I am in the market for a digital SLR and am hoping that I can get a few recommendations about what to buy. I do not have a huge amount to spend and do not need the best out there, but I would like a camera (and lenses) that I can take good nature and sports photos with...any suggestions? I am currently looking at the Canon 30D, is this a good camera for the money? Or should I be looking at other models or Nikon cameras? I could really use any and all suggesstions that anyone may have.....thanks in advance
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best digital SLR for the money
- Thread starter danidoll521
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
thanks for the reply....is the XTi about just as good of a camera or am i going to really sacrifice features to save a little money
i'll have to check it out
i'll have to check it out
Rebel XTi if you really want Canon. I think the XT and XTi feel very cheap and would rather recommend a Nikon D80, or even a Pentax K100D. All these companies have good lenses. The Pentax offers optical stabilization built-in, and so even if you buy some cheaper lenses, you'll have that feature no matter what lens you use. 
The rebels do feel a little cheap, but the XTi is a high quality camera, and I think Canon has the best selection of lenses available. If the feel and durability of the camera are really important to you, the D30 (or rather 30D) would be a better choice, but I don't think the 30D is a significantly nice camera than the Rebel XTi.
See if you can still a find new in box 20D. The 30D has a few extra features but they won't be missed much (past the bigger LCD screen) and being the outdated version it should be a few hundred cheaper. Skip the kit lens it's nothing special and put your money towards a 50mm 1.8 II. Only $75 but it's one of the best lenses I have... 2nd to my 135mm 2.0L. With whatever money you have leftover spend it on a nice zoom lens, 70-200mm 4L (or 2.8 if you can pull that off!)
In the end the XTi, 20D or 30D will only be limited by the glass you put on it. All 3 can handle whatever you need to shoot.
In the end the XTi, 20D or 30D will only be limited by the glass you put on it. All 3 can handle whatever you need to shoot.
I was planning on skipping the kit lense and buying me lenses seperately. Good suggestion on the 20D new in-box. If I could find one I would certainly take it over the 30D...the larger display is not very important to me. I am also seriously considering the XTi....decisions, decisions. Thanks all for your input.
I remember buying cameras in the days before the Internet.
1. Go to camera store.
2. See what they have in stock.
3. Buy the one that you can afford and feels good.
I would definitely look at Nikon, Pentax, Panansonic, and Olympus for comparison before you buy a Canon camera.
1. Go to camera store.
2. See what they have in stock.
3. Buy the one that you can afford and feels good.
I would definitely look at Nikon, Pentax, Panansonic, and Olympus for comparison before you buy a Canon camera.
Is there any particular manufacturer and/or model that you would recommend instead of Canon. I certainly have not made my mind up about buying any particular model, or even buying a Canon for that matter. Any suggestions would be great...at least I will have some models in mind when I go to look at them again.
There are three (that I can recall) differences of significance between the 20D and the 30D:
- Larger LCD
- Choice of 3 or 5 fps burst mode
- One third ISO stops
On the 400D (aka XTi) - if you can get the 20D, I'd very strongly recommend you do so, rather than the 400D. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer the larger body, and I'm sure it'll be sturdier, too. Must see if I can hold the 400D in my hands one of these days; I think a co-worker bought one recently ... where'd I put that big, heavy lens ...
Lenses for the 20D or 400D - if you can afford it, I'd suggest sticking to EF lenses, rather than EF-S, so you have the flexibility to upgrade to a full frame body down the road if you want to. If that doesn't concern you, the EF-S 17-85mm is probably the best bang for buck; the 17-55 is also an excellent lens (note: that's 17, not 18 - the 18 is the kit lens.) You could also look at the 24- and 28- zoom lenses, but you may find that they're not quite wide enough on the crop bodies. In any case -- good luck!
The best DSLR for the money is the Pentax K10D. If you don't like the Pentax lens range (eg., only 3 ultrasonic lenses available next year), I would look at the Nikon D200, which is also environmentally sealed (but doesn't have in-body antishake and dust remover).
If you want environmental seals with Canon, you have to go all the way up to the 1D. I like the full frame of the 5D, but at that price it should be weatherproof.
If you want environmental seals with Canon, you have to go all the way up to the 1D. I like the full frame of the 5D, but at that price it should be weatherproof.
I'm probably going to have to agree. The Nikon D200 is fantastic, but here's this beautiful K10D and it's so much cheaper. Probably takes fantastic photos, and has a wide range of Pentax lenses already available.
I'm not saying, "Go with Pentax". I love my Nikon and love the ergonomics and how you control the camera (moreso than Pentax, Canon, and especially Olympus after having used the E-500), but this is a personal preference, and while it sounds cliche, you really can't go wrong with a Nikon, Pentax, Canon, or even Olympus (which doesn't have a lot of super high-end lenses at the mo).
You never know, the Leica M8 might be the best value if you are able to use it's stealth to get a big $'s shot that you might otherwise have missed.
that uh, maybe out of his prrice range
anyway, i'd reccomend a pentax K100D. they're absolutely wonderful from the built in SR to the surprising quality of the 18-55mm kit.
Do you have a budget and an intended subject? What kind of nature and sports?
If by "nature" you mean landscapes then you don't need to spend so much but if you
ment wildlife be prepared for some sticker shock, something to get a closeup of a bald egle costs in mid four figures.
If you want "best value for the money look at the lower end camera bodies from Nikon and Canon. As you move up the line you buy a lot ore for features that may be of little use to you. Also none of the bodies are a long term investment. figure a four year usefull life span before you will want to replace it. Lenses can last much longer, best ones will remain usfull for dacades. If you are able to identify specific requirements those requirements will almost always flow down to lens selection not body selection.
With camera bodies don't buy more then you need. Later, when you need more buy it then. It will cost 1/2 as much to buy later as now. Think that camera body equals "computer" they change about as fast.
One more thing? what computer are you using? If it is an older Mac and you buy a high-end 12MP DSLR and shoot raw format, you will be headed to the Apple store for a new Mac Pro. as nothing less will process the files inreasonable time. but a G4 handles 6MP JPG just fine. Think through the whole system. Spend the money evenly and don't put it all one one item.
I was about to write about the same thing: Buy whatever will put the most money in your pocket at the end of the year. If you are a profesional doing weddings and the like clients might think you are somehow a better photographer if you have exotic equipment. So buy a Hasselblad and you can charge double.
Quite high praise for a camera that hasn't even been released yet. I'd need to see it out there for a while before I'd place it ahead of the D200 (but then I'm kind of partial to the D200). I think that in body stability sounds great, but it still needs to prove itself in a dSLR. I'm not convinced that the dust remover is all that effective. No personal experience but I've read where some have been disapointed with it. Nikon may not have all the new bells and wistles, but it is about as reliable as you can get. The OP didn't give a price range, but I get the feeling the D200 may be above what he is looking to spend. One thing you need to think about is saving some of your budget for quality glass. Kit lenses are not always the best. You would be better served by buying a good lens even if it means taking a step down on the body, rather then blow all your money on the body just to get features you may not even use.
Yes it's a funny thing that, when I was doing hand printing 10 years ago I earned $400 doing some prints because a guy came up to me at an outdoor carnival *only* because I happened to have a hasselblad around my neck and he asked me if I knew where to get some professional printing done!
When I was last in India I was still using leicas. I had an MD with a super angulon (no finder) an m4p. Now I don't have any liecas only a D70 and I could not imagine shooting in India with that or *any* dslr as they are so in-your-face. I think I'll have to get an m8 eventually.
my firsrt dslr was and still is a canon digital rebel xt its worth the money for sure and its basic dslr great for learning on. i dont think you need a 30d for your first dslr.