SOLVED: Canon EOS 600D is amazing. Thanks a lot. :)

I have basic photography classes this semester, and even though my professor didn't require a DSLR I think it would better if I had my own to prevent inconveniences.

To start off, I don't really have any passion towards photography. I'm not interested, well maybe a little. I have a hard time taking photos as well, since my pictures are always lacking.

So I need some advice on buying my first DSLR. My budget is around 600-800 dollars at the most, with 750-800 I need to shell out more than I have.

I would like recommendations for a beginner, or maybe a camera that will last me years and won't need a fast replacement. I am more keen on better picture quality than anything else.

Canon Digital Rebel XSi is great for beginners since it semi pro functionality. You could snag it between 450 to 600 with or without a lens. The place where i teach photo at uses nikon's d60 and d80 which is the same and price wise the same. If you can find one the canon xs is cheaper and you only lose a 1.5 mp for a hundo... same functionally.

OP your budget isn't bad you can some decent kit with that money.
Your needs for a beginner camera would be satisfied with a Canon 550d, 600d, Nikon d5100 or Pentax K-r.
The main consideration at this point is how the bodies handle and how you find the menu system. If you plan to go full frame (5Dmk2, D700, ect) some time down the track Pentax is out but otherwise their 'Beginner' camera is a damn impressive piece of work.

Here's my kit suggestion it's quoting Amazon prices to give you an idea:
Pentax K-r
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Though if you're looking to share lenses with your friends go Canon or Nikon, remember to invest more of your money into your lenses because: Bodies come and go lenses are forever.

Didn't expect I would be choosing a much more expensive one, so I got the 600D instead of what I originally planned. I have seen various discussions about 600D vs 60D, and well obviously the 60D's better. So did I make the right choice? I bought it because it was for new DSLR users, and was cheaper than the 60D which was for semi-professionals.

EDIT: Gave a + rep to you sir, as I have bought the 600D. Thanks for the suggestions :) And if anyone wants to enlighten me on the 600D vs 60D debate please do, as I am not sure if that was the best buy. I think I could've stretched the budget a bit more but I'm not sure the price difference is justified.

If you play with the 60D you'll notice it's in a different league to the 600D. Though for a beginner camera the 600D will satisfy your every need for the time being.
Now go out and practice the craft of photography and save your coin for your next lens.
You can always upgrade your body later on anyway.

I was thinking since most of the features 60D have are available on the 600D, I made the choice and bought it. I'm not too sure if I'd like the improvements of the 60D, since it's not that much for me if I plan to upgrade to a higher-end DSLR. So overall it was the lightweight factor and portability for me, and mainly the price that got me going for it. Is it a good argument?

If you actually want to learn how to shoot photos, forget the expensive hardware.
This is a good guide to start with. It emphasizes the things that actually make a good photographer:
http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/

-Light, light, light (what a photographer should always look out for)
-Using a fixed lens (it's lot better than any zoom lens & more importantly you'll be thinking about shooting pictures instead playing with your camera)
-Film (even if you use a digital piece, you'd better read this part too)
-Exposure (f/8 and be there!)

...so actually while you're learning *photographing*, it's better to use a simpler camera!

Perfectly fine. Like I said specs wise the 600D is perfectly adequate for people starting out even for advanced beginners the 600D is fine.
The main thing is you haven't hit the limitations of your gear so you don't really see the need for a higher-end camera or more lenses.



Primes and zooms both have their place in photography. A high quality zoom is tack sharp and just as good as any prime. You wouldn't want to cover an event with a prime since it's just too slow to keep changing lenses when a zoom will help you get the composition you want or let you capture the moment.
Yes, film is a great way to start but it's expensive and most beginners don't have the luxury of spending money on a hobby they might get into.

Please read the article before commenting! You're getting way too technical and entirely missing the point. The articles is about *learning* photography, not the best hardware to take with your for various purposes.

Composition, an eye for lighting, the ability to just shoot and focus on the subject... these are a lot more important than tinkering with hardware and getting bogged down in technicalities will only retard one's growth as a photographer.

Yes, there are various tools for various jobs... but unless you develop your skills, you'll be just another rich yuppie who thinks his 1000$ camera makes him a photographer.

The price to dev film, enlarge the nev on to paper and dev the paper, plus the cost of film, paper and chemicals are cheaper then printing on a high quantity cmyk lab or printing on a professional inkjet printer plus the cost of the 7 color and 7 b&w inks plus the high quality paper.. 3 buck a print on the traditional side vs 7 on the digital side.... and that why i prefer light jet printing.. best of both worlds.

The whole thing about prime lens and zoom is debatable on what your shooting.. a sport event a good 2.8f 80mm to 210mm can do the same has a 150mm with extenders. I don't shoot movable object anyways and my prefer lens is 150 1.8f when shooting modeling, portraiture and weddings, still life, commercial and architectural depends on the subject and the depth of field needed and circumstances.



QFT

and that what i teach to the students.. unless you study and do your hobby and learn new and better techniques you just a person with a automatic camera.

Yes, I still lack experience and I'm trying out the camera in every way I can. I am quite obsessed with gadgets so this kind of talk is normal to me. When the price is too close to the original one that I thought of buying, it always comes to me painstakingly choosing between the two.

And I always think ahead, so that for example I would choose a mid-range product to be able to upgrade to a high-end one in the future. If ever I needed a second lens, then it would still fit my budget because the price will be about the same as the 60D.

I appreciate your comments, I still have a lot to learn about photography and hearing these frank comments makes me glad.

[color=red]EDIT: Final thoughts.[/color]

I've thought about this a lot, compared the 600D side by side with the 60D, and came up with a conclusion that I was not wrong in buying this camera. If I had to describe the 600D it would be that it is a mini version of the 60D. All the features I need are already on the 600D, not to mention it is very handy compared to the 60D. I'm amazed that this camera is an entry-level DSLR, and it will prove useful for a beginner like me.

When you compare the 60D vs 600D, the main advantages in favor of the Canon 60D are:

Faster shutter speed (1/8000)
More viewfinder coverage (.96%) and higher magnification (0.95x)
Faster X-Sync speed (1/250sec)
In-camera RAW editing
Faster shooting burst rate (5.3fps)
LCD coverage (100%)
Electronic level via LCD
More custom functions
Better battery life (approx. 1000 shots)

After much deliberation, I have no more regrets. Thanks to all the nice people here, glad I met you guys. + rep for your posts, although one at a time.