Well, I recently sold a 22-250 to bu another 22-250. The one I sold was a safe queen and at 13 lbs and pretty bulky, too unwieldy for anything but the bench.

Then this weekend I was deer hunting and while I did not see a single deer, I did see all kinds of cool stuff that made me wish I had a great camera and the skills to use it.

So, for the first time in my life, I am contemplating using gun money for something other than another gun!

I have done some reading and will do much more research before deciding if/when/what DSLR to buy, but I just wanted to tap into the crew here:

what do you have? What do you recommend? What should a guy look for?

My budget ($600-$800) will hopefully fund a decent beginner camera...

thanks ,

--Duck911

You can actually take great snapshots with a small Sony digital camera but it's not a SLR. I had one and got the itch for a SLR and bought a Nikon D300 w/zoom lens but it was considerably higher that your price parameters. I love it but don't have enough smarts to utilize all its features. Check out the small Sony pocket digitals at Wal-Mart. I bought mine from the advertiser here at the campfire and his price was competitive...I guess.

A few generalities only from me. Experts like UtahLefty can give you more details than you can digest.

Don't be mislead by huge numbers of megapixels. More megs does NOT mean better pictures. Eight meg is more than enough for high detail even when blown up to 8x10". Unless you are making huge posters, that's plenty.

Do shop for a camera with "zero delay." Many digitals have a delay of up to a half-second between when you push the shutter and when the photo is actually taken. It is absolutely impossible to catch facial expressions or action shots with those.

"Digital" telephoto gives you lower quality, it's done by forcing less detail. The guideline should be the camera's optical telephoto limit, stated in X's like for a scope.

If you have a film SLR with interchangeable lenses, stick with that brand; the lenses can probably fit your new digital as well. If you don't have lenses, brand doesn't really matter.

Mine is a Canon PowerShot S5-IS which isn't made any more. It's also not a true SLR with interchangeable lenses, but it does offer great quality, a broad range from SuperMacro to decent telephoto, viewfinder PLUS screen, and a built-in hot shoe for remote flash in addition to the built-in flash. It's good enough that I gave one to each of my daughters last year, and they love theirs, too.

I went through this a while back, and wound up getting a Canon EOS from Camera Land. This was purchased as a kit and included two good lenses, but was a bit over your budget. I will never figure out all the features - these new cameras are incredible.

Had EXCELLENT dealer service with Camera Land, too.

Well, I may be able to expend the budget slightly if I tell the wife the camera is hers too....

I already have a point and shoot and it takes OK pics but I really want to upgrade

a budget of $600-800 will get you an entry-level SLR and an entry-level lens. If you're looking to get a foot in the door now and add lenses and/or upgrade bodies later, I'll write more.

However, if you're looking for something to carry along and still get pretty good pix for $600 or less, I would strongly consider a $400 Canon G10 or G11.

review here

Wow, that G11 looks like a great deal. I can vouch that the tilt/swivel screen can be hugely helpful (although Canon had to replace mine under warranty once).

The Pentax Kx is a good value for a starter-intermediate DSLR, would be what I would buy if I could afford it...

The Canon's are nice. I have a G7 that is a few years old and it takes fantastic pics.

While not an SLR, I really like the Canon 120 digital camera that my wife bought me for Christmas last year. My wife has a Canon SLR with multiple lenses and a larger battery pack, and while it takes great pictures it is just not convenient for some activities due to size and weight. In fact, now as often as not, my wife will leave her SLR behind and we'll just take my much smaller Canon 120.

It's been a great little camera and at least one other person who has used it has liked it so much they bought the same model too.

the issue with entry-level DSLRs is that the barrier-to-entry is pretty high ($600-700). See Canon rebel Ti , Nikon D60, Sony A350

The next level up is a significant boost in capability but only adds $200-300 to the cost ($900-1,200). See Canon 50D, Nikon D90, Sony A700.

The Tamron 17-55 f2.8 is $400 and is one of the most under-priced tack-sharp lenses out there.


So:

1) you could buy an entry-level Canon Rebel/Nikon D60/ Sony A350 + Tamron lens for $1,100

or

2) a Canon 50D/Nikon D90/ Sony A700 + Tamron lens for $1400


that extra $300 buys you A LOT

I'm shooting Canon 5D's. A great choice for $749.95 B&H Photo price is a Canon EOS Rebel T1i with kit lens 18-55 IS, 15.1 megapixel and will shoot live 720p HD video! You can add all kinds of great lens to the DSLR cameras. Buy Cannon or Nikon DSLR's......Don't buy Sony becauce of resale and lack of lens....

Something like this?

EOS package deal

Use it until I can upgrade lenses?

I was in the same boat as you are, needing something to take pic's of wildlife. I could not afford to go fully DSLR and after a year of canvassing the internet, I found what I was looking for. It was a Canon SX10-IS. Again, not a true DSLR with changeable lenses, but with a optical zoom of 20X, it's hard to beat. Also has built in image stabilization. It has 10.0 megapixels. Depending on the memory card, can hold thousands of photo's. It also can take several hours worth of movies including sound. Still, the best feature is the zoom. It has the 20X optical, but also has the 4X digital which can make it a total of 80X if you can live with the lower quality at those distances. The numbers comparable to 35mm is 28mm to 560mm.

Nikon just discontinued the D3000 dslr,so you should be able to get some good deals, For about $600, you should be able to get the D3000, 18-55, and 55-200 lenses as a kit.

You might look into the mirror-less or micro 4/3 format (eg. Sony nex5, Panasonic GF, Olympus E-PL) for a camera body smaller than a full-sized dslr, but has interchangeable lenses.

The Canon G11 or 12 is sized nice, takes good images and is well-recommended.

i have a nikon D80 with tele lens i'll let go cheap enough!

ML

Yes

2 great lens for the Canon you can pickup later are 24-70mm 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS....Have fun with your new camera...

A Canon or Nikon body and lens. One can add lenses as funds become available if you get serious. I happen to think that both pixel count and good lenses are the ticket. With higher pixel counts, one can zoom into the center of an image and still have a reasonable photo. Here's an example from my wife's camera. She is running a Canon EOS 50D.

The original image 15 mega pixels. Osprey across the river.


Zoomed into the center of the image. Beginning to see pixels, and not something I would show off, but not too bad either.

The pictures I post here were taken with A Nikon D-80. We love it!

Just a couple of points from someone who made his living with a camera for several years (newspaper photographer, wedding photos and free-lance wildlife photographer). I was really late to the digital camera scene as I had a LOT of top quality film equiptment. For years the digital cameras that were available were convinient, but definitely lacking in quality to film cameras. About 8-10 years ago Pro photographers quite saying "digital is "almost" as good as film" and dropped the "almost".....that's when I got in.

What I've found is that, for the non-professional photographer, a good quality point-and-shoot digital is all they will even want or need. They are lighter, smaller and take excellent photos with a little practice. For many (maybe most) a true SLR camera is not needed and may not even be prefered due to size and un-used features (if you are going to only shoot in "automatic" mode, why pay for the extra features).

However, for those who have experience with good film cameras or want to set up to more sophisticated photography.....the SLR is the only way to go. Lens selection and control over photos let you do things that no point-and-shoot can match.

As someone else mentioned, don't get carried away with the mega-pixel ratings. Any SLR with 8-10 mega-pixels will allow prints of 8x10" that are outstanding. Only a true pro (who may blow up photos to poster size or more) can really used the high-end cameras.....and will pay a high-end price to do so.

The real secret (and a better place to spend your money than more pixels) is in good lenses. The osprey photo above is a good example (by the way a very nice photo). While the 15 mega-pixel camera DID allow the center of the photo to be blown up without loss of quality.....the same thing could have been done with an 8 mega-pixel camera and a longer lens (maybe 500-600mm. Use the lens to get close.....not crop and expand....and you won't find the need for huge pixel count.

Brand is a personal thing, but I would choose either a Nikon or Cannon due to better accesories and lenses available. For years the Nikons ruled the roose for pros, but in recent years the Cannons have taken over primarily due to better lens.....particularly the Image Stabalization lens.

In a Cannon, the Rebel series is very good. Not a "pro" camera, but probably as good as a typical ameture can utilize. One benifit is that the Rebel series tends to be quite a bit lighter than a true "pro" camera. I personally like a heavier camera (probably because of years of useing heavy film cameras) but the average shooter likes less bulk.

One thing to consider is a good used camera instead of new. Digital cameras are good for several tens of thousands of shots and due to the rapid advancement of technology often appear on the used market with very little use in them. Seems a LOT of photographers have to always have the latest and greatest.....which means cameras that were "top=of-the-line" just a few years ago now sell for a big discount. cameras just one or two steps down from the "best" can be had for less than 1/2 what they sold for new. E-Bay is a very good sourse for these cameras as are larger photo stores that take trade-ins.

One thing to watch (particularly if you have a lot of experience using film cameras) is the sensor size used in most digital cameras. What you see in the veiw finder is NOT what you get in a photo. The image captured will be about 20% smaller than what is seen.....as if the image was cropped. This can throw you off if you are used to framing pictures in the veiw finder like a film camera. If you are new to SLR cameras it won't be such a big deal as you will learn from the start to properly frame an image in the digital veiw finder. The "advantage" to this is that, for all practical purposes, your lens will be effecively 20% longer. A 300mm lens will take digital pictures as if you were using a 360mm lens......which can save a LOT of money when going to longer lenses.

There ARE a few digital cameras that use full-size sensors, but they are for the most part true "pro" style cameras and cost more and give up the "advantage" of effective lens length. They are however, easier for old film shooters to adjust to......we like the "what you see is what you get" effect. One of the better, and most inexpensive, full sensor cameras is the Cannon 5D......but don't overlook the older (less pixels) "pro" style cameras out there on the used market. They will serve most shooters very well.

Welcome to the world of digital.....you will never go back! If all you want is a few me-and-joe pictures, family photos and staged kill shots a good point-and-shoot may be your best bet, but an SLR will open up a whole new world of photography. makes the off season so much more fun when you can continue to "hunt" year round.....with a camera!

That's alot of good information that is easy to understand...thanks.
At first glance, it would seem the point and shoot Super Zooms are the answer for alot of us amatuer/occasional picture takers. What do you say?

TexasRick, that was a great post!

ive got a Canon 40D and several point and shoots.....out hunting i like having both but the SLR rarely gets far from the truck, im already packing a rifle and small pack and dont want to pack the SLR so i pack a good point and shoot....if im going out specifically for pics and not hunting i haul the SLR...reason is the weight factor....ive got a point and shoot thats the size of a deck of cards and is always in teh pocket ready for action at a moments notice, if im hunting the SLR is usually in the pack and doesnt get used....

for me the answer is both and use each for its strengths.....nice pics use the SLR, quick snapshots the P&S is always handy.....not necessarily the ideal solution for everyone but i find its what works for me....

Rattler's logic is fine. We do the same, as I don't want to risk a highend unit while wading chest deep down a river steelheading or crawling across some alpine avalanch chute. A good pocket camera can still save the memories.

Very good post TexasRick.

Lots of outstanding info! Thanks all! I'm going to read back through these replies, do some more research, and contemplate it all over a few days of deer hunting this week

--Duck911

Next one I buy will probably be a D90 - for three reasons - one the Nikon system, two, the automatic CCD cleaning system, and the HD movie mode.

Canons are fine, but call me a loyal Nikonista

For just a few hundred $ more, check into the new D7000 rather than the D90 for better HD video and sensor and more focus points.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/

Our copy of Consumer Reports came yesterday, as luck would have it. Matt's recommendation of the Canon G11 came out right near the top of recommended models. And it's well within the stipulated budget.

I have a G10. It's a good camera for what it is but nowhere near the camera even an entry level SLR like a T1 is.

On the other hand I have access to great SLR lenses and they are what make the difference...............................DJ

For $500 you can get a Nikon D3000, Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS or a Sony A390. Of the three I would go with the Canon or Sony. I have heard that the D3000 is not exactly Nikon's best effort and it is being replaced by the D3100. For around $700 you can get the Nikon D3100 or D5000, the Canon Digital Rebel T1i, the Pentax K-x or the Sony A33. Sony has bought out the Minolta line up of digital SLR's.