A good DSLR for ~ $1000?

I had A100 and now I have A55, few friends have alpha DSLRs on my recommendation and all work fine. There is really affordable access to old minolta lenses that work perfectly with new Sony cameras. not sure what your experience was but I love Alpha range and I fully trust it.

hardk0re said:
Just stay away from Sony alpha. Most people I know with a Sony have had multiple issues, and has left me stranded without a camera twice. I bought a rebel t4i and couldn't be happier, with this dslr. That said I still have a small point and shoot with it because its easier to whip out should you want a quick photo.
Click to expand...
 
Germax said:
I had A100 and now I have A55, few friends have alpha DSLRs on my recommendation and all work fine. There is really affordable access to old minolta lenses that work perfectly with new Sony cameras. not sure what your experience was but I love Alpha range and I fully trust it.
Click to expand...

I am with Hardcore. Nobody says alpha is terrible, but my experience is that nikon and canon are both better ecosystems to invest in. Sony lenses are often more expensive and have lower resale value (and are harder to resell due to the smaller pool of buyers). I have talked with many people that regret starting down the alpha road, but very very few that regret nikon or canon.
 
I'm with GreyGhost, I just counted and we have 18 cameras sitting around here ( various reasons, don't ask). Some are not mainstream photo brands but my main gear has been Nikon and Hasselblad for the last 3 decades. Nikon mostly for travel since its available nearly everywhere and every major city in the world has support and rental lens available. Try that with any other brand than nikon or canon.

I think canon makes the best glass available right now, but the nikon TTL flash system, active daylight balance , ISO range on introductory cameras and the mindset to not make components redundant in 3 yrs makes me like them.

My only real camera travel tip is never buy a camera that uses proprietary memory sticks/cards. SD cards you can get anywhere, Kodak digistik in Zippity, Iowa? not so much
And use low capacity SD cards and change it out nightly so when your $900 camera gets boosted in Thailand , you still have memories.
 
Well, if you are into brands, have thousands to spend and gotta have canon or nikon strap around your neck that is cool. What I like about Alpha is amazing old minolta lenses that are affordable and they all benefit from sensor image stabilization. You do not need to buy latest image stabilized lenses. I have 20 years old amazing F2.8 20mm lens that was 255$. I can always sell it for same amount. 50mm 1.8 can be had for 80$. It is not Zeiss G whatever but those are full frame brilliant lenses.
Also Sony is inventive with translucent mirrors, I can shoot 10 frames per second, how much is that in canon/nikon world? Full AF during video?
If you have people that regret going down the alpha road they can message me and let me know what they have to sell. I am looking for more...

And here is review for people that might want to read for themselves....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57
This camera can be had in kit for 500$ US, how much does equivalent cost in canon/nikon


Cheers!


GreyGhost said:
I am with Hardcore. Nobody says alpha is terrible, but my experience is that nikon and canon are both better ecosystems to invest in. Sony lenses are often more expensive and have lower resale value (and are harder to resell due to the smaller pool of buyers). I have talked with many people that regret starting down the alpha road, but very very few that regret nikon or canon.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Having had a Nikon D70s, Nikon D200, Nikon D700 and doing some pro photo for a while, I now moved to u4/3 and it's amazing. For travel the Oly 14-150 is golden.
 
PPHUz.png


see this is why i'm not a fan of 4/3, I need all the help I can get. The auto focus on cameras is much slower with 4/3, its a diifferent technology fro C sensor cameras. 4/3 is also known to produce a bit more noise.
I would love a digital medium format, but selling one of the kids might be harder than expected.
 
crankcall said:
PPHUz.png


see this is why i'm not a fan of 4/3, I need all the help I can get. The auto focus on cameras is much slower with 4/3, its a diifferent technology fro C sensor cameras. 4/3 is also known to produce a bit more noise.
I would love a digital medium format, but selling one of the kids might be harder than expected.
Click to expand...

Pick up an OMD-EM5, you will be amazed...

And to add, digital medium format for travel? Hmm...
 
Last edited:
Well I'm a little late to the party, but.....

crankcall said:
PPHUz.png


see this is why i'm not a fan of 4/3, I need all the help I can get. The auto focus on cameras is much slower with 4/3, its a diifferent technology fro C sensor cameras. 4/3 is also known to produce a bit more noise.
I would love a digital medium format, but selling one of the kids might be harder than expected.
Click to expand...

The auto focus is fine on Four-Thirds cameras. It's exactly the same style of focus technology as APS-C sensor cameras; just Olympus's version of it. I've been using them at the track for years. Yes, you'll get a bit more noise on a smaller sensor that you will with APS-C or full frame, since physics is physics. This is typically only an issue in low light situations and when using flash, it isn't a low light situation. Most of these issues are hugely over blown.

Now if you're talking MICRO Four-Thirds cameras, then the focus system is actually different. It's the contrast focus system that is used by compacts as there is no mirror, and no separate phase difference focus sensor. The performance of this method of focus has improved remarkably, though, in the latest run of Micro Four-Thirds cameras by Olympus and Panasonic.

Taken with the OMD, using a Panasonic 45-200 F4.0-5.6 lens, at the first round of the Nationals last year.
Q6220471.JPG


Alex_San said:
Pick up an OMD-EM5, you will be amazed...

And to add, digital medium format for travel? Hmm...
Click to expand...

I have an OMD and the focus speed is *almost* up to sports levels. Moving kids and amateur ball sports likely wouldn't be an issue. Obviously there is no issue in other forms of photography, like landscape, where focus speed is never really an issue anyway. With my 17mm F2.8 lens mounted it will fit in a coat pocket. With my 45mm F1.8 it makes a great portrait camera.
 
I actually traveled all over the desert and grand canyon area with a 4x5 and a medium format, only because we were there to hike and take pictures and that was the point of our trip. Its sure not for everybody.
I'm still amazed at the quality of photos (much better than most of mine) that others show me from $500 point and shoots and DSLR's set on auto. The ability to do post production with petty simple home PC software has made the world better.
Most travelers want to put a camera in a jacket pocket, I'm ok with a big backpack, to each there own.
 
I ended up getting a T4i in Atlanta at the duty free on the return. Basic camera with a 18-55 IS II and a 16G card.

It's more than I need for amateur photography.

Now I just need to go on vacation to take some pics :)
 
D23 said:
I ended up getting a T4i in Atlanta at the duty free on the return. Basic camera with a 18-55 IS II and a 16G card.

It's more than I need for amateur photography.

Now I just need to go on vacation to take some pics :)
Click to expand...

Sell that lens for a few notes on Kijiji and get this http://www.adorama.com/TM18270PEOS.html or for a bit less... http://www.adorama.com/SG18250EOSM.html I'm probably going to get the Sigma lens myself.

Edit: The Tamron on a non-full frame camera like yours will get you very close to wildlife etc if that's what you're looking for (it will be something like a 300mm+ equivalent) plus it has image stabilisation. It has the widest zoom range of any lens out there currently and build quality and lens quality are apparently very good. The only downside is that low light shots without flash are not fantastic but they are passable plus with higher ISO settings on the newer camera (like yours) it's not that big of a problem. With either the Tamron or Sigma you also get a wide angle format that you're missing with your current lens for landscape shots.
 
Last edited:
jc100 said:
Sell that lens for a few notes on Kijiji and get this http://www.adorama.com/TM18270PEOS.html or for a bit less... http://www.adorama.com/SG18250EOSM.html I'm probably going to get the Sigma lens myself.

Edit: The Tamron on a non-full frame camera like yours will get you very close to wildlife etc if that's what you're looking for (it will be something like a 300mm+ equivalent) plus it has image stabilisation. It has the widest zoom range of any lens out there currently and build quality and lens quality are apparently very good. The only downside is that low light shots without flash are not fantastic but they are passable plus with higher ISO settings on the newer camera (like yours) it's not that big of a problem. With either the Tamron or Sigma you also get a wide angle format that you're missing with your current lens for landscape shots.
Click to expand...

Really?

a) He can't get a few notes for 18-55 IS, more like $100
b) Superzooms are undoubtedly convenient, but they put convenience in front of everything including image quality, low light performance, size and price.

D23, play with your camera as it is and pick up lenses to help you with shots that your current lens does poorly with (i.e. if you want to zoom in more, pick up a longer lens, if you want better shots in low light pick up a faster lens).
 
Ti4 should make you pretty happy, 18mp? and all the features to grow into if you want, good auto programs, nice buy. Enjoy.
 
GreyGhost said:
Really?

a) He can't get a few notes for 18-55 IS, more like $100
b) Superzooms are undoubtedly convenient, but they put convenience in front of everything including image quality, low light performance, size and price.

D23, play with your camera as it is and pick up lenses to help you with shots that your current lens does poorly with (i.e. if you want to zoom in more, pick up a longer lens, if you want better shots in low light pick up a faster lens).
Click to expand...

I had the previous version of the sigma lens and it was excellent apart from lens creep. The new version has addressed this a little and so has the tamron. If you're travelling and particularly travelling light then I don't know about you but I'm not a fan of carrying several lenses about. Also each time you change a lens on a dslr you're introducing dust into the body and potentially into the sensor. An all in one lens saves you removing lense each time you want to capture a different type of image. Are they as good as canon L lenses? No. Are they a compromise between carrying several lenses and convenience? Yes of course, but not nearly as much as they used to be. So as an answer to ..really? The answer is yes, unless you're a pro and live off the income selling your pics or you're a camera snob and only a $1000 lens is going to cut it.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom