Winner - Best Inexpensive DSLR

[dougjgreen]

Well, the cheapest DSLR solution is certainly to buy into the Pentax system, and pick up used 2nd hand Manual Focus lenses. As an example, I picked up a very clean 70-200 f4 Takumar-A lens for around $20 on ebay. You could also get a 28-80mm Takumar-A lens for around $50. That's a very respectable kit that provides automatic exposure, although manual focus only, in the Pentax DSLR system. Unfortunately, it appears that the current Pentax DSLR lineup is a notch below the entry level cameras from Canon, Nikon, and Olympus. It's still pretty good, just not quite the capability of the others. And there are millions of used K-mount lenses out there for very low prices. Even exotic wide angles and super teles, at absurdly low prices.

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by llpoolej

I still don't see how the lenses for the Oly's are so expensive. My husband just bought himself a E-500 kit with the 14-45 and 40-150 for $700 shipped and all. The lenses are as good of quality, if not better, than the consumer lenses from N/C. If that isn't inexpensive, I am not sure what is. That is for 28-300mm in 35mm speak.

I have said this a lot. for the price the Olympus E300,330, and 500 are the best deal in town for lowest initial purchase price. Its the other lenses that are costly. Case in point 300mm f2.8's, for all the other major 35mm manufacturers the cost is $3500-$5000. The Oly is $7000. I can see a bit of a price difference but come on. If a buy never intends to move beyond the kit lenses its a great buy.

Originally Posted by llpoolej

And as far as wide angle, I could get the 7-14mm which is 14mm equivalent on the wide end(pretty darn wide even for 35mm standards) F4 throughout and probably one of the nicer superwides optically. So, call me ignorant, I am just not sure what *I* would gain with 35mm full frame. How much does a lens with low distortion and great optical reviews cost, that is wider than 14mm in 35mm equivalent?

The 7-14mm list at b&h for $2000, on sale for $1650. The only true FF ultra wide I know of is the Sigma 12-24 for $660. The DX sensor camera have the 10-20mm sigma for $480. Once again pricey.

Originally Posted by llpoolej

Seriously, what am I missing? I am not saying that the 5D is not an excellent camera. I am sure it is. I just don't know what I would personally gain just because it is 35mm full frame.

If you have the cash and don't miss FF then why worry about it. So many people sound like they get hung up on must having FF or never needing to know anything about it. While I usually avoid the FF discussions because people take it over personally here is my take. If you don't need FF fine. If you need FF fine.

and to throw gas on my own fire, what one finds expensive, others do not.

[ellette]

My friend isn't interested in getting lots of lenses. That is why I think the kit with the Oly would be a great deal for her. Then, pretty much all she'd want would be a macro lens to go with it eventually (ok, and other added accessories like a flash and such, but no other lenses) because I got her started liking macros. Instead of spending about the same on just a body, she could start out with two lenses already and take her time building her equipment up and not have to spring for a heck of a lot more right away. It may cost more in the long run, but sometimes spacing things out over time is much easier to deal with than a big huge chunk all at once like I had to do with the 20D. I send her to B&H to see the 10D's they had new, but she wasn't prepared to spend that much on just a body right now so I'm hoping to get her into a camera that will fit her, no matter what brand it is. She currently has a little film Pentax and 2 lenses for it, but they aren't great lenses and nothing to keep her brand loyal.

Sara

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by ellette

My friend isn't interested in getting lots of lenses. That is why I think the kit with the Oly would be a great deal for her.

Sara

That would be a sensible choice Sara. Try to look beyond the standard issue C/N responses and you will see a lot of other alternatives out there. Also if your friend is interested in getting into macro photography, she can pick up the Zuiko 35mm 1:1 macro for a very reasonable cost, as well as other very good value Zuiko Digital lenses that are out there. The driving force for Olympus/four-thirds at the moment is to try and attract those not encumbered with legacy lenses/thoughts and who would be interested in what is the only truly digital SLR system out there.

[llpoolej]

I was going to suggest the 35mm macro. I have seen some really beautiful shots with it and it is in the $200 range. So, she could get an 8mp camera with no dust issues, and 3 lenses for $1000. Pretty darn inexpensive if you ask me.

The only truly expensive lenses are the pro ones and they ARE expensive. The 300mm is not 7k though, it is $5999 and if you wait, there is a often a $700 rebate. Making it $5200. Granted, waaaaaay out of my price range, but still different than 7k. I do wish sigma would come out with a 300mm that is slower and affordable. they don't sell many 4/3 lenses because they cover what Oly already has covered in their budget lenses. They need to cover the longer tele ranges that Oly doesn't have. I would LOVE a 4/3 50-500!!!!