# Recommendations needed



## Bill325Ci (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm looking for a basic DSLR, under $1,000. Amazon currently has the Canon Digital Rebel XSi 12.2 MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens for 563.96. Good camera/good deal?

Or should I go Nikon?


----------



## Daedalus34r (Jun 30, 2007)

You will get an endless debate if you try the canon vs nikon topic.

Personally, i like canon and I own a 50d DSLR and love it.

For your price point, you can find a nice Canon T1i body+lens kit for around $800 iirc. the T1i has 15mp and HD video recording, which is a really cool feature. Overall a nicely featured camera that fits your sub $1k range.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Buy whatever feels better in your hands - for me it was Nikon. The equivalent entry-level Canon (Rebel XT?) felt too small.


----------



## The Otherside (Jun 30, 2009)

Im a Sony guy. I like the A series. I own an A350. Next is the A700.

Its all prefrence.


----------



## Bill325Ci (Jul 17, 2002)

Okay, I realize I may have to go slightly above $1k. I'm currently looking at the Canon T1i, Canon 50D, and the Nikon D90. Any comments/recommendations on these?


----------



## bkmk5 (Feb 19, 2008)

Bill325Ci said:


> Okay, I realize I may have to go slightly above $1k. I'm currently looking at the Canon T1i, Canon 50D, and the Nikon D90. Any comments/recommendations on these?


Like Chris90 has said, whichever feels better in your hands. Like Chris, the Nikon felt much more sturdy, not so 'plasticy' or cheap. Of course a battery grip on a T1i can make it look/feel like a much more beastly camera but thats a personal preference. Speaking of beastly...I have the battery grip and a new 17-50 lens with 19 pieces of glass... my camera weighs a TON! I almost want to take the battery grip off now.

More megapixels is a stupid thing to base your purchase over. You will never be printing your images to billboard size.

Do you have any requirements in regards to focal length? Landscapes/portraits/telephoto/Macro?

I was stupid and bought the Nikon D90 with the kit lens. Its a great lens, dont get me wrong. VR is great to have on a Nikon lens but the maximum aperture wasn't that great at say 50MM. I ended up selling that lens and purchasing a 17-50MM F/2.8 with VC (Tamron's version of vibration reduction) The lens is simply amazing. I can hand hold the camera at f/2.8 and shutter speed of 1/10 and still get tack sharp images. That is something that wasn't possible with the kit lens.

You should also compare photos from each camera at higher ISO settings. My Nikon D90 still has usable shots for the web at 3200.

Best of luck! Sorry i couldn't sway you one way or the other but just my own opinion on the D90.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Chris90 said:


> Buy whatever feels better in your hands - for me it was Nikon. The equivalent entry-level Canon (Rebel XT?) felt too small.


Exactly, get a man's camera.
Nikon D90 with the 70-200 f2.8 is my setup. I shoot high school sports. On days when I need a longer reach in daylight, I use the 70-300 f3.5-5.6 rather than a Nikon teleconverter. The D90 with 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR can be had for around $1100.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

bkmk5 said:


> Like Chris90 has said, whichever feels better in your hands. Like Chris, the Nikon felt much more sturdy, not so 'plasticy' or cheap. Of course a battery grip on a T1i can make it look/feel like a much more beastly camera but thats a personal preference. Speaking of beastly...I have the battery grip and a new 17-50 lens with 19 pieces of glass... my camera weighs a TON! I almost want to take the battery grip off now.
> 
> More megapixels is a stupid thing to base your purchase over. You will never be printing your images to billboard size.
> 
> ...


In general, sharper image is the result of VR and high shutter speed, not f stop. You can shoot in lower available light with your 2.8 lens. If both lens shooting at 1/10 sec, both will be just as sharp, no? Example: f2.8 at 1/10 sec with your lens and f5.6 at 1/10 with the kit lens will have just as sharp picture, unless your lens is sharper at 2.8 than the kit lens at 5.6.


----------



## bkmk5 (Feb 19, 2008)

Dave 330i said:


> In general, sharper image is the result of VR and high shutter speed, not f stop. You can shoot in lower available light with your 2.8 lens. If both lens shooting at 1/10 sec, both will be just as sharp, no? Example: f2.8 at 1/10 sec with your lens and f5.6 at 1/10 with the kit lens will have just as sharp picture, unless your lens is sharper at 2.8 than the kit lens at 5.6.


You are correct that the sharpness usually has to do with VR or higher shutter speeds. My kit lens at 50mm was around F/5-5.3 and the ISO would have to be bumped up to get similar results to that of 50mm f/2.8 @ ISO 100. A combination of higher ISO and smaller aperture may have something to do with it.

Either way, I'm extremely pleased with my 17-50MM f/2.8 VC lens from Tamron. Thats all.


----------

