I'm looking to buy one soon, just entry level. I'm deciding between the Nikon D50 or the Canon Rebel XT. I am not going to buying a different lense to start, I'll be using the stock one. I have heard the Canon's stock lense basically sucks. The Nikon's however is apparently rather good. Now the Canon is more expensive, and from what I have read should produce better pictures, with a different lense. Does anyone have either of these two cameras, or pictures taken by these with the stock 18-55 lense. You can email them to nonamerat@gmail.com if you do. Thanks a lot!

they are both very good cameras and both pretty close in image quality. so just go to the camera shop and play with both and see which you like better in your hands. It's all preference.

If you want to be real good with a camera, I think it's kind of a good idea to get one that is full manual. I love my old fashioned Pentax k1000. Full metal body... this thing is nearly unbreakable. I like knowing that when I take pictures, I did all the work, and I'm not tempted to put it on auto, since it isn't an option.

But if you just want some good pictures without too much work, those 2 seem to be good choices. I just like the manual ones. More fun, imo.

It's like a manual car vs. an auto. And the manual settings on one with auto are like the auto-stick... it's there, but who ever uses it? :P

I have the Canon Rebel XT. Its a pretty good entry level dSLR. Compared to the Nikon D50, it has more/better features. Not too sure what features you're looking for, so I won't go into details. The older Canon Rebel is the equivalent of the Nikon D50, which should be priced equal to or less than the Nikon D50. Image quality wise, the body doesn't really matter that much, its the lens that will make or break the image, so if I were you, I would just get the body which you can afford and use that money towards a better lens. Check www.bhphotovideo.com. They should have decent prices for both the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel, around the $500 range.

Regarding lenses, the stock kit lens will do fine for awhile. Its a cheap alternative wide angle lens, since its valued around $100 or less. You can't get any other wide angle lenses within that price range. Here's a sample picture:



Its all in the post processing you do to the picture. With dSLRs, you definitely need to post process your pictures in photoshop, since the dSLR doesn't do any in-camera processing for you, compared to P&S cameras.

Another thing you can buy if you ever do end up getting either a Nikon or Canon dSLR, is a 50mm 1.8 lens. Both companies have this kind of lens, and for the price($70-$100), gives you pretty sharp pictures. Here are some samples:





Hope that helps. :-)

Edit: Forgot to say, do try them out at a store first, see how it feels in your hand, then buy somewhere online where its cheaper. The ergonomics of the camera can be a factor in your picture taking, so see which is more comfy. A lot of people complain that the Rebel XT is too small for them since they have big hands. I have pretty small hands so the Rebel XT fits me. The Nikon D50 and the older Rebel should be a tad larger to hold.

Originally posted by SonicYan
I'm filipino. Blah blah,look at my skillz.

Where have you been? Post the D1 pics!

Originally posted by dsmmyth

Originally posted by SonicYan I'm filipino. Blah blah,look at my skillz.

I'm jealous...Where have you been? Post the D1 pics!

Haha, wtf. Dood, I told you I was in RP for 3 weeks. Remember that time you IMed me? :P

I thought I already posted the D1 pics in here. Ah, here it is:

http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=60&topic_id=4726&mesg_id=4726&listing_type=search

FYI, the pics in that thread were not taken with the kit lens. :-)

Check out www.r-toyz.com for more pics, (although the site's a bit buggy right now due to the server change)

i prefer nikon, always have..probably always will

and yes..it is all about the additional "developing" in photoshop. i can take an altered photograph from a $200 camera and make it look better than an unaltered from a $2000 camera.

and gizmos are overrated. give me a camera with a nice manual setting and some heft (another thing i like about nikon versus cannon) and im good to go.

My dad has 2 Nikons. An F5 film camera and a D200 digital. He also has a Konica Minolta as a backup that he used before he got the D200. I would recommend looking at those cause they aren't that expensive and they are nice camera's. Except you can't change the lenses. My dad just got a fish eye and wideangle lense for his D200 and has played around w/ it a little on my car. I'm hoping to get pics this weekend, if the weather is ok. Check out his site for his pictures that were mostly taken w/ the Konica Minolta. www.rhythmimages.com

I think it would be safer if he stuck with the two major ones, ie Nikon and Canon. Konica Minolta, if I remember correctly, has jumped out of the dSLR scene for now. You don't wanna be left with a camera with no tech support. About the Nikon D200, its $1000 more than the cameras the OP mentioned.

Edit: Nice pictures your dad has there. :-)

haha yeah, a D200 is FAR and above what any normal person needs. IIRC its about a 10mpix camera which is about 3x what the average person needs. a D50 would do more than cover anything an ordinary person could want.

speaking of the d200 tho, i stopped by a studio i used to work for and they just got a new one in..VERY nice..and quite hefty.

and you might look at some of the fuji's. quite a few of them use either nikon or cannon bodies and circutry. and much cheaper than either of the big 2.