Skip to content

How to Buy a DSLR for $1000

by aaron on July 23rd, 2008

Cross-posted to Amazon, check it out there for convenient product review capabilities.

A very fine gentleman I know asked me today what digital SLR I’d buy for a thousand dollars. I was going to email him back with an answer, but I realized that more people would probably be interested in my thoughts on it than just him.

To be honest, for a good DSLR setup, $1000 is tight, but doable. You’ll want a decent camera body that can be used for a good long while to come. I had a Canon Rebel XT for a while, which was quite nice, but I really do like the bigger size of the LCD on the XTi (2.5″ makes a huge difference compared to 1.8″). Also, the XTi offers automatic dust removal from the sensor, which is a nice touch. The 2 megapixel difference? Doesn’t matter. Anyway, your call. The XT is $200 cheaper than the XTi, so let you wallet do the talking. I’d rather have an older, less cool body and have a nicer lens.

Skip the kit lens version, as tempting as it may be. The fact that the price difference between body-only and with-kit lens is about $50 should tell you something about the quality of that lens. It sucks, you don’t want to use it. End of story.

Instead, spend the money on a really decent lens. You have a few options depending on what you intend to shoot. If you want to do a lot of long-range telephoto work, pick up the 70-300mm lens listed below. More normal stuff? The 28-135mm is no slouch.

You also need accessories. The most important accessory is the compact flash memory card. You can get by with only this for the time being. Pick up a 4GB card; you’ll kick yourself later, otherwise.

So, if I was really dead-set on paying $1000, I’d pick up the Rebel XT, the 28-135mm lens, and the Sandisk card. If I was willing to spend about $1300, I’d pick up the 70-300mm lens, too.

If money wasn’t as much of an object, I’d probably replace the XT with the XTi, but this is less crucial. This ends up being about $1600.

Possibly Related Posts:


From → Photography

  • Wes

    Great post but how very Canon-centric of you! :)

    Having recently gone through the process of buying an SLR on a budget, I went back on forth on whether to go Canon or Nikon. Ultimately I chose a Nikon D40 due to the way it felt in my hands (great ergonomics), it’s size (so small and light), and ultimately, for the “jack-of-all trades” Nikon 18-200mm lens. I really just wanted one great walk-around lens that would serve 90% of my shooting needs (at least for now).

    With the D40 ($469 with a kit 18-55mm lens) and the Nikon 18-200mm VR II ($679) I’m in at around $1150 before buying accessories. I’m going to try and sell my kit lens for $100 since I have no use for it which will put me close to the $1000 range. I am disappointed that the D40 can’t autofocus with the current Nikon primes :( so I have a bit more work to do if I want to get a great 50mm prime.

    However, the XTi is more aligned with the D80 which is in the $750 range (body only) so the prices are comparable with the slight nod probably going to Canon.

    But you forgot all the fun accessories such as a tripod, a camera bag for carrying your lenses around, an external flash for more power (and the ability to bounce flash), and a remote shutter release which allows you to do night photography.

    Oh and then there’s photoshop :)

    You nailed it, though. Given the choice between a good body + a crappy lens or a crappy body + good lens, always choose the latter. Bodies get better year after year but lenses stay current with optical quality for decades.

    Ultimately you can’t go wrong with Canon or Nikon — both take outstanding pictures. And with the current price rebate for canons it’s hard not to choose one :)

  • Wes

    Also, why not get the 70-200mm f/4 L? It’s only $50 more and is a much better lens from what I’ve read (even if it is ugly as hell). No IS though unless you want to shell out another $450 :(

  • http://www.brethorsting.com aaron

    I don’t know enough about Nikon to comment intelligently on it, hence the Canon-centrism :)

    Isn’t that D40 only 6.1MP? 6.1MP doesn’t mesh well with 16×20 prints, unfortunately, which is a big part of the reason I never considered going the Nikon route.

    By the time I was ready to upgrade to a more capable body (Canon 40D), I had already spent a couple grand on Canon lenses and accessories, and couldn’t justify moving off the brand. As it is, I still love my 40D and wouldn’t trade it for anything (other than the non-existent 5D MkII).

    The 70-200 f/4L is a beautiful lens, but:
    a) no IS
    b) it’s humongous
    c) 200mm max focal length.
    d) it’s not exactly inconspicuous ;-)

    Were I to buy a higher-quality telephoto, I’d probably go for the 70-300 DO IS over an L.

    I’m not a big fan of jack-of-all-trades lenses. From reviewing head-to-head shoot-outs, I think they are significantly fuzzier than their dedicated competitors at just about any given focal length.

    You’re right, I did ignore the large bevy of accessories you need, but the cost of a high-quality tripod and ball-head is higher than either body I mentioned… I thought I’d be better off skipping them. Plus, if you pick up a pair of lenses with IS or VR, you won’t need the tripod for the 90% case.

    A good bag is almost immediately a necessity and definitely not cheap: my Crumpler 6 million cost me about $120, but it still seemed unfair to include it. If you have an SLR and a single lens, you can probably get by without the bag.

    Also, I’d rather have Lightroom than Photoshop for day-to-day image management. Although they do complement each other quite well.

    You also skipped over the PocketWizards, 9′ wide seamless sheets, justin clamps, umbrellas, softboxes, and everything else I’m eyeing right now… Ya gotta draw the line somewhere ;-)

blog comments powered by Disqus