Which DSLR do you recommend?

• 

  John on 14/07/2011 - 10:50

  For a casual photography, I'd recommend the 60D or 600D ($1000ish). Simply because it has a flip screen and it records great HD movie. The flip screen is useful for many use. Otherwise, for lower cost I'd get a 550D ($600ish), but no flip screen.

  Also, the lens plays a big part on the photo quality. Spend a bit more on a good/cheap lens like Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($350ish), you will notice big difference.

  • 

    vickster on 14/07/2011 - 11:05

    So you think the twin lens that come with the cameras (eg canon 1100D) are pretty basic and far less inferior to the Tamron you mentioned?

    • 

      djones145 on 14/07/2011 - 13:24

      the tarmon is alot better than the kit lens
      great lens to start with

      600d plus that would be a great combo
      forget the kit lens they are quite bad,
      try whirlpool they have a photography forum there

• 

  dasher86 on 14/07/2011 - 10:57

  some of the lower end ones i have been looking at.
  http://tinyurl.com/6hmskln

• 

  abacus on 14/07/2011 - 15:18

  The lens is more important than the camera. Buy the cheapest camera and a good lens, the camera will probably get upgraded in 3-4 years, and a good lens will last a long time.

  I would go with Canon as dpp is easy to use, and viewnx is impossible. I am sorry I bought a Nikon.

• 

  vickster on 14/07/2011 - 19:57

  Thanks for all your replies! Will definitely check out the Tamron lens, and the suggested websites.

• 

  dy4me on 17/07/2011 - 20:03

  I would recomend the 550D over the 600D. the only difference with the 550D and 600D is a flip out LCD and a better body. Cuz of that you can get the 550D for a pretty good price. I have seen them go in the 700 range and thats with the 18-55 IS lens.

  Now for those who know more about lenses

  canon 18-55is vs Tamron 17-50mm

  Could you tell us the difference in image quality?

  Also how about this one?
  Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD for Canon

• 

  djones145 on 17/07/2011 - 22:38

  +1

  the 18-55
  http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProd…
  is a kit lens
  f3.5-5.6 IS
  cheap, avergae in low light

  Tamron 17-50mm
  is alot better
  more expensive
  f2.8
  better in low light
  think the version without image stabliser is cheaper
  but the image qauility is better

  tamron is alot better (should be around 400 bucks)

• 

  djones145 on 17/07/2011 - 22:38

  +1

  http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProd…
  Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Lenses

  with vibration control

  http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProd…
  without it

  super zooms liek this
  Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD for Canon

  aint bad
  but u give up a bit of image quaility and f stop (not as good in low light) for that extra reach

  depends on what type of photographer u are
  if you are going to city's, landscapes
  a 17-50 is fine

  if you go to things like sporting events, bird shooting, zoo, sarfari
  u need that extra reach, but for those u need better lens anyway (renting usually)

  i recommend the tamron 17-50
  not bad bang for ur buck

  i personally go the canon version
  http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProd…
  thats was 1k….

• 

  dy4me on 19/07/2011 - 07:50

  thanks for the info Djones. Is the lower light due to the longer tube length of the lens? also would it be better getting a 18-270 and using lighting to compensate of the low light at shorter distance thus having the best of both worlds? i know that this takes us into a whole other topic about lighting.

• 

  djones145 on 19/07/2011 - 10:33

  +1

  better light is due to the ability of the lens to capture more light in (lower f number)
  thats a really basic explanation
  go to whirlpool and read some of the forums (i cant say i'm an expert aswell)

  u could do that
  but i personally dont like photo's with flash
  the camera flash is very average
  u'll have to spend money to get a better flash

  at the start u prolly cant tell the difference between the two lens
  once ya get to learn the settings fo the camera (shot in modes besides auto) u'll understand the limitations and the quaility fast

  the 18-270 aint a bad lens
  but once ya get into such large ranges, quaility does get pushed aside a bit

  you prolly should think about what u want to shot
  i initially got the kit lens, 17-55 and 55-250
  i rarely used the 55-250 (went to europe with it, was to take a few shots)

  in 4 years i've only used that len at sporting events and zoo

  so you prolly have to think wat u wanna use the camera for