Seeking a Decent Digital SLR Camera for Beginners?

lancomandr asks: "I'm interested in getting into digital photography. I have looked at many tutorials and buying guides but there are so many digital SLRs I have no idea which ones to even start considering. I want to be able to make decently large prints, I'd like to get a decent amount of use out of it before upgrading, I want good battery life and durability is key. All of you photographers out there, any suggestions? What did you buy when you started?"

Comments

Re:HP 945

[LWATCDR]

"You can get the attachments for lenses and such, but digital SLR cameras dont need that stuff... anyone who says more lenses make a digital camera better is stupid."

Ummm wrong. It depends on what you want to do with the camera. If you want to just take snaps of your kids birthday party then you can get away with just a standard digital. Tell you what to out and try to take a picture of Saturn with your simple digital and tell me that it is as good as a telescope with a camera adapter? How about taking a picture of a bird sitting on a branch 100 yards away? Want to take a picture of an ant on a flower? There is a reason that proffesionals use SLRs or sometimes even medium format camera.
The optics that the light passes through make a BIG difference in the quality of the picture.
As to a digital camera being just as you put it "a light capturing computer". Cannon has been making light capturing computers for years and do a very good job. I am sure the HP 945 is a good point a shoot camera but it is not in as flexiable as an SLR.

Re:Rebel + Muvo

[quake74]

You can get a Rebel for $900.
You can hack it to be 10D for free.

Since this guy seems interested in photography, I 'd like to point out that NO, you DON'T get a 10D for the price of a Rebel. They have different casing and hardware (the 10D shoots more pics per sec and it's not plastic). And if he is really a beginner, he is more worrid about learning aperture/shutter/focus, rather then the most obscure function in that secondary submenu.

SLR

[frantzdb]

You may not need an SLR. You can get fully-manual digital cameras for less than half the price that take great pictures. I've been very happy with my Canon G3 (4MP). I haven't touched my analog SLR since. I will get a DSLR eventually, but as an amature, it just doesn't make sense at the moment.

Why digital?

[Txiasaeia]

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you don't have a lot of experience with photography. That's okay, but before leaping into the $1000+ world that is DSLR, may I suggest trying out a film SLR first? You can get a Nikon N75 or Canon EOS Rebel for 1/4 of the price, and if you decide to stick to the brand (YMMV, my experience is with Nikon) you can take the lenses you buy for your film SLR and use them on your digital one. Then, if you really want to get these prints in digital, develop your film at Walmart (or wherever) and pay the extra $2 to get the prints on CD.

The digital market is still relatively new, and big camera companies have DSLR prices pretty high in order to recoup R&D costs. Film cameras have been around for the better part of the 20th century and are tried and true.

Also, when you upgrade to a digital SLR in a few years, you can keep the film one around just in case. One more thing to keep in mind: some old school cameras (Nikon FM3A, older models) can be used without a battery, so battery life is not an issue. Good luck!

Re:Why digital?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but digital makes the learning process so much faster. Take a shot - look at it. Don't like? Take another. Want to play with Depth of Field or shutter speed? Take 10 shots, 10 different ways. Review results.

Yes, you can print your results at Costco in an hour, but what if you are sitting in your hotel room on vacation and want to see what you did today? "Did that waterfall shot come out?" If not, I can take another one tomorrow - while I'm still on vacation. Once I get home, I'm not getting back to Hawaii for at least 6 months.

While digitals have a (much) higher up front cost, most people don't think about the sunk cost. With film they think, "Jeez, I only have 36 shots on this roll. Then I have to pay for developing them." With digital, you get unlimited shots with no incremental cost. This encourages people to take lots of experimental and iffy shots, because the have nothing to lose.

Re:Forget digital, your definition wants film

[daviddennis]

I think it depends on the kind of photography you do. If you're shooting images such as landscapes with huge amounts of detail, then go ahead and buy a film camera and pay through the nose for film, developing and printing.

But if you're like me and enjoy the sheer act of taking a lot of pictures, that kind of approach would bankrupt you. I love my Canon EOS D30 3.5mp digital SLR because I can take as many pictures as I want without worrying about the cost. In my first year of ownership, I took over 7,500 shots - which would have probably cost more than my digital SLR to make and print - and I paid $3,300 for it.

I didn't print many of my images until I bought a HP Color LaserJet 3500, which made it inexpensive to do so. Now I've made maybe 100 prints, all of which look beautiful, even 8x10s from my 3.5mp camera. You're going to say that you'd get better detail and finer resolution and glossier prints with an photo inkjet, and you're right -- but how many photos will you print out at $2 per page?

In other words, there's a quantity versus quality question. The more pictures you can take, the more you'll learn and the better you'll get. If you're restricted by budgetary limitations, you'll wish you got your digital SLR.

D