Is it worth getting this camera?

[ladysith]

I saw an ad *commercial name removed* and they're selling the Canon 1000D for $799!
It comes with 18-55mm IS & 75-300m lenses, bonus tripod & bag along with a 3 year warranty.

I visited different shops today and they all wondered how *commercial name removed* could afford to "give away" that kind of deal.

I had a look through flickr and found a Canon 1000D group. I had a look at their photos and they seemed good enough. Most of them weren't taken using kit lens though and most of them went through some PP.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon+1000d

It'd be nice to actually see some "natural" shots. Not that I mind PP, I actually like playing around with my P&S-generated photos in Photoshop.

My question now is... is this a good deal? Or is it too good to be true? Initially I was hoping to get a Nikon D90 but after some serious deliberation, I decided to just purchase an entry-level DSLR, hone my "skills" and when needed, upgrade. I mean, think of the money I could save! I could travel overseas with the $1,700 price tag the D90 has! Hehehe

If I do purchase the Canon 1000D, are the lenses included in the package deal good enough to do its job? If not, which lenses would you recommend?

Is it important to buy filters? I want to take semi-serious photos. I'm very much interested in macro photography, the usual indoor photos for parties etc and of course, taking everyday photos of everyday things. I'd like to dabble in a bit of street photography too.

Thanks everyone (in advance) for your tips and answers. ^_^

** Members with under 50 posts and 30 days membership cannot promote commercial companies on Ausphotography **

[kiwi]

seems like an OK deal for that Canon stuff
D90 deals start at about $750 for the camera alone
Dont bother about filters
Yes 18-55 and 75-200 covers most bases to start with - wont do macro though

[etherial]

It really depends on your budget and your experience level. The 1000D is getting a bit old now (I don't think it has been updated for a while). It was around when I bought my 450D two years ago. Personally I found that the 450/500/550 series to be much better for not a lot more money, so I went that way (the 450D at the time). I then sold it for a good price when I upgraded. You might be able to pick up a 500D (which is a good starter) cheap given it is now superseded as well.

This review site is great: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ra-Review.aspx

[dulvariprestige]

DWI has a 1000d and 18-55IS for $504, add $363 for a Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro, $96 for a 50 1.8, and you've got yourself a good little starter kit that will cover pretty much what you've mentioned, and all for under a $1000.

[MarkChap]

Since when has the 500D been superseded ??

I know exactly who *commercial name removed* is

And they can afford to "give them away" because they bought them at the right price from Canon.
Seriously if that is the sort of service the other stores offered, maybe you should visit said *commercial name removed*
Sorry end of Rant.

As the bottom of the entry level ranges, I think you would hard pressed to go past it for that price.
But be warned, the free tripod has 3 legs and a head and I wouldn't use it to support a flash let alone a camera

[kiwi]

A tripod with three legs ? You don't say

[MarkChap]

A tripod with three legs ? You don't say

Yeah, did you read the rest of the line

[etherial]

Since when has the 500D been superseded ??

Since the 550D came out at the start of the year.

[MarkChap]

Ummmmmmmmmmm .................. I beg to differ, they are still readily available from Canon, with no indications of running them out any time soon

[etherial]

Fair enough, they are both still available and so to is the 450D in plenty of places; but as far as specs and age goes, they are superseded models. Anyway, as I suggested, the 500D is a good choice given IMO it's current status.

[kiwi]

And a head, and it's poo

[MarkChap]

And a head, and it's poo

Yep, thought that was what I said ?

[arthurking83]

I saw an ad [COLOR="red"]..... I mean, think of the money I could save! I could travel overseas with the $1,700 price tag the D90 has! Hehehe

......

Is it important to buy filters? I want to take semi-serious photos. I'm very much interested in macro photography, the usual indoor photos for parties etc and of course, taking everyday photos of everyday things. I'd like to dabble in a bit of street photography too.

.....

OK, I'm not entirely sure I understand exactly what you mean by semi-serious, but it does seem that you want to delve deeply into the 'art' of photography, and hence why you want to upgrade from a P&S to a DSLR.

If you do want to delve more deeply into photography in both the art sense and with an eventual better understanding of the technical garb.. then one thing to note.

Dont; save money by saving money.. Save your money and spend more of it when you have it and are ready to part with it!

This is not my(direct)advice, but an assessment of concept provided by a very smart person by the name of Thom Hogan.

Soemwhere on his blog page he claim you can save money by not spending money needlessly on stuff you don't want.. and by going directly to the product that you do want. His blog is directly relating to tripod purchase, but it holds true for just about every other type of gear related purchase too!
And camera bodies are not immune to the same disease.

eg. if you end up like me and find yourself limited by what the camera can allow you to do(in a technical sense), then having that burden all over again in a few months or even years is going to come back to haunt you again.. "what camera should I upgrade too" .. etc, etc.

Why waste $700 on a camera that you eventually are loathe to sell (for about $100-200) and go through those motions all over again.

I'll keep my gear references specific to Nikon, because that's really all I know and understand

A while back I read a blog post from someone(can't remember who ATM tho, sorry), and this someone claimed that the newbie photographer should be directly looking to purchase a D700(quite expensive camera body at $2500, for a grey market body, and $4K for a legit Nikon Aus version.. warranty can be an issue??).

his reasoning was very sound, and I myself am looking to upgrade to a D700 type camera one day soon(hopefully sooner, rather than later).

he basically(and jokingly) claims that just about the vast majority of newbies start off with a D3000 type camera, and soon find that they've hit some limitation that they're not happy with. They've paid $600 for the camera and eventually sell it on fleabay for $300(fleabay is flush with D3000's so losing 50% of the purchase price is not a difficult proposition. So the next step is to upgrade to the D5000, as it may do faster frame rates, or it may have liveview, or bigger review screen or whatever 'better feature' it supposedly has over the more baseline body. the purchase price of the D5000 could be $800. But 6months later again, the once newbie is now more fluent with their photography workflow, is much more adept with the camera, and finds themselves limited again, by what the D5000 can do. So the D90 is the next step up the social ladder in Nikon terms. the previous newbie now only wanted better focusing ability in low light, as the D90 is heaps better than the D5000. So the D5000 is flogged off at Cash Converters, because of the 50% loss in value found on fleabay, but the going rate at CC's is $300 for them to purchase the D5000.. so because the now semi amateur has made the effort to get themselves to CC's, they think bugger it, I only know that want the D90, and this D5000 has to go.
So the deal is done, and 1/2 hour later the D90 is in the semi amateur's hands for $1200. But 3months later they find that once again they're limited by some missing feature on the D90(say Mirror LockUp this time), so the decision is made to acquire a D300 ASAP, and having been bitten by fleabay and CC's, they then look to Photographic Trader to sell the D90 instead.
Takes 3 months to get the first response to the D90 ad, but after a month of waiting the previously semi amateur didn't have the patience to sell the D90 first, so the D300 was acquired, even tho the D90 was still in their possession.
D300 has been used for two solid months up to the first contact made on the D90 ad,and the D90 has been sitting forlornly on the shelf in the box, all wrapped up in the plastic wrapper that they initially come with. So the offer from Joe Schmoe comes in, and shocks the semi amateur at only only $300! So the semi amateur is going to be more resilient this time ans stand fast on their expected resale price of $1K.. but six months later the D90 ad is still unanswered, but another call comes in for it, and this time it's Joe's cousin Justine.. $250!.. and as the D90 has been sitting for 9months now, and there's an impending replacement due any day now, the semi amateur decides that keeping it sitting on the shelf unused for 9months is not the same feeling as $250 in the pocket, and maybe $250 can get her a nice lens too!

so the deal is done, and the semi amateur wants to take a portrait of Justine with her holding the now sold D90, but the semi amateur suddenly realizes that the DOF from the recently acquired 50/1.4 is not as nice looking as some she's seen taken with the D700 camera and 50/1.4.. and her mind wanders onto thoughts of blissful photography nirvana if she had a D700 to play with instead.
Well a week later she's back in the shop and the D700 she played with in the shop has a proud new owner.. and whadd'ya know!!... that newbie that started off thinking that she only needed a D3000, now has a D700 to amuse her and push her understanding of photography and the technical concepts it has to offer.

if you think that you're the type of person that can seriously get involved with photography, then don't fool yourself... you want a D700(D3 is probably better, but much more expensive, for not a lot more gain unless you want to go pro.. tomorrow!)

if you want low light photography and shallow DOF, then you want a D700. If you don't want to be in a position over the next few years where you finally feel frustrated by the camera's ability then the D700 is what you want.
Once you make the decision that you want to be semi serious, then get at least a very semi serious camera to go with that attitude, and don't waste money upgrading camera bodies needlessly!!

while the prices may be slight exaggerations, they may also not be far off the mark, so expect to lose a considerable sum of money on updating camera bodies ..and that money is something that shouldn't be wasted like that, and instead simply spent in a more appropriate area to begin with!

My story: I started with a D70s(2006), after about 6 months I purchased a few cool lenses, but some that were manual only, and the D70s doesn't work well with manual lenses, so I wanted a D200(at the time, the next step up). Some of those manual lenses were very hard to get sharp shots with, and I initially thought it was the lens, and many people claimed that the lens wasn't over fantastic in IQ, but on the very rare occasion I could get very good(more than acceptable) images with it. Turns out that the lens is actually better than many people believe it to be, but that the D70s was the problem. It doesnt' have mirror lockup(or exposure delay) to help with keeping teeny vibrations to a minumum or zero.. preferably zero.
At this time the D300(and D3).. and it was like Christmas had come. I was hoping that a cheap D200 would come up foe sale on fleabay(and they did) but the more I read about the D300, the more I convinced myself that it was what I really needed.
The D3 was 3x more expensive than the D300 then, but had I known what I know now, it was actually really what I wanted.. I just didn't know it then!!
So I didn't buy the D200 for $900 off eaby(only a few months prior they were selling for $2K!!).. and I went for a D300 instead. Grey market, and with a MC-36 remote I paid $2400(even though I only wanted to pay $1k for my next camera upgrade).
The Liveview is simply the best feature, and the reason I went for the D300 instead of the D200, and as i primarily tend to shoot landscapes high ISO was never a high priority.. just nice to have. That's where I stuffed up, because even tho I've been more than happy with the D300(as a landscaper) for the past year, I've been doing a lot more low light event photography(family friends stuff... not paid!) and now regret not to have gone with the D3 back when I upgraded.. I also want the shallow DOF that the full frame sensor allows, compared to a Dx sensor.. but I already knew that aspect. It was the need for better low light ability and ISO6400(and even ISO12500) that I never thought I may need(want.. same thing).

Save your money!!(sorry 'bout the long post..you're probably overseas on hols now! )
Save your money, go overseas and spend that money, use your P&S. When you get back, save your money, scrounge whatever you can. But get a D700 as your best camera body option and then forget about upgrading for the next 5 years or so. You will want to save every penny you can on the various lenses that take your fancy, as you discover what it is that they can do for you, and you then become afflicted by lens envy!

And who knows what you'll be doing in 5 years, when some must have feature on the new D900 is something that you just cant' live without too.. You're probably making $5k/week as a wedding photographer, so dropping another $4k on a new body will be peanuts.

Don't get me wrong tho(about the D300) after 60K exposures(99% as landscapes) I'm not unhappy with the D300. It's been every bit as good as I expected it to be, it's liveview and better compatibility with old lenses and suchlike. The problem lens(500mm f/8) was a futile endeavour on the D70s, but looks like a brilliant and capable lens on the D300. The D300 has helped me to get better use out of this lens. Not with every shot, that's still something I haven't fully mastered yet, but having a better camera body has helped me get more from a lens, where most people would recommend replacing the lens for a better(but much more expensive lens of the same focal length.

So that's the kind of advice I like to give. Get something that you actually want(or need) once you have it, and it does what you expect it to do, then look at laternative avenues to expand your photography needs(ie lenses, tripods, remote control helicopters!! etc..... ie. whatever help you get the images that you want too). Don't get into this frame of mind, I'll get this for now and then update to something better.. there are so many update/upgrade options you'll probably end up spending too much time exploring them, or fussing about the cost,and forgetting the reason you want them.. the actual photography!

get a D700 and a lens or two(all up cost could be $3K).. then forget about gear and go out and shoot.
Note there will be similarly specced Canon gear too. and Canon gear is generally a bit lower in price compared to Nikon.

ps. the D70s went to my son(at age 8), so it didn't go to waste and he loves it... and I also bought him a dedicated 18-105VR kit lens eventually to go with it.

ok, if you got this far, i hope this helps a little.

[unistudent1962]

[QUOTE=ladysith;698305]I saw an ad *commercial name removed* and they're selling the Canon 1000D for $799!
It comes with 18-55mm IS & 75-300m lenses, bonus tripod & bag along with a 3 year warranty.

I saw this deal in their catalogue today, so I know which company you're talking about. Some people are quoting you prices on here that are "Grey Imports", as such they don't carry an Australian warranty. A week or so ago, a national electrical retailer (Clive something or other) was selling the 1000D with 18-55 IS lens for $493. As far as I know this camera is still a current model and has not been superceded.

While it may be good advice to save your money until you can buy the model you want, and not worrying about having to upgrade again in the future, in my opinion you're better off buying what you can afford now, learn to make the most of equipment you have, and then if and when you want to upgrade do so. I started in digital with the 400D and standard kit lens, it was the entry level model at the time, and the feature set of the 1000D is probably more extensive than that of the 400D.
The following review provides a good insight into the abilities of this camera, and makes several useful comparisons to all the models in the Canon DSLR range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ra-review.aspx

The nearest to the 1000D is the 500D and it is more than a few dollars more, unless of course you're comparing a grey market 500D to the Aus market 1000D.

I say buy what you can afford, otherwise you may just keep putting it off.

[ladysith]

Thanks everyone for your sound advice.

I am still tossing up between the getting-what-I-can-afford VS saving-for-what-I-want.

I also have the option of either buying my cousin's 3-month old $700 grey-market purchased D90 body since he wants to upgrade to a D7000. I still reckon he should sell it to me for $600, currently haggling with him on that. If I do end up convincing him to sell it to me for $600, I'd still have to buy lenses for it. *sigh* Which means more research on my part.
If he won't budge then I guess I'll just have to buy what I can afford. I agree with what unistudent said, buy what I can afford, learn to use it, upgrade later on.

Truthfully, I think the only reason I want the D90 is to keep up with the Joneses since a number of my friends have it or something similiar - sucks coz they don't even take it off auto mode. XD
I do have a smart friend who bought the Canon 450D with kit lens, he just bough an extra lens with it, ended up spending $1300 in total or something.

Ahhh yes... decisions, decisions....

[unistudent1962]

A quick look at another dealer (Digital Camera something house) has the 1000D twin lens kit (NON-IS) for $775 and IS for $869.
Looking at the original ad you were talking about, it only mentions IS on the 18-55, so I think you might find that the 75-300 is NON-IS.

[dulvariprestige]

You say that a number of your friends have nikon, would they be good enough friends that would let you borrow a lens now and then until you get some of your own, I know that at times I've had lenses that I wasn't using, and if a friend had a canon camera I would have let them use them.

Also, if you do get the d90, maybe look for a second hand sigma 17-70, you could pretty much get by with this one lens until you can afford others, wide enough to do landscape, long and fast enough for portraits, and the close focusing distance of this lens is great for macro type shooting on a budget.

[arthurking83]

T.....
I do have a smart friend who bought the Canon 450D with kit lens, he just bough an extra lens with it, ended up spending $1300 in total or something.

....

Opinion will be divided as to the intelligence of this particular friend ... but most of that opinion will come from me .. and so it won't matter anyhow.

The lens is easy! 18-105VR.. approx $300 ripper lens for the money, and it'll be a good start to get you on the road to figuring out which lens types you will eventually want to work with.
The 18-135 is apparently a very god lens too from all reports, but it doesn't have VR, which can make a big difference in some conditions but the extra reach is not worth it, and the price difference is not great enough. The VR of the 18-105VR is worth the extra $50 or so.

Once you have your cousins D90 in your possession, and at least one cheapie lens to begin with, look out for any Melbourne meetup thread coming up soon afterwards.
Most of us are fairly accommodating types and will let other attendees play with various gear to help them decide if that's the kind of thing they want.

[smallfooties]

Just randomly, ever considered a Nikon D200 or D300 even?
I got my Nikon D200 and the sigma 18-50 f 2.8 both for 1.5k i don't know... just thought i'll throw this in... probably doesn't make sense!

[unistudent1962]

Ahhh yes... decisions, decisions....

Have you made a decision yet?