I have been a photographer for over 8 years already and I will tell you that a Nikon D50 with the stock lense will beet any point and shoot camera. What ever, Dotn listen to me, Im just trying to say how it is.

[InSanCen]

There are PLENTY of "point-and-shoot" cameras out there with full aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus, etc. control....at $500, getting a DSLR and crippling it with a kit lens is a freaking crime, especially when a much smaller camera with a better built-in lens can take the same picture at equal or higher detail and quality.

Yes, it is for scenery, and that's where a better lens will help a lot.


Spot on. I have to get this through people's heads all the time, (I work in a camera shop). They seem to think that a £2,500 body with a kit 18-55 lens worth £50 will be great. Sorry, I'll take the £500 body, and get some L series glass on the end of it.

The Panasonic that has been reccomended is great if you leave the ISO at 100 or 200. Landscape's are great (16:9 mode) from it. Short of spending a lot on a DSLR with a wideangle lens, you'll not get much better. Another alternative is a Ricoh GR1 (If you can find it in your budget). Fixed 28mm lens, but amazing quality from a compact. Later, there's a 21mm attachment if you want to go wider

[Soulburner]

Canon Powershot S3 is my pick. They are just a hair under $400 now. I looked at all the other "Superzoom" cameras in this category and this one does it for me. The closest competitor was the Sony Cybershot H5 but it only lost because of lower movie image quality. The movies on the Powershot S3 are amazing, pretty much camcorder quality and you can even snap a still picture while its recording.

Canon Powershot S3 with an adapter for a polarizer filter, a fast 4Gb SD card and my tripod will make for some interesting pics next year.

The reason I didn't go SLR? I didn't want to carry around lenses, have to change them out in different situations, OR pay ludicrous amounts of money for them. That and the fact that to match the 12x zoom on the S3 you need a very, very large lens for a D-SLR and it adds a lot of bulk.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Canon Powershot S3 is my pick. They are just a hair under $400 now. I looked at all the other "Superzoom" cameras in this category and this one does it for me. The closest competitor was the Sony Cybershot H5 but it only lost because of lower movie image quality. The movies on the Powershot S3 are amazing, pretty much camcorder quality and you can even snap a still picture while its recording.

Canon Powershot S3 with an adapter for a polarizer filter, a fast 4Gb SD card and my tripod will make for some interesting pics next year.

The reason I didn't go SLR? I didn't want to carry around lenses, have to change them out in different situations, OR pay ludicrous amounts of money for them. That and the fact that to match the 12x zoom on the S3 you need a very, very large lens for a D-SLR and it adds a lot of bulk.



Agreed. Have one and love it.

But if you want DSLR, try the Nikon D40 or D50. Great cams for the money, with room to upgrade to higher end lenses in the future.