DSLR and zoom lens for ~$1,000.00 USD?

[sjp010]

The 5DC might have good IQ but thats about it.

A 600D wipes the floor with it for everything but IQ

Call me crazy, but IQ matters the most to me, by a long shot. Everything else you list falls under the category of "nice to have." The sensor is the film, so why not buy the best sensor you can for the money you want to spend?

I'm not saying all the new bells and whistles aren't worth having - for sure I'd love to have a 5D3. But I don't have that kind of money, so my decision is either an APS-C camera or the 5Dc. For the way I shoot, 5Dc is way better.

 

[danski0224]

In this case, recommend your friend a SX40HS. It looks like an DSLR, handles much the same way, but no need to change lenses. It has a REALLY good "green mode", but also possibilities to mess with ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Movie mode is good. ZOOM is unbelievable! And all for under 400$

From what I can discern from your comments, this friend of yours wants to learn a little bit more before "taking the leap" to DSLR country. A SX40HS is a small investment, so he/she can get used to form factor etc. And if he/she don't want to take it further, the SX40HS is still a really nice camera.

Thanks. Passed the info along.

 

[tomscott]

Your really not wrong.
Thats not the argument but the thing is were not talking night and day in terms of IQ it is only slightly better. Night and day is a 600D VS a 5D MKIII. What we are comparing is a camera from 2005 to a 2011 camera.

The difference in IQ between the 5DC and the 600D is not huge maybe 10%. Also the full frame sensor will mean you need to buy L glass to get good results because the sensor is bigger. So your talking £1000 just for one lens being a 24-105mm. Whereas the 600D you still need good glass but you can get away with using 15-85mm or a 17-85 which are a lot cheaper.

There is a lot more to think about. The 5Dc is not a modern camera with non of the newer useful features, which kind of makes the camera. Its like the argument with the 5DMKIII, it has lower res than the D800 but its features are much better which makes the camera. If IQ is your only concern then yes go ahead. But finding a good nick camera that is 7 years old and still paying in excess of £550 is a bit mad really.

If you want full frame its worth doing it properly and buying a modern camera.

But think we are getting carried away here. The poster is after a camera, an amateur moving from a point and shoot! A 5Dc is a silly camera to advise someone to buy! No program modes... either auto or full or semi auto, no inbuilt flash! It was designed for the more professional scene! Not a beginner!

My two cents anyway.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Buying used bodies allows bigger savings than buying used lenses.

I bought my first DSLR two years ago: an used 5D classic and a new 24-105 F/4.
Previously, I used a powershot S5 IS.

I would suggest an used 40D or 50D, or a 550D, plus a decent zoom: more than enough to start. A (cheap) prime and a tripod should follow.

Once someones starts, it is more important to try to learn (read, switch to AV/TV/M, shoot, watch the results) .

 

[sjp010]

Your really not wrong.
Thats not the argument but the thing is were not talking night and day in terms of IQ it is only slightly better. Night and day is a 600D VS a 5D MKIII. What we are comparing is a camera from 2005 to a 2011 camera.

The difference in IQ between the 5DC and the 600D is not huge maybe 10%. Also the full frame sensor will mean you need to buy L glass to get good results because the sensor is bigger. So your talking £1000 just for one lens being a 24-105mm. Whereas the 600D you still need good glass but you can get away with using 15-85mm or a 17-85 which are a lot cheaper.

There is a lot more to think about. The 5Dc is not a modern camera with non of the newer useful features, which kind of makes the camera. Its like the argument with the 5DMKIII, it has lower res than the D800 but its features are much better which makes the camera. If IQ is your only concern then yes go ahead. But finding a good nick camera that is 7 years old and still paying in excess of £550 is a bit mad really.

If you want full frame its worth doing it properly and buying a modern camera.

But think we are getting carried away here. The poster is after a camera, an amateur moving from a point and shoot! A 5Dc is a silly camera to advise someone to buy! No program modes... either auto or full or semi auto, no inbuilt flash! It was designed for the more professional scene! Not a beginner!

My two cents anyway.

I guess we need to agree to disagree. My perception of the 5Dc has more to do with my style of shooting - primes, available light, etc - for this style the 5Dc has many advantages and the downsides you point out (lack of flash, program modes, etc) are of minimal impact.

Disagree that you have to buy L lenses to get good results. You have to buy GOOD lenses, and know how to use them best to get good results. Of course this is true of any camera and lens (even L), but you need to pay a bit more attention on a full frame camera. But the non-L USM primes (28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 ) on a 5Dc are a very powerful combo and that collection is in the same price range as a single L lens (and not that much more than the 17-55 EF-S!).

I can concede that a typical beginner wouldn't be best served by a 5Dc. I just don't think they'd be badly served by it.

 

[RLPhoto]

Your really not wrong.
Thats not the argument but the thing is were not talking night and day in terms of IQ it is only slightly better. Night and day is a 600D VS a 5D MKIII. What we are comparing is a camera from 2005 to a 2011 camera.

The difference in IQ between the 5DC and the 600D is not huge maybe 10%. Also the full frame sensor will mean you need to buy L glass to get good results because the sensor is bigger. So your talking £1000 just for one lens being a 24-105mm. Whereas the 600D you still need good glass but you can get away with using 15-85mm or a 17-85 which are a lot cheaper.

There is a lot more to think about. The 5Dc is not a modern camera with non of the newer useful features, which kind of makes the camera. Its like the argument with the 5DMKIII, it has lower res than the D800 but its features are much better which makes the camera. If IQ is your only concern then yes go ahead. But finding a good nick camera that is 7 years old and still paying in excess of £550 is a bit mad really.

If you want full frame its worth doing it properly and buying a modern camera.

But think we are getting carried away here. The poster is after a camera, an amateur moving from a point and shoot! A 5Dc is a silly camera to advise someone to buy! No program modes... either auto or full or semi auto, no inbuilt flash! It was designed for the more professional scene! Not a beginner!

My two cents anyway.

5Dc > any canon crop camera period. You move up to a Dslr to learn photography. The 5Dc is a simple camera with nothing extra to confuse anyone. It just works.

FF actually will make terrible lenses better because the pixels are spread out and bigger.

 

[LSV]

Canon is having a 20% off sale plus free shipping for refurbished cameras. For example, $896 for 60D with 18-200mm (new at $1300). Hurry, sale ends 8/31.

 

[atvinyard]

I think there are some misunderstandings about image quality floating around here. A current 18MP rebel is going to make a "better" large print than a 12 MP 5Dc because it has a higher resolution. The difference is in the better low light ability of a larger sensor, the larger pixels, and the greater depth of field. I have both and use both. The 5Dc has a better noise characteristic at ISO 1600 than the rebel and it's fabulous for blowing out backgrounds. It doesn't take kindly to underexposure though. It also has a nicer Viewfinder (No one mentioned that).

That being said, the 5Dc feels like a clunky old camera and the T2i feels much more solid and is much more responsive.

Also, you don't need L lenses. That's some crapus. If it's your first dSLR the picture quality improvement with just about any lens is going to be amazing. The consumer primes do just fine on a full frame too, by the way. They're not as good as the L's but they're pretty close and if you don't know L, then you won't miss it. The Canon 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 both beat the corresponding L's in certain aspects, and beat them by a mile in terms of value.

I would recommend the rebel as a starter with a kit lens(there's a reason it comes that way), and then a fast 50 for low light and shallow depth of field. The 40/2.8 is pretty nice too. Oh and the 35/2.0 is great on a crop camera. $100, $200, $300 respecitively. All cheap(for a lens) and make nice photos.

Also, invest in Lightroom if you can. Post processing can make a big difference in final picture quality.

 

[jdramirez]

Also, invest in Lightroom if you can. Post processing can make a big difference in final picture quality.

I have lightroom. I think I need to get a training video because I don't like it.