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.
Looking for New camera
- Thread starter KfackC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
dpreview.com
And then go play with them at a camera store to see what feels right.
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
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
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.
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.
KfackC said:
My advice go with the D50 and the standard 18-55 kit lens. It is a great kit for the price you can get it at now. As far as new dslrs, see obsolescence.
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.
stand corrected..jlcharles said:
i was thinking about d70s replaces d70miloblithe said:
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...
KfackC said:
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.
bearbo said:
The D80 is the replacement for the D70. The D50 is a new low price-point body, and the D200 replaced the D100.
KfackC said:
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
bearbo said:
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.
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.
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.
miloblithe said:
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...
compuwar said:
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.
beavo451 said:
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.
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.
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.
miloblithe said:
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.
miloblithe said:
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.
ChrisA said:
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.
compuwar said: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....
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.
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.
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.
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.