Digital SLR bargains?

[HardDrive]

With so many folks using there phones for photographs, I was wondering if there are 10-15 year old digital SLRs out there that are a bargain. Any track this stuff? Question prompted as I was trying to get a photo of a bird in my backyard with my phone, and failing miserably.

[TimT]

Have a look

https://www.keh.com/

[rockfan4]

Older cameras can be reasonable, but the issue is the lenses are still usable on newer cameras, to some extent.

I work with a couple of guys who are really into photography. They both sold their digital SLRs a few years ago and moved up to the newer mirrorless bodies. I think they've both sold their older lenses and bought new as well. The time may have already passed for deals like they were offering on their used gear.

I'm still using a Nikon D700 and D300s. I don't take them out that often, and I'm good with the lenses I have, although photo GAS is just as lethal as guitar GAS or tool GAS (Gear acquisition syndrome). A couple months ago I did pick up a Nikon 24-120mm F4 for cheap, but I think that was a fluke. I found it in a pawn shop and I think they looked up the value of the older F3.5-5.6 model and priced it accordingly.

Was the bird right outside your window, or a ways away? A good long lens seems to hold its value, as there's often interchangeability or adapters to allow you to use older, expensive lenses with newer bodies. People will hang on to them rather than upgrading.

[berettafan]

I have a Fuji XT3 that i really enjoy. Of course the magic is in the lens, not the body. At least best as i can tell. It's a small mirrorless so not really an SLR. Mirrorless has a better form factor in general. Easier to tote around (and for me more likely to have with me).

You can check out photo sites online and sort by camera or lens (keyword essentially) to get a feel for what grabs you.


PS- birding = BIG zooms. If birding is to be a primary activity i'd probably look for the right lens first then choose the body that goes with it. So my search terms would be something like 'best value long zoom'.



Edit- dpreview is a fantastic forum for SLR stuff with forums by brand and photography type (landscape, people, etc)

[Eric Hahl]

You want to catch a bird and have a sharp photo you need speed and reach. So think 400+mm lens with a large aperture. like F4 or larger. Shutter speed needs to be fast to capture the fast moving little guys so ISO needs to be quite high as well.

Yes, lots of DSLR's out there in the $500-$1000 range that would do the trick. Something like a Canon 1DX.

A sample shot with a 1DX MkIV and 100-400L lens.

[berettafan]

Long and fast also good for racing venues and sports!

[GH85Carrera]

Be sure to check out the shutter count. Some older cameras are past the manufacturer's recommended maximum. They still may work fine, but be sure that the body is a real bargain if over 200K shutter actuations.

[bleucamaro]

Used is the way to go. Check your local camera store. I was looking at selling my D4 and was quoted $400.... for that, I'll keep it.

It seems DSLR prices have gone way down since all the major players have committed to mirrorless for their flagship lines.

[wdfifteen]

I was going to suggest getting a used full-frame body, but... I'm surprised at how well they hold value. For grins, I checked what a 10 year old Nikon 610 like mine sells for, and it's around $800. A 400mm F4 lens will really set you back.

[Scott Douglas]

Besides KEH there's Adorama and MPB as well.
You could even find some on the Goodwill auction site but they'd be more of a crap shoot than the ones mentioned above.
I've had good luck with used Sony cameras from B and H Photo in NYC.
I sold my Sony A7ii to MPB not too long ago. I figured it had served its purpose with me so moved it along with not much hassle.

[908/930]

Depending how deep you want to go, I think the used prices are pretty good right now, many people are going to mirrorless, smaller camera and weight savings and newer glass with larger ring size, older glass can be adapted but with losses. I like the older larger body, I have a D700 that I will likely update to a D810 or D850. The D700 body can be had for a couple hundred these days only 12MP but very solid camera, the D810 is 36MP but likely double the price, but can likely use a smaller lens and crop and the older lenses will work well.

[LEAKYSEALS951]

I'm locked into 2000's Canon glass like a 1980's flock of seagull's haircut.

Cool thing is, it plays well with 2000's slrs to present day r5' mirrorless with simple adaptors.

I gave my canon D5 MKII to my daughter. I've still got my MKIII and R5. This is plenty of punch for what our skills are.

My uncle from Tx. pulled out his I phone (whatever) and we had a shootout of my daughter at a horse event. I had a 100-400 zoom. He had better AI autoexposure, I had better range but was fighting my skill set to shoot into the sun and get manual shots. The apple thingee was doing composite hdr exposures on the spot as far as I could tell.

In the end, I think he had more useable pics, but I lugged around a ten pound camera and the pride I had set the single exposure shots up myself on the fly!

(okay... he won...)

For newer stuff, a camera guy I know who shoots professionally for DMB and such has a simple sony (about the size of my wallet) and loves it. He was a Nikon guy and dumped the lot for his sony.

[LWJ]

^^^Funny. Mrs. LWJ has a 5DMkiii and a ton of glass. And...she hasn't been using it. Too darn heavy. She grabbed a Ricoh GR that I bought and it has been getting use as a travel cam. Not bad.

But, I have a jones for a Fujifilm camera. I just can't figure out what is what with them.

[berettafan]

Fuji colors are the best.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by LEAKYSEALS951

I'm locked into 2000's Canon glass like a 1980's flock of seagull's haircut.

Cool thing is, it plays well with 2000's slrs to present day r5' mirrorless with simple adaptors.

I gave my canon D5 MKII to my daughter. I've still got my MKIII and R5. This is plenty of punch for what our skills are.

My uncle from Tx. pulled out his I phone (whatever) and we had a shootout of my daughter at a horse event. I had a 100-400 zoom. He had better AI autoexposure, I had better range but was fighting my skill set to shoot into the sun and get manual shots. The apple thingee was doing composite hdr exposures on the spot as far as I could tell.

In the end, I think he had more useable pics, but I lugged around a ten pound camera and the pride I had set the single exposure shots up myself on the fly!

(okay... he won...)

For newer stuff, a camera guy I know who shoots professionally for DMB and such has a simple sony (about the size of my wallet) and loves it. He was a Nikon guy and dumped the lot for his sony.

And if you had been shooting film, you would not have been close to the iPhone quality.

Digital images, especially ones shot in RAW mode, and processed with Photoshop are just amazing. Back in the olden days of film, we shot oblique aerial photos for customers with a Pentax 6X7 camera and a 300 MM lens. It was huge, bulky and we got 10 images per roll of 120 film, and ended up with a negative that was 2.25x2.75 inches (6x7cm) and made prints in the darkroom as big as 30x40.

Now wee use a full frame Canon camera that produced a 287 MB file, 8688x5792 pixels. It makes a wonderful 40x60, and clearly superior to the old large format film camera. The files are so big we have to make lower resolution images for our customers. The other advantage of course is we can blast 200 images of a building or site and pick the best ones, or just give the client all of them and let them pick the ones they like to print. No more restrictions of running out of film.

Whatever you buy, be sure the shutter count is not past, or close to the mean time between failure.

[LEAKYSEALS951]

^yeah, I think shutter count and condition are really important.

I've sent several cameras into canon servicing, and it isn't cheap. You want something in good shape. Usually you can tell the difference between professionally used (sometimes beat to death) and hobbyist in the pics in the ads.

I used to play around with RAW, but I think my older PS is not compatible with newer raw processing, (at least my 5dIII and my old PS are not playing together nicely with RAW files.) and I'm not a fan of the photoshop "subscription" concept as an upgrade. I don't use it enough to make it worthwhile, and I found myself playing around with it too much when I did.

Amazing stuff though. If it worked I'd shoot jpeg+raw so I could finesse the good shots.

[GH85Carrera]

You should be able to use the free Canon software to process the raw files into Tif.

[Cajundaddy]

As always it depends on your goals and budget. I am fairly shocked at how good a modern phone camera can be for family, landscape, portrait, wide angle photos, even in low light. Sports and wildlife are two areas that really require more camera and for me, the mirrorless cameras from the last 5 years are getting it done.

Quality F4 tele glass and a crop sensor camera with excellent auto focus are sort of a sweet spot for sports and wildlife in terms of cost/benefit. If $$ is no object, get a 2.8 Tele and never look back. I like what Sony has done with both their lens selection and also the A6400/A6700 cameras in recent years. Worth a look.

[CurtEgerer]

As an alternative to a full-frame SLR, take a look at the Olympus OM-D micro four thirds (MFT) series. I shoot with an obsolete 16MP 2013 OM-D e-M1 with a vertical grip and a 45-150mm lens (35mm equiv is 90-300mm) for birds and cars. I've probably got $400 into the entire setup. It's an extremely well-built metal camera and water-sealed. They are very compact and lightweight relative to an SLR. The telephoto lenses are the greatest advantage over full-frame SLRs for a bargain camera because they are double the focal length and a fraction of the cost.





If you really wanted to step up the game you could buy the Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm (200-800mm ) for $800 (interchangeable with Olympus). Check the price on an 800mm for full-frame