Essentially, what it boils down to is the higher res/movie mode capabilities. I've heard some good things about the T2i, and I've already played around with my brother's T1i, so I guess the next step is physically seeing/holding the T2i.

Any thoughts on the Canon G11?

Does anyone have staff discount? Looking for a 7D.

I'm looking at you Senna or niforpix. ;)

Hehehe... Sorry, it only applies to myself or immediate family. There is a $150 rebate on the 7D now though.

Currently have an XSi and JUST got a smokin deal on a 17-40L I then traded the 17-40L for a 24-105 F4L IS and i wanna maximize the awesome.I wanna upgrade my body to a 7D or MAYBE a 5DMKII if the price is right but dont know if I should keep the 24-105 or trade it for a 17-5 2.8 IS. What scares me is the IS issue on the 17-55 how it gives out...

Won't be able to use the 17-55 EF-S IS on the 5DMKII as it's a FF camera. EF lenses only. If you got the 7D, then yes, you'd be able to use the 17-55.

Can any recommend any good slr camera for a beginner who's just getting into photography?

Canon XSI, T2i or T1i, or Nikon you can't beat the D90 for a beginners camera.

Oh. For the people who are interested, bestbuy is having a sale on Canon t1i until the 10th. $780 for the camera and kit lens and a rebel accesory kit. The kit comes with a bag, extra battery, and a uv filter. I think it worth $120 for the kit itself? What do you guys think of the deal?
Posted via RS Mobile

The older Nikon D40/D40x/D60. It's so simple there's nothing to do but to go out and compose nice photos, rather than mess around with mundane settings like D-Lighting etc, AEB, etc.

Step 1 is to build the composition skills and I really think the D40 is good for that. It teaches you how to compose and how to control the fundamentals, like shutter speed, aperture, white balance, exposure compensation, and most importantly, composition... it's also cheap on Craigslist.

Read books too.

Hey guys. I'm planning on springing my first DSLR in a couple weeks after I get my next paycheque. I'm leaning toward the Nikon D5000.

I know the basics of shooting (ISO, shutter speed, white balance, aperture size, basic compo e.g. framing, etc) by being around my amateur photographer dad, but I've never put the knowledge into practice. Thus, I think that an lower-end entry level camera like a D40 may be too feature-less for me as I think I can get better fairly quickly.

Considering my position, is there anything that would make you buy a D3000 or D60 over a D5000?

My feeling is that you'd probably outgrow the D3000 quite quickly.

D5000 is a far nicer camera. More features and allows you to grow into it. The D3000 is dated, and the GUIDE mode is just plain stupid.

I like the tilt screen of the D5000.

The only advantage of a D60 is that' you can find used ones on CL for quite cheap. Since you know the basics, have you considered the D90?

I think I'm going with Canon. The reason being is because the lenses are cheaper than canon.

I have, in fact, considered the D90, but it costs $450 more (kit) than the D5000. My budget isn't fixed, but what justifies the price difference?

They have the same sensor, so image quality (assuming the lens is the same) should be about the same.

There's a few key differences.

1. D90 can drive Non AF-S lens (that is, lenses that can't autofocus by themselves). If you plan on buying some primes, the D90 route can actually save you some money. AF-S primes are expensive!

2. Higher Res LCD monitor

3. Top LCD information (Wish my D40 camera had this)

4. Superior Kit Lens (If you are going the kit lens route. 18-55mm vs 18-105mm)

5. More Sturdy.

6. Dedicated ISO, WB, Quality and Info buttons <- All invaluable for bypassing menu navigation.


Downsides: Price, bigger size, heavier and lack of swivel LCD. If you just plan on taking a few pics here and there I think the D5000 is a fabulous camera for that. If you are more on the enthusiast side the D90 may be all the camera you'd ever need for a long time.

So I looked it up, and consulted with my dad, and he lives with manual lenses, so I figure I can too. Also, I don't think I'll be sticking to DX in a few years so the AF-S argument is moot.

And as much as I'd love the top LED, IMO the rest of those reasons don't justify the price jump. I'm going with the D5000 in a few weeks.

Thanks for your help guys.

Have fun w/ the camera. Yes, DX is the suck, although acceptable. I wish I had the funds to switch to FF!

DX doesn't suck. In fact, the crop sensor and the magnification factor makes it awesome for sports and bird photography; a 300mm/2.8 lens with 2x TC becomes 900mm/5.6 vs just 600mm/5.6 on FX; your typical 70-200mm/2.8 zoom becomes 140-300mm/2.8. All for a FRACTION of the price if you needed FX equivalent lenses.

^

Agreed. Maybe 'suck' was the wrong word. I really dig the much larger viewfinder of FF and the low light capabilities. But yes, DX is win for the situations you listed.

Yeah there's definitely markets for both format, and I can see DX sticking around for many more years to come. In fact, I would even consider going back to DX if the noise performance can be close to what the current FX bodies can offer... FX is great overall but it gets really expensive when you try to get longer lenses... even with TCs you just don't get that "free" reach you get with DX.

I think it would be awesome if the D700 replacement will be around 16~18mp (I personally have no need for more than 12mp but the higher the more you can crop), and have a crop mode of at least 8mp - now THAT would be the perfect camera cuz then you can use either mode as you see fit.

Ahh I worded it wrong. I meant I don't know if I should go for the 7D + 17-55 2.8IS route or save up for a 5D2 and keep my 24-105. In both cases I'd sell my XSi now along with the Tamron 17-50.

Looking for some recommendations: It's a gift for my sister and she knows jack about cameras.

Looking for:
- Point n shoot
- easy to use, reliable
- HD video capability
- under $300

Canon SD940

+1 on this recommendation.