Well, this is what happens when you ask for camera advice at "
DSLR Forum".
This was when I was just starting my DSLR research (way back.... last week),
and I asked to be pointed in the direction of a camera. My requirement list was:
Quote: Decent low light performance
Affordable 50mm/f1.4 lens
Bright viewfinder
Solid feel
Well designed manual controls and overrides
...works well with old style manual focus lenses I can buy off of eBay
and
...as far under $1000 as possible for body and basic lens
Here was some of the responses I got:
Quote: you should forget about DSLR as your "wants and needs" don't match your budget....really really really don't.
Quote: NO dslr under 1000$ performs well in low light... they are all quite horrible... when compared to the 5 000$ cameras
and then:
Quote: so, Look at both Canon and Nikon's entry level bodies and 1.4 entry level lenses you will find that both brands are very similar and both offer a good return on investment.
Quote: Just had a look and a Canon 50mmF1.4 new will cost you $325 Canon 40D which is good in low light $899 new Nikon would be about same price so your budget looks no where near enough unless you buy secondhand
Quote: ...the best option I can think of is a used Canon 5d, it has a bright viewfinder and can take other lenses if you use a adapter.
By this point, I had poked about a bit more, and had been pointed towards checking out Pentax. (by people in dpreview forums, I think)
I asked what Pentax was missing, so that they had not suggested it .
Quote: quality, low noise, fast lenses and market penetration.... are a few things missing from Pentax.
I asked why every review said that Pentax had BETTER build quality than all
others in the class, and also why, exactly, "market penetration" mattered.
I never got an answer.
So, whats the deal here? Am I being vastly unrealistic hoping to get a decent
camera setup that will do what I want for under $1000?
[kurt]