What do you recommend for beginner?

[Tasneem]

Hello

I never owned SLR camera, and i think it's the time to get one, but i'm confused between four cameras:

1- Canon 60D  (the plastic thing scares me)
2- Nikon D7000 (little expensive)
3- Nikon D5100 (will be announced today)
4- Canon 600D

[Macadameane]

What plastic thing on the 60D scares you?  The swivel screen?

If you can afford it, Get the 60D.  I think it feels better in the hands that a rebel.  The rebel's grips are really small.  If you don't care then the rebel T3i should be fine (the 600D) for starting out.  I don't know too much about Nikon's models, but if there are specific features you are looking for, tell us and we can make a better recommendation.

[kubelik]

hi tasneem, welcome to the forum.  my thoughts on your 4 choices:

1. Canon 60D

don't let the plastic thing scare you.  my wife has a dinky little Rebel XTi that she flogged rather mercilessly ... still in working order today.  unless you are willfully abusing your camera (and I rarely see anyone do that), there's no reason to get stressed over the build quality of the 60D.  it's an excellent camera with some great capabilities that I've had no qualms about recommending to my friends, and they've been very happy with it.

2. Nikon D7000

excellent camera, I can't speak for the price.  only you know how much you can really afford to spend.  to me, in all honesty, if you are a beginner, get a cheap camera and learn with it and abuse it.  one of two things will happen with ANY of these bodies: 1) you will outgrow it and upgrade as your skills improve, or 2) you will find that it is just right for you and happily use it for a long time.  they are all fantastic choices, so ... pick what works.  save the money for a better lens, or for multiple lenses, that's what will bring you real joy in photography and allow you to shoot differently than everyone else out there with a kit lens.

3. Nikon D5100

rumors are rumors.  from what I've seen, this did not drop today.  everyone on the forum knows how I feel about waiting to buy gear ... buy what works for you and I doubt you'll regret it.

4. Canon 600D

also an excellent camera, for a great price.  choosing between this and the 60D can be hard since there are so many similarities.  I'd say go to a store, and see which one feels better.  I would pick the 60D for two very simple reasons: viewfinder size, and AF module.  both of these are vastly better in the 60D and worth the slight uptick in price.  but again, you pick your price range.

don't discount going online and shopping for older cameras.  the Canon 50D is still an awesome camera at a great price.  the 550D is equally a very great camera for the price.  In fact, you could go a generation older (40D or the XSi) and still get a fantastic camera.  despite owning and mostly shooting with my 5D Mark II, I have no problems with picking up my old 30D and taking some great photos, nor do I have any hesitation to shoot with my wife's current T2i (550D).  learn the art of the photography, not just the specs of the camera.

good luck and have fun shooting.

[unfocused]

Good answers. The only thing I would add is: Don't buy a camera system based on one particular model.

If you get serious about photography, the camera body itself will only be the first of many purchases. And, no matter what body you buy, it will be replaced with a newer, flashier model soon enough. So, think about what you want to do with your photography and what lenses and other camera accessories you'll likely want to purchase.

Consider the whole package before buying.

[EYEONE]

Based on those four options I'd recommend the 60D. The Nikon D7000 is a very good camera too but I like Canon's lenses better than Nikon's. As you already said, you are buying into a system.

The 60D may be plastic but it isn't fragile.

[Tasneem]

@Macadameane: I mean by plastic that the body is made from plastic rather than metal.
Most of my photography will be indoors.

@kubelik: Old models cost more than the new (50D is $100+ more than 60D)

@unfocused: You're right, every year several new camera bodies released, so the real issue is about the system i'll choose. I think i'm going Canon.

@EYEONE: I'll take it. the 60D.

Thank you all for your good replies.

[K3nt]

Tasneem: Welcome. Please, come back to this forum. I'm new to this still and I have enjoyed all the info and tips from the more experienced guys immensely. Without this forum I don't think I would've gone DSLR (or Canon) anytime soon.
But now, there's no going back, I just wish this L-fever would go away.. 

[Macadameane]

@Macadameane: I mean by plastic that the body is made from plastic rather than metal.

Doh! I should have realized you were talking about it in general.  Thought you were talking about some "thing" on the camera.

[NormanBates]

I hardly ever shoot stills, it's mostly video for me, but my father does stills, and I recently had to get him a 50D and sell his 500D because of the lack of microadjustment

he was complaining that there was something wrong with the camera or the lenses, and everything came out blurred; he compared with images from a friend's 5D2, then complained to me, I run some tests, and it's a backfocus issue, present with all his lenses (with manual focus I could get sharp images, but with autofocus -center point only- everything came out soft)

I also tested my 550D, and a 40D, and none of them is able to consistently deliver sharp images unless I focus manually

my conclusion: if you're using autofocus, microadjustment is an absolute must

and none of those canons have microadjustment; I'd say go for a second-hand 50D, or look at some other brand

[Tasneem]

Do you think $700-$800 is acceptable price for a second-hand 50D body?

[Lionelai]

  I have no idea..





______________________
ps3 controller, xbox 360 controller, wii accessories, wii remote

[K3nt]

From what I can see the 50D bodies seem to go for something in the 600 - 750 USD range. Ebay had some interesting deals.

[7enderbender]

I'm sure some people will call me crazy but I would recommend to anyone who wants to go the SLR route to first pick up a decent old film camera, one or two lenses, a few books, and to learn the basics that way.

Stuff can be had dirt cheap - even cameras and lenses that used to be very expensive. And it can be easily sold again without losing any money I suppose. That way you can learn what your preferences are and if you're really willing to drag around a SLR plus lenses, etc

The only risk is that you may end up liking certain things that are a little more pricey in the DSLR world than your average Rebel kit from Costco.

[K3nt]

You're right. You're nuts! 

I see your point, however, at least where I live, finding film and someone to do development of it is a) hard b) very costly. Almost no one has film for sale any more, only specialist stores and they charge you in blood for it. The gear may be cheap, but not using it.

It's close to using checks, I don't think I've seen a check since the late 80's.

[7enderbender]

You're right. You're nuts! 

I see your point, however, at least where I live, finding film and someone to do development of it is a) hard b) very costly. Almost no one has film for sale any more, only specialist stores and they charge you in blood for it. The gear may be cheap, but not using it.

It's close to using checks, I don't think I've seen a check since the late 80's.

See, I knew somebody would call me nuts ;-) And probably rightly so. And actually, I see checks all the time - and find that equally ridiculous.

And unfortunately, you are right about the limits in film availability, places that process (or what that call processing these days...), the cost, and the pretty dismal output you get from all negatives being cheaply scanned and send to one of these horrible printers these days. None of this comes even close to how things used to be.

BUT: I still think you learn a lot about taking pictures. With a few rolls of film in your bag at 36 exposures a pop you think at least twice before pulling the trigger given the cost and complications. If you can translate that later into the digital world I personally think it's an exercise well worth the effort. Very disciplined and determined people can do this maybe right away with a digital SLR.

The other part I was getting at is how wrong it is that we are still being force fed the notion that "full frame" is only for pros and snobby rich people. I think there is something very wrong with the fact that beginners on a budget learn photography these days in a cropped format where all the standards and numbers are off. I know, people (rightly) said that also when "35mm" became widely used. It is like checks in that sense. And I'm obviously old.