I'm newb to dSLR world.. and want to learn how to take "picture".
I'm in a market to purchase dSLR budget is around $500~$700
What i've heard from this forum is that If I really want good quality, i rather spend more money on lens, not body. Seriously, I don't even have no idea what 18-55mm stands for...lol. so even if i get a cool new features, i won't be able to use?

If i buy a new ones I might choose from one of these.
(the order is that i prefer more)
1) Cannon rebel XTi with 18-55mm for $640
2) Nikon D40 with 18-55mm for $540
3) pentax k110d 18-55mmfor $400

or grab a used cannon 10d for $300 and sepnd 300~400 on lenses?
the reason why i choose cannon is that they have more lenses available?

What do you guys prefer?

 

1 is a bad choice. I have that lens and cannot remember the last time I used it. If I were to do it all over again, I probably would have gone for an XT body and focused more on Lens choice. Currently I have the Kit Lens (18-55) which is never used, the nifty fifty (50) prime, and a IS 28-135. I'm very very happy with my IS lens as an all around lens, and the Prime when I'm playing around. You might want to go check out the actual bodies and see which you prefer. When the 40D came out, I checked it out and didn't feel as comfortable using it. It was just my preference to use XTi over the 40D.

Can't really comment on Nikon or Pentax, although I did use a Pentax way back in the day on Print Film

 

^ thanx.

I might take a picture most of people and cars.

 

Same here, so I prefer to be a little more mobile, hense my preference for a lighter body. Go out and get a feel for the different body, then worry about a lens afterwards. Just don't go out and buy a package and regret it like me I love the XTi Body, don't really like the kits lens it came with.

 

For your budget, You can look into a Nikon D70s (also consider Canon 20D may be a 30D). The lens it comes with is nice and is pretty good ($400 dollar lens). I picked my D70s for $450 with a small discount.

On easier terms , the 18-55mm lens refers to the focal area. The higher the # the closer you can zoom to an object. The lower the # the wider the picture is. May be some one can explain it better but this should give you an idea of what those #s are. Also not all lens are created equal. Usually low budget lenses will have low quality glass, reducing the quality of the picture. So yes the lens quality is very important, I would say more important than how many MP the camera has.

I would also stick to either Canon or Nikon. they are the most popular out there so finding accessories for them is easier.

Also if you have big hands like me, you will find the XTi and D40 to be too small and it can become clumsy. I prefer a heavier body to help reduce of movement,

Hopefully Ctwentytwo can jump in and elaborate a bit on this.

 

found this. there are different packages on the bottom for the same camera. They are an sponsor here.

http://www.thecameraprofessionals.co...asp?prodid=234

 

Used 20D and a used Tamron 17 50 f/2.8, ~ $800

www.fredmiranda.com

 

quick question, what is f1.8 or something fx.x?

and i found this for $700
http://www.thecameraprofessionals.co...did=501&up=234
it comes with all small accesaries and
Nikon 28-80mm Auto Focus Lens
Nikon 70-300mm Auto Focus Lens

would it be good for short/long distance? they don't describe the model of the lens any one know about them?

 

One advantage to the Pentax K110d is you can use all the Pentax lenses ever produced (even the screw mount with an adaptor). Pentax makes some very nice glass too.

 

the 28-80mm lens is not the greatest but not bad. It is a standard lens. So is the 70-300mm lens. I have both of them on my Nikon Film SLR and I use the 70-300mm once in a while.

This one come pretty much with a universal lens.

http://www.thecameraprofessionals.co...did=486&up=234

The lens is good for close ups and far shots.

This one yields a bit more zoom but I went to Nikon web site and they don't have a 28-300mm lens so I don't know what manufacture it is.

http://www.thecameraprofessionals.co...did=491&up=234


f # is for your aperture. It controls how much light you let in and it also dictates you depth of field (what makes your background blurry).

Oh yeah another thing, get you a bigger memory card.

 

I'm not to familiar with Pentax SLRs. I know with the D70s you can use every Nikon lens. One of the reason I got it since I also use a Nikon film SLR so i can use the lenses from that.

 

^ just curious, the link that you provided comes with only one lens but $20 cheaper... but I get two lens, one covers up to 300mm.

NEW! 28-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Auto Focus Lens is better than any other two
(Nikon 28-80mm Auto Focus Lens , Nikon 70-300mm Auto Focus Lens)?

 

Its only one lens but a better quality lens than the one you selected. You also have to look at the numbers of the lenses.

The one you selected has to lenses. One covers anything from 28-80mm and the other from 70-300mm.

The one I selected is one lens and it cover anything from 28-200 or 300mm. So no need to change lens.

 

look at the Sony DSLR-A100

nuff said

jim

btw - all the Nikon/Canon nutswingers can find a goat and bl0w it. a real photog is measured behind the lens. only tossing this out there because every photo section i post in, Niko/Canon fanboys jump all over me......just a preemptive.

 

Same could be said to any and all nutswingers/huggers involving anything, ie Performance Shops..
However, aren't there more lens available for Nikon/Canon than Sony? Not bashing by any means, I just never looked into the A100 or Nikons for the matter.

 

sure, but gear still plays an integral part of image quality. Give a pro sports photographer a Sony alpha and give another sports photographer a Canon 40D - have both shooting indoors at an NBA game. Skill being equal, the images from the Canon will generally be better since the high ISO image quality is superior to the Sony's high ISO image quality.

 

So what different does that make you? You are nutswinging a Sony.

Like stated above. Is not because Niko/Canon is better, it just there is more accessories available for them.

 

+1000x

 

^ just saw that tamron lens it is around $400. Is it really worth it? I wanna hear about this. also I need mroe throw distance? instead of 17 -50mm, why not get 18-200 with similar price?

 

it is difficult to build a lens with such a wide focal range and be able to produce quality images throughout the focal range. A good example is the Nikon 18 -200. Amateurs love the lens since it's a good walk around, but the images are very soft at the wide and long focal ranges, there's some excessive chromatic aberration, also. But, these types of photographers won't notice (or care).

The Tamron 17 50 has been put up against the Canon 17 40 4.0L in numerous tests and has been proven to be the best Canon mount lens in that price range. It may not be the best for all, but for most, it is. There are only several reasons why someone would rather have the Canon:
1) when mounted to a 1D body, it is weather proof (good for shooting in adverse conditions)
2) USM - very quiet and very quick/accurate AF mechanism. Good for weddings or any other venue that requires silence

Other than that, the Tamron is sharp, good color replication, and has a good AF mechanism.