File :-(, x, )
Digital SLRs r00t
Alright /p/,

I'm looking to purchase my very first Digital SLR camera soon after several years of owning a few Point & Shoots.

Which DSLR camera should I purchase and why?

Thx
>> Anonymous
my current base set is fantastic and very versatile, for reletively little money. it's a canon rebel xti (400d) with a sigma 17-70mm f2.8 DC Macro. if you buy the canon body only, you can get it for 400-500$ on ebay. the lens is 300-400$. so for the price of a new prosumer range camera, you can have a fully functional and expandable slr set up.

with this set up you get decent wide angle, decent zoom, reletively fast at wide angle, and macro.
>> Anonymous
Try figuring out what brand you might be interested in first. Check out the higher models, their lens selection / price, accessories, ect. I was going to buy pentax until it became hard to find lenses, and they didn't really have a pro-grade model. If i ever wanted to upgrade in the future i would have had to hope, or jump ship and switch to nikon, canon, or sony. And as your first lens get something that covers a broad range. The 28-135 was my first lens on my canon 40D. It's a good lens but it lacked in the areas i needed. So i got a tamron 17-50 based on the fact that the kit lens was a) not wide enough and b) not fast enough.
>> Anonymous
google.com

fuck these stupid threads.
>> Anonymous
getting a kit lens is okay if your really tight on money. if you get the sigma 17-70mm, you'll have a set up that will be good even when you get better at using it.

you may want wider angle, longer zoom, or a faster lens (f/1.4, or f/2.8 throughout the zoom range), but it will continue to perform well even at your higher level of skill.

I've owned a canon 5d with the 24-70mm f/2.8L, a 16-35mm f/2.8L, a 70-200mm f/2.8L, and a 50mm f/1.4 all from canon. it was a very high end set up.

When I had a ton of bills hit me at once, and I bumped down to the lower end set up, it sucked. but honestly, the quality of what I'm coming up with isn't THAT much worse. I find that I enjoy taking photo's with this set up a little more then the 5d, becuase the 5d was more of a work type set up. I knew exactly what I was going to get, it was big and heavy, and I was just going through the motions.
>> Anonymous
>>146056
And a shitty grip he's very likely to hate -> buyers remorse or resale at a loss.

>>146057
Shitty idea, as the only thing separating the major brands are feel and a few specialized lenses of which OP doesn't know the application in any case. Very few people move beyond the 40D/D300/K20D/E3/A700 (that cover everything?) for a reason; anything else is specialized equipment, and really not suitable for anyone else than professionals with specialized needs. Also, if by some chance you manage to become a sports photographer, your job will pay for your 1DsMKIII and L-lineup. That goes for national geographic wannabes, too.
>> Bob
>>146058
Why?
There is no stupid question, only stupid answers. If you think its stupid, dont waste your precious time posting.
>> Anonymous
>>146079

New here, aren't ya?
>> r00t
>>146072

If both are bad suggestions, what would you recommend?
>> Anonymous
>>146111

get another point n shoot
>> Bob
>>146082
Nope :)
>> Anonymous
>>146140

if this was your OP, you probably wouldn't have gotten flamed half as hard.

either way...

Fuck the d40x.. just tacked on megapixels to an already limited camera.

lol sony...

I'd go with the 400D.. or even the 300D + a 50mm 1.8.. but i'm a canonfag, so take it for what it's worth
>> Anonymous
>>146140
d50
>> Anonymous
400D

because we said so
>> Anonymous
>>146140
k10d
>> Anonymous
Canon's entire xxxD line past the 300D, has a very uncomfortable grip; if you're going for it, first hold one in a store and see if you can take it. It's also overpriced compared to the olympus/sony/pentax competition, price/feature-wise. Regardless of what the general consensus on /p/ may be, the aforementioned brands will give you much more bang for the buck than canikon.
>> sage
nothing wrong with sony, nikon and canon fags are just disappointed they dont have sony cameras
>> Anonymous
no one is talking about the Canon Xsi?

Any hoopla on their new X series?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>146189
Supposed to have a nicer viewfinder than the previous iterations of the Rebel, which'll be a big advantage over the competing Nikon models.

Not actually out yet, though.
>> Anonymous
>>146178

sup butterfag
>> Anonymous
>>146267

wow

people have to realize just because sony makes nikon's sensors doesn't mean they just put them in as is and call it a day

sonys image quality is shit compared to nikon
>> Anonymous
>>146270
One of them is also 100g heavier.

That seems like a significant weight.
>> Anonymous
>>146056sigma 17-70mm f2.8 DC Macro

lulz 2.8...

>> sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro

fixed
>> Anonymous
>>146072Also, if by some chance you manage to become a sports photographer, your job will pay for your 1DsMKIII and L-lineup. That goes for national geographic wannabes, too.

>> sports photographer
>> 1dsMKIII

lulz

every post by this anon = complete failure
>> Anonymous
>>146282
The post is fail, but not for that reason. Yes, a plain 1D Mk. III would make more sense for sports, but so what? I'm sure some professional sports photographer employs s-es at some point. Say he's shooting an indoor game from floor-level: he doesn't need the crop factor, but he needs the ISO performance.

The post is fail because it assumes you can just walk into Sports Illustrated or NatGeo cameraless. You need to have other, really fucking good work behind your back.
>> Anonymous
stop hijacking the guy's thread, assclowns.

OP, since you're a newfag go with a cheap D40 and work your way up once you've developed your "style."

With that said, Nikon > Canon > *
>> Anonymous
>>146293

I'm sorry, are you insinuating that the 1Ds has better ISO performance than the 1D? Wow. Just...wow.
>> Anonymous
>>146552

wow

looks like SOMEONE's confused
>> Anonymous
srsly guys, Canon and Nikon may have the highest image quality by a bit, but can't cost more than sony/oly/pentax cameras that offer built in stabilizing and live view... I want all that features, but don't want to shell out 800$ for a body & kit, dammit
>> Anonymous
>>146714

companies that are runner ups (sony/olympus/pentax) HAVE to offer more features than leading companies for LESS money if they want to compete
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>146723
This.

Also, Nikon and Canon's cameras probably do genuinely cost more than Olympus', given their larger sensors. Cost and difficulty of producing a chip goes up exponentially with chip size.
>> Anonymous
>>146735

well if anything, CMOS is cheaper to make than CCD

lulz
>> Anonymous
>>146735

The sensors are CMOS...aren't they actually CHEAPER to manufacture?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147016
A CMOS sensor is probably cheaper than a CCD of the same size, but I'm pretty sure that CCD is cheaper to make than a significantly larger CMOS.

Larger chips means fewer chips fit on a wafer and each of those chips is more likely to have a defect.
>> Anonymous
If you buy Canon / Nikon / Pentax, you're buying cameras (except for D40,D40x,D60).

If you buy an Olympus or any 4/3rds camera, you're wasting money.
>> Anonymous
>>147030but I'm pretty sure that CCD is cheaper to make than a significantly larger CMOS.

oh wow lol

GREAT LOGIC IS GREAT
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147086
Fine, fine. If you're going to call me on my pulled-out-of-my-ass facts when arguing with your pulled-out-of-your-ass facts, I'll go do some actual research.
http://www.graftek.com/documents/pdf/presentations/Photonics_Spectra_CCDvsCMOS_Litwiller.pdf
Choice quote:
>Many early CMOS proponents argued that their technology would be vastly cheaper because it could be manufactured on the same high-volume wafer processing lines as mainstream logic and memory devices. Had this assumption proved out, CMOS would be cheaper than CCDs.
> However, the accommodations required for good electro-optical performance mean that CMOS imagers must be made on specialty, lower-volume, optically-adapted mixed-signal processes and production lines.
> This means that CMOS and CCD image sensors do not have significantly different costs when produced in similar volumes and with comparable cosmetic grading and silicon area.
Apparently CMOS has an advantage in the cost of the supporting circuitry, but the cost of the chip itself is about the same.

And more:
http://www.4khub.com/news.php?readmore=3
>CCD devices are less complex than CMOS, so they cost less to design. CCD fabrication processes also tend to be more mature and optimized; in general, it will cost less (in both design and fabrication) to yield a CCD than a CMOS imager for a specific high-performance application. However, wafer size can be a dominating influence on device cost; the larger the wafer, the more devices it can yield, and the lower the cost per device.
(That's talking about a larger wafer, but a smaller die size--i.e., being able to put more chips on the same size wafer--has a similar effect)
>> Anonymous
>>147250

rofl

stop trying so hard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>147283
Start trying harder.
>> Anonymous
>>147286

stop sucking dick