New Kit or Used + Lens

[renegade13]

Hello,

Well, it's about time to retire my 35mm Rebel. It's been a good camera but it's time to go digital. So, I'm trying to decide whether to buy a brand new dSLR kit which would include the kit lens or buy a used dSLR body and then purchase one or two good lenses.

Here are my answers to the questions:

Budget

About $750 Canadian

Size

dSLR

Features

6 MP is good enough

Image quality is probably the most important feature after my budget - 9 out of 10

I want manual controls but will probably use it in auto mode much of the time

General Usage

The camera will be mostly used for family photos.

Only rarely would I ever make a big print.

Most of the photos will be indoors.

No sports.


These are the two options I'm considering:

1. Nikon D40 or D50 with lens kit. These would come in right at my budget of $750 Canadian.

2. A used Pentax *ist D for $350. I would then use the remaining $400 to buy one fast, fixed focal length lens (50mm or less) and possibly another variable lens.

I considered purchasing a Canon and then just use the lens from my Rebel. However, the Rebel lens I have is just the cheap kit lens (28-80mm) that came with it. Since image quality is my highest priority I don't really want to use that lens. I like the Nikon D40 and D50 but I'm just not too sure of the quality of those kit lenses. That is why I'm considering option 2. If I could get a solid used body, I could then put the rest of my budget into 1 or 2 mid-quality lenses.

What would you suggest I do? Any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and ideas.

[coldrain]

I would avoid the D40, since it is pretty heavily cut down in features even compared to the D50, while it gained some very unimportant features back to make it seem an upgrade.

Are you sure a Pentax K100 D is not available to you within your budget? It is an even more complete camera than the Nikon D50.

So, if you go Nikon, get a D50. For indoor a 35mm f2 prime is a better choice, although a bit more expensive than a 50mm f1.8. This is because of the 1.5x crop factor from the smaller sensor, making the 50mm a 75mm lens.

[renegade13]

Are you sure a Pentax K100 D is not available to you within your budget? It is an even more complete camera than the Nikon D50.


Yes, there is a used K100D in my budget. However, the cost is $500 for the body (vs. $350 for the *iST D) which onnly leaves me $250 for lenses. I was hoping to leave as much of my budget open as possible for glass. I guess I could just get one lens, the 35mm as you suggest, and save up for another. What do you think?

[SpecialK]

Whatever you get, forget the kit lens if image quality is very high on your list.

[mattdm]

I would avoid the D40, since it is pretty heavily cut down in features even compared to the D50, while it gained some very unimportant features back to make it seem an upgrade.

Yeah, crappy stuff like next-generation Nikon autofocus system, 0.8x viewfinder instead of 0.75x, better image processing resulting in noticeably crisper images out-of-camera (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page22.asp), configurable auto-ISO, programmable function button, and unlimited jpeg continuous shooting. Oh, and 15% lighter. And a better built-in flash. And a significantly better LCD to make picture review easier.

I mean, weigh that stuff against the benefits of including a motor you may never use (especially if you buy nicer lenses) and two more autofocus points, and whew, I can't see why you'd want any of it.

(Admittedly, it's annoying they left off auto-bracketing.)

[mattdm]

Oh, and I forgot the significantly improved kit lens. Sure wouldn't want that.

[renegade13]

Oh, and I forgot the significantly improved kit lens. Sure wouldn't want that.

Is the D40 lens kit going to be good enough for me though???? I realize this is a tough, if not impossible, question to answer since everyone has different standards. I'm generally a "consumer" grade user with high image quality expectations.

My question was bascially whether I should get a new (2006) body with a good kit lens or an older (2003) body with mid-grade lenses.

I thought this would be a different question compared to the D50 vs. K100D vs. Canon XT question since all these cameras are fairly similar out of the box. I hope this won't break down to a manufacturer debate, but rather whether someone should buy a new "kit" vs. a used body with good "aftermarket" lenses.

Thanks again.

[mattdm]

Yeah, that's hard to answer. For me, it's really important to have an f/2.8 lens, so I'd prefer to avoid the kit.

[SpecialK]

Forget any kit lens for quality as I opined up the thread.

Obviously I bought no Nikon or Canon DSLR, though I did shop them.

Decide on the lens or lenses you want, and work backward to the body that holds them.

The D50 will give you a bit more options on the lens choices if you plan to get, say 3 or more. But, at that point you would already have enough disposable income to warrant a slightly more upscale body than the D40, perhaps even the D80 :-)

If you only want one "do everything" lens (there aren't any, but some people go for an 18-200 or similar) or perhaps 2, then the D40 may be enough. I doubt the D40 is intended to be the heart of a 6-lens system. And it's normally just as easy to focus using the center point and re-compose the shot instead of moving the 4-way around to select a specific focus point - and risk losing the shot.

Only you can decide which features are important to you.

[mattdm]

Forget any kit lens for quality as I opined up the thread.

However, according to reviews, the D40's kit lens is something of a novelty -- intentionally a step up from that offered with the D50 in order to offer a selling point over Canon. I'm not sure how much of a step up this is exactly, though.