looking for a good DSLR camera around $400

[firas]

I've been reading in this sub-forum and google but the more I read the more options I add to list but basically I'm looking for something easy to use without lots of manual control to take nice pictures indoors & outdoors.

I noticed some here recommends the Nikon D3100, so if I stretched the budget and picked it over say the D3000, should that give me better pictures and/or easier experience? or I'll only notice the difference if I was shooting big landscapes or night pictures or wanted a strong zoom in the camera (which I don't think I'll really need)?

[masterg]

you should be able to find a used 3100 inside your budget.

Nikon D3100 vs D3000: Key Differences

The D3100 substantially refreshes the D3000, taking a rather outdated-looking specification and turning it into one of the most competitive in its sector.


Higher resolution sensor (14.2MP vs. 10MP)
Ability to shoot Raw + Fine JPEG
Socket for connecting Nikon GP1 GPS unit
Optional wired remote via GPS socket
No wireless remote option
Live view
1080p HD movies
HDMI output
Wider ISO range
Full-time AF mode (AF-F in live view)
Revised focus screen (different AF point illumination)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3100/

for more info

[1ke]

I'm going to tell you something that many people still don't get. Its not the camera, its the photographer. You need proof? Just google iphone photo shoot. Tons of professional photographers have produced images, videos, and articles talking about this. It proves that sensor size, lens apertures, and manual exposure settings are only one factor of the equation. They give you versatility but cannot improve the most important part of photography -- composition.

My advice is to find a used D90 and get a 50mm 1.8. Or get a used PEN or GF camera with 14-42mm lens. Or get a used 40D and a 50mm 1.8.

[masterg]

I'm going to tell you something that many people still don't get. Its not the camera, its the photographer. You need proof? Just google iphone photo shoot. Tons of professional photographers have produced images, videos, and articles talking about this. It proves that sensor size, lens apertures, and manual exposure settings are only one factor of the equation. They give you versatility but cannot improve the most important part of photography -- composition.

My advice is to find a used D90 and get a 50mm 1.8. Or get a used PEN or GF camera with 14-42mm lens. Or get a used 40D and a 50mm 1.8.

D3100 sensor size is 23.1 x 15.4mm
D90 is 23.6 x 15.8mm

how much difference is 17.34 square mm going to make?
D90 sensor is 5% larger

[1ke]

No difference. People need to stop caring about sensor size. It means NOTHING (except shallow DoF at close distances and a trend with higher ISO and DR performance. That being said, cropped ISO is just as good in most cases, same with DR.). The point is this:

Stop caring about numbers and start caring about the photographer.

[BeepBeep2]

No difference. People need to stop caring about sensor size. It means NOTHING (except shallow DoF at close distances and a trend with higher ISO and DR performance. That being said, cropped ISO is just as good in most cases, same with DR.). The point is this:

Stop caring about numbers and start caring about the photographer.

If you are in broad daylight? Sure. ...but there are cases, like I said, just like mine where shooting an object moving 150/250 MPH/KPH in the dark at full telephoto with a slow lens doesnt work.

If I were the OP, anyway, I'd be looking for an older used camera such as a Digital Rebel XS (1000D) and some semi-decent glass.

Used D90 is still way over $400 body only...

[1ke]

Do what you want. I'm just telling you a lesson I learned about $10k later.

[masterg]

If you are in broad daylight? Sure. ...but there are cases, like I said, just like mine where shooting an object moving 150/250 MPH/KPH in the dark at full telephoto with a slow lens doesnt work.

If I were the OP, anyway, I'd be looking for an older used camera such as a Digital Rebel XS (1000D) and some semi-decent glass.

Used D90 is still way over $400 body only...

paid 599 for mine. thats why i say find a used 3100 or 5100

[BeepBeep2]

paid 599 for mine. thats why i say find a used 3100 or 5100

Rebel XS with kit lens is $390 used -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used
He could also go with a used D3000 if he really wanted, though I would avoid it. Used D3100 is $550.

If the OP wanted to stretch the budget like he said in the first post and he will be happy with the kit lens, then D3100 all the way.

[lkiller123]

I'm going to tell you something that many people still don't get. Its not the camera, its the photographer. You need proof? Just google iphone photo shoot. Tons of professional photographers have produced images, videos, and articles talking about this. It proves that sensor size, lens apertures, and manual exposure settings are only one factor of the equation. They give you versatility but cannot improve the most important part of photography -- composition.

My advice is to find a used D90 and get a 50mm 1.8. Or get a used PEN or GF camera with 14-42mm lens. Or get a used 40D and a 50mm 1.8.

AGREED. Real nice piece of advice. My most popular photograph comes from a little point-n-shoot.
But a D90 is far beyond his budget.

To OP:
The reason why I am currently saving up for another DSLR is that DSLR offers a LOT more versatility. A SLR offers far more controls than what you'd normally find in a simple point-and-shoot.
You only want good image quality? Just start with the D40 and save some money; D60 if you really want to spend a bit more money. Photography is a VERY expensive hobby when you go out of control, and you will never know whether you like it or not.

[NFC]

I've been reading in this sub-forum and google but the more I read the more options I add to list but basically I'm looking for something easy to use without lots of manual control to take nice pictures indoors & outdoors.

I noticed some here recommends the Nikon D3100, so if I stretched the budget and picked it over say the D3000, should that give me better pictures and/or easier experience? or I'll only notice the difference if I was shooting big landscapes or night pictures or wanted a strong zoom in the camera (which I don't think I'll really need)?

Dear firas:

There were several good recommendations in this thread, but permit me to share an alternate view. Your budget and examples of use really point to a high end point and shoot rather than a DSLR. I understand your need for high image quality--the truth is if you are looking at a Canon G12 or S95 the image quality will not be far off from even the much more advanced and expensive DSLRs like the Canon 7D.

What do DSLR's give you that point and shoot camera's do not? Customization for a shooting scenario. With the proper DSLR and lens you can have a solution for a situation that requires fast frame capture at low light, or a wide sensor combined with an ultra-wide lens, or a full frame with an extremely quick aperture for shallow DoF portrait shots.

That being said, if you have the money and don't mind the bulkiness (and sometimes awkwardness of carrying around a big camera in public) then a DSLR is a no-brainer, right? The thing is, money is a big catch. If you are hoping to achieve the same quality and features that the G12 offers you would need to spend MUCH more money for a DSLR equivalent.

The G12 has a focal equiv (to a FF) of 28-140mm, and has image stabilization. It is going to be tough finding a lens that offers that range and quality (for a crop body) with IS. If you are wanting to take nice pictures indoors as well as outdoors, you are going to need to budget in some glass for that. The 50mm 1.8 is is cheap and good for the price, and will let you get some nice low-light shots, but the 50mm range is relative to a full frame body: on a crop body DSLR it would seem more like 80mm on a FF--making some indoor shots tricky because of the distance you will have to stand--plus its a prime, so you only get ONE focal length, meaning if you want to get wider shots or really zoomed out shots (or somewhere in between) you need more glass.

Personally, I would look into the DSLR world with a budget of $2000. Some people here might think this is ridiculous, but hear me out. You should not buy a DSLR thinking you will only need one lens (not accusing you of this), there are many reasons to own a DSLR but you would have to be crazy to say the ability to change lenses is not the prime advantage. $2000, even with lenses and bodies being priced above retail due to the Yen's strength and the limited supply right now, is enough to get a good, modern DSLR (I would go for a Canon-refurbished T2i personally, but there were other good suggestions made in this thread) and high quality glass that covers a good focal range from ultra-wide to telephoto. There is no "right" combination because it depends on your style, but when I got started I went for the 50mm 1.4 and branched out to the 10-22mm and the 70-200f4. This gave me the versatility in focal ranges I had from my G12 plus plus more, AND I had the advantages of decent to good glass. Until I had those three lenses, I still was using my G12 because I felt extremely limited by my lengths in some situations.

I am not saying you shouldn't buy a DLSR with a budget of 400. I just think that if I were in your shoes knowing what I know now I would want someone to suggest a top end P&S, because getting the same quality and versatility out of a DSLR requires a good investment. Finally, I agree with everyone else here--image quality and quality photographs are two different things. The nicest camera in the world does you no good if you are a bad photographer. I learned this pretty quickly firsthand. =)

[FrostyPanda]

Find yourself a used canon 40D.

[Dave_Sz]

Do what you want. I'm just telling you a lesson I learned about $10k later.

I'm gonna buy some nosebleed seat tickets to a baseball game and take some amazing shots of ants running on a lawn.
Then I'll take some macro shots of nachos from 2ft away. Then when the sun goes down I'll have a bunch of, nothing.

[uOpt]

A used 40D.

[Origin_Unknown]

you should be able to find a used 3100 inside your budget.

Nikon D3100 vs D3000: Key Differences

The D3100 substantially refreshes the D3000, taking a rather outdated-looking specification and turning it into one of the most competitive in its sector.


Higher resolution sensor (14.2MP vs. 10MP)
Ability to shoot Raw + Fine JPEG
Socket for connecting Nikon GP1 GPS unit
Optional wired remote via GPS socket
No wireless remote option
Live view
1080p HD movies
HDMI output
Wider ISO range
Full-time AF mode (AF-F in live view)
Revised focus screen (different AF point illumination)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3100/

for more info

I wish i knew the d3100 was coming out before i bought my d3000 - i got the d3k about 2 months before the d3100 came out

[Lestat]

I've been reading in this sub-forum and google but the more I read the more options I add to list but basically I'm looking for something easy to use without lots of manual control to take nice pictures indoors & outdoors.

I noticed some here recommends the Nikon D3100, so if I stretched the budget and picked it over say the D3000, should that give me better pictures and/or easier experience? or I'll only notice the difference if I was shooting big landscapes or night pictures or wanted a strong zoom in the camera (which I don't think I'll really need)?

go to the picture of the day thread... look for the user Weevil... look at his pictures over the last 6 months.... he is using a Rebel XTi i believe,,
he shoots raw and post processes his images.
if you shoot jpeg its nice but you dont get the flexibility.

he has come along way in the last 6 moths to a year because he started shooting RAW and learned to use photoshop.

i agree with the D3100 and canon 40D.... both are fantastic cameras... lenses for the 40D are cheaper though.
good nikon glass is expensive.
but a used D3100 for $400??? i dont think so.
a used 40D for $400? everyday on FM and PoTN...

either way if you find either camera for $400, you will not get it with a lens,, so you are stuck spending anywhere from $100 to $300 for a decent lens.

here is what i say.... Nikon D3100 and the new 50mm 1.8G
or
Canon XSi or Canon 40D plus the 50mm F/1.8 also known as the nifty fifty.
only reason to get the 40D is faster shutter speed and frames per second, easier controls, bigger body, ... ok that was 4 reasons.
the XSi and 3100 are great cameras too.

you can also get the Olympus PEN E-PL1 plus the 14-42mm kit lens for under $500.
its a nice system but very limited... its not a SLR.. its a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. and unless you know how to use photoshop to clean and sharpen the images you will not be happy with it.


lastly you could easily get a canon S95, or Nikon or Panasonic Lumix point and shoot.
but probably one of the better ones out there is the Olympus ZX1.. just an insane low noise point and shoot.
but i am tainted by canon so i would get the S95. or G12 or something similar.

[Cpl Ledanek]

I got a Nikon 3000 Thread here somewhere. See the pictures yourself, and yes, it doesn't have video, thank goodness! Or else I'll run out of SD space.