Looking for quality Digital SLR camera

[Enverex]

I've wanted a good camera for god knows how long. I had hoped that the camera in my phone would keep me sated for a while but alas, 3.2MP means nothing when the base quality is awful (if you zoom in a little you can see that the image has an odd 'oil painted' look to it) plus the colours lack definition. Ah well.

So now I am looking at getting a quality digital SLR but I'm not sure where to start. The Canon EOS 400D (aka Canon Rebel XTi) seems to be one that is thought of highly but on the other hand some reviews seem to slate it (or rather the lens that comes with it). I was thinking I could buy the "Body" model and get a separate lens for it, but the lenses alone cost a -fortune-. The 50mm f/1.8 lens is affordable, but I'm not sure if that's what I need for landscapes and the occasional close up on things (that is the main thing I want the camera for, landscapes and some occasional close-ups on whatever may catch my eye).

So, does anyone have any experience and ideas what I could/should get for £400 or less? Kinda an alien field to me.

[Leonardo]

3.2MP means nothing when the base quality is awfulAny megapixel rating is irrelevant if the lens quality is not good. A poster-size, poor quality photo is still just a poor quality photo. Across the board with the major makers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, et cetera), the electronics packages and software is all very competitive. At the upper end - 'prosumer' level, Canon and Nikon tend to be the quality leaders.

For mid-range digital cameras, if quality lenses and good electronics are your focus (pun not necessarily intentional), consider the Nikon D40 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830113037&Tpk=Nikon%2bD40) . For camera reviews, DPreview (http://www.dpreview.com/) is as good as it gets.

I cannot over stress the importance of lens quality. Everything else doesn't amount to much without the fundamentals intact.

[Nomad]

I'm using Prime's Canon Digital Rebel (300D) right now and I like it a lot. I'm using the standard lens with it and it's kind of a general purpose lens, but it works well. You can get them slightly used for about $400 now.

[Enverex]

The D40 and 300D are both below what I was looking at, I've narrowed it down to the Canon EOS 400D or the Olympus E-510. The Canon sounds like the better camera but comes with a bad lens, so I could buy the "body" model but then finding the right lens for landscapes is the issue (as the lenses seem to cost a FORTUNE!).

Edit: Quoting US prices for things isn't going to help at all due to completely different markets (it wont be at all similar).

[primesuspect]

The Canon EOS 400D is highly recommended. the "bad" lens is actually stellar - it sounds like foofy elitists panning it.

Yes, you can buy lenses that are way better than the kit lens, but trust me - the kit lens is definitely "good enough" to take amazing pictures and to get you started.

btw: hello :)

[UPSLynx]

I hear the D40 is a great camera as well. I prefer the D70 to it, but that's only because I used a 70 throughout college.

I recently bought a Sony Alpha 100 with kit lens. The Alpha 700 and 400 were recently released, so you can find the 100 for cheap. It was made with a joint effort between Sony and Minolta. When it comes to film SLR's, I'm a Minolta man. The Alpha 100 is a very close clone of Minolta's DSLR solution, with Sony tech backing it. It's a great camera and takes solid images.

[airbornflght]

I personally used the Olympus-E510 in yearbook all last year (was head photographer, so I got to keep it at home :D) It's a great camera, but it does have a few short comings. The main one is sensitivity. It does all right in low light, but shooting action at night (late night sports) isn't terribly fun. and I even had a nice big flash to use. It just couldn't handle the high ISO and still have a decent picture. But it does have some good things about it. It was one of the first to have a self cleaning sensor, and it is also very fast focusing. I was surprised when I first used it. I've used canon's and nikon's and they weren't as fast.

The color was fairly neutral. It wasn't dim or lacking, but it wasn't popping off of the page. I kind of like that nothing was over emphasized. But that is more personal taste.

[TheLostSwede]

I have used The Rebel XT 350 up until now and just bought a Canon EOS 30D. The 30D was on an awesome sale here so i couldn't pass on the deal really. I think you may see similar deals on the 30D (which is a faster and better camera than the 400D). It has a magnesium body and feels very solid in the hands.

As for lenses, i would recommend theese ones.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tokina-AF-19-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-AF193-Canon-Lens-EF-40D-XTI_W0QQitemZ180218188303QQihZ008QQcategoryZ152379QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZV iewItem

Incredible lense for the money. The numbers fits good on the 1.6 crop that Canon uses. Need a flash indoor and low light.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-17-70mm-F2-8-4-5-DC-MACRO-Lens-4-Canon-Nikon_W0QQitemZ380000495380QQihZ025QQcategoryZ707QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVi ewItem

Awesome all-in-one lense. Got some Wide, pretty good range and it is fast. This is the lense you'd use for travelling as well.

The reason i haven't posted the canon lenses are because they simply are too costly. The "L" series is around the $1000 at least.

If you are interested in more range, i can recommend the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lense. I use that a lot. It's fast, quiet and not insanely expensive. Around $600-700 for a good unit.

[Mt_Goat]

Since it sounds like you want a good quality camera I highly recomend the Canon EOS 40D (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120229) as it is the lowest Canon SLR that has the ability to see what the image will look like prior to pushing the button. The lens in the kit I linked to will keep you more than happy with quality and versatility till you scrape together enough cash for a more specialized lens if you decide you need one. These take exceptional pictures, are relatively easy to use and even the cheaper lenses available are of a very high quality. I have been using one for the past few months and totally love it!

[airbornflght]

...has the ability to see what the image will look like prior to pushing the button..

Um. Can't you frame the shot with a viewfinder, thus seeing the shot? I think if you are going to have a SLR you need to use the viewfinder, otherwise I don't see how you could hold it very steady. They are meant to be pulled in close. That's just my opinion though. I see no need for a live preview unless you are working on a tripod, to me that's the only time one would be appreciated.

[Nomad]

Um. Can't you frame the shot with a viewfinder, thus seeing the shot? I think if you are going to have a SLR you need to use the viewfinder, otherwise I don't see how you could hold it very steady. They are meant to be pulled in close. That's just my opinion though. I see no need for a live preview unless you are working on a tripod, to me that's the only time one would be appreciated.

Are you kidding me? It would be incredibly useful to see in real time what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO would do in a viewfinder.

[TheLostSwede]

That's what you have Image Stabilisers and tripods/monopods for ABF.
Incredible useful taking images for later tweaking to HDR as well.