Low cost DSLR cameras

[The Dude]

Are there any decent lower cost DSLR cameras out there, low cost meaning below $500.00.  I am looking at one for my wife, she is not big into photography, but has mentioned how she would like a nice camera.  I came across this one on amazon,

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-Digital-18-55mm-Lens/dp/B00BW6LY2Y/ref=sr_1_7?m=A2L77EE7U53NWQ&s=warehouse-deals&ie=UTF8&qid=1447417844&sr=1-7

 

I guess I should ask are there any to stay away from and what is there to know.  I have  a local camera shop in the area I might stop by and see what they have to offer, plus if I purchase from them I get classes how to use the thing.   I know there are a lot of photographers around here, so I thought I would ask some of your opinions.

 

Thanks

[JJkizak]

Just get the new Blackberry cell phone as it will do nicely.

JJK

[joessportster]

I use the cannon t3i, I think it is pretty nice and user friendly, I am a total novice 

[Thaddeus Smith]

Much like speakers, the best value is in buying used. More bang for your buck.

[Bella]

To be honest, at your price point you don't have many options. Both Nikon and Canon are the leading DSLR manufacturers and make a variety of them. You can't go wrong with either brand at that level. The one you linked is certainly a decent entry-level DSLR and I'm sure it will do your wife just fine, giving her plenty to feel satisfied with, and the ability to be creative when she feels ready.

It's a small DSLR, so ideal for women with small hands and it's lightweight, so she won't be fatigued as quickly using it. I didn't see a pop-up flash though, so she might not like how it works in low light. There isn't a whole lot of information on the kit lens, but I'm certain it won't be very fast.

What is her intended use? How will she use it?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Bella

[Chris A]

I guess I should ask are there any to stay away from and what is there to know.

 

The real issue is the lens manufacturer that you're buying into.  If you like Canon lenses, then buy a Canon body.  Nikon? Buy Nikon, etc.

 

The real reason for SLRs is interchangeable lenses.  If you're not planning on buying more than one lens, I don't recommend DSLRs, but rather the smallest body/lens that you can.  DSLRs become a boat anchor when you're traveling, IMHO.

 

Perhaps look at the offerings in the better cell phone handsets or tablet computers--there may be more to offer there, and you carry those around all the time.  The convenience of uploading directly via mobile connection to share with friends/family is difficult to match unless you're going for something that is truly high quality like those that sell their images, like professional photographers.

[PrestonTom]

Depends if you are willing to buy a used one.

 

I recently bought a Pentax k10D off Craigslist and have been quite pleased (body, standard lens, charger cables etc). These run from $150-200 and they are about 8 years old. If you increase your budget to 175-275, then there are Nikons and Canons that would be a good value. These are discounts of about 1/4 to 1/8 of what they sold for new about 5-10 years ago when they were new. 

[muel]

How about a 4/3's (DSLM) camera?  They are smaller and lighter and can take great pictures.  I love the Panasonic GX1 (older model)!  The new version is the GX8 which is over budget but you can get older models for much less.  The size will make a difference whether she is willing to carry it around or not.

Edited November 13, 2015 by muel

[Jim Naseum]

The SLR is a dinosaur. I'd stay clear of them. The technology today is making the mirror less camera capable of everything a SLR can do and in, 1/3 of the bulk and weight.

A good mirrorless features large sensors, inter changeable lenses, and plenty of shooting features. Something like the FujiFilm XA 2 goes for about $500.

If you have ever lugged a big SLR around you will instantly see why mirror less is the way to go. Good luck.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[The Dude]

You guys bring up some good questions.  From the way you guys make it sound, if she's not going to get into photography than a DSLR is over kill.  This would be a Christmas gift, so unless she really wanted some top of the line camera, I don't see the need to buy used to get a better deal.  So maybe a camera on the phone, or a small compact camera would do just fine.  But here is my thought on that,  I have purchased a couple of Sony cybershots in the past.  The first one was when 3.5 megapixels was good, so it was a decent camera.  The latest was about two or three years ago, but it wasn't so good. When ever she takes a pic with her phone I hear her say "someday I would like to get a decent camera".  When ever we shop for phones, she says " I am not worried about the camera part as someday we could just buy a decent camera".   Maybe she feels she needs one of these cameras to take decent photos, so maybe there's another solution out there.  She will mainly be taking pics of the kids at sports functions, music programs, and vacations.

[CECAA850]

Your instincts to get her a camera are correct.  It'll be a great gift.  If she's anything like my wife, she's not worried about bells, whistles or specs.  Get here something simple to operate that takes better pictures than her phone and you'll hit a home run on Dec 25'th.

[jjptkd]

I just had a conversation with a local camera store owner (old friend of mine) about the market today and where its heading. Basically he said point and shoot is going the way of the dodo bird because of high quality phone camera's and DSLR has come down in price considerably. DSLR's are the way to go if you want to take photography to the next level. With interchangeable lenses and image editing software the sky's the limit. Taking some classes might not be a bad idea if you opt for a DSLR as they are much more complex than a simple point and shoot. Fun hobby for sure once you get past the learning curve.

 

As a side note, I just had some 8x10 prints done up from my old Samsung Galaxy S4 camera phone and they look great.

Edited November 13, 2015 by jjptkd

[muel]

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-LUMIX-Camera-Tilt-Live-Viewfinder/dp/B00E87OK84

[twk123]

Are there any decent lower cost DSLR cameras out there, low cost meaning below $500.00.  I am looking at one for my wife, she is not big into photography, but has mentioned how she would like a nice camera.  I came across this one on amazon,

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-Digital-18-55mm-Lens/dp/B00BW6LY2Y/ref=sr_1_7?m=A2L77EE7U53NWQ&s=warehouse-deals&ie=UTF8&qid=1447417844&sr=1-7

 

I guess I should ask are there any to stay away from and what is there to know.  I have  a local camera shop in the area I might stop by and see what they have to offer, plus if I purchase from them I get classes how to use the thing.   I know there are a lot of photographers around here, so I thought I would ask some of your opinions.

 

Thanks

 

I would definitely recommend going with a DSLR or a Mirrorless. The Canon Rebel you linked to is a great camera and there are many lenses to choose from that are quite affordable. Camera phone cameras are decent for walking around but far over hyped in my opinion as they cannot effectively zoom and the megapixel rating is misleading because so many pixles crammed into a tiny sensor means a lot of digital noise. In my opinion its like the Bose of digital cameras. Mirrorless is a newer but good option but lens selection isnt quite what the DSLRs are as they are more established. The rebels are nice because you can set it to auto for snapshots and its something your wife can grow into if she wants to pursue photography with very user friendly controls. Before long she will be shooting RAW in Manual mode.

 

Also, Adobe now has a subscription plan for Photoshop and lightroom which is awesome for editing and managing your photos:

 

http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud.html

 

If you have money left over here are some essential and cheap lenses that are awesome and will keep her satisfied for 99% of all her shooting:

 

Best walking around lens:

Canon 24mm F2.8 ($135) - Extremely light and slim, very sharp and has close focusing so she can take close shots of food etc at restaurants which is popular nowadays. This is my favorite lens.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-24mm-2-8-Lens/dp/B00NI3BZ5K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447433962&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=canon+24mm+2.8&psc=1

 

Best artistic lens:

Canon 50mm F1.8 ($105) - The famous "Nifty Fifty" and my wife's favorite lens. It is very sharp and has awesome "Bokah" which is the cool creamy background the makes the forground "pop". Its also great for events and low light situations.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1447434109&sr=8-2&keywords=canon+50m+1.8

 

Best telephoto:

Canon 250-300mm F4-5.6 ($189)- This lens is a budget workhorse and is a truly awesome value. Its great for bird and wildlife shots and the focal range is flexible enough to walk around with and still get good shots. Its a really fun lens as it lets you reach out and get great up close photos of the kids playing etc. I have actually shot a wedding with a rebel, this lens and the "Nifty Fifty" and it turned out near professional quality.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-discontinued-manufacturer/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1447434203&sr=8-2&keywords=canon+250mm

Edited November 13, 2015 by twk123

[Chris A]

She will mainly be taking pics of the kids at sports functions, music programs, and vacations.

 

One of the things that a slightly better DSLR (most famous is the Canon 5D) and some point-and-shoot models will do will be to function as a video camera - 1080P or better, and some will allow you to attach external microphones that may be better than the in-body mikes.  If you're recording your kids playing music, etc.  that may be a reason to invest in something a little better. 

 

Also note that some hi-rez video cameras can shoot stills.  The choice is in the amount of pixels DSLR vs. video cam.  I've found that anything over 8K is starting to become merely "cropping ability" for your edited photos.

 

I invested in Photoshop in 1999, and still use the 1999 version (with suitable RAW file conversion reading upgrades).  It is capable of doing much more than I ever have tried to use it to do, even after taking classes at work.  I would look around for freeware or low cost photo editing software that does the job a lot better than the bloatware that comes with your computer.

 

Chris

[minermark]

Ah, the good old days of real film.

One of the Benies of service to the country.

Cannon is what i went with in country Japan.

Full set up of F1(Two suitcases), but when i wanted to take a picture, i grabbed my AE1.

F1 is progear, still learning everything it can do, it's only taken 35+ years

Currently a Sony digital sufices.

Cannon due to Rep and service would be my choice.

If you are "In The Money" Nicon is a badboy too.

[kapsnb01]

She will mainly be taking pics of the kids at sports functions, music programs, and vacations.

Some great advice has been dispensed so far, but I think what you said above is key. 

 

I recently bought a DSLR to take pictures of my daughter's indoor sports, vacations, etc. as we got tired of blurry photos from cell phone and point & shoot cameras.  A solid DSLR body with good glass is what you need in order to freeze frame these shots.  Glass is the most important part...I'd rather have great lenses on an average body than the other way around.  The glass is what makes the picture.  The suggestion to buy the DSLR body used is a very good one...one I think you should consider.  You can get a nearly new camera that someone maybe took a couple hundred pictures with but then never used again for well over half off retail.  Most of these will come in the original box with all the original accessories...just like a new one. 

 

After that, you can spiral down the well of lenses...that's where you'll want to really do your homework and figure out exactly what you want to accomplish in your picture taking.  Lenses have different strengths and weaknesses depending on what you'll use them for.  A little reading up will go a long way. 

 

I just started down the road a few months ago, but it's amazing how much and quickly you can pick up.  It seems overwhelming at first but some reading and a lot of trial and error really helps.  Go with a setup that feels good to you in your hands...I have Nikon, but there's little actual difference between Nikon & Canon...despite what others may say.  I just preferred how the Nikon felt and I like a couple of the features it had.  Good luck...

[joessportster]

T3i also works for video and allows for a mic, so you dont have to jump up to the 5d for those features. It has been a bit of a challenge to use some of the features the t3i offers but it is also fun playing with the thing, with a tripod it is also great fun

 

speaking as someone who was exactly like your wife Fed up with cell phone camera, point and shoot cameras. and wanting a better camera the T3i has solved that I dont find myself wanting a better camera Just more lenses 

Edited November 13, 2015 by joessportster

[Chris A]

Glass is the most important part...I'd rather have great lenses on an average body than the other way around. The glass is what makes the picture.

 

That's what cost the real money, I've found.  I've got perhaps 7-8 different higher quality Canon lenses that I've acquired since getting a Canon D30 in late 2000 (that body since retired to the closet).  Distance photos require a really stable tripod and perhaps the most expensive and largest lenses: zooms and primes.  Camera bodies that have insufficient mirror damping (like the less expensive Rebel series from Canon used to have) makes the job of taking good distance photos much more difficult.  You need to bring along a bench vise to clamp the body down to--in order to damp vibrations.

 

Low light shots and action shots (synonymous it seems) with extremely low latency on shooting (something that was really difficult to get and expensive in the early 2000s) was the real motivating factor for investing in  more than a simple point-and-shoot digital back then.  A lot of big pixels in the camera's sensor used to cost real money - not as much now.  Shooting multiple frames per second was never that useful to me.  Autofocus performance was the driving factor for taking good action shots. 

 

Chris

Edited November 13, 2015 by Chris A

[Jim Naseum]

For anyone who has an "interest in photography" that extends beyond the simple snapshot, a telephone camera, or a pocket camera, presents many severe restrictions to even the most basic concepts of photography. They will have fixed or zoom lenses which have very limited apertures. Any serious beginner in photography is going to want to manage depth of field. You need a lens that can open up to f/2.4 or greater to really explore that technique. You won't get that on a telephone that I know of. You will also be getting very small sensor size on these pocket cameras and telephones. Good picture quality demands large sensors. By large I don't mean mexapixels, I mean physical dimensions. Mirrorless cameras of good quality come with large sensors and very fast lenses. 

 

I'd would ask a simple question of the person: Are you interested in going beyond snapshots? If YES, I would avoid any camera that doesn't have interchangeable lenses and a large sensor. 10 years ago, that led directly to "SLR." No more. Today, the answer for almost all but certain kinds of photograpy, like high speed sports, is Mirrorless.