Best camera

[Brock]

What camera should I purchase for my wife? It's our anniversary and I want to buy her a nice camera. I'm willing to go to $1000, maybe a little more. Something that she can have fun with and not too complicated. She's looking at a Nikon D3000. Is there something better? Or is that a good choice? Thanks in advance.

[ford]

I'd look at the Canon Rebel T2i..... I really want to get one... it can be as complicated as you want... but also takes great pics in its simple modes...certainly a step up over the Nikon D3000.

Fantastic HD video also......

http://www.camerakings.com/ListProdu...FQO87QodZm8EYA

This place has pretty nice prices it looks like....

[shane88]

there's a lot of new types of cameras around that use slr size sensors and the smaller micro 4/3 format and there's many great small compact cameras - depends entirely on what she plans to do with it - a D3000 won't fit in ur pocket and u can get great pix with a camera that does - i think amateur slr cameras are on the way out - ymmv

[Steeltoe]

That's like asking what is the best amp for 1K? There is no best, just different.
I like Olympus. Their EP-2 PEN camera features interchangable SLR lenses
with a smaller mirrorless body.
Lots of great choices out there.

[wallinbb]

The best camera is the one that will be convenient to use. Too many people buy big SLR's, then never use them because they are too bulky. I'm having great luck with (believe it) the Casio Exilim fx-100.

[smiert spionam]

It is indeed a tough question -- lots of variables.

If you want a conventional digital SLR, the low/mid-range from Nikon and Canon are both excellent. Both have extensive lens lines, with lots of third-party options. In Nikon, I'd probably bump up to the D3100 or D5000 for a better sensor and some other improvements.

Olympus' 4/3 (ie, "four-thirds") cameras have a smaller sensor, which means smaller, lighter lenses and bodies. Not quite as good in lower light, and a more limited lens selection, but a great choice for someone seeking compact size and quiet operation.

Mostly, you need to get out and handle some cameras, to see what might be a good fit.

[Greg V.]

Another Canon T2i vote, I love mine and it's not too overwhelming if you spend a few days learning about the interaction of: aperture, shutter speed, ISO. I never had a DSLR before and found it easy to learn. Here's a few pics from a recent NYC trip with:

NYC PICS:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/sho...d.php?t=775873

NYC PICS and VIDEO:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/sho...d.php?t=781623

[kludge]

The best camera is there in the store, on the same shelf with the best overdrive pedal and best picks.

[geoangus]

I got my Nikon D5000 at Best Buy with two lenses for $899. While it certainly has way more possibilities than a typical point and shoot, it does have a full auto-mode that makes for easy operation.

[kludge]

More seriously, the question isn't "best camera", but rather "appropriate camera". If you're looking at DSLRs, I hope you mean Nikon D3100, not D3000. Ken Rockwell called the D3000 "Nikon's worst DSLR - EVER". People love or hate Ken Rockwell, but I find his critiques of gear to be right on the money. If he says it sucks, it probably sucks.

The first choice is DSLR or pocket camera. The advantages of DSLRs are better real resolution, better low-light behavior, flexible choice of lenses, the ability to do shallow depths of field for portraits. The advantages of pocket cameras are portability, useful movie modes (DSLR movie modes are problematic). So it depends on what you want to shoot, and how.

If you go with a Nikon DSLR (which I think are great), budget $200 for the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens. No, it doesn't zoom. What it DOES do is take beautiful photos in low light and quite respectable portraits. I'd be quite happy with a bottom-end Nikon body and the 35/1.8 and nothing else. The next lens I'd get is the 55-200mm, another $200 and a lot of useful range for cheap. The kit lens is great, too.

The real hook on DSLRs is lenses. Buy them and keep them. Nikon bodies are almost completely backwards-compatible in lens terms all the way to the 1950s! I use 1970s-vintage lenses on the Nikon I bought in 2006. But lenses accumulate and get expensive. Don't waste money on upscale bodies unless you know exactly WHY you need a better body. Generally, lenses are a much better investment.