Digital SLR .. Budget $600 - $1k

[Unseen]

Alright lads in the know,

Tax money is allowing the purchase of a digital SLR. So what should i be looking for?

I went looking on the weekend and there are some for the $700 range (Canon EOS1000D) Nik0on D3100 $999

So not knowing anything and knowiung there are a few on here with cameras .. whats your suggestions.

Not looking for a miracle maker, just want nice clean shots at a resonable distance .. also interested in the built in digital cameras without the extra lens.

Cheers
Pimps.

[Milenko]

I personally use a Canon EOS500D. It's a good pro-sumer model (mid range).
I bought mine for $1600 (from memory) back in the day; with a twin IS lense kit.

Canon and Nikon are pretty much neck and neck, as far as I've read.

Wait to hear back from Raker and/or Kagetsu - as they are the guys who helped me decide

[grandinferno]

No matter what people say, Nikon seem to always top the reviews... but only just. I think you'll be happy either way. I believe you can get the D3100 with a twin lens kit for under a grand.

[rec]

As far as camera performance between the two leading brands goes, they are seriously, seriously close.

The winner for me is Nikon however, and I will always recommend them over Canon. Why? If there is no other noteworthy edge that either has over one another, Nikon's build quality always trumps Canon.

[CyphiX]

I own a Canon 500D, pretty good camera to work with and just need to get a decent lens if you're to use it for more than day to day use. Though I use the 18-55mm that came with it for when I do photography work at the night club I work for.

What ya thinking of doing with a DSLR?

[grandinferno]

As far as camera performance between the two leading brands goes, they are seriously, seriously close.

The winner for me is Nikon however, and I will always recommend them over Canon. Why? If there is no other noteworthy edge that either has over one another, Nikon's build quality always trumps Canon.

+1 to that. Having handled all the latest models at work and comparing apples with apples, the Nikon build quality is always better. You can particularly feel it in the lenses.

[RakeR]

Im Canon now all the way.

I have been from the 350D which I still have.

I also have a 50D and 5D. The 5D is my workhorse.

Im interested in selling the 350D and 50D for those that want to get into some well looked after and good quality cameras.

I find that the Canon is easier to use for anyone to pick it up, where as the Nikon you need to be shown or check the manual.

I used a Nikon at the last DGA and I took some crap photos due to its not so easy to use and trusting in the automatic setting and focus.

I agree with the build quality at the low prosumer end of the scale. Nikon has it in the bag including the lenses.

However at the high end of the prosumer and professional, Canon and Nikon are much of a much and it is down to the person as to which path they went down.

So if you are going low prosumer then Nikon otherwise Canon for it ease of use out of the box.

Also love the L Series Luxury Lenses on the Canon, beautiful build and superior optics.

[Cryodeath]

Any opinions on Canon G12?

[Kagetsu]

The G12 is a great P&S (point and shoot) camera, and supports RAW images. The idea behind the G series is to be a photographers assistance when a larger format camera isn't suitable.

Unseen, the truth is at entry level DSLR's and in fact, more or less high end top pro stuff it's more important to focus on the feel of the camera.
Key to the feel of the camera is also the system. Canon systems haven't changed a lot since the start, Nikon seem to also have established a system now too. Function wise (the physical feel and use of the camera) they're a bit different. Canon utilises two wheels and a selection button to pretty much change everything, it takes getting used to, where as Nikon tend to use buttons for everything... I'm not familiar with the Nikon system though.
Neither is better though, it's about what you're comfortable with.
Quality wise, they're much for a muchness at entry level and pro level. The only disparity is from the mid range stuff, but even at that level, the different in image quality is statistically negligible.

I will say one thing though. As far as HD video capture on DSLR's go, Canon still lead the way there.

If that however doesn't matter to you, also look at the Sony stuff. They have an excellent lens range, though they're still a little behind in the sensor technology, it's really only noticeable at higher ISO levels.

DPReview.com is a good resource for comparisons... also keep in mind, almost every review of camera's out there compare high ISO performance in JPEG's only... which is fine, if you don't want to shoot RAW.
In RAW, again, the difference is less noticeable between the top performers, so really it's more the system you're interested, don't let high ISO performance be your selling point in any case. However, Canon and Nikon do lead the way in this.

BTW. For those who don't understand when I talk about RAW format... it's basically the raw data from the sensor.
Shooting raw allows you to capture a higher level of colour inbetween the black and white levels normally associated with JPEG. It also captures data outside of the normal JPEG ranges, (think lighter then white, and darker then black).

[Cryodeath]

I might just stick to a point and click for a while............

[grandinferno]

Unless an SLR is too big for you, you're a fool if you buy anything else. I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[Kagetsu]

Unless an SLR is too big for you, you're a fool if you buy anything else. I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Not sure if I'd agree with that... I used to have that view... and yeah, the controllability is awesome.
The reality there are more people out there who'll simply become frustrated by the whole thing and sell it within six months.

As far as point and shoots go though, the G12 is a nice one, good performance, especially when considering the size of it.

Also, the other option is those 4/3rds camera's available now too... they seem to do a pretty good job of it, and in some cases, you can get a pancake lens and the thing is smaller then some p&s camera's out there.

EDIT: Turning on the sarcasm though. By the same logic, once you go Medium Format, anything less is just stupid.
This is coming from a poor lost soul who has had the privilege of shooting with an H4D60 for an entire shoot, and an H4D50 for part of a shoot, and now look at my camera's (a 1DsIII & 5D2) and go "these are just shit-house".

If you're an SLR user, NEVER EVER USE a MF camera.

[Jay]

Then there's: Horseman 45FA