Elcableguy77 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 523 posts, RR: 4 Posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
After looking into the possibility of getting a digital SLR and getting my hair stood on end by the pricing, I'm considering going the non-digital SLR route, which is a bit cheaper. Plus, there is the option of getting a digital copy of the photos when I take the film in for processing. What I'm curious to know is what you all consider the best camera for me, a relative newbie in the world of photography, to use for learning all about different settings. Money is a little bit of an issue, as I would like to stay within the $200-$300 range.
My brother has already suggested a Canon EOS Rebel. Any other thoughts about this or other cameras?
Thanks in advance!
Former ZW F/A | "Wisconsin 72A, contact departure, see ya."
SmithAir747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1723 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
I have a Nikon N65/F65 with a 28-200mm lens on it; I bought the kit from another A.netter just before Christmas 2004.
It takes great quality pictures (much better than the digicam I tried for a few months). It has both manual and automatic settings for focus, aperture, as well as high-speed, night, portrait, auto, etc. Thus, it would be great for you as you are starting out in photography, as you can use either automatic or manual settings. The manual tells you clearly how.
I also like the lens that came with it, because you can get closer to aircraft as they shoot approaches to LHR. It's a bit harder to get aircraft at higher altitudes. The quality of the prints themselves is very good. If you are trying to upload them, it takes a bit of learning and trial and error to scan them directly from prints or use the CD version you get from some photo shops (although those are mostly low-resolution on CD; sometimes you can get a CD with both hi- and low-resolution files on it).
My MyAviation.net photos (since Dec. 11, 2004) show quite a quality difference compared to my earlier photos (also on that site) taken with the digital camera. For example, the photos taken in December onwards are sharp enough to show the registration numbers on the aircraft, while the majority of the earlier (digital) photos are too blurry to show the numbers. (My MyAviation.net photos are listed under the photographer search for Francis J. Smith, if you want to see the difference in quality between the two cameras).
My advice is to look at my photos, but much more importantly, ask others on here if they have Nikon N65/F65 cameras for their opinions on them (they may vary with the user).
Hope this helps!
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2216 times:
If you're wanting the film processed to CD as well as prints, find a camera store that uses an off-site dedicated lab - you'll get very high quality images that way, rather than the grainy crap they pass off at most high street places.
Whatever route you go, SLRs are great fun, and choose your brand carefully, as any glass you buy will always work on that maker's DSLR range, should you choose to upgrade.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7914 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
Since your new to photography and want to learn about different settings and all the neat stuff you can do...go digital! The initial prices are higher, but in the long run you'll save big time! I find they're much better to learn because you don't have to pay for your mistakes and it's so much easy to experiment. The Digital Rebel has gone down in price considerably over the last couple of weeks since the announcement/introduction of the Digital Rebel XT. But if you're really interested in a 35mm, I've got a Canon 3000N SLR (I don't know the American name for it) that I bought last October in Germany with a 28-80mm lens (only used it a couple of times) just sitting around 'cause I bought me a Digital Rebel last week. I was gonna set it up on ebay next week (the 3000N) but if you're interested let me know.
Wanderer From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2184 times:
I had a Nikon F55 a few months ago, and can recommend that as a good, inexpensive option, UK prices (I don't know about US prices, unfortunately) start at around £160 (maybe even less) for a body with a 28-100mm zoom lens.
I kept the 28-100mm and now use that on my D70, along with a 70-300mm zoom.
I picked up a bargain of a Canon EOS 500 35mm SLR with 35-80mm lens, too, today - ok,it's not a Nikon and I cannot use the Nikon lenses, obviously but at the price it was, albeit secondhand, it was too good to resist and broadens my options.
There are plenty of bargains to be had secondhand - I used a secondhand F3 for over a decade before age caught up with it.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
I own a Nikon F80/N80 and can recommend it without any limitations. If you want something cheaper, take a closer look at the F75/N75 and F55/N55. They are often sold in combination with one or even two lenses, you certainly get a good deal then.
Later you can upgrade to a digital SLR or a more professional SLR and expand your lens sortiment.
Whatever you chose, I would buy either Nikon or Canon as they have the largest sortiment of lenses, flashes etc. And these brands are by far the best choice if you intend to use a digital SLR later.