Canon Rebel

[Asgard_thor]

http://www.tristatecamera.com/lookat.php?refid=279&sku=CANER2000
how many more parts would you need to get the camera working

I was trying to see if they are any good cameras under $300ish. I don't want one of those "digital camera" looks, I like the style of these cameras so to speak. The more "professional" look.

let me know if I am completely wrong

[Nate P.]

It ain't digital, it's a film body. You would need a lens too. And honestly, that camera looks "professional" to you?

[Asgard_thor]

no no !! this is what I meant
http://www.fadfusion.com/imageresample.php?file=./images/products/large/20/2010/20100802530.jpg&newsize=200
a camera like that, would be what I called digital cheapness

it was just a question lol, what I meant by professional is the design(like all cameras like that)
all black would be best :P

[Nate P.]

I see what you mean. You won't be getting a quality DSLR (or SLR for that matter) for the $300. I'd look at the Canon S3 or G7.

[majestik]

You could get a used Nikon D40 with the kit lens for $350-400 if you tried (really) hard.

[YugenM]

I think it's good to learn photography on film, it makes the person value each picture more and aids in developing the eye

[Asgard_thor]

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-D40-6-1-MEGAPIXEL-SLR-DIGITAL-CAMERA-BODY_W0QQitemZ130253978425QQihZ003QQcategoryZ31388 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

found that, how much do lens cost?

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A1116228&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=30322&lid=680414
that looks pretty SHARP :D

[Nate P.]

how much do lens cost?
Depends. Look at the Nikon AF-S 18-55mm, that's probably your best bet.

[Scubar]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-18-55-VR-UNOPENED-BUYERS-REMORSE-FREE-SHIPPING_W0QQitemZ200254218289QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3 323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

^ would be worth keepin an eye on.

[Asgard_thor]

dang :(
wish I had that money now

need to sell that projector XD

[YugenM]

Cheapie Nikon 50mm f/1.8 goes for around $100, I think. $300 for a decent dSLR system is a long shot. Closest I've seen is $350 on a Rebel XT only.

If you're willing to lurk on Craigslist, you can score a darn good deal on a camera, like this "professional"-looking D70s which I found for less than a new D40:
(found a point and shoot in the house! Cute little Nikon thing)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/yug3n/DSCN1788.jpg

Remember, a camera only gets out of the photographer's way. Nate P. here produces amazing pictures with his "old" 20D, and there are a crapton of soccer moms and rich idiots with fancy new cameras locked into the Green Box mode.

[MaxxxRacer]

Yugen, what in the hell is up with all the electrical tape on your camera.

[Nate P.]

Yugen, what in the hell is up with all the electrical tape on your camera.
Looks more "professional".:p:

[Magnj]

I bet you could find a used Pentax body in that range

[YugenM]

Yugen, what in the hell is up with all the electrical tape on your camera.

I didn't want to put up with Canon fanboys when I went out shooting in Downtown last Monday so I covered the discernible markings, leaving only the viewfinder shape for people to go by

I was trying out street photography too so I didn't need a shiny hotshoe catching people's eyes

[MaxxxRacer]

I didn't want to put up with Canon fanboys when I went out shooting in Downtown last Monday so I covered the discernible markings, leaving only the viewfinder shape for people to go by

I was trying out street photography too so I didn't need a shiny hotshoe catching people's eyes

Interesting. That is the 18-200VR on there correct? or the 18-70?

[Soulburner]

I don't know about you guys but going out with the D300 makes me feel proud to have Nikon stamped on my creative tool of choice.

[Nate P.]

I don't know about you guys but going out with the D300 makes me feel proud to have Nikon stamped on my creative tool of choice.
If I had a D300 I'd feel the same way. Make them Canon boys feel jealous!

[MaxxxRacer]

I don't know about you guys but going out with the D300 makes me feel proud to have Nikon stamped on my creative tool of choice.

I know I am. Although I have'nt gone out shooting since I got back from vacation. still need to post pics of that.

[YugenM]

Interesting. That is the 18-200VR on there correct? or the 18-70?

18-70

[[XC] 2long4u]

You know, I tried my buddys 18-70 and honestly I like my 18-55 better. Granted the 18-70 focuses very fast.
The problem I had with it is some pics would come out overexposed. I would keep the settings and switch lenses and the pics would come out fine. I think there might be something wrong with it.

I will stick with the 18-55 for now until I can afford a 17-55, and 70-200 :D

[Sparky]

What's with the anti-canon mentality? :confused: Both canon and nikon make good cameras :shrug:

[YugenM]

What's with the anti-canon mentality? :confused: Both canon and nikon make good cameras :shrug:
When we spend hundreds of dollars (or more) on cameras, we tend to get really insecure that we're not getting our money's worth.

[Nate P.]

What's with the anti-canon mentality? :confused: Both canon and nikon make good cameras :shrug:
I know man. I'm almost a man alone here with a Canon 20D. :/

[smee]

I know man. I'm almost a man alone here with a Canon 20D. :/

Hey man, Canon all the way!!!!!

Canon 30D here. :up:

[CybrSlydr]

and there are a crapton of soccer moms and rich idiots with fancy new cameras locked into the Green Box mode.

It's depressing to see how many people really do only use the Auto mode on cameras like that. :(

I had a 20D and spent almost all of it on Av mode.

I work for Walgreens and cover the photo lab from time to time and I get people coming in all the time with digital cameras who have no clue how they work other than in P&S mode. I do my best to educate some of the willing on the pros and cons of using other modes, but most just don't care...

So sad. :(


I know man. I'm almost a man alone here with a Canon 20D. :/

Fear not friend! I had a 20D before I had to sell it. Even had a 70-200mm f/2.8L to go with it - amazing combo.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/245848635_5057f0131d_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybrslydr/245848635/sizes/o/in/set-72157600030474179/

[YugenM]

Holy crap! Can I touch your 70-200 f/2.8L? please? please?

[Asgard_thor]

Looks more "professional".:p:

funny lol

I would defiantly take it off "green box"

[Soulburner]

What's with the anti-canon mentality? :confused: Both canon and nikon make good cameras :shrug:
There isn't an anti-Canon mentality here - it just seems that in this corner of the web more people are using Nikon.

And rightfully so - Nikon has been firing on ALL cylinders lately and is seriously kicking ass. They have the cameras, they have the advertising, all they need is to work on filling some gaps in their lenses. Bring on a 70-200 f/4 VR!

When we spend hundreds of dollars (or more) on cameras, we tend to get really insecure that we're not getting our money's worth.
Uhh, you meant thousands, right? :up:

[YugenM]

Uhh, you meant thousands, right? :up:

Hence the "or more"

[Soulburner]

In total gear, I don't have any "pro" lenses yet and I'm already tipping the $3k mark...

That's 1 body + 3 lenses, flash, tripod and misc stuff.

[YugenM]

In total gear, I don't have any "pro" lenses yet and I'm already tipping the $3k mark...

That's 1 body + 3 lenses, flash, tripod and misc stuff.

Still under 1k here, but the only newly bought photography equipment I have is a Manfrotto tripod. A nice WA prime would tip it over the 1k mark though...


2long4u;3297322']You know, I tried my buddys 18-70 and honestly I like my 18-55 better. Granted the 18-70 focuses very fast.
The problem I had with it is some pics would come out overexposed. I would keep the settings and switch lenses and the pics would come out fine. I think there might be something wrong with it.

I will stick with the 18-55 for now until I can afford a 17-55, and 70-200 :D

Isn't the 18-55's focusing ring kinda hard to use?

[MaxxxRacer]

Isn't the 18-55's focusing ring kinda hard to use?

18-55 focus ring is a joke. its not to be used in any situation. The focus ring, and much better F stop is why I like the 18-70 much better.

[Soulburner]

Guys, the 18-55 doesn't have a MF ring...:shrug:

[MaxxxRacer]

Guys, the 18-55 doesn't have a MF ring...:shrug:

The front of the lens is the focus ring. Look closely and you will see a little tiny bit of grip on the edge of the lense. You grab that and twist the barel of the lens to focus. As you do this, the barrel moves back and forth while you focus. On top of that it is like 90 degrees to go from inifnity to minimum focus distance, so any fine tuning is impossible.

the 18-55 is a great peforming little kit lens in good light, but its slow and really isnt a useful lens as a creative tool..

On a side note the 50mm f1.4 AF-s was just released! Autofocus for D40 D40x and D60 owners with primes! and now have fast focus with a 50mm prime AND instant manual focus overide, AND it SHOULD perform much better than the old 50mm which really sucked below F2.8

[silverphoenix]

Cheapie Nikon 50mm f/1.8 goes for around $100, I think. $300 for a decent dSLR system is a long shot. Closest I've seen is $350 on a Rebel XT only.



which is probably why as a newb photographer I jumped on a deal for my XTi, when CUSA was going out of business last spring I got it for $400 hehe, I seriously hope I made a good choice though, because from what I'm seeing everywhere everyone prefers the nikon d40 and d60 over my camera it seems lol.

[Nate P.]

which is probably why as a newb photographer I jumped on a deal for my XTi, when CUSA was going out of business last spring I got it for $400 hehe, I seriously hope I made a good choice though, because from what I'm seeing everywhere everyone prefers the nikon d40 and d60 over my camera it seems lol.
Naw man, the XTI is a sweet little camera, I just hope your hands are small enough... however, it has the same sensor as the 40D I believe.

[Soulburner]

The front of the lens is the focus ring. Look closely and you will see a little tiny bit of grip on the edge of the lense. You grab that and twist the barel of the lens to focus. As you do this, the barrel moves back and forth while you focus. On top of that it is like 90 degrees to go from inifnity to minimum focus distance, so any fine tuning is impossible.
I suppose, as long as you make sure to switch your camera over to MF so it "lets go" of the lens motor. Not having an AF/MF switch on the lens, you aren't supposed to move it in AF mode as it just drags the motor against its will.

[evaD]

Nate p. said

Naw man, the XTI is a sweet little camera, I just hope your hands are small enough... however, it has the same sensor as the 40D I believe.

Yes the Canon rebel xti is a great one. Yes the chip is the same but the 40d has 14 bit per channel or four times more color information.

that said my xti set to Adobe 1998 color-space shoots what I saw! and I can take 3 lenses along with out breaking into a sweat (10-22, 24-70 and 70-300)

It's safe to say that film is dead.

[Soulburner]

I missed this earlier, but the Rebels certainly don't put up the same ISO performance as the 40D...I'm not so sure they have the same sensors.

Also, careful shooting in AdobeRGB - once you save your images and put them on the web they will be viewed in sRGB and will look different than what you saw when you were doing your editing. I always shoot in sRGB because of this as I don't print my images.

[gman!ice]

Also, careful shooting in AdobeRGB - once you save your images and put them on the web they will be viewed in sRGB and will look different than what you saw when you were doing your editing. I always shoot in sRGB because of this as I don't print my images.

agreed. adobe rgb is more of a pain in the rear than its worth. ken rockwell said it best, "the whole world is setup for srgb." you really have to stay on top of things to use adobe rgb.. one break in the chain from camera to where the photo is going, and things are going to be messed up. it's too much trouble for the little you gain in extra color.. ( which you probably didn't capture to begin with. )

back to the original poster's question: try to find a used original rebel (6mp) with a kit lens for $300 used (or less, maybe??). check your local craigslist listings, and it never hurts to offer a little less than what they're asking.

as your budget allows, try to get a 50mm 1.8 prime ($75 used, $110 new) for indoors, low-light shooting.

f/1.8 will make for very fast shots indoors without a flash. you'll be a hero.

..gman

[Soulburner]

But let's not confuse what a flash is for. Sure you can get enough shutter speed to freeze a moving person indoors with an aperture like that - however, flash gives light and color that the lens will never reproduce.

One gives you the ability to get the shot, the other improves the quality of the shot greatly.

[YugenM]

But let's not confuse what a flash is for. Sure you can get enough shutter speed to freeze a moving person indoors with an aperture like that - however, flash gives light and color that the lens will never reproduce.

One gives you the ability to get the shot, the other improves the quality of the shot greatly.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a flash unit and kit lens than a good lens and no flash.

[Soulburner]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a flash unit and kit lens than a good lens and no flash.
+1 :up:

You will get much better images with that combo.

[gman!ice]

But let's not confuse what a flash is for. Sure you can get enough shutter speed to freeze a moving person indoors with an aperture like that - however, flash gives light and color that the lens will never reproduce.

One gives you the ability to get the shot, the other improves the quality of the shot greatly.


I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a flash unit and kit lens than a good lens and no flash.

we're talking about the pop up flash here, right??

interesting.. i was thinking the opposite. most flashes wash everything out because they're so harsh and give red-eye. with a fast aperture and no flash, you have a much more natural look that you can only get with a nice camera. i once read, and i agree, that what a pop-up flash produces is equivalent to what a coal-miner would see with the bright light attached to his head.

anyways.. any cheap-o camera can take indoor pictures with a flash.. i bought my rebel so i could get a better lens and keep the flash off. i have a 420ex, but then, that's a different story.. bouncing the light off of the ceiling or covering the flash with a diffuser gives a much softer, diffused light.

.gman

[Sparky]

we're talking about the pop up flash here, right??

I think they mean a real flash unit, like this:
http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/New-Flash-Unit-from-Canon-Speedlite-430EX-3.JPG

[Soulburner]

Photography is light...any way you can improve the quality of that light, you get a better image. Simply throwing an expensive lens at the problem isn't going to guarantee success.

Still, all lenses have their place and I'd have a complete set of f/2.8 zooms and AF-S primes (as slow as Nikon can update them...) if funds allowed.

[Dave_Sz]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a flash unit and kit lens than a good lens and no flash.

I couldn't disagree more. Seeing as kit lenses are rather poor, I'd happily get a really good lens than that mediocre kit lens and a flash. No flash in the world will make an ok lens take as good of a shot as a great lens...

Then again if you're in a situation where you need a flash to take a good picture you're screwed either way. Not enough light for great lens or enough light for ok lens and flash...

[Soulburner]

Dave, some kit lenses are very good, notably Nikon. Some, like the 18-55 are actually pretty darn sharp but they don't get the recognition they deserve. In that case for indoor people photography a flash will take you much further than a faster lens.

You're also downplaying the importance of flash photography. Some people don't even go out and shoot at all without their lights, even in broad daylight. Total control of light is the only way to master the art.

[Nate P.]

You're also downplaying the importance of flash photography. Some people don't even go out and shoot at all without their lights, even in broad daylight. Total control of light is the only way to master the art.
Thats me. I like to have my Vivitar flashes with me and take them off-axis (with a wireless setup) to add a bit of fill or to create dramatic lighting.

[Dave_Sz]

Dave, some kit lenses are very good, notably Nikon. Some, like the 18-55 are actually pretty darn sharp but they don't get the recognition they deserve. In that case for indoor people photography a flash will take you much further than a faster lens.

You're also downplaying the importance of flash photography. Some people don't even go out and shoot at all without their lights, even in broad daylight. Total control of light is the only way to master the art.

I understand flash photography and am trying to get into it myself. Thing is no matter what you shoot, you gotta start with the good glass. Studio work yeah you need all the light but when you have a studio chances are you have some nice glass on your camera.
That's just my opinion though and we're all entitled to opinions...

[gman!ice]

i'll just say this to the original poster..

you're obviously on a tight budget, and i think you might be able to find a 6mp rebel for $300 with a kit lens. and the good thing about a dslr is that as your budget allows, you can make things better. if you're new to photography, you might want to try and master using available light first before you worry about flashes.. a 50mm 1.8 prime is very affordable, and would probably be the easiest thing to purchase after the camera itself. i bought a canon 420ex flash (used) with a stoffen softener for $175 off of craigslist. that might be the ballpark that it would cost to step up to a nice flash.

i think the main point is that the rebel is your best bet, and after you get that, you'll have plenty of time to plan (and save.. ) for what you're going to buy for it.

here's some good reading from a very down-to-earth, non-biased guy:
http://photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/

..gman!

[YugenM]

I couldn't disagree more. Seeing as kit lenses are rather poor, I'd happily get a really good lens than that mediocre kit lens and a flash. No flash in the world will make an ok lens take as good of a shot as a great lens...

Then again if you're in a situation where you need a flash to take a good picture you're screwed either way. Not enough light for great lens or enough light for ok lens and flash...


Dave, some kit lenses are very good, notably Nikon. Some, like the 18-55 are actually pretty darn sharp but they don't get the recognition they deserve. In that case for indoor people photography a flash will take you much further than a faster lens.

You're also downplaying the importance of flash photography. Some people don't even go out and shoot at all without their lights, even in broad daylight. Total control of light is the only way to master the art.

This.

Of course, all of this is useless if the 18 inches behind the camera sucks :D

[Dave_Sz]

This.

Of course, all of this is useless if the 18 inches behind the camera sucks :D

hahahaha, agreed.