File :-(, x, )
Doitle
What is the cheapest DSLR out there?
>> Anonymous
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU
>> Anonymous
>>144924
super zoom 8023
>> Anonymous
>>144936
I'm not seeing such a camera anywhere on the internets.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>144936
I thought it was Super Zoom 123?
>> Anonymous
I'm guessing if the name is Superzoom it doens't have interchangeable lenses. That's what I'm looking for as well.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>144942
lol, lurk moar
>> Doitle
I was hoping for an equivalent to my Nikon EM only digital. Something very entry level and cheap to get me going with DSLRs.
>> Royel !1FlvMbtvcg
Pentax K110D
>> Doitle
>>144952
What size sensor does it have?
>> Anonymous
Cheapest DSLR = old used DSLR.

You can get obsolete shitty cameras like Olympus E-300, or just VERY obsolete ones like Canon D30, for less than $200.
>> Doitle
>>144967
Interesting... That sounds up my alley.
>> Anonymous
>>144967
Would it be hard to find lenses for those old SLRs though? The E-300 looks crazy cheap. The Canon 30D though looks expensive still. Like 500-800 used. Did it just start out crazy expensive?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145104
Canon D30, not 30D. It's confusing, I know. The D30 was their first digital SLR, followed by the D60, followed by the switch from left to right of the D. And eventually they made a 30D, which is a much, much nicer camera and only just recently got obsoleted by the 40D.

The D30 can use any EF lens, but it can't mount EF-S lenses, so you're kinda screwed for wide angle.
>> Anonymous
What about the Olympus E-300? I've been looking at sample photos on photosig and there are quite a few nice pictures taken with it. It's also only 179$ on KEH. That's less than I paid for my Fujifilm S700.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145140
/p/ has a generally low opinion of the Four Thirds camera system.

That particular model has a weird bass-ackwards optical path to the viewfinder, which I'm guessing doesn't do much for its viewfinder's brightness...
>> Doitle
>>145147
Why does /p/ hate 4/3rds?

Would 4/3rds be... 1.3 repeating crop factor?
>> Anonymous
>>145274
Less DR and more noise. Smaller viewfinders. Very few primes. Nothing hugely wrong for most people, but there's no reason to get one over other types.

They have a 2x crop factor, and a 4:3 (4/3) aspect ratio, just like consumer digicams, most computer monitors, and 645 film.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>145274
No its just the aspect ratio (four thirds systems are 2x crop as of right now)

Pictures are 4 pixels wide, for every 3 pictures it is tall.
Prints at 3x4, 6x10, 9x12, 12x16, 15x20 etc..

Most DSLR's are 3:2 (3 pixels wide for every 2 pixels tall)
Prints perfectly at 4x6, 8x12, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145274
No, Four Thirds refers to the aspect ratio (4:3. I.e., same aspect ratio of most non-widescreen monitors, TVs, etc rather than the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm film or the 4:5 ratio of large format film). The sensors are 2x crop. I.e., half the size of a full 35mm frame. And the whole system is built around that crop size, which means there will never be a Four Thirds camera with a sensor larger than half-frame. Which means that, given the same level of sensor technology and resolution, the rest of the industry's SLRs will always have lower noise.

Oh, the 2x crop also means that the viewfinders on 4/3 cameras suck ass.
>> Doitle
:/ That sounds pretty damning. Maybe I should look at this D30D from Canon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145281
You'd be better off going for something like the original Digital Rebel (EOS 300D). The D30's *seriously* obsolete.
>> Doitle
What is the deal with these KISS cameras on keh.com? I see several Digital Rebels and then I see KISS Digital Rebels.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145305
Regional branding.
EOS Digital Rebel: North America
EOS KISS Digital: Japan
EOS 300D: Everywhere else.
>> des
>>145305
same camera, it's KISS in asia and parts of europe, iirc
>> Doitle
Hmm... so the Digital Rebel is probably the better choice than the Olympus E-300... Are there any other cheapo DSLRs that should be in the running here? Someone early on mentioned the Pentax K110D. Anything I should know about that one maybe?
>> Anonymous
Seeing this thread makes my canonballs happy.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145325
Nikon D50 is pretty cheap nowadays. Probably the D70, too. I know even less about Pentax than I do about Nikon, so I'll let someone else answer that.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>145140
I had an E-300. It has a weird-ass shape that's not really comfortable unless you have a battery grip, it's HUGE, the viewfinder isn't as bright as on regular pentamirror models like E-510, and the controls are quite awkward (the following models had them heavily revamped for a reason).
In general, it's usable if you want the cheapest DSLR that can still take good images, but if you can spend a hundred more, better get one of the next models (E-500, E-330) or the mentioned Canon 300D.

>>145277
>there's no reason to get one over other types.
Hey, $179 for a body is a reason. Plus it can use literally tons of cheap old glass with corresponding adapters.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Color Filter Array Pattern714Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:08:07 20:58:33Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length23.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height960RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>145370
Yeah, and you have to manually focus it with a small viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
>>145373
Yeah, but it's not like there are any better choices for comparable price.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145405
But there are better choices for slightly more. Cheaping out on the first body means you're stuck with the choice of switching systems (and thus losing the investment you made in the first system) or sticking with a fail system forever.
>> Anonymous
>>145407
That's for OP to decide.

Plus, I don't think the availability of multi-thousand-dollar cameras and lenses in the system matters a lot for the person who's asking for the cheapest DSLR, and in the lower price range there's almost nothing you can do with other systems, but can't with 4/3.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145411
>That's for OP to decide.
Right, and he's here looking for some help on that decision. I was giving him the counterargument to "It's the cheapest digital SLR out there" argument.
>Plus, I don't think the availability of multi-thousand-dollar cameras and lenses in the system matters a lot for the person who's asking for the cheapest DSLR
Pro Tip: People sometimes get jobs. Happened to me. There was a time when I was looking at the Digital Rebel XT in a "Wow, I'll never be able to afford it, but that sure would be nice..." way. Now I've got enough disposable income that I'm planning to pick up a 5DII as soon as it actually exists.
>there's almost nothing you can do with other systems, but can't with 4/3.
How about: Buy an f/1.8 lens that autofocuses and meters for $80?
How about: Buy cheap used lenses because the system has been around since the 80s (for Canon) or the 50s (for Nikon) without having to deal with adapters?

So yeah, if he sticks to the kit lens and never expands his system, he'll be fine with the Four Thirds. But if he plans to get seriously into photography, Four Thirds will limit the hell out of him.
>> Anonymous
>>145417
>How about: Buy an f/1.8 lens that autofocuses and meters for $80?
I wasn't talking about gear prices, but about photography itself.
You can't get certain lenses for certain prices for Canon either; now what? A pro can weigh his requirements, but a first-time buyer almost never knows what he'll want to do.

>Buy cheap used lenses because the system has been around since the 50s (for Nikon) without having to deal with adapters?
Uhh, actually, for pre-AF Nikon glass, an Olympus body is better than any digital Nikon below D200. Just because it meters.

>Four Thirds will limit the hell out of him.
No, it will not, unless he gets to certain kinds of work that demand very specific lenses or shooting at very high sensitivities. I've used it for years without problems.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145421
>I wasn't talking about gear prices, but about photography itself.
True, but by your own admission, the Four Thirds cameras aren't any *better* photographically (and are arguably a smidgen worse, but not worse enough than APS-C-sensored cameras in this context for it to be relevant), so the things we have to compare them on are:
1. The system as a whole. I.e., whether or not he has room to grow, whether or not growing his system will cost him an arm and a leg.
2. Ergonomics
3. Price

Four Thirds wins for price. Tiny crappy viewfinders cost them a lot of "Ergonomics" points (especially with the specific model he's looking at), although if size and weight are enough of a concern they might win them back. But they lose hard for overall system thanks to the unavailability of lenses, higher-end bodies with larger sensors (even theoretical future ones), etc.

But of course, it's very possible that all of these disadvantages aren't enough to overrule the price advantage for the OP. They wouldn't be for me, but I'm a richfag.
>> Doitle
Gosh this is kinda confusing. A lot to figure out for a first time purchase. How do I know if I am getting a good price for any of these cameras? A rather shady guy at the Alsip Swap-O-Rama today had a Digital Rebel XT brand new in box with everything for 350ish. He "really needed to get" 425 but I know he woulda dropped to 350. He seemed very eager to sell. He took it out, showed it worked and all, mounted the lense, then put it all back nicely. Is that a good price? It was the whole kit with the lens and charger and junk.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145478
Check adorama.com, keh.com, and bhphotovideo.com's used sections. Also eBay. $350 wouldn't have been a horrible deal. $425 would have been since they go for $450 new, and the price should drop again soon when the XSi hits stores.
>> Anonymous
>>145422
>True, but by your own admission, the Four Thirds cameras aren't any *better* photographically
This depends a lot on the exact combinations of cameras and lenses we're comparing.
For example, my most often used kit is this E-510 body with a 14-54/2.8-3.5 standard zoom, which now costs around $900 new. Canon has nothing comparable for this price - you either get a body with the dark 18-55IS for 50% less or a body with the excellent, but expensive 17-55IS for 50% more.

>Tiny crappy viewfinders cost them a lot of "Ergonomics" points (especially with the specific model he's looking at)
Actually, the E-3xx series have the largest viewfinders of all low-end Four Thirds SLRs, comparable to Rebel XT/XTi's in size (narrower and taller because of different aspect ratio). They are darker, though, but that's significant only in very low light.

>unavailability of lenses
In the US, there are no problems with native lenses thanks to B&H. And thanks to the relative unpopularity of the system, you can find crazy good deals on the used market if you have a bit of patience.

>They wouldn't be for me, but I'm a richfag.
IIRC, you shoot with a Rebel kit and a Plastic-Fantastic 50/1.8. (In b4 "I'm waiting for the 5D mk.II LOL!")
Btw, I'm not poor either, I just have other priorities. Do you realize how much good whiskey you can buy for the price of an 1D?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>145506
>This depends a lot on the exact combinations of cameras and lenses we're comparing.
No, it really doesn't. We're not comparing exact combinations of cameras and lenses, we're comparing systems as a whole. I.e., "A little worse for less money or a little better for more money" averages out to "About the same".

>Actually, the E-3xx series have the largest viewfinders of all low-end Four Thirds SLRs, comparable to Rebel XT/XTi's in size
As a Rebel XTi user, I think I can say with confidence that that's not something you should strive for. :-P

>(In b4 "I'm waiting for the 5D mk.II LOL!")
Yeah, well, it's all relative. Middleclassfag doesn't have the same ring to it, and I'm rich compared to the underageb& kiddies and college students that make up the majority of 4chan. I.e., I could afford to buy a 5D right now. Not comfortably, but I could pay off my card in full before it came due.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>145586
I done went an' did it, ac, I done went an' bought a 5D ;_;

I'm a richfag too, so being able to stick with the awesome Canon lineup makes a big difference over the four thirds system. I have the ability to upgrade to a full frame sensor and I can eventually buy lenses like the 70-200f/2.8IS, which will *never* be seen on a 4/3 camera.
>> Anonymous
>>145421
>A pro can weigh his requirements, but a first-time buyer almost never knows what he'll want to do.

Only lenses 99% of people will ever really need or want:

- F/2 or faster normal prime and/or slight wide (35mm on 135 film, for instance) prime
- Medium telephoto prime.
- Some wide capability, either in the form of a cheap kit zoom or a cheap wide prime.
- Telephoto zoom, e.g. 70-200 or 55-200.

And that'll cover most people for most everything. For most people, lenses besides that are more toys than tools. They'll be some freaks who'll go for insanely long telephotos or insanely wide angles, but they're in the minority and their photographs usually aren't as good as people with a more conventional kit. (Obvious form tends to overshadow content.)
>> Anonymous
>>145506
Pity for your argument that the 18-55IS is excellent, and the 17-85IS slots in right between that and the 17-55/2.8
>> Anonymous
>>145655
I use an expensive wide zoom for scenery, a 50/1.4 for ZOMG BOKEH, and a wide-aperture standard zoom for everything else. So, I guess, I'm in the other 1%?

>>145680
18-55IS is excellent, but there's no getting away from f/5.6 at the long end.
And while the 17-85IS is supposed to be in between, it's worse than the 18-55IS in all aspects except the extra zoom range...
>> Anonymous
>>144924

I use a K10D. I think you can get them for pretty cheap now that the K20D's out. It's probably the cheapest "grown-up" DSLR. That is, pentaprism viewfinder, more than one control wheel, weatherproofing. I tried my friend's D40, and yeah it's better than a P&S or bridge camera, but it's kind of bothersome after using a nice body. Yeah yeah, a body is just a vehicle for your lenses, I know I know...but I like my bright viewfinder.
>> des
>>145655
I think a superzoom is what 99% of all people want. Then you've got another .9% who might bother carrying more than one lens.
Your list is for the .1%; assholes like us.
>>145818
It's almost hilarious how good pentax is to their DSLR line, and "somehow" they still make money. I wish canon and nikon would at least feel some pressure to step up a bit.
>> Anonymous
>>145869
How good Pentax is to their DSLR line? As in they produce good lenses and things for them?

Do you think a university might allow students to rent a DSLR for a day or two? That might be a good way to figure out what controls and body feel I like I think. I mean I could mess around with a Canon or Nikon or whatever we have here. Does that sound like a possible thing?
>> Anonymous
>>146277
you can still use a 30+ year old lens with the most recent pentax dslr with minor difficulty, any lens recent enough to have an (A) setting on the aperture works perfectly iirc
>> Anonymous
>> For example, my most often used kit is this E-510 body with a 14-54/2.8-3.5 standard zoom, which now costs around $900 new. Canon has nothing comparable for this price

ahahahahahahhahahhahahjah

oh man
>> des
>>146277
>>146299
Not only that but the viewfinders are great, pentax' super P or whatever they call it now is great, IS in every (current) body. If I had more money in K-mount, I'd have one already. They've got the best price/performance, imo.

>>rent
There are a lot of places that rent, I doubt a university itself would. If you are in an urban location or bigish college town, I'm sure you could find a rental place. hope u got 10bux.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>145625
>I can eventually buy lenses like the 70-200f/2.8IS, which will *never* be seen on a 4/3 camera.

y halo thar

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2005:04:14 02:02:37Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height467
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
>>146852
That lens starts at $2,500. But nice try.
>> Anonymous
>>146855
If there was a 70-200 f2.0 equivelant for Canon or Nikon, I would pay $2500

However I don't think its possible because of the larger sensor size (1.5+1.6x crops use)
>> Anonymous
>>145625
$2200 for the 35-100f2 oly vs $1700 for the 70-200f2.8IS canon. Both prices from B&H. Seems pretty fair, considering the oly is a stop faster than the canon. If you're in the market for a lens like this, $500 plus/minus isn't going to stop you from getting the best.
>> Anonymous
>>146859here, meant to quote>>146855, but my point still stands.
>> Anonymous
plus the IS adds about three stops (at least on Nikon IDK about canon)
>> Anonymous
>>146862
For both lenses.
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
>>146861
I guess. I'm broke as hell, so $500 to me is fuckloads.
>> Anonymous
yuo can get a pentax for ~$700
>> Anonymous
>>146859

CROP FACTOR AFFECTS APERTURE YOU RETARD
>> Anonymous
>>147010

wat
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147010
facepalm.jpg.
>> Anonymous
>>147010
No.

Crop factor doesn't affect the speed provided by a F2 Aperture. Depth of field -will- be fucked with however, and so will background blur.

Shots taken at F2 with that lens are going to look as if they were shot at F4 in a canikon or maybe even F5.6. You won't get as strong a background/foreground separation as you would with any other system. Deal breaker for some.
>> Doitle
So uh... Fighting aside...
>> Anonymous
>>147387
What?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>147387
Old used one. We explained this waaaay way back at>>144967
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>147010
wat