Good, cheap digital SLR?
February 7, 2010 9:16 AM Subscribe
Is there a good, cheap digital SLR, preferably that comes with a 28mm lens out of the box? Hard do say what I'll use it for but it won't be used for action/sports shots.
When you say 28mm lens, you're aware that all cheap SLRs have a smaller-than-35mm sensor that'll make 28mm equivalent to a very-slightly-wide normal, around 45mm?
Nothing cheap comes with that out of the box, though anything - a Nikon D60, Canon Rebel - will come with a kit lens that covers that size and more. I don't know whether that's workable for you; I personally do a lot of low-light indoor work, so the slow speed of those kit lenses (usually f/3.5-5.6) drives me nuts. You, however, may be working with decent amounts of light, or you might be working with more depth of field, so you'll be fine with the kit.
Alternately, one of the new Micro 4/3rds cameras, which technically aren't SLRs, might be up your alley - like this Olympus PEN. Note that m4/3 has a 2x multiplier, so that 17mm lens it's packaged with will be equivalent to a 35mm, perhaps wider than you'd like. Also, IMHO, none of the m4/3 cameras are quite purchase-worthy yet, though I expect them to improve rapidly; check reviews to be sure you'll be happy with one.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:30 AM on February 7, 2010
Nothing cheap comes with that out of the box, though anything - a Nikon D60, Canon Rebel - will come with a kit lens that covers that size and more. I don't know whether that's workable for you; I personally do a lot of low-light indoor work, so the slow speed of those kit lenses (usually f/3.5-5.6) drives me nuts. You, however, may be working with decent amounts of light, or you might be working with more depth of field, so you'll be fine with the kit.
Alternately, one of the new Micro 4/3rds cameras, which technically aren't SLRs, might be up your alley - like this Olympus PEN. Note that m4/3 has a 2x multiplier, so that 17mm lens it's packaged with will be equivalent to a 35mm, perhaps wider than you'd like. Also, IMHO, none of the m4/3 cameras are quite purchase-worthy yet, though I expect them to improve rapidly; check reviews to be sure you'll be happy with one.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:30 AM on February 7, 2010
After multiplying in the crop factor, the wide end of the kit lens that comes with most of the entry level SLRs will correspond to a 28mm field. On my Nikon D40 at least, the aperture at this point (18mm) is f/3.5, which works OK for low light but isn't necessarily optimal.
Unfortunately, fixed focal length lenses in this range on Nikon, and I assume on other manufacturers' systems, tend to be quite expensive, as in significantly more than the camera would cost.
posted by monocyte at 9:34 AM on February 7, 2010
Unfortunately, fixed focal length lenses in this range on Nikon, and I assume on other manufacturers' systems, tend to be quite expensive, as in significantly more than the camera would cost.
posted by monocyte at 9:34 AM on February 7, 2010
Response by poster: Hi -- yes, I want a 28mm equivalent (i.e. wide angle). I think I'm right in saying that they use equivalent values to describe these digital SLR lenses, don't they?
I'd like the freedom to do lower-light photography so a f/2.8 lens would be good, but a 3.5 on a zoom lens starting at 28mm would be ideal :)
posted by deeper red at 9:36 AM on February 7, 2010
I'd like the freedom to do lower-light photography so a f/2.8 lens would be good, but a 3.5 on a zoom lens starting at 28mm would be ideal :)
posted by deeper red at 9:36 AM on February 7, 2010
Response by poster: Somebody had better explain to me how lenses work on digital SLRs. I only have experience of 35mm film, I'm afraid, although I have a lot of experience therein (I ran a photography group back in the old days). I've only ever used point-and-click digital cameras.
posted by deeper red at 9:41 AM on February 7, 2010
posted by deeper red at 9:41 AM on February 7, 2010
Why do you want an SLR? Are you looking for a wide range of lens options, or just more flexibility with exposure controls, depth of field, manual focus, etc? Because there are many smaller non-SLR cameras that can do the latter.
posted by jon1270 at 9:53 AM on February 7, 2010
posted by jon1270 at 9:53 AM on February 7, 2010
I don't have a specific answer, but if you're looking at lower end DSLRs, you might want to look at the new four-thirds cameras as well. You'll want to read this thread.
posted by The Bellman at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2010
posted by The Bellman at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2010
Response by poster: Yes, it's about flexibility and things like instant shooting, rather than pressing and waiting while the camera goes through the motions.
posted by deeper red at 9:56 AM on February 7, 2010
posted by deeper red at 9:56 AM on February 7, 2010
The Rebel XS is cheap and light, and the kit zoom includes the equivalent of 28mm on a crop sensor.
To clarify, do you want a kit zoom lens that includes 28mm, or do you want a kit that includes a 28mm prime lens?
posted by sindark at 10:03 AM on February 7, 2010
To clarify, do you want a kit zoom lens that includes 28mm, or do you want a kit that includes a 28mm prime lens?
posted by sindark at 10:03 AM on February 7, 2010
Hi -- yes, I want a 28mm equivalent (i.e. wide angle). I think I'm right in saying that they use equivalent values to describe these digital SLR lenses, don't they?
No, they don't. The lens is still physically a 28mm (or whatever) lens - the reason for the crop factor is that the sensor on all SLRs in a "cheap" price range (sub-$2500) are all smaller than a frame of 35mm film. Most have about a 1.5x crop factor; the micro 4/3rds format has about a 2x factor. Point-and-shoots, which have super tiny sensors, are often described in 35mm-equivalence because "4-32mm lens" doesn't really help much when purchasing; SLRs, however, never are. For one thing, most are still compatible with film-based cameras' lenses; all of my lenses would work perfectly well on any Canon film SLR I bought. Cameras with a sensor the same size as 35mm are called full-frame.
It's worth noting that the crop factor makes genuinely wide lenses very problematic. My "wide" lens is just taking my 18-55 kit lens and pulling it as wide as it'll go, 18mm, which gives me a 28mm equivalent. Canon makes a very good 10-22, but it's pricey and it's an EF-S type, which means it's built to cropped-sensor specs and won't work if-and-when I get myself a full-frame camera, so I'm trying to avoid buying it.
If a 3.5 on a zoom that starts at 28mm would work for you, you'd be fine with absolutely anything - Canon and Nikon's low-end offerings (probably others too, but I'm most familiar with those) come with 18-55 3.5-5.6 options. Your other path is simply to get a camera both without
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:04 AM on February 7, 2010
No, they don't. The lens is still physically a 28mm (or whatever) lens - the reason for the crop factor is that the sensor on all SLRs in a "cheap" price range (sub-$2500) are all smaller than a frame of 35mm film. Most have about a 1.5x crop factor; the micro 4/3rds format has about a 2x factor. Point-and-shoots, which have super tiny sensors, are often described in 35mm-equivalence because "4-32mm lens" doesn't really help much when purchasing; SLRs, however, never are. For one thing, most are still compatible with film-based cameras' lenses; all of my lenses would work perfectly well on any Canon film SLR I bought. Cameras with a sensor the same size as 35mm are called full-frame.
It's worth noting that the crop factor makes genuinely wide lenses very problematic. My "wide" lens is just taking my 18-55 kit lens and pulling it as wide as it'll go, 18mm, which gives me a 28mm equivalent. Canon makes a very good 10-22, but it's pricey and it's an EF-S type, which means it's built to cropped-sensor specs and won't work if-and-when I get myself a full-frame camera, so I'm trying to avoid buying it.
If a 3.5 on a zoom that starts at 28mm would work for you, you'd be fine with absolutely anything - Canon and Nikon's low-end offerings (probably others too, but I'm most familiar with those) come with 18-55 3.5-5.6 options. Your other path is simply to get a camera both without
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:04 AM on February 7, 2010
It will be hard to beat the Nikon D40 or the Canon XT as a low-cost entry into a DSLR. The sensor on either is large enough to make low-light (high ISO) shooting a huge improvement over film and certainly better than any point-and-shoot digital. They both come with an 18-55mm lens, which covers the range you want.
For the size of the sensors in these cameras, multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the 35mm camera equivalent. So 18-55mm is about the same as 27-82mm
posted by The Deej at 10:07 AM on February 7, 2010
For the size of the sensors in these cameras, multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the 35mm camera equivalent. So 18-55mm is about the same as 27-82mm
posted by The Deej at 10:07 AM on February 7, 2010
Try a Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm kit lens - the 18mm is roughly the equivalent of 28mm lens on a film camera, adjusted for the crop factor.
posted by lsemel at 10:21 AM on February 7, 2010
posted by lsemel at 10:21 AM on February 7, 2010
I know the title says SLR but since you're price-sensitive you may want to look into the Canon S90 compact ($400). It has the same large-for-a-compact sensor as the Canon G11 and achieves f/2 at 28mm. Shots at ISO 800 are fairly high quality. You can browse more in the Flickr Canon S90 pool for "night" shots.
And since you mentioned flexibility, one of the S90's strong suits is the abundant customizable dials that give you direct access to exposure, ISO, aperture, and shutter speed without having to go through menus. For example, in Av mode I have mine set to adjust exposure level with the dial around the lens, zoom with the zoom dial, aperture with the rear wheel, and ISO via a shortcut button with the rear wheel. No menus.
posted by junesix at 11:17 AM on February 7, 2010
And since you mentioned flexibility, one of the S90's strong suits is the abundant customizable dials that give you direct access to exposure, ISO, aperture, and shutter speed without having to go through menus. For example, in Av mode I have mine set to adjust exposure level with the dial around the lens, zoom with the zoom dial, aperture with the rear wheel, and ISO via a shortcut button with the rear wheel. No menus.
posted by junesix at 11:17 AM on February 7, 2010
A d3000 body (Nikon's latest entry level offering) without the kit lens is under $400. A third party wide zoom such as the Tokina 12-24 could be what you're looking for. There aren't a lot of prime options for 18mm (28 equivalent on a DX sensor). There is a 20mm f/1.8 Sigma lens, but there is an appreciable difference between 28 and 30mm. Something to keep in mind with the lower end of the Nikon range is the body has no focus motor; AF relies instead on the lens' focus motor, restricting your choice of lenses (unless you want to manually focus, which I personally find preferable at times). Something like the D90 on the other hand has a built in motor and can autofocus legacy lenses such as the AF-D line made for film cameras.
posted by domographer at 11:22 AM on February 7, 2010
posted by domographer at 11:22 AM on February 7, 2010
Do not use a kit lens. They're all going to laugh at you, and the horrible photos you will take. There is a reason why they are so cheap.
I have been very pleased with my sigma 10-20mm zoom on my nikon d200...I got a good price on it, too...
posted by sexyrobot at 11:45 AM on February 7, 2010
I have been very pleased with my sigma 10-20mm zoom on my nikon d200...I got a good price on it, too...
posted by sexyrobot at 11:45 AM on February 7, 2010
I shoot 80% of my photos with a Sigma f1.8 20mm lens. Modern megapixel counts mean you can crop to your heart's contentment, and the wide aperture means great low light shooting without flash. I got mine for $250 used.
posted by kcm at 12:09 PM on February 7, 2010
posted by kcm at 12:09 PM on February 7, 2010
How cheap is cheap? Do you need high-ISO capability? Does the lens need to be fast? Do you want a stabilised body? I will recommend the Sonys because the body is stabilised, which means you can do remarkably long handheld exposures, particularly with wideangle lenses. Sharp results at 1/4s are easy with a 20mm.
If you only need low (100-200) ISO then I'll suggest you buy a second-hand Sony A100 (maybe $200 with low actuations) and then fit a Minolta 20/2.8 ($300) or Sigma 20/1.8 ($250) to it. 20mm will give you the same field of view as a 30mm lens on full-frame.
The A100 (with CCD sensor not CMOS) has unbeatable quality at ISO100 but horrible noise once you hit ISO400 and you can forget about 800+ entirely. If you need higher ISO, then there are newer APS CMOS-based models to choose from anywhere between $400 and about $1000 depending on features.
If a fast lens is not so important (f/3.5 at the wide end), the Zeiss 16-80 is very sharp but it's $600+. 16mm gives you the same FOV as 24mm on full-frame due to 1.5x cropfactor on Sony entry-level cameras. There's a Tokina 11-16/2.8 that's meant to be fantastic, it's recently been announced as available in Alpha mount but it's pushing $1000. You can get a Sigma 10-20 but IMHO (I have one) it's pretty soft and it's very slow.
If you want a full-frame DSLR, you can get a new A850 for under $2000. It's 24MP and stabilised. Put a Minolta 28/2 on it and you're set!
Have a look at dyxum for the lens database at least, not to mention the forum.
(Please don't buy a D40 or its friends. They lack the in-body focus motor so will not work with 95% of the Nikon back-catalogue. Top-end Nikons are wonderful but the entry-level sucks bigtime and restricts you to practically brand-new lenses at much higher prices. And you can't put M42 lenses on a Nikon.)
posted by polyglot at 7:35 PM on February 7, 2010
If you only need low (100-200) ISO then I'll suggest you buy a second-hand Sony A100 (maybe $200 with low actuations) and then fit a Minolta 20/2.8 ($300) or Sigma 20/1.8 ($250) to it. 20mm will give you the same field of view as a 30mm lens on full-frame.
The A100 (with CCD sensor not CMOS) has unbeatable quality at ISO100 but horrible noise once you hit ISO400 and you can forget about 800+ entirely. If you need higher ISO, then there are newer APS CMOS-based models to choose from anywhere between $400 and about $1000 depending on features.
If a fast lens is not so important (f/3.5 at the wide end), the Zeiss 16-80 is very sharp but it's $600+. 16mm gives you the same FOV as 24mm on full-frame due to 1.5x cropfactor on Sony entry-level cameras. There's a Tokina 11-16/2.8 that's meant to be fantastic, it's recently been announced as available in Alpha mount but it's pushing $1000. You can get a Sigma 10-20 but IMHO (I have one) it's pretty soft and it's very slow.
If you want a full-frame DSLR, you can get a new A850 for under $2000. It's 24MP and stabilised. Put a Minolta 28/2 on it and you're set!
Have a look at dyxum for the lens database at least, not to mention the forum.
(Please don't buy a D40 or its friends. They lack the in-body focus motor so will not work with 95% of the Nikon back-catalogue. Top-end Nikons are wonderful but the entry-level sucks bigtime and restricts you to practically brand-new lenses at much higher prices. And you can't put M42 lenses on a Nikon.)
posted by polyglot at 7:35 PM on February 7, 2010
PS: stabilised bodies mean EVERY lens is stabilised. "Available Dark" suddenly has real meaning when you can shoot stabilised at f/1.4 and get great pics of people by the light of one candle.
posted by polyglot at 7:40 PM on February 7, 2010
posted by polyglot at 7:40 PM on February 7, 2010
Do not use a kit lens. They're all going to laugh at you, and the horrible photos you will take.
I don't know about the Canon side (though I've heard it's not too bad either), but the Nikon kit lens is actually very well reviewed by lots of people around the internet. It's still a cheap piece of kit—it has a plastic mount and you can't use the manual focus ring while the lens is in AF mode (a problem shared by very few Nikkor lenses these days). But in terms of sheer image quality, it'll certainly serve just fine.
Regardless of whether you pick up a Canon or Nikon (or Pentax and possibly even Sony), another possible lens purchase is a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the equivalent Sigma. Reviews suggest that if you get a decent copy of either, you'll get great IQ for a fraction of what the equivalent Canon or Nikkor lens would cost. But purchasing off-brand lenses is a more advanced topic, and I'd stick with the kit lens until you feel like you've outgrown its capabilities (ex. "man, even at f3.5 I'm having a tough time getting shots that aren't blurry!")
Also, what polyglot said about entry-level Nikons is true. You CAN still use old lenses with the D40/D60/D3000/D5000, they just won't autofocus. For a vanishingly small segment of photographers, this is actually okay (whether you've ever used a manual-focus camera body before is a big indicator), but you're not likely to be one of them. Sadly, this is the one major problem I have with my otherwise-lovely D60.
posted by chrominance at 9:18 PM on February 7, 2010
I don't know about the Canon side (though I've heard it's not too bad either), but the Nikon kit lens is actually very well reviewed by lots of people around the internet. It's still a cheap piece of kit—it has a plastic mount and you can't use the manual focus ring while the lens is in AF mode (a problem shared by very few Nikkor lenses these days). But in terms of sheer image quality, it'll certainly serve just fine.
Regardless of whether you pick up a Canon or Nikon (or Pentax and possibly even Sony), another possible lens purchase is a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the equivalent Sigma. Reviews suggest that if you get a decent copy of either, you'll get great IQ for a fraction of what the equivalent Canon or Nikkor lens would cost. But purchasing off-brand lenses is a more advanced topic, and I'd stick with the kit lens until you feel like you've outgrown its capabilities (ex. "man, even at f3.5 I'm having a tough time getting shots that aren't blurry!")
Also, what polyglot said about entry-level Nikons is true. You CAN still use old lenses with the D40/D60/D3000/D5000, they just won't autofocus. For a vanishingly small segment of photographers, this is actually okay (whether you've ever used a manual-focus camera body before is a big indicator), but you're not likely to be one of them. Sadly, this is the one major problem I have with my otherwise-lovely D60.
posted by chrominance at 9:18 PM on February 7, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by deeper red at 9:20 AM on February 7, 2010