First time DSLR Buyer - 350D vs 400D vs Nikon D40

[Pirvy]

Heya guys,

long time lurker here but first time poster! :)

after reading for a while i have decided to take the plunge and buy a digital SLR camera. At the moment all i've used are an HP850 cam and a little Casio Exilim which didn't offer much in manual features.

To give you an idea, these are some of the better pictures i was able to take with the casio. They have been given some touches in photoshop too:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59329913@N00

The million dollar question is this. Price with Price, the Nikon D40 and Canon 350D are what i was looking at. From those two cameras, which do you think is the better bet? the newer but slightly more 'budget' nikon or the older but more featured canon.

The second question - is it worth the odd 100 euros to get the Canon 400d?

Edit - for the first few months of buying the camera, its unlikely that i will buy any lenses other than the kit lens

Please help

Regards

Kurt

[mattdm]

From what I've read, the Nikon D40 has a significantly nicer kit lens. Since you're planning to stick with that for a while, that may be a factor.

[Honest Gaza]

I think that the Nikon and the Canon are both nice cameras....and you will be happy with whichever you choose. Handle both models as they are a complete different feel in your hands (it will be a personal choice).

However, if you go the way of the Canon (and the extra budget is attainable), then I would suggest purchasing the 400D over the 350D simply for the extra features that it has including :

extra mega pixels
auto cleaning
9-point auto focus

[BryanMsi]

If you are just starting out and have no investment in lenses, I will give you gentle nudge toward Nikon (although there are plenty of good reasons to go with Canon including their generally superior sensors).

Like you, I jumped into dSLR with Canon and bought the first Rebel. That camera was crap. Canon removed so many useful features to avoid cannibalizing the sales of their D10 that it seriously impacted the usefulness of the camera. But I did get a taste of the Canon experience, and of course all of my photo pals shoot Canon so I had a chance to try the "real" Canons (10D, 20D, 5D). I still prefer my Nikon.

For a great comparison of the two, check out Ken Rockwells site where he directly compares both. Ultimately, his conclusion is that both are great but the Nikon operational ease is superior.

For me, there were some ttings, but ultimately very important features which Nikon offers that Canon does not.

1. The unbelievable 18-200 VR lens. Its probably the ONE lens that can handle 90% of your shots and Canon has nothing like it. Of course, I can't believe Canon is far behind on releasing an equivalent lens.

2. Nikon has Auto ISO, where you set a minimum shutter speed and the camera will bump up the ISO just enough to ensure that speed is met. For example, if you never want your shutter to slow below 1/80, you can walk into an interior room and never even worry about fumbling with settings. This one feature alone is worth quite a bit.

3. Exposure metering. Still Nikon's strength after all these years. I found that on photo trips with friends, the Nikons consistently metered the tough scenes a little better.

Now, having said that....Canon cameras produce some incredible images. And I think Canon has the edge in overal sensor technology. But really, you can't go wrong either way.

[Honest Gaza]

2. Nikon has Auto ISO, where you set a minimum shutter speed and the camera will bump up the ISO just enough to ensure that speed is met. For example, if you never want your shutter to slow below 1/80, you can walk into an interior room and never even worry about fumbling with settings. This one feature alone is worth quite a bit.

I didn't know that....but it certainly sounds like a feature that I would like on my Canon :)

[soccerjoe5]

1. The unbelievable 18-200 VR lens. Its probably the ONE lens that can handle 90% of your shots and Canon has nothing like it. Of course, I can't believe Canon is far behind on releasing an equivalent lens.


is this applicable for the D40? i'm really interested in the D40 too coz of the price but i can't afford lenses that cost so much.

how much is this lens? and does it have an AF motor? (i dunno if i'm making sense in DLSR terms, i understand that the D40 doesn't have the AF motor built-in)

if i can afford to get this lens, i'm definitely getting this. (i'm really considering the fuji s9100 coz i dont think i can afford an equivalent DLSR lens)

[Stephen B]

The lens is an auto focus lens(AF-S), so it will work with the D40. It costs anywhere from $700 to $900. I have heard that here in the US there is up to a 3 month waiting list :( for this lens. The lens is that popular.

[BryanMsi]

Yep - it is about $700 for the lens and it is so popular that after a year of being available, there is STILL a 2-4 month waiting list (unless you want to pay more on eBay). But, that's just a testament to how incredibly GOOD this lens is. It can realistically replace thousands of dollars worth of lenses in one swoop and is therefore quite a bargain.

I believe Nikon has released a non VR version of the 18-200 at a significant discount.

But this one lens can stay on your camera most of the time and saves you from having to carry multiple lenses and/or get caught with the wrong lens for a particular shot.

[soccerjoe5]

Yep - it is about $700 for the lens and it is so popular that after a year of being available, there is STILL a 2-4 month waiting list (unless you want to pay more on eBay). But, that's just a testament to how incredibly GOOD this lens is. It can realistically replace thousands of dollars worth of lenses in one swoop and is therefore quite a bargain.

I believe Nikon has released a non VR version of the 18-200 at a significant discount.

But this one lens can stay on your camera most of the time and saves you from having to carry multiple lenses and/or get caught with the wrong lens for a particular shot.


any news on the non-VR 18-200? :)