Starting my SLR Journey Cheap...

[chaos386]

For the past couple of years, I've been throwing around the idea of buying an SLR and getting back into hobbyist photography, but each time I'd price things out, it was always so expensive. The "latest and greatest" entry level SLR bodies + kit lenses are in the $700-800 range, and once I had added in a tripod, camera bag, extra battery, memory card, and filter sets, things would hover around the $1k mark, which I just couldn't justify.

Since I don't plan on taking photos professionally, this year I decided to scale things back and look into buying older used or refurbished models. I don't need ultrasonic sensor cleaning, 12 megapixels, or a brand-new shiny body. All I really need is a big sensor, a big lens, and manual controls, right? And once I start playing around with the settings and taking more photos, I'll know more about what I want out of a camera and will be able to make a much more educated purchase if I decide to upgrade.

Right now I'm eying a refurbished Canon Digital Rebel XT (EOS 350D) with the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens for about $400, but I know a lot of people on here are Nikon guys, so maybe you could tell me if an equivalent Nikon would be better. Is there anything I should keep in mind while buying a used/refurb SLR? Would looking into a less popular brand be worthwhile? Is buying an SLR used a bad idea? Thanks in advance for anyone who offers advice.

[epp_b]

For only $50 more at Amazon, you can get a brand new D40 with the 18-55mm kit lens.

Of course, I'm biased, but I find the low-end Nikons to be better than the low-end Canons in terms of build-quality. They just feel more substantial and more comfortable.

Is there anything I should keep in mind while buying a used/refurb SLR?

I'm not sure buying a used body is such a good idea unless you know how many shutter actuations have been made and you find a fair price on that basis. I'm sure there are other factors to consider that other photo-buffs around this forum would know more about that I do.

Would looking into a less popular brand be worthwhile?

Maybe. It depends on what you plan to do with it. If you ever want to expand (lenses, accessories, etc.), you could find it a bit more difficult.

Is buying an SLR used a bad idea?

SLR body, maybe (see above). But there are tons of used lenses that are great buys.

[the Interceptor]

I think a new Nikon D40 isn't that expensive. The 18-55 kit lens is good. If you can live with the cams limitations ("only" 6 mp, will only autofocus with specific lenses), it's an excellent entry level SLR.

EDIT: epp_b beat me to it!

[TopGearDog]

The 6mp sensor from the D40/D50/D70 is a really good sensor and with the D40 being the newest of them, it's fairly up to date with enough features to keep you entertained for a long time. Of course, i am a bit biased towards Nikon aswell.

But when it comes down to it, wether you choose the 350D or D40, you will have planty to play with and produce as good a pictures as your talent will allow you.

[LeVeL]

If the lens that they have on Canons at Staples and Best Buy is the kit lens then I would stay away from that. It feels extremely cheap. See if you can get a used XT body for $300 or so and spend money on lenses.

Here you go: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by epp_b

For only $50 more at Amazon, you can get a brand new D40 with the 18-55mm kit lens.

Of course, I'm biased, but I find the low-end Nikons to be better than the low-end Canons in terms of build-quality. They just feel more substantial and more comfortable.

I'm not sure buying a used body is such a good idea unless you know how many shutter actuations have been made and you find a fair price on that basis. I'm sure there are other factors to consider that other photo-buffs around this forum would know more about that I do.

Hmm, that does look like a better deal. It's also lighter than the XT (475g vs. 540g), which I like, since I travel quite a bit.

Originally Posted by epp_b

Maybe. It depends on what you plan to do with it. If you ever want to expand (lenses, accessories, etc.), you could find it a bit more difficult.

How tied-down to a specific manufacturer would I be for SLR accessories? I'm not surprised that lenses from Canon and Nikon only work for that one brand, but aren't lenses from 3rd parties a little more universal? How about flashes?

Originally Posted by epp_b

SLR body, maybe (see above). But there are tons of used lenses that are great buys.

Good to know.

[Speedtouch]

I picked up a used D50 + 18-55 and 70-300 for £320 off ebay. It was one hell of a deal (and a one off too), but I'm sure others may crop up.

[Some_Guy]

Originally Posted by chaos386

once I start playing around with the settings and taking more photos, I'll know more about what I want out of a camera and will be able to make a much more educated purchase if I decide to upgrade.

Exactly my same thoughts when I got my camera!

Another vote for the D40 from me. It's compact and, as you mentioned, light. And so far it does everything I wanted it to, and it's fairly cheap these days (the 18-55 kit was going for $400ish on labor day, and have been hovering around the $450 mark for a while around here) That being said, I do wish it can autofocus with any lens and bracket.

Another camera that you might want to consider is the Sony's A200, it's about the same price as the Nikon, but has a bit more bells and whistles (bracketing and vibration reduction built into the body comes to mind.) Only drawback (or plus, which ever way you look at it) is that it only uses the Minolta lense mount, where compatible lenses could be found on ebay/craigslist for fairly cheap. I chose the Nikon over it because I already have some Nikon lenses, and still plan on expanding the collection.

ebay is also a great place to get cheaper not-so-vital accessories like extra batteries, memory cards, etc.

Edit: corrected grammar/spelling and whatnot

[carolsLittleWorld]

Personally, I would stick with either Canon or Nikon. Those two brands will give you the best selection of lenses and will provide the best "jumping off point" should you ever want to upgrade.

I recently purchased a new Canon XT (lower price thanks to it becoming obsolete) and don't find anything wrong with it. I'm a fine art photographer but I exhibit my work and I'm able to sell images from the XT for my usual asking price (same as I got with film.) I'm sure though there are equally good deals on "slightly old" Nikons out there. You might try calling B&H or checking Amazon and the like for your XT as they might have a few left and the prices have dropped.

IMHO, these low end SLRs really are the way to go. You get many of the features of the higher-end models without having to pay the price. You can then invest in glass, tripods, printers, accessories, travel, or whatever else while still having a reasonable good camera. I could easily justify a higher end camera but won't do it. It won't give me better results but then again, like I said, I'm fine art (I can't speak for you "car" type photographer folks who might actually use the features Canon/Nikon keep trying to sell me for thousands of dollars.)

G'luck.

[Cobol74]

Pentax is the only other entry level brand I would even consider, but I think that they are well out of it at the moment. Otherwise yes Nikon or Canon (I marginally prefer Nikons but my experience is limited to the point and shoot variety).

[epp_b]

Hmm, that does look like a better deal.

I would say so. The XT is an older model than the D40 as well.

It's also lighter than the XT (475g vs. 540g), which I like, since I travel quite a bit.

Yup, I've got a big bag with the D40, three lenses, filters, and more and it weighs almost nothing. An easy camera to carry around, indeed.

How tied-down to a specific manufacturer would I be for SLR accessories? I'm not surprised that lenses from Canon and Nikon only work for that one brand, but aren't lenses from 3rd parties a little more universal?

Yes, third-party lens makers like Sigma and Tamron generally make their lenses available with mounts for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony.

How about flashes?

Not sure, but I think they're pretty brand-specific. I don't have one yet, so I don't know.

[TopGearDog]

I think you can use Sigma flashes for Nikon but Nikon makes great flashes and the SB-400 and SB-600 are pretty cheap and good. If you want to go creative with lighting, you can always buy cheap Vivitar manual flashes with radio triggers, often called strobist kits.

You can get great 3rd party lenses from Tamron and Sigma for a cheap price. The lens i use the most on my Nikon is a Tamron.

[carolsLittleWorld]

The XT might be older than the D40 but it has image stabilization. You can actually get the newer, "kit" 18-55mm IS lens fairly cheap too, and that's a great lens. For me, the IS makes a big difference. (Just throwing that out there, not like the D40 isn't equally as good a camera, mind you.) I'm an old time Nikon user who went Canon when going digital because, at the time, Canons were cheaper, had cheaper glass, had better IS, and had better noise reduction. A lot of that has changed now but some of it might still be a factor for you.

Most SLRs have a "hot shoe" type of spot up at the top of the camera that allows you to connect a standard mount flash. You can buy standard gear to fit that. Typically, the built-in flash that comes with the camera is lame and not much worth using. (Personally, I use a studio lighting kit rather than flash but I'm strictly fine art and so I can get away with doing that. If I have to go with a on board flash, I use the old school Vivitar manual flash, which can illuminate spots on mars pretty easily and still doesn't produce much in the way of red eye or hot spots for me.)

Hope that helps.

[epp_b]

The XT might be older than the D40 but it has image stabilization.

You mean to say that the included lens has IS, right? The body does not.

For what it's worth, I haven't found the need for IS or VR below 55mm. It's much more useful at telephoto lengths, like on my 55-200.

Not to bash Canon, but I like Nikon's warranties of two years on the body and five on their lenses.

Also, something else about the flash: if the built-in flash is powerful enough for you, you can make a cheap bounce card with a piece of card stock and tin foil for more natural lighting without red-eye.

[LeVeL]

Originally Posted by epp_b

You mean to say that the included lens has IS, right? The body does not.

For what it's worth, I haven't found the need for IS or VR below 55mm. It's much more useful at telephoto lengths, like on my 55-200.

Not to bash Canon, but I like Nikon's warranties of two years on the body and five on their lenses.

Also, something else about the flash: if the built-in flash is powerful enough for you, you can make a cheap bounce card with a piece of card stock and tin foil for more natural lighting without red-eye.

IS comes in handy in low light situations. Its no tripod, but it helps.

[the infinite jar]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

Pentax is the only other entry level brand I would even consider, but I think that they are well out of it at the moment. Otherwise yes Nikon or Canon (I marginally prefer Nikons but my experience is limited to the point and shoot variety).

Yes, the K200D starts at almost $700 here (although it's a fantastic value). They're supposed to be coming out with a new entry level body though, at least that's what the rumors are. I would look at a used K100D though, you could probably get one for pretty cheap, or wait until after photokina at the end of the month and see what new is coming out.

The K100D terrific camera, very high build quality. It's heavier than the others in it's class, but it also feels much better built. Also get a good selection of high quality glass at some good prices compared with the Canikons.

[eroy2]

Originally Posted by epp_b

Not to bash Canon, but I like Nikon's warranties of two years on the body and five on their lenses.

Unless you take the Nikon out of country. If they find out it has left canadaland it is void.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by eroy2

Unless you take the Nikon out of country. If they find out it has left canadaland it is void.

...What? Nikon has no such clause in the warranty agreement. Your confusion may be that Nikon Canada components have to be serviced by Nikon Canada repair centers, which means shipping to Canada if you are out of the country. I've had my US Nikon gear serviced no problem, I just had to ship it to the States.

Nikon Canada Service Warranty - Digital Imaging Products



1. THIS IS THE CANADIAN TWO YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY. YOU MUST PRESENT YOUR WARRANTY CARD ALONG WITH PROOF OF PURCHASE (BILL OF SALE) TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE. Should your Nikon product require warranty service, please contact the dealer from whom it was purchased or a member of our authorised service network in Canada.



2. YOUR NIKON EQUIPMENT IS GUARANTEED AGAINST ANY MANUFACTURING DEFECTS FOR TWO FULL YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE. If during this period of guarantee the product proves defective due to improper material or workmanship, our authorised service network in Canada will, without charge for labour and parts, repair the product in the terms and conditions set as below. Nikon reserves the right (at it's sole discretion) to replace or repair the product. This warranty is only provided upon presentation of the completed warranty card and original invoice or purchase receipt indicating the date of purchase, product type and dealers name, together with the product. Nikon reserves the right to refuse free-of-charge warranty service if the above documents cannot be presented or the information contained in it is incomplete or illegible.



3. This warranty will not cover: - necessary maintenance and repair or replacement of parts due to normal wear and tear. - modifications to upgrade the product from it's normal purpose as described in user manuals, without the prior written consent of Nikon. - transport costs and all risks of transport relating directly or indirectly to the warranty of the products. - any damage resulting from modifications or adjustments which may be made to the product, without the prior written consent of Nikon, in order to comply with local and national standards in force in any country than the ones for which the product was originally designed and/or manufactured.



4. The warranty will not be applicable in the case of: - damage caused by misuse including but not limited to failure to use the product for it's normal purpose or according to the user instructions on the proper use and maintenance, and to installation and use of the product inconsistent with the safety standards in force in the country where it is used. - damage caused by accidents including but not limited to lightning, water, fire, misuse or neglect. - alteration, defacing illegibility or removal of the model or serial number on the product. - damage resulting from repairs or adjustments which have been conducted by unauthorised service organisations or persons. - damage in any system into which the product is incorporated or with which it used.



5. This service warranty does not affect the consumer's statutory rights under applicable national laws in force, nor the consumer's right against the dealer arising from their sales/purchase contract. THIS WARRANTY MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR COPIED AND WILL BE VALID ONLY WITH AUTHENTIC PRODUCTS SOLD BY NIKON CANADA INC. This warranty is NON-TRANSFERABLE and applies to the original purchaser of the product from an Authorized Nikon Canada Dealer.

[eroy2]

My bad, I was told this by someone who's big into Nikon. Sorry for teh confusion.