WHAT TO CHOOSE!!!!! Need help here guys!
Ok. I kinda need help here.
I asked for a Sony A500 for christmas and my parents said it was way too expensive so now i gotta step down to the entry level models.
I have Narrowed it down to the Canon EOS 1000D and the Nikon D3000.
Both of these cameras are around £400 here and both come with the standard 18-55mm lenses. (Nikon comes with a VR 18-55mm lens)
From what i have read from the reviews, both are quite equal in terms of power. But i am lookin for something that can give me the best results for Landscape photos and also shootin the all important figmas and nendroids.
I am also lookin for ease of use when it comes down to a first time DSLR buyer. I really like the Nikons D3000 UI as its simple and can give me an idea of what i'm doing but the Canon 1000D comes with live view which is another thing thats annoying me.
I chose these cameras because the Sony Alpha cameras are too expensive and the new A230/330/380 models feel horrible to hold due to the stupidly small grip.
So if anyone can help me out, that would be great.
Need to know asap cos i'm probly gettin it in the next 2 weeks or so.
Thanks.
I'm not entirely familiar with entry level cameras but let's try to give it a shot:
To keep it simple, since those two models are pretty much equivalent, I'd go for the Canon (I'm a Canon user myself), mainly for two features: Better noise handling and live view. The 1000D at 800 and 1600 ISO easily beats the D3000. The live view feature is useful for still life (in your case figures) shots.
The kit lens won't be really useful for landscape or figure shots, but it's good to start. As you get more experienced with photography you'll want to upgrade to different lenses for landscape and figure photography.
I find both excellent entry level cameras.
Especially the hardware inside the 1000D is the same as the 40D.
I think that, if money are the priority, you should buy the cheapest, since both are excellent entry level cameras.
You may take this as a factor: Canon lenses are EXPENSIVE and when I say expensive I mean REALLY expensive and I don't think you want to buy a reflex camera and living with only the standard kit lens.
If you choose Canon you will almost end on compatible lenses from Sigma, Tokina and Tamron, which isn't a bad thing.
The day you will be able to afford Canon lenses you will come with really nifty mid-range zoom lenses I'm sure you will be happy with them.
Nikon, on the other side, has far cheaper lenses and it produces one of the best all-purpose lenses, if not the best, on the market: the 55-200 VR (about 280 euros NIB).
Another factor is that if you already possess old Nikon (from the film era) lenses, you can mount them on, at least this works with models like D60.
Choosing between Nikon and Canon is pretty hard, they are both the best in their field and as one of my friend says if you put 100 photographers into a room and ask what to but 50 will tell you to but Nikon and the other 50 will tell you to buy Canon.
I hope that my words will help you.
What's the next body upgrade you'd like after you get one of these cameras? If it's a Canon then get the 1000D, if its a Nikon, then get the D3000.
That being said, if you are new to photography, I recommend a D40, and when the time comes, bag a D90.
both are good
get canon 1000d
my point has been stated by Sting1
and in addition to that,canons a more friendly user dslr for first timers
i wanted to get nikon d90 initially,but i got myself canon 500d and never have i regretted since.its way lighter than nikon d90,easier to navigate around too.in the end,it comes down to your post processing of the photos in terms of quality.i could care less about brands and models if you ask me.
Is this going to be your first dslr? It sounds like it might be.
Whats so wrong with entry level cameras? You make it sound like its a bad thing but it's really not. Entry level DSLR are made for the purpose of learning but they are by no means bad cameras.
I recently brought a DSLR and I visited an independent camera dealer (I do not take recommendations from the likes of Jessops or Currys since they only try and sell you the most expensive gear in the shop.) A proper camera dealer will give you much better advice. I spent about half hour discussing my photography experience and my needs with the dealer and he really listened.
He recommended to me the sony A350 (which I brought and I absolutely love and the dealer was so right!) because it suited my needs and he thinks its a great camera. He even recommended it over the equivalent Canon and Nikkon models.
Like the dealer said to me, and I think it's true. Entry levels are great to learn on and just because it's entry level doesn't mean you compensate on quality at all. I have seen fantastic shots taken with entry level DSLR's and if you hadn't told me otherwise, I would never have know it came from such affordable cameras.
By the time you learn all you need to learn from an entry level model or by the time you feel limited by the camera, you would have still had it for a good amount of time and really got your money's worth (which you probably don't care about since its not your money you're spending) and by the time you feel ready to upgrade, there will be much better things around then a sony a500.
Personally I choose a step higher above entry level, got the Canon 450D myself. But if you're starting and learning, both cameras should suit you juts fine to start.
Maybe important if you're considering the Canon 1000D, does it come with the recent Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens or the old Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens without image stabilization? If it's the newer Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, then it's a worthwhile lens, for a kit lens it's quite good and has served me well.
If you get a Canon and are on a tight budget, an interesting lens to get is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II which is dirt cheap but for its price produces some nice photos.
Should come with the new IS.
At some stage you will want to buy another lens, a flash, etc. and that will lock you into a make. Choose the make you will upgrade in future. If you go for the D3000 then upgrade to a D6000, you will probably still be able to use any additional lenses or flashes.
My advice is go with Nikon. The colors are washed out with Canon and I always have a lot of post-processing work.
I would like to note that i sorta want one that i can upgrade and money is an issue. My bro has the A300 but i can't get one i like at a decent price (A500 is £600!!!).
As noted by Lord Gara, i have noticed the lenses are very expensive and which has edged me towards the Nikon at the moment. But if anyone has any toher points, that would be great.
Keep Em Comin!!!
Thanks.
If money is really such an issue, maybe a dslr isn't the right camera for you. DSLR equipment is expensive, always has been always will be. Yes some brands are cheaper then others, but no brand of dslr and accessories are 'cheap'. Even secondhand lenses can still run high in price, then you have things like filters, flash guns, shutter release mechanisms and other stuff you would likely buy to accompany your dslr. It's never going to be cheap.
In my opinion, using cost as a main deciding factor when buying a dslr is a bad move. You should buy based on what feels right and what works for you, not based on what suits a small budget. This is the reason why people buy into a brand with dslrs, because when you upgrade your body, your previous equipment is still most likley compatible.
Maybe if cost is such an issue to you, maybe you'd be better off with something like a Lumix lx3 or similar high end digital compact camera. They take undoubtedly brilliant pictures, can produce printing quality photographs and have no additional costs attached once you've paid for the camera itself.
Aquilla is right, if you're that tight budget-wise maybe save up more first. Because even if you pick budget oriented or lower end bodies, lenses and such, you're still going to need a sizable budget.
Tripod, backpack or bag, flash, extra lenses,... it quickly goes up.
Cheers. It's just at the mo, i've been offered one and i can't really turn it down as i already have 2 compact lumixes but i want somthing thats much better than small digi cams. I'm already saving up my own cash for new lenses. So buying upgrades isn't much of a problem but just want something thats a gd budget camera that can get me on the DSLR road.
My parents are already gettin me a bag and SD cards and i can just borrow my bro's Tripod. Always gd when a family member is into photography.
Cheers for the help.
I'm for Nikon D3000.
Kit lenses from Nikon are more worth it I feel.
It comes with manual focus yes?
I'm a new happy owner of D5000 and I choose it over Canon 500D.
I believe I'll make the same choice over the 2 cameras of your choice :D
I just got the Nikon D3000 myself and I must say it's VERY entry level friendly. I plan to get Nikon cameras in the future so that's the main reason why I chose Nikon over Canon, but it's all personal preference. Try to thhink about what you'd be buying in the future so you can use the same lenses (or any new lenses you buy) because that plays a big part in saving some cash.
I use a Canon EOS1000 (Rebel XS on my side of the Atlantic) and it's a solid camera. The kit lens is more than good enough to take pictures of figures, which are some of the least complicated pictures you can take (your figures don't move, you have complete control over light, you can position your camera wherever you want, and you can take as much time as you need to compose your shot. You don't need a DSLR camera to take good figure photographs, and you certainly don't need fancy lens to do so.). I don't take any pictures of anything but figures but the kit lens should be wide enough to take landscape shots. Most of my photos of my Uesugi Kenshin figure were taken with the kit lens, and I've certainly never had anybody look at my photos and point and laugh and go, "OMG, you took that picture with the *kit lens*!?!"
I have no experience using Nikon equipment but a quick look through the B&H catalog doesn't reveal a ton of difference with respect to price. Canon's cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens is about $100 US, Nikon's is $120. Canon sells a 18-200mm zoom lens for $600, Nikon sells theirs for $800. I don't know if European prices are all that different but I doubt it. My advice would be to go to an electronics store that has both cameras and see which one you like more.
I am a Canon user myself (and two main reasons were the Full Frame availability in Canon lineup when I was choosing and the fact that good Canon lenses are ~20% cheaper then Nikon and Sony lenses (and Canon has cheaper long telephoto lenses in mid-price segment too, like F4 lineup)).
Having said that, I think Nikon has better wide lenses (for landscape photos that seems to be important to you). VR (IS in Canon-speak) is good to have. With Sony you would have that "for free" (but their lenses are still pretty expensive last I checked) with all attached lenses, but in-camera stabilization is less effective with telephoto lenses (there are other considerations too).
Also if I were you and if your brother has any sort of decent lens set for his Alpha, getting another sony alpha sounds like a winning combination for me because you can share the lenses and flashes in this case.
Whatever you choose, keep in mind that changing a system later on is very expensive, you will need to sell all (or most) of your equipment at a discount and then buy all new (or slightly used) stuff in the new system. I have been through this jumping from Sony alpha system (in its early days).
currently using a Canon EOS 10D with two lenses, an EF 50mm 1/1.4 and an Ef 50mm 1/2.5 Compact macro. I've used Leica and Nikon (35mm film), Leica V-Lux 1 with a fixed 35mm - 300mm lens and they all served their purpose, which was to take the photos I needed. However, you will need to learn to make the camera do what you want it to do, doesn't make a difference which one you buy. The most expensive camera will produce sh_t if you don't know ho to make it mind, keep the bugger on a short leash, if you know what I mean. :D
I suggest you get the Cannon XSi/450D.
I'd go with the 1000D - just make sure the 18-55 is the IS version (i know they sell kits with the old 18-55 non IS lens, which is crap)
Don't put a price on goods that you want. Seriously, try it first and pick which one you really feel comfortable with (the grip, UI, weight, etc). Don't think too much about the feature. Live view isn't really useful, consumes your battery quite a lot, and when using it, the auto focus is slow. I prefer to see directly from viewfinder.
Some of Nikon's lens are more expensive than Canon, and some of Canon's lens are more expensive than Nikon. It's quite a balance. Forget about the general purpose lens (18-200, 55-200, etc). It is not really good. When you choose a zoom lens, you will lose the quality (f).
Learn how to use prime lens. Prime lens is a hidden gem. Once you learned how to use it, you will love it. If you really want to go with general purpose, my suggestion is to use Tamron 17-50mm F 2.8. You can attach it to Nikon or Canon. And when you learn how to use your camera, prime lens, and how light works, you don't really need flash (except for extreme condition). Also forget about built-in flash, it is ugly and your subject will have a wash-out color.
Still looking? Go to this site. It MAY help you decide. Preference is a factor or brand loyalty. This is a good website to help you decide. http://www.dpreview.com/
BTW it is called the Canon XS / Kiss F stateside. Nikon is the D3000 worldwide.
I got a Kiss X4/T2i for $650 Canadian...which is equivalent to 400 pounds..