Camera dead, need a new one. Any help please?

As to the body: I'd go either Canon or Nikon. Both have huge lens selections, and the third party manufacturers make lenses for these mounts first, so you get the best of that world too. The 400D is a very capable camera. I nearly got one, but I wanted the size and feel, plus faster and more accessable control, so I got the 30D, but the 400D has pretty much everything you'd need for several different types of shooting. On the Nikon side, the D80 or D70s if you can find one would be fantastic. The D50 isn't too bad either, though it has fewer features.

I also wanted to jump in real quick in defense of the Sigma 18-125, which has been taking a beating in this thread.

Just so you know...it's a surprisingly good lens. It's a bit soft wide open, but I've still made quite nice prints at 8x12 wide open. It's quite sharp stopped down a stop or two, and it has a fantastic range. I'm not saying it's perfect...it's got a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end, it's slow, it's a little softer at the tele end, and it's not as contrasty as better lenses, but it's still a very nice lens for the price. I'll be replacing it with an f/2.8 standard zoom soon, but it's still a good lens.

Now, if you can afford a better standard zoom like the 17-55 IS or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, go that route, as they are better optically, but if you're on a budget, the Siggy is a great starter lens.

sissi wrote in post #2339701
you did impossible job by creating very little small smile on my sorrowful face...

lol

Glad to be of assistance.

So then; you've been using strictly film up to now? On a non-fully-electronic camera?

You know; a replacement just like you had would probably only be about $100. Maybe $200 to get a later Pentax film body.

Digital is full of quirks and trade-offs you're not used to, like White Balance, dependence on computer, Chromatic Aberation, more flare, saturation, annual obselence of your body (camera body that is ), etc. Seems like you've reached a pretty good level and jumping all at once might be a bit of a creative shock. You could get a replacement film camera then maybe a cheaper digital, like Nikon D50 or D70 - or even used Canon 20D (saw one for $600, that's what, $400 Euros?). Even the digital Pentax is decent - maybe not the wedding photographer's first choice, but decent.

I think DSLR is the way to go, but you probably don't have to sink your life's savings into it right off. Being essentially a fancy computer, whatever you get will be worth half in 2 years.

ScottE wrote:
Starving artists always have a reputation for doing better work anyway.

Cool, so i will rock than


I used DSLR before but good one i had to sell because i had no job and had to use one lended from my father, but this is dead now. I was using film camera still for about 20percent of my work, but i cannot do color photos with it and i like DSLR more than analog camera now. It saves lot of time and moneys. I think i will try to catch something on ebay but without credit it will be hard, i will get mostly clothes for xmass i fear.
Thank You for comments.

sissi wrote in post #2342361
i will get mostly clothes for xmass i fear.

Isn't that what every girl hopes for?? LOL

photobitz wrote in post #2342728
Isn't that what every girl hopes for?? LOL

i am not "every" girl:p. ask my parents.

Indeed LOL

Jman13 wrote in post #2341040
As to the body....

Thank You Jman for clearing post. I will see what i can do and hopefully not all is lost for me.

photobitz wrote in post #2342817
Indeed LOL