Anybody have an affordable camera recommendation?

[DiscGo]

I am looking to spend about $500 for an SLR camera and the Canon EOS Digital Rebel xTi 10.1 Megapixel came highly recommended to me:


http://soniccameras.com/catalog/prod...oducts_id=4123


I already have a good waterproof camera that I use outdoors, in water and for camping. I am looking to get a camera that takes nice pictures indoors and can take nicer pictures outdoors.


Does anybody have a better recommendation for me?

[R]

This camera and its predecessors all have very capable sensors and acceptable features and performance. If you have small hands, it balances fairly well, though it benefits from the addition of the optional vertical grip/battery pack. I would say that its biggest weaknesses are that it is not built as ruggedly as its bigger brothers, like the 40D, and above all that the cheap "kit" lens sold with it is completely inadequate for the sensor, or any sensor above 3MP for that matter. I know that most people who buy this camera buy it because they can afford it, but I would urge anyone considering it to think hard about scrapping the kit lens and upgrading to some "L" series glass. I hear good things about the 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 17-40mm f/4 on the wide end, and all of Canon's L-series 70-200mm lenses are super sharp. Also, I own two examples of the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (one for work and one for myself), and I would highly recommend the Canon version of it.

[goofball]

i've been plenty pleased w/ my xti.

but if i had to do it again i'd go w/ the pentax k10d for the weatherproofing seals, all else being equal.

[DiscGo]

Man, I love this site!


I can't believe I got such great responses so quickly. Thanks guys.

[Sombeech]

I already have a good waterproof camera that I use outdoors,

Which camera do you have?

[DiscGo]

I hear good things about the 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 17-40mm f/4 on the wide end, and all of Canon's L-series 70-200mm lenses are super sharp.

I looked in to that lense and it was over $500, which would put me about $500 over budget :D. Is there really a $500 dollar difference in the picture quality?

I already have a good waterproof camera that I use outdoors,

Which camera do you have?

I have the Olympus 770sw


It takes great pictures outdoors but the indoors pictures without the flash are too pixelated for me.

How do you like your waterproof Pentax Beech? I was wondering about it's pictures when I saw your pool video. Your underwater sound seems better than mine.

I have had a waterproof camera ever since 2006:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=LlfVl-77sHo[/youtube]


Having the waterproof camera has changed my pictures completely, and I have loved it but now that I have a son I want to get some nice pictures of him indoors and my camera is not making the grade for me. Plus I really want a new camera before my wife leaves to Ohio in May so I can take ours to the Bogley Newbfest in June

[R]

I looked in to that lens and it was over $500, which would put me about $500 over budget :D. Is there really a $500 dollar difference in the picture quality?

I sure do appreciate being on a budget. I wasn't trying to coax you into a big credit card bill - I just wanted to give you the facts. Fact is, putting that kit lens (it's an 18-55, if memory serves) in front of that sensor is casting pearls before swine. I had access to two examples of it when I taught at the college last summer. It costs almost nothing - in fact, the camera may not be available without it bundled as a kit.

Shoot with it for a while and see what I mean: poor build quality, dark viewfinder image, softness in the corners of the frame, flare when shooting into any light source.

I imagine that you would want to save up and invest in some L-series glass. Maybe you should PM Carpey or get him to post here about what might suit you. Nikon makes a pretty groovy 18-200mm that has vibration reduction and ED glass, and runs circles around Nikon's own 18-55 "kit". That's a big spread of focal lengths, too, so it's an excellent travel lens. See if Canon has a similar offering.

[R]

Here is the Fred Miranda review page on the Canon 18-55 (this review is for the "IS" version, which is one step up, but identical optically). Read the "cons" column especially...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

[spiraleyes]

i've been plenty pleased w/ my xti.

but if i had to do it again i'd go w/ the pentax k10d for the weatherproofing seals, all else being equal.

I went with the K10D, and I LOVE it. The weatherproof seals are one of the reasons I went with it.

I also think Richard's assessment of the XTi is very accurate.

As far as glass goes, a must have, inexpensive lens for any Canon shooter is their 50mm 1.8. It runs for less than $100 and shoots terrific shots.

One thing I have come to find with SLR photography is that you'll soon be looking for lenses that are 2x the cost of the camera body. That's just the way it goes.

[ericchile]

You just missed the xti at Dell home for 489... Keep your eye out. Also if you want to go a bit cheaper that is still a great camera check out the older XT.. its very capable as well for around 300 with an 18-55

[Joe Gardner]

I see you linked to soniccameras.com, I would avoid buying from them, they run a few dozen camera sites and have been known to be shady, google it.

I really like my XT, the new XTi is very nice as well, my next body will be a 40D.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Hey Dan,

I'd recommend an XT, or a Nikon D40. Both will suit you great. When you are comfortable with the camera, then worry about a new lens. The kit lens gets a bad rap, but that is only because people are measurebators. For most practical purposes, it works great. I know Nikon has some good deals on a D40 kit, with an 18-70, and 70-200 or something like that. I've even seen them at Costco.

[DiscGo]

okay, so I think I found a good deal on the camera itself with just the body (no lens), that way I can hopefully get a slightly better lens (still on a budget here). I have been looking at the Canon EF 75-300mm lens on NewEgg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16830998381


My only hang up with this lens is the review says it is not great in dim lighting. Now I don't know how dim they are referring to (dim lighting is where my current camera sucks), but does anyone have an afford (cheap) recommendation on a lens that might do better in a dim lighting situation?

[CarpeyBiggs]

There is really no such thing as a good low-light lens that is cheap in that focal range. The 50 1.8 though, is very cheap, and very good. You should be able to find it for around 80 bucks.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...0mm_f_1_8.html

I would suggest getting the body with the kit lens, and then add the 50 1.8. If you find you need a longer telephoto lens, save up some pennies and then buy a 70-200 f4. Those run about $500. But really, the 18-55 and a 50 1.8 should cover your needs nicely, unless you want to zoom in really far.