Looking for New camera

[KfackC]

Hello,
I want to buy new camera
I have a 550$+- just for it,i will buy the camara on usa.
I want SLR camera and Lenses .
which camera to get?
My requirements are:
night vision,1gb memory,excellent quality of photo,big zoom.

[miloblithe]

You're probably not going to be able to get a camera and lenses (plural) and memory cards for $550. In that price range, you're looking at a Nikon D50, Pentax K100 or *ist. I'd read reviews of them at:

dpreview.com

And then go play with them at a camera store to see what feels right.

[lamina]

Check out the Nikon D50... amazing camera.

I did extensive research before my purchase and I haven't regretted it one bit.

[KfackC]

The nikon D50 isnot SLR Camera not?and itis old camera not?
Ok, i change my budget 520$ for just camera body,and 200$ for lenses .

[miloblithe]

What do you mean by SLR? The Nikon D50 is an SLR.

[KfackC]

Ok,
D50(have new camera(nikon) will be out soon?) + with lenses ?

[bearbo]

D70 and D70s is the "new camear" to replace the D50, but that'll run you around 900 for the body

there are 2 new lenses by Nikon, one is a 18-135mm f/3.5(at 18mm only) - f/5.6, for $400
and another 70-300mm f/4 for around 560ish

dont forget memory card, 1Gb is about $50

i dont know what's the night vision you are refering to, but neither of those are "nightvision" as far as i know

and 18-135 is no big zoom.. i personally didn't like it too much because the aperture isn't terribly big

[jlcharles]

D70 and D70s is the "new camear" to replace the D50, but that'll run you around 900 for the body

there are 2 new lenses by Nikon, one is a 18-135mm f/3.5(at 18mm only) - f/5.6, for $400
and another 70-300mm f/4 for around 560ish

dont forget memory card, 1Gb is about $50

i dont know what's the night vision you are refering to, but neither of those are "nightvision" as far as i know

and 18-135 is no big zoom.. i personally didn't like it too much because the aperture isn't terribly big

Actually, the D70 was out well before the D50 I believe.

[miloblithe]

D70 older. D70s and D50 came out about a year and a half ago. They will be replaced sometime by a new camera. When is anyone's guess. It's not terribly relevant because new DSLRs from Nikon and Canon are probably out of your range ($700+ for body only).

The only lenses (plural) you can get for $200 are a combo like an 18-55 and 70-200 from Sigma, Tamron, etc. These are not very good lenses, but you can certainly take good pictures with them if you don't have demanding requirements (like sports photography).

Pentax is a good bargain route. search this forum for pentax in the digital photography section and you'll here people singing their praises.

[revfife]

Ok,
D50(have new camera(nikon) will be out soon?) + with lenses ?

My advice go with the D50 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d50.htm) and the standard 18-55 kit lens (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm). It is a great kit for the price you can get it at now. As far as new dslrs, see obsolescence (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/obsolescence.htm).

Buy your camera now, and enjoy taking pictures now because every year/other year something brand new state of the art will be out. If you want to invest in something, invest in glass. Lenses hold their value far longer than cameras, see the 18-200 Nikon lens which shows no signs of ever coming down to its suggested retail value.

[bearbo]

:p Actually, the D70 was out well before the D50 I believe.
stand corrected.. :) i was thinking about d70s replaces d70

D70 older. D70s and D50 came out about a year and a half ago. They will be replaced sometime by a new camera. When is anyone's guess. It's not terribly relevant because new DSLRs from Nikon and Canon are probably out of your range ($700+ for body only).

i know you said when is anyone's guess, but where do you hear indication of new one coming out? and are they due in say a matter of a couple months, or far more than half yr?

i'm probably gonna buy a d80 in a couple months, but i'd certainly be able to wait for another couple months...

[compuwar]

Hello,
I want to buy new camera
I have a 550$+- just for it,i will buy the camara on usa.
I want SLR camera and Lenses .
which camera to get?
My requirements are:
night vision,1gb memory,excellent quality of photo,big zoom.

You won't find "night vision" on any normal SLR.
Almost every SLR will take a memory card of at least 1G these days.
Zooms often sacrifice quality, but at a cost most users can live with, it's difficult to tell how exacting your results are.

i know you said when is anyone's guess, but where do you hear indication of new one coming out? and are they due in say a matter of a couple months, or far more than half yr?

i'm probably gonna buy a d80 in a couple months, but i'd certainly be able to wait for another couple months...

The D80 is the replacement for the D70. The D50 is a new low price-point body, and the D200 replaced the D100.

[ChrisA]

Hello,
I want to buy new camera
I have a 550$+- just for it,i will buy the camara on usa.
I want SLR camera and Lenses .
which camera to get?
My requirements are:
night vision,1gb memory,excellent quality of photo,big zoom.


Some day you will buy a second lens, then a third and then a replacement camera body. All of them will be the same brand as the camera you buy now. Before you buy the first SRL look ahead. Decide which brand you want to be locked into for the next 10 year based on something other then saving $50 today.


The Nikon D50 is the best deal if you have a limited budget. It gets you started with the Nikon system

You may want to look into used equipment. Lots of people are upgrading to a D80 and you see some used D50s or maybe you buy a new D50 and a used 18-55 lens. Yu can buy the 18-55 for almost nothing because of the number of them for sale. With effort you can find a D50 system for $550 but really you should expect to pay about $100 more

[miloblithe]

i know you said when is anyone's guess, but where do you hear indication of new one coming out? and are they due in say a matter of a couple months, or far more than half yr?

i'm probably gonna buy a d80 in a couple months, but i'd certainly be able to wait for another couple months...

Purely a rumor, but isn't that the kind of stuff we all love?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

But, logically, the D50 is over a year and a half old. It will be replaced.

Sounds likely, to me, to a perfect entry-level DSLR, basically a D80 stripped of a few features that aren't likely to be important to amatuers.

But, as our buddy Ken points out, waiting doesn't neceissarily make sense for a camera. You'll miss out on taking picures in the meantime for marginally better performance that will most often be unnoticable.

[minnesotamacman]

Check out the Nikon D50... amazing camera.

I did extensive research before my purchase and I haven't regretted it one bit.


I second the motion of the Nikon D50. I got it and I love it!

[minnesotamacman]

I also see you are asking about a SLR, not a DSLR.

In other words, you want the old style 35mm Camera. Wow. OK, well in that case I like the Canon Elan with eye control. Nice camera, I had it before I went to digital.

But why go with SLR? Unless you are in to blowing up your pics, or you really like the grain on 35mm, digital is the less expensive way to go in the end.

[compuwar]

Purely a rumor, but isn't that the kind of stuff we all love?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

But, logically, the D50 is over a year and a half old. It will be replaced.

Sounds likely, to me, to a perfect entry-level DSLR, basically a D80 stripped of a few features that aren't likely to be important to amatuers.

But, as our buddy Ken points out, waiting doesn't neceissarily make sense for a camera. You'll miss out on taking picures in the meantime for marginally better performance that will most often be unnoticable.

The idea that a well-designed body that takes good pictures is "obsolete" after just 18 months will end sooner or later. While there certainly seem to be enough suckers jumping from camera to camera for the moment to continue the trend, sooner or later it'll end-- especially given that most of the people taking them don't even use the capabilities of something like the D50 99% of the time. Nikon spent 2006 reving its "prosumer" cameras, we'll see if they spend their energy in 2007 reving the pro line, or what...

[beavo451]

The idea that a well-designed body that takes good pictures is "obsolete" after just 18 months will end sooner or later. While there certainly seem to be enough suckers jumping from camera to camera for the moment to continue the trend, sooner or later it'll end-- especially given that most of the people taking them don't even use the capabilities of something like the D50 99% of the time. Nikon spent 2006 reving its "prosumer" cameras, we'll see if they spend their energy in 2007 reving the pro line, or what...

Technology wise, yes it will be obsolete when a new model comes out. The G5s are technically obsolete now. Are they still "good"? I would say yes.

The D70 is an old camera and it still takes good pictures. Is it obsolete? Yes. Is the D70s obsolete? Yes, when the D80 came out. Is my D2H obsolete? Yes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the lateset technology. If you have the money to buy it, go all for it.

[compuwar]

Technology wise, yes it will be obsolete when a new model comes out. The G5s are technically obsolete now. Are they still "good"? I would say yes.

The D70 is an old camera and it still takes good pictures. Is it obsolete? Yes. Is the D70s obsolete? Yes, when the D80 came out. Is my D2H obsolete? Yes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the lateset technology. If you have the money to buy it, go all for it.

I suppose it depends on what part of the definition of obsolete you're talking about- "Old?" I've got useable view camera lenses older than any digital camera. "No longer in use?" Not that one. "No longer valid?" Not that either. "No longer fashionable?" Tough call! I don't think the D70 series are old, unused, or invalid. I'm not the fashion police though- can't make a call on the last. :)

[miloblithe]

The technology curve for DSLRs as been pretty dramatic until recently. A $5000 camera from 6 years ago is crap compared to the $500 D50 of today. But that curve is over. For the foreseeable future it's a slow progression. The difference between 2 and 6 megapixels is significant. The difference between 6 and 10 is minor. Same can be said about most other recent improvements in frames per second, metering, white balance controls, and so on.

As for the upgrading, it's depends on disposable income and priorities. For some people, having the latest and greatest is more important than whatever else they could spend that money on. For others, they buy something nice hoping to use it for years while they spend money on other things in the meantime. And there's every shade in between. As someone who likes to buy every few years, I shake my head at people who want to upgrade with each revision in a product line. Those same people shake their heads at me and my, for example, 15 year old 19" Sony TV.

Edit: I would define obsolete as "unusable," not as "not the most recent revision." Obsolete digital cameras are ones that recorded to floppy disk. No DSLR in existence is obsolete. You can take pictures with them.

[ChrisA]

The technology curve for DSLRs as been pretty dramatic until recently. A $5000 camera from 6 years ago is crap compared to the $500 D50 of today. But that curve is over. For the foreseeable future it's a slow progression. .

I have to disagree with part of what you say. the curve is over. There is still a long way to go and a lot of improvment to go. I'll say "It's over" when the image quality of digital matches what I could get with a good fine gram transparency film.

It will "be over" when Nikon and canon ofer a resonably priced body that has a 36 x 24 mm sized sensor and the sensor has an MTF to match film ((can resolve 50 to 80 lines per milimeter at 50% level) and it can capture the same dynamic range as slide film (asking for the dynamic range of negative film is asking for to much) Basically when DSLRs get as good as a 1980's vintage film camera that is loaded with Fiji Velvia, then we will be done.

This is not to say that today's DSLRs are not usable. They are. They just have a long way to go.

I expct the "standard" that will evolve will be a 36 x 24 mm frame with 6,000 x 4,000 pixels. In other words a 24MP full frame DSLR. This will be very close to film. You can buy a camera like this today so we know it is possable but the cost is in the five figures. In 10 years it will be affordable.


But, as our buddy Ken points out, waiting doesn't neceissarily make sense for a camera. You'll miss out on taking picures in the meantime for marginally better performance that will most often be unnoticable.

Ken's advice is dead on. He says if you don't already own a camers buy whatever is on the market right now, don't wait. But he says if you already have a camera then you can wait untill just after a new model is realeased then buy it. His advic depends on who you are.

[miloblithe]

I have to disagree with part of what you say....

Well, obviously you know more about this than I do. :)

I didn't really phrase what I meant well. I mean that I don't think digital cameras will progress as quickly in the next 5 years as they did in the previous 5. Also, I think we're talking about different ends of the spectrum here. From the "prosumer" perspective I don't think the changes are going to be as dramatic as they will for the pro.

[beavo451]

I suppose it depends on what part of the definition of obsolete you're talking about- "Old?" I've got useable view camera lenses older than any digital camera. "No longer in use?" Not that one. "No longer valid?" Not that either. "No longer fashionable?" Tough call! I don't think the D70 series are old, unused, or invalid. I'm not the fashion police though- can't make a call on the last. :)

Main Entry: 1ob·so·lete
Pronunciation: "äb-s&-'lEt, 'äb-s&-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus, from past participle of obsolescere to grow old, become disused, perhaps from ob- toward + solEre to be accustomed
1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful <an obsolete word>
b : of a kind or style no longer current : OLD-FASHIONED <an obsolete technology>

ob‧so‧lete  /ˌɒbsəˈlit, ˈɒbsəˌlit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ob-suh-leet, ob-suh-leet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, verb, -let‧ed, -let‧ing.

–adjective 1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.
2. of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship.
3. (of a linguistic form) no longer in use, esp., out of use for at least the past century. Compare archaic.
4. effaced by wearing down or away.
5. Biology. imperfectly developed or rudimentary in comparison with the corresponding character in other individuals, as of the opposite sex or of a related species.
–verb (used with object) 6. to make obsolete by replacing with something newer or better; antiquate: Automation has obsoleted many factory workers.


The D70 was obsoleted by the D70s and so on and so on....

[cgratti]

If you dont mind buying used:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=227879

Its a little over your budget, but till a nice deal. It's not mine, just found it surfing over there.

[miloblithe]

You seem to be ignoring definition number one there, which would be the use that I'm supporting.

Obviously, the word can be used either way, to mean that the D70s made the D70 obsolete, or to mean that as long as it still performs its function, it's not obsolete.

[beavo451]

You seem to be ignoring definition number one there, which would be the use that I'm supporting.

Obviously, the word can be used either way, to mean that the D70s made the D70 obsolete, or to mean that as long as it still performs its function, it's not obsolete.

Are we getting in a definition arguement? Your logic makes the two definitions contradict each other. If something fits any definition of obsolete, it is obsolete. The term obsolete is not a derogatory term. It just describes the age of something (years, technolgy models, whatever).



As for the upgrading, it's depends on disposable income and priorities. For some people, having the latest and greatest is more important than whatever else they could spend that money on. For others, they buy something nice hoping to use it for years while they spend money on other things in the meantime. And there's every shade in between. As someone who likes to buy every few years, I shake my head at people who want to upgrade with each revision in a product line. Those same people shake their heads at me and my, for example, 15 year old 19" Sony TV.


Is that not what I said? Its your money, you can decide what you want to do with it.


Edit: I would define obsolete as "unusable," not as "not the most recent revision." Obsolete digital cameras are ones that recorded to floppy disk. No DSLR in existence is obsolete. You can take pictures with them.


You can still take pictures with the floppy disk cameras.

Your own personal definition of obsolete is not valid. Otherwise anybody can make up their own "definition" of any word and the world would be a mess.


Bows and arrows were made obsolete by the rifle (obsolete?). The bow and arrow is still useful (not obsolete?).


Regarding the orignial post:
If $550 is all you have to spend, I would suggest either a super zoom P&S camera or waiting a little to save up enough money to get a better start into dSLRs (highly recommend going this route). If you have a budget of $1000, you can spend about $800 initially and then spend the rest a few weeks later when you have a better feel of what you want/need.

If you are really wanting a dSLR now, the Pentax *ist line can be found for less than $500 (including kit lenses).

[miloblithe]

Are we getting in a definition arguement? Your logic makes the two definitions contradict each other. If something fits any definition of obsolete, it is obsolete. The term obsolete is not a derogatory term. It just describes the age of something (years, technolgy models, whatever).

Ooohh. Arguing about definitions! What fun! :)

I'm just saying, the D70 is not obsolete according to the first definition. It's still in use and is useful for its intended purpose.

You can still take pictures with the floppy disk cameras.

Maybe, but I'd have no way of transfering the files to my computer.

Your own personal definition of obsolete is not valid. Otherwise anybody can make up their own "definition" of any word and the world would be a mess.

Well, first of all I'm hardly making up a definition, I'm using the first one from whatever you quoted. And second of all, lets not have this turn into a debate on structuralism and post-structuralism.

Bows and arrows were made obsolete by the rifle (obsolete?). The bow and arrow is still useful (not obsolete?).

A bow and arrow is obsolete for modern warfare. A bow and arrow is not obsolete for an archery competition.

[revfife]

It is pointless to argue over definitions...what everyone is trying to say is don't wait:

I have a Nikon D100 that has served me well for several years and is still serving me well. Is it obsolete? Yes by a few models now...D70, D50, D2H, D70s, D200, and now D80.

Do any of these cameras take anything away from my D100?
Maybe a few megapixels, but Nikon has also taken things away as well. I can shoot in TIFF mode, unless I am mistaken you can't do that with any of the newer cameras.

The D100 is a good camera with a metal body that has taken some great shots for me, shots I wouldn't be taking if I was waiting for the next model.

[Poeben]

If you really need night vision on an SLR, here ya go:

http://www.electrophysics.com/Browse/Brw_ProductLineCategory.asp?Area=NV&CategoryId=27

This will run you around $6000 though.