I want to buy a DSLR... my range is about 1000$..  a novice in photography...plz share your ideas which one is the best option & hot in market now.


Thanks!!

 Since you are a novice, you don't need  a high end SLR camera. T3i with some extra lens would be good enough for you. RIght now Adoroma is selling T3i bundle with kits lens, 55-250mm lens +  PIXMA Pro-100 Printer + Photopaper Bundle + 2% Rewards on sale for $548 after $400 mail in rebate.  No tax except for the resident of NJ/NY . $400 rebate may sounds like high but trust me canon rebate is fast and reliable. I have done once and rebate showed up after 3 weeks. You can also get rid of printer for $100 on craigslist if you don't mind bit of hassling of selling a printer. Here is the link

http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3IKL1.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid62905

Under "Buy Together & Save" click "Save up to $228.09 with bundle" , locate the option and select the bundle option. Add to cart and check out. Final price would be $948 but you will get $400 rebate making the final price $548 only.

 

 Thanks for your input brother!!
  
  Sounds good to me...

 Nikon d7100 is good too. Check it out.

if you haven't bought yet look at this deal...
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/fr/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-rebel-t3i-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-refurbished?WT.mc_id=C126149


I think this is a good deal

If I were you this is what I would do -

1. Buy the cheapest DSLR in the market, Nikon D3100 would be ideal. Buy the body only. Abuse it for good five years and hone your photographic skills then replace it with a full frame. Maybe Nikon 900 if they make one in the future.

2. Kit lens might sound a good idea, but how about coupling your D3100 with 50mm 1.4G? That is the cheapest pro level lens. And I'd say it for the billionth time, buy a cheap camera but start investing on lenses.

The reason I am saying this is becuase - I bought D40, but with a kit lens, a rickety tripod, a bag I'd soon throw away and added 55-200mm 5.6 lens to it. When I sold all of them later, I couldn't even get 50% of the original price. So buy D3100, and get a 50mm 1.4G (a good lens for indoor outdoor photography) and as you learn more, you could buy more lenses and replace your DSLR.

 DSLR is a scam. Having a DSLR does not mean that you will able to take pictures like you see in magazines or in the internet.
Its a scam people. Wake up people, wake up.

 anybody bought a 24-70 mm Nikkor for cheap lately? I am looking for deals all over the internet but 1600 is the cheapest i could get. If you know, plz let me know.

I paid full price for it, but ordered it from B&H so I saved on taxes and shipping. $1889 for me, and I have had it for a year now. I honestly didn't want to buy from vendors with less credibility because this lens is a GEM and I didn't want to compromise on its quality and integrity.

 Hey guys, how about grouping together to learn/share the photography skills that we have. Looks like we got some avid graphers in sajha. I know there are training courses and books, but it could be beneficial to learn from amongts ourselves, EVEN IF IT IS virtual Photography Camping. 

Let me know, if some people wants to meet up in DC NOVA area. 

Thanks

I wish I were in DC NOVA or nearby, I live in BFE mid south where possibility of finding a scenic locale like in the rockies or North West is as meager as discovering Lake Michigan in Gobi Desert.

And while we are at it I have some serious questions for avid Nikon photographers. Of course I have googled, but I want a detailed yet clear cut insight on whether to buy 14-24 2.8G nikkor OR 16-35 4G. Almost every pro Nikon Photographers unanimously scream 14-24, given it's affiliation to holy trinity, BUT it has some major flaws which are -

1) The price!!! 14-24 is 750 dollars more than 16-35. I could fly to London and back with that money in February if I lived in New York.

2) It's inability to take 77mm filter like other pro level nikon lenses like 24-70, 70-200, 85mm, 24mm do. Mansurov recommends Lee holder and filter, and when I checked the price, the set cost would me at least 600 dollars, no less. Now with that money added to the previous one, I could actually fly to Nepal and return, if I lived in Chicago.

3) It is BULKY and heavy. and to hang it around my neck, I need an extra set of military press with added weights at the gym.

4) What's the use of 2.8G if I plan to shoot landscape which this lens would normally be used for?

5) Does 2 extra millimeter make a lot of difference?

But the pros are:

1) Sharpness!!! Even avid users of Hasselblads have mentioned they haven't seen such a SHARP wide angle lens, EVER. what it means is if you are shooting a picture with your class mates in your college, the face of the guy at the far left of the picture will be as sharp as the one in the middle if the number of students are err....55.

2) Vignetting - when shot at 5.6 f stop, there is absolutely no vignetting.

3) The LOOK! it looks so grand it will make heads turn. And I'll be damned if one of those turned heads will be of Miley Cyrus (never liked her, but rumors has it that she is number 1 in the Hot chart)

So, which one? I doubt if a single person has both, but can I get insights from individuals if they carry any one of them?

 
   Thanks for all your input guys.


 I would definitely go with beehove_me at the moment... buy a cheap body & invest on lens eventually..as I grow more on photography... well said fren...

Anyway thanks all again... hope to share my photography soon...