Different to the previous posted deal for the twin lense kit ($596 - Officeworks)
With 18-55mm lens. 10.1 megapixels, noise reduction for high ISO speeds, auto lighting optimiser, basic and manual shooting modes, live view, DiG!C III. Twin lens kit 18-55mm + 75-300m $596, (EF75-300). Red hot! 1000DKB.
Also note, HN have the twin lense kit for $597
Happy new year from Bigglez
*lens
Isn't Clive Peeters there $3 cheaper? lol
Good bargain.
This is a very ..I mean it! very nice entry level DSLR Camera, some techies note:
1) no - HD movie
2) max ISO 1600, become troublesome in low light area, because you will need ISO 3200 above BUT ! I'm talking about dark alley, hounted mansion sumthing like that. So unless you want to take some picture of drug transaction in a shady town - please be happy with this camera it will take great pictures, no worries mate!
3) lcd 2,5 inch is rather small
I haven't read the reviews for this particular camera, but generally speaking any ISO above 400/800 is going to be noisy, and should only be used only as a last resort.
Therefore a max ISO of 1600 or 3200 doesn't matter that much.
In a point and shoot, yes. In a DSLR, no.
ISO is basically a marketing tool used as a sales pitch at point of sale. 1600 is plentiful (in the words of KR) for most uses.
ken rockwell is an idiot - he panders to people that know nothing about photography.
(Im not saying that Im a better photographer than him, just that he only tells noobs what they want to hear)
High ISO is where all the ground is being pushed in DSLR's atm. 7d/d7000/k5 - they all have excellent high ISO capabilities. It allows you to use kit lenses in low light even. You dont really need IS/VR even if you have iso 12800 with a 50mm f1.8 lens
Brightly lit indoors - ISO 1600 is enough. High end restaurant lighting? not enough.
That said - this is a good beginners camera, you cant expect to shoot professional indoor shots with this though.
Sorry for the noobiness, but is the 18-55mm lens an IS lense?
no its not IS
correct point clive peeters is a couple of dollars cheaper and officeworks deal for dual lens is cheaper and better value
no IS for that price, you need to spend well over 1k for that, besides why would you need IS on such a short lens? shooting in the dark? up the ISO, well not too high, or better yet, use a tripod!
i disagree with every single point you've made in that sentence. sounds like you dont use an dslr
My understanding is the main reason you would want the new IS kit lens is a marked improvement in optical quality compared to the older non IS kit lens.
The IS is just a bonus.
hey the clive and peeters deal i posted last time for $493 were for IS lenses. Atleast mine were IS. Now they are back to $999 though.
Thanks Rack, i've got one last time. Better lens than this.
Is the f1.8 lens for $128 any good?
MANN I really REALLY wish I could justify buying one of these for uni this year…
I assume you mean the 50mm f/1.8 - if so, yes it's a fantastic lens. Hugely faster and sharper than the kit lens, but it's just as cheap and plasticy as the other cheap lenses. Definitely a great "first" lens coming from any of the kit ones.
It's the only lens I use with my 400D. As a photographic noob, I found that once I went to the sweet f1.8 and the short depth-of field it gave, I hated the other kit lenses it came with. I reckon the lens is the most important part, the rest of the features aren't really needed.
If I had the cash, I'd spend up on a nice wide angle lens, but as I don't I use an IXUS for wide shots and this for beautiful portraits of my kid.
good deal, i sold mine for $520.
great dslr for daylight/strobe
I am surprised at some of the comments and whether the contributors actually know what they are talking about. There is nothing worse than bad advice.
"ISO is basically a marketing tool used as a sales pitch at point of sale"
"Ken Rockwell is an idiot".
"Any ISO above 400/800 is going to be noisy"
"why would you need IS on such a short lens?"
etc
These comments are not correct and probably made by beginners who have done lots of research and not taken many photos and mixed up things they have read.
ISO basically determines the price of a dslr camera
ken rockwell is well respected and been at it for decades - look at his website
true for film only not digital
for long exposures eg 1/8 sec - IS will give you 2 stops of slower shutter speed
Would any pros like to comment?
ps i would suggest buying the body only for $500 and a good zoom lens for $1,000. the lens will last a decade and is a worthwhile investment. if you want to pursue photography, then get a better body. if you only want to get better photos than a point and shoot, which were about $500 just a few years ago, then the 18-55 is fine and will give you an unbelievably better photo than P&S. have a look at dpreview.com.
for the poster who wanted a 50mm lens, you will not be happy with it, as it becomes almost impossible to frame properly and is very restrictive, and althoug the optics would probably be better, the 18-55 would be more functional.
lol you saved me a big long breath.
and with the 50mm, i'm pretty sure no one will own it by itself.
I had a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and when it broke I ended up buying a 1.4. When I travelled, that's the only lens I take with me. I'm not interested in taking landscape shots, I'm interested in taking portraits in sometimes dim conditions. The optics are absolutely brilliant and it is just right for the kind of photos I enjoy taking. It's not for everyone but prime lenses do suit some people.
May i suggest you buy or rent a 2.8 or 4.0 zoom lens, the 24-105L IS 4.0 is nice, and see what a difference zooming and filling the frame can make. 50mm is not a portrait lens (mainly head) at all, and will distort the face if you try and fill the frame. and IS will give you about 2 stops of speed.
the ideal portrait lens is about 90-100mm.
if you try to fill the frame with a prime lens, you will be walking back and forward like a fool. i know, i've done it for years.
ps you get dpp for free which is an absolutely amazing program for correcting photos, preferably RAW ones. Better than Photoshop and incredibly fast to use. (I am currently trying to correct some photos with viewnx2 and am pulling out my hair.)
Thanks for the advice, abacus, but I actually own quite a few lenses including a 2.8 70-200mm. For travelling, I am happy to swap zoom for light weight and image quality. It's a small, affordable lens with beautiful crispness and a lovely depth of field. I'm not a professional, but I'm happy with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/saine/sets/72157625173196134/
hehe the 24-105L IS is my walkabout lens but on a full frame body. 24mm is equal to 38mm on a non full frame sensor. I think that's where the 18mm can be handy as it equates to approx 29mm.
should have been : ", then get a better body in a couple of years".
Agreed on most points but just want to add…
Anyone considering buying this is obviously moving up from a P&S or going straight into the world of DSLR but at the entry level, therefore budget is a huge consideration. Considering this, kit lenses will still do a great job.
Agreed that a quality lens will improve the sharpness of your photos (or allow you to use it in lower light) but technique and ability also go a long way. Eg. Crap technique can't be corrected with a good lens (or body for that matter).
I would suggest using/getting lenses that suit the subject you intend to photograph. The most important thing is to have a good walkabout lens you can use in most situations, as it will likely be on the body 90% of the time. IMO, for most people 55mm isn't long enough. I ended up getting the 17-85mm to go with my original 350D just to give me more usability in more situations. Nowadays there are more lens options.
P.S. I'm not a pro yet but if anyone wants to pay for my photos…. :)
I made the ken rockwell comment and I stand by it - I did not say that he is a rubbish photographer, only that he is an idiot for pandering to "new" dslr users on his website. He does know what he is talking about but he dumbs it down too much.
So $497 for the worst current DSLR available on the market. Not sure if thats a bargain or a rip-off.
either substantiate why you think it is the worst DSLR available or hop back in your box.
it is the worst NEW dslr on the market
it is not an opinion - it is a fact.
nikon d3000 beats it, pentax kx beats it, olypmus pen beats it, panasonic, samsung - all same.
Every other "current" DSLR on the market outperforms the Canon 1000D in terms of features and usability, (and build quality). Rather than reel off the superior specs of every other DSLR on the market I think an analogy would be better. Think for a minute if cameras were programmable remote controls….this is the cheap one with the least programming features. Yes it will still change the channel on your TV but it won't do much more.
or…..
for those who just want to take better pics without all of the playing around….one of the superzoom 'bridge' cameras might be an option.
Perhaps the panasonic dmc fz100 24 x zoom, RAW, full hd video, etc etc. Good auto, but lots of manual settings to play with
reviews http://www.testfreaks.com.au/digital-cameras/panasonic-lumix…
can be had for around $500 http://www.techrific.com.au/panasonic-lumix-dmcfz100-digital… (grey I assume)
It's worthwhile remembering that, as any good photographer will tell you, of the three components of a great photograph (subject, photographer, and camera), the least important is the camera.
(dons flame suit…)
+1 re: Subject, Method(s) used by Photographer (essentially boiling down to his/her experience).
Cheap cameras can STILL produce good images.
Gonna get one tomorrow, price beating it at Dick Smiths for another ~$24 off. Then I can use my staff discount, so final price ~$544
A couple of jealous people hhaha
Doing the exact same thing mate. Thank the fishes for working at Woolies.
Bout the only good thing about working there.
I think we should be a bit fair here.
We should take the price into consideration as well, although this 1000D is almost the worst DSLR but for this price, its a bargain.
It's an entry level… so yeah, I suppose it may be ONE of the worst available…?
Is this DSLR really that bad? Would like to get into photography but don't want to spend a lot if I don't need to.
I have had some experience with a Nikon D90, so will the pictures out of this 1000D look like arse compared to what I've been exposed to?
it will only look like arse if you point it at one and press the shutter lol…
d90 is a class above the 1000d - but they can both take photos fine depending on the conditions.
I continually find it odd that a lot of people think photography is a science rather than an art.
The problem with bad photos is hardly ever to do with the camera but rather the user or the situation.
It would be like telling picasso - bugger you cant paint me anything I only have this torch and its night time :P -look up "Gjon Mili picasso" for those that want to dig deeper :)
Would the Nikon equivalent - D3000/D3100 be worth the several hundred $$$ more over this Canon? I am very tempted.
This is all nonsense.
At the end of the day, under $600 for this setup is amazing value. Almost half what they were a year ago! End of story.
re IS, i'm no expert on cameras, never said i was, does that mean only experts can post here?
i meant that for me, IS is not as important as some make it out to be, i just bought a compact ultrazoom that has two IS modes which is ok if you spend a lot of time at the tele end of the lens but for less than ideal conditions i prefer to turn IS off and use a tripod
Sorry, I didn't want to offend anyone, but a lot of people who are obviously not experts on cameras are scaring buyers off with bad advise. (All pros use IS on all lenses including around the 18-55 size.) You cannot go wrong with this camera and you can truly amaze your friends with the photos it will produce. Put it on auto, hold it steady, spot focus on the person's eye by pushing shutter button half way, stop breathing and push the button slowly. Now you too are an expert. PS continue breathing. PSS It is a big pain to swap lenses and you will probably keep the 18-55 on all the time.
If you're buying this camera, skip the twin kit. You can pick up 55-200's, 75-300's and 90-300's on eBay for $50 which are just as crappy/good. Save yourself $50!
So… for a beginner curious about getting into photography, this is a good deal yes/no? And no jargon please, I still have a while to learn the ropes with this thing, but if there's a basic 'start-up' kit if you will, would this camera suffice?
And would I really want that extra $100 for the second lens? Can someone explain what's the difference between that second one and the one in the 'single lens' kit? What's this ISO everyone's mentioning? (Noob here)
Any answeres will be greatly appreciated!
Strand0410 - do you know anyone with a dslr you can ask for advise? Also depends on your budget. the 50D is two steps up from this camera (550D in the middle) and was selling for about $750 body only and is used by professionals. However, if you only want to spend $497 you will be happy with the 1000D and the 15-85. You can check out the review on www.dpreview.com.
For info, you can google intro course to digital photography, but most want to sell you something.
kenrockwell.com has explanations on his site and is good value - he is well known and respected.
or go to library and borrow a book or magazines. borrow a camera from someone and experiment. go to teds, michaels, etc and ask them. places like harvey norman with 18 year old salespeople may not know and may bs you.
You cannot take standard photos with any of the lenses levinet suggests - you need something starting around 20mm. The 18-55 is cheap but useful.
Some post - said that this is a worst dslr camera, no sir! just because it's cheap or has limited specs it doesn't mean it's crap
it's not the camera = it's the photographer!
With less than $600 you got twin lens kit: 18-55mm and 75-300mm
I think it's a great deal.
I don't know why people call this the worse cam here. I have this and i find is excellent. I am not a professional shooter but i have seen a major difference between this and my previous pentex 10px. I am happy as happy can be.
A normal user just taking family photos simply cannot go wrong with this thing and this price.
its like saying why a $13000 new car is the "worst" on the road.
is it an upgrade from walking/the bus - yes!
is it better than any other new car - no!
You would probably see a "major difference" between this and other entry level DSLR. YES it is that bad
It's rarely the camera that makes a "major difference" but the photographer.
I am still amazed by these comments. kbryant - have you tried this camera and are you a photographer and which other entry cameras are so much better?
What do you shoot with?
I presume you are talking to kbryant as I agree with everything antman76 has said. (I have a 40D/24-105 and am a pro with 30 years experience. I also have a nikon D60 18-55 which my daughter uses.)
When people leave reviews on bhphotovideo.com the first question is what level of photographer they are. Perhaps when people comment so vehemently here they could mention their experience and level of photography.
I think most people are saying the same thing. I will leave it at that. Buy the camera - its excellent.
PS Shoot RAW and try out DPP. It's really brilliant and super quick and correct multiple photos in one shot etc. Much easier than photoshop.
Yeah, I was wondering what kbryant uses to think the 1000D is complete and utter garbage.
People seem to forget that for the money it's a superb way to get into DSLR photography. Some people have the budget to get a model higher up, which is what they need or can afford.
I remember dropping $1500 on my first DSLR and at the time it was a lot for me, yet was the bottom of the range at the time. The stuff I learnt with that camera is priceless.
Pentax k-x
Look the 1000d may be cheap but consider this. With a pentax k-x (for eg) which can be had for about 110 more (at OW), you get better longevity with the body (more money to spend on lens). One year on (or even less) and people would most probably want to upgrade their 1000d.
I hope you guys see where I am coming from. Notwithstanding the calibre of this camera, it just isn't really a bargain. Look beyond the "initial price".
Not as cheap as you though,
The 18-55 len is not mentioned as IS 18-55 in the catalog, but from the image, it is a 18-55 IS(two button in the lens body).
I think it is good to bring the brochar to Office work and get 5% cheaper~~
I am going to do so.
:)
can you elaborate on this being IS lens?
Also, OW do not stock the single lens kit as i understand.
It's not the IS kit. And yes, officeworks ONLY stocks the twin lens kit (not IS).
This deal has been on for some time (since boxing day). Was going to post, but I thought it would be up here…lol.
I bought it straight away as it seemed good to me, but remember it's not IS lens (have used mine heaps already and the norm lens is still great!).
Remember to price match at Officeworks (they stock this EXACT bundle), this brings down the price to about $560. Then you get an extra officeworks warranty for 3 years for $99 = AWESOME.
In the same catalogue at HN there's the tripod and bag combo, also a steal. I bought this too and i love the bag. Tripod RRP is $40 and the bag is $73, but you get both for $29.
OW already have it on sale. there is already a bargain posted for it just recently
My bad… must be recent, because last week they didn't.
Yes but the other bargain doesnt mention the single lense kit.
I'm bringing it to people's attention for
a) letting people know that a price match/beat for the twin lens kit won't work as OW already has it for the same price; and
b) in case OW is closer or an easier option for them.
If you only want the single lens kit then you have to go to HN.
Just trying to help cause I don't think many saw the other post.
Got it, Its definitely an upgrade from the Pentax K100D DSLR.
Very nice.
Enjoy
Why didnt you go for the pentax k-x
'4xAA batteries'
Enough said.
You men you like NOT having the convenience of being able to have spare batteries at any corner shop in the world? if you use eneloops you get just as much shots as a lithium battery camera. Plus if you have a flash you generally can carry just 1 spare set, for both flash and camera, hence saving space/weight
Very much prefer lithium rechargeable. Plus spares are cheap and they are light.
eh your post doesnt make sense - AA's are cheaper more convenient and I described how you could use 1 spare set for both your flash and your camera.
I dont have anything against lithium rechargeable but you cant honestly say AA's are MUCH worse
just because of the 4Xaa batteries (which is a +) you went for the 1000d - i guess 1000d is an improvement (barely) over the k100d
lol, you're really hitting me hard here.
It's not even mine, it's my mothers (birthday present) and she's loving it.
But yeah, tell me how bad the our camera is HAHAHA
The 4xAA batteries AREN'T a plus for us, it very much comes down to personal preference.
Of course we are probably going to keep upgrading, that's how it works for most people, upgrade when they can afford.
Just an FYI. I went to OW and got them to pricematch their Pentax K-X one kit lens product with this - http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category1019_1.htm
http://www.officeworks.com.au/retail/products/Technology/Dig… From $684 down to $607.
Now thats a better deal. Only an extra $100 over this supposed "bargain" and you get a more versatile body and a much better lens.
Is that IS lense?
The 1000D twin lens kit I bought from HN Cranbourne North on Boxing Day has IS lenses. They ended up giving me the twin lens kit 18-55mm-IS, 55-250mm-IS and the 75-300mm non IS for $596. Reading through this, maybe they made a mistake as, when first asked they said they didn't have twin lens kits available but they 'threw' in the 75-300mm. However, when I opened the boxes, there were 3 lens' in total.
Wow! Epic deal.
Ridiculously cheap! Great find