Buying a DSLR camera... any hints?

After years of messing around with my old Canon G1, I am seeking for something more "professional". I'm looking for something in the area of 400-550€ MAX (w/lense). Now I'm entirely new when it comes to different camera models and their (dis)advantages, let alone DSLR cams. But after reading through the "other hobbies" thread I guess I have quite a chance that somebody with knowledge could help me out.
After a few hours of research this is the first more interesting proposition I can come up with: Sony Alpha 300.
I found a seller that offers it for 435 Euros including a 3,5-5,6 / 18-70 mm standard zoom lense. What do you think of it?

I am grateful for any help!

PS: Just for the record, I would really prefer a DSLR as I'm not going to do party shots or other crap, I actually want to use it for macro and night shots so long manual light exposure is a must. The Alpha 300 has 30s max., I hope that lasts. Can't be too bad actually, I took already a lot of nice night shots with a 2s max exposure :033:

 

About the 30s max time for exposure... i'm sure it has a "bulb" mode also, it would be strange if a DSLR would not have it.
I don't know what i would say about the Sony A300 as i never used one but people taht bought it seems happy with it

I am using a Sony A900... and that's a great camera.

 

Mmhh I more or less decided for the EOS 450D now. While being 100 Euros more expensive it had slightly better test results, 2 MP more, apparently a bit better image quality and, the most important thing, better quality at night shots with less noise - that's at least what an EOS 450D owner told me.
Well, I guess that'll be it. Outraging test results speak for it and I already bought an 8gb SD card. ^^

You got an A900? Respect! I don't have the funds for that kind of camera yet, but sooner or later I'm at least planning to buy tele and macro lenses. Do you know if Canon cams are compatible only to canon lenses, is there maybe a page with a compatibility table or something?

 

Good choice. Although I'm a Nikon man myself I would choose a Canon over any of the other brands.

The thing that is great about the Canon's is that all of them are fitted with lens motors so your choice of lenses is huge in comparison to the lower range Nikon bodies.

Also finding lenses for Sony's on the cheap can be difficult unless you opt for the Sigma range which are ok but not fantastic.

 

Sadly only Canon lenses or Tamron/Sigma lenses fitted with EF mount, but as Twimfy said they are ok but not fantastic. I'd recommend buying Canon lenses.

The 450D is a great DSLR to start with by the way. My mother has one and I'm sure it fits your needs perfectly.

Oh, and talking about nightshots with long exposure, I got one on my wall here which is pretty nice. I'll scan it in when I have some time (shot it on film).

 

I'm a Sony a100/a700 user. Pretty decent cameras and the A300 falls somewhere inbetween the 2.

Pros:-
Tend to be cheaper than the competition
Simple to use
In-body Stabilisation (a BIG plus as you can use pretty much any Minolta lens from the past 25 years and it'll be stabilised)

Cons:-
Poor high-ISO performance
Selection of lens/accessories isn't as great as the competition


I'm sure there's a few more things I could stick in each column but I'm tired at the minute . I'd advise you do have a good check before commiting to purchase though as if you start building a collection of lens it becomes difficult to switch systems. No matter what camera you get, any "kit" lens that's bundled with it will be shite.

 

Steer clear of Sony. Go Canon or Nikon - makes sense to go Canon if you're a fan.

How serious are you? If you're just snapping for the sake of snapping, get something that's in the price range you want to spend. Be aware that the cheapest are often not great (in Nikon's case, no body motor so you are limited on lenses). That said, sometimes the difference between one model and the next model up when it comes to bundles is that the lower model has the better lens, and the more expensive body has been bundled with a budget lens (happens with Nikon, not sure about Canon).

For reviews: www.dpreview.com

Think about what you're going to use it for, what you'll need now and what you'll need later.

ALWAYS get a skylight / UV filter for EVERY lens. Put it on and leave it on. Why? If you accidentally drop your camera and it lands on the lens, which would you prefer to replace? A $30 filter or a $500 lens?

You'll be able to work out what lenses you want if you think about what you want to do. A lot of the time, you can get away with say a 35-70mm lens then a 75-200 or 300mm. If you want to do close-up work, you need a decent macro lens. You might want a fish-eye for interesting artsy shots.

A decent bag is pretty essential, as is a quality tripod. You'll probably want a shutter release or remote. Of course, the flash guns built into the cameras are pretty crappy, so you'll want to invest in a flash.

It's a never ending spiral! Still, the most important thing is to choose your brand and stick to it. Then, when you outgrow your body, you can sell it and upgrade... likewise with crappier lenses. That way you're not starting from scratch every time.

 

Just out of interest, why avoid Sony?

 

Buy the Canon 450D/Rebel XSi. It will come with an 18-55mm lens (with image stabilization).

Then buy yourself a 50mm F/1.8 lens ($129.99 CND here)
Then if you want to expand further, get yourself a Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens with the Canon mount.

I started with this set-up (using the 400D/Rebel XTi), and it worked wonders. Take it from me, stick with the Canon body and you'll go far. I only just replaced the 70-300 a few months ago, its a great lens for cheap. You'd have a whole system for everything.

 

They are about the worst company on the planet in terms of planned adolescence. Their quality has gone down hill over the last decade. Canon (and even moreso Nikon) have their business model based on Cameras. Everything else is just extra. Sony makes everything. Jack of all trades, master of none.

I have a Canon 30D EOS, btw.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Give this a thorough reading. (Well, moreso the parts about SLR cameras and lenses.) It should answer a lot of questions for you.

When I get back into photography, I'm coming back to that page for assistance.

 

That'll learn me to post at work.

 

True, but they only just bought up Konica Minolta in 2006 so I would imagine the core team won't of changed all the much (especially evident given the lack of gadgets on their DSLRs and most reviews referring to their cameras as "classics").

Say if I wanted to get a nice full frame DSLR ~20 megapixels. Well if money was no object I'd have a nice Nikon D3X, great high ISO support, fancy features, great lens selection etc. Really I could go on, there's only one bad thing about the D3X, it's ~£4,800 :110:. Okay so maybe that's not fair on Nikon to pick the D3X when the D700 is much lower in price (~£1,900). Great features, live view, great high ISO support, almost everything the D3X is but at half the resolution.

Canon's alternative the 5D Mark II, a monster of a camera. HD video, live view, ISO 50 to 25,600 h:, 14bit images and a great lens lineup. All this for ~£2,000 is a pretty good package.

Sony's version of all this is the a900, no live view, no fancy features, poor high ISO performance, lens lineup is fewer in number than the rest, accessories and such are also less plentyful.

So what's the a900 got going for it? In-body stabilisation is a big plus for me, any lens from any maker is going to be stabilised. A large dynamic range (only out matched by the D3X I believe). Excellent highlight and shadow headroom on RAW files (best out there I think). ISO 100-1600 RAWs on an a900 after PP are great, noise doesn't really become an issue until 3200, and if you size that down to 12MP (the D700 resolution) you can't tell the difference between the 2 (link).

Some great lenses out there, look at the new Carl Zeiss stuff or the unique 135 STF lens with 2 apatures. But you don't have to shell out for the latest and greatest lenses, any Minolta glass from the last 25 years works great and AF it just as spot on. The old glass is still amazing, even so far as to outperform some of the newer additions. Did I mention the thing has 24 megapixels? Oh and that you can pick one up for ~£1600?

I know the original post was asking about a camera not in the same league at which the 5D Mark II and D3X are at, but it tends to be the same story throughout each brands range (i.e. Nikon's have great high ISO support, Sony's have in-body stabilisation, Canon's tend to do everything). So what camera is right for you? Well, all of them and none of them. Each camera brings it's own thing to the table. If you want to shoot sports/low level lighting then you'll want a Nikon or if you want to shoot portraits you'd be better off with a Sony.

Whatever camera you get you'll be able to take great pictures with, a lot of reviews are lessons in nitpicking and pixel-peeping. 90% of the time it's the photographer that makes a picture good, not the camera. I'd just advise researching all the cameras in a given price list, and find out which one's best for you.

 

Thanks for all your help! I finally decided for a Canon EOS 450D, the kit w/EF 18-55mm lense. As for now I am really limited to 550€ and all I'm going for is a nice body, but about towards the end of July I will receive my first income from civil service (~500 Euros), then I'm gonna buy a decent lense for it. I think surviving these few weeks of having an average one won't be too hard after 6 years with a 3.3mp bridge camera.

 

There are other "camera manufacturer's" that feature this as well. Pentax is one, I believe. But as for the price range, both makers have plenty for that. My 30D was 160,000 yen w/ the lense, and it rocks. There's even the KISS/Rebel series below it in the 80,000-90,000 range last I checked.

Certainly you can buy worse cameras than Sony but I would never touch one. I'll admit it, I hate them. Their products look all fancy and shit, but I've had so much Sony stuff go tits up in a year (or not work out of the box) it's ridiculous. Want to get it fixed? Costs about 75% off the cost of a new one.

 

And here are two links about Sony/Minolta cameras and lenses:
http://www.alphamountworld.com/
http://www.dyxum.com/

 

I'm a Pentax man through and through (until I can afford a 1Ds MkIII)

Used all the main models of Canon/Nikon, and they are nice camera's, but the Pentax wins for me, plus I can buy any K-Mount lens on the planet and it will work, unlike with, say a Nikon.

Just remember, you can take awesome photo's with a shit camera, but a good camera won't always make you a good photographer.

 

True dat, and I have about 6800 of 7000 pictures to prove it.