OK so I'm sure there are extant threads that cover this but presumably the situation changes over time so I reckon a new thread might just be warranted.

Short version: for my 40th, which was earlier this year, I was bought a weekend's photography course. It was last weekend: I enjoyed it a lot, but ended up having to borrow a DSLR since our camera is much simpler/cheaper. I should point out that I'm a total newb at this.

So having learned a bit about the practicalities and advantages of DSLR photography, I'm considering whether I might invest in one myself. The one I was loaned was my mother's old one (she has several) -- a Canon 350D. Apparently despite the fact that she also owns a 550D, and the 350D really just takes up space and gathers dust, she can't bring herself to give or even long-loan it to me.

So the obvious question is, what should I go for? I won't have a lot to spend, don't need anything too fancy. I was happy enough with the 350D, to be honest, and would even consider buying one second-hand (they seem pretty cheap these days). I quite fancy a wide-angle lens, so any money saved would help me to justify that purchase.

Suggestions welcome.

Pentax is the least expensive of the prosumer-range DSLRs, and you can use most Pentax lenses, even older manual focus ones so you can save quite bit of money that way, too.

Another thing worth considering is that if you don't buy the latest camera, but buy one a couple of models back, you will find very good prices on eBay or even the retail sites like B&H. I recently bought a Pentax K-X to replace my old Pentax *ist, and am very happy with it.

here's a repost from another thread:

Pentax:

Pentax K-7

• retails around 1100 USD.

Or the even less expensive K-X

• around $500 USD.

a lot less expensive body than comparable Nikon/ Canon offerings, and can use all Pentax 35mm lenses. Like, from film cameras. Even older ones that aren't AF. You remember, the kind where you can get really good lenses for 10-50 bucks on eBay.

Best bang for your buck on a prosumer dslr, IMO.

Yep - what Ari said.

My Pentax k10D is a few years old now but still excellent for my needs.

before you buy anythign consider if you'll want to shoot video at all with it - I imagine that you will, what with having kids around. If you're buying an older second hand DSLR you might not get a video option with it.

I third the Pentax suggestion too - definitely what I'll go for if I ever get the spare cash together.

I guess your mum won't be parting with any old canon lenses either?

Thanks for the advice, it's appreciated.

I'd not considered Pentax, since I don't really know them at all. A refurb KX seems to go for around £300-350, with a basic lens -- does that sound about right? Is refurb a good/bad idea?

How much would I pay for a decent wide-angle lens?

Originally posted by: DontBogartMe I guess your mum won't be parting with any old canon lenses either?

My mum...she can be so generous, and other times she can be stingy as hell. She doesn't need two SLRs, her shiny new 550D is so much better than the 350D that she's never going to go back to using the older one. And she even has a compact camera for when she doesn't want to lug the SLR around. :rolleyes:

I guess maybe I could offer her some money for it...they seem to go for about £150 so it'd be a cheap option to get me started.

As for the chance of her passing on old lenses...forget it.

i just got a k10d used, and just bought a wide-ish angle legacy lens (old, manual, but good) for 90 bucks.

the k10d cannot do video though. I would seriously look at video capability of whatever you get if this interests you. The k10d is fine fun for the geekery of a dslr. Two issues with k10d (and believe me I am no expert but...) I have seen are the color seems just a lil less lively than a canon/nikon, regardless of lens and also you're going to be looking for some fstops that don't exist a step or two beyond the lens ability. Although this may be my inexperience and not wanting to trade off iso, etc. But nothing a raw editor can't fix up. Which, as I learned from everyone here, you want whatever you get, to shoot raw. raw raw raw. It makes a huge difference.

All dSLR's will err towards less saturated color when shooting raw (especially compared with P&S cameras). It's the processing (either in camera JPG) or in raw editor, that controls saturation.

So consider the raw shots out of the camera as a negative you still have to "print" - using a raw editor, to get the final usable image.

Originally posted by: persist ...and also you're going to be looking for some fstops that don't exist a step or two beyond the lens ability...

Agreed, but it is easily fixed by buying more expensive, faster glass

Originally posted by: Technomancer [quote]Originally posted by: persist ...and also you're going to be looking for some fstops that don't exist a step or two beyond the lens ability...

Agreed, but it is easily fixed by buying more expensive, faster glass

[/quote]

I don't understand what either of these statements mean. :shrug:

This article is a pretty good at explaining it all.

For my pocketbook, $500 is still pretty spendy. The cheapest I've found new were around $450 on new egg.

I need to steal one.

You can get an *ist DS for under 300 on eBay, with lenses. No video and you need to use your viewfinder to take shots but it's a very nice camera, just about 5 years old.

Are you still using your *ist?

what the fuck is an *ist?

Yeah, I don't care about the special effects or video, I just need some SLR action. I was looking through my old negs, I took some bad ass shots on my k1000. If I could find a DSLR like that, I would be stoked. Manual focus, everything else manual, no stupid beach settings or anything else.

thi is an *ist. Fairly rugged & basic, takes good clean shots, almost no chromatic distortion (like moire or purple fringing) but has a tendency to adjust colours a little green and red seems a bit oversaturated - unless you shoot raw, of course. It's great in bright or mixed light but not great in low light, so if you take a lot of low light shots I hear Nikons are much better - although they cost a lot more and have a more limited range of lens interchangeability.

Originally posted by: FlamingoJeff Are you still using your *ist?

No, I upgraded. I keep the *ist for backup as it still works fine though I do need to get the viewfinder cleaned, but I do like the K-X more. Gabi is using the *ist now when she feels like taking photos. She's got a pretty good eye for composition and takes great people shots, but her subject matter is often clouded by little kid desire to take pictures that are very close to random surfaces.

That's it's actual name? Weird. I wonder if they are playing of the isms. Fascist, racist, sexist. Probably not, that would be fun though.

Actually, that's what I figured the branding was about, too. The new line, for the (wildcard)ist.

Originally posted by: arigato Actually, that's what I figured the branding was about, too. The new line, for the (wildcard)ist.

But is there anything positive you can put before an ist? I can't think of anything, but maybe I'm a negative Nancyist.

Socialist.

Positivist. Humanist. Fist.

Hobbyist. Cubist. Off your face, getting pist.

hmm, that looks a little out of place now