Better camera with kit lenses, or cheaper camera with more lenses?

[lostgirl]

I posted this question in my other post, advice on the Nikon D80, but I'm hoping to get more responses this way.

I want a camera that will do well in lowlight, close-up concert photography, and also portraits, macro, and outdoor evens (weddings, etc)

Would it be better for me to buy ... say... a Nikon D80 or Canon EOS 40D and only use the kit lenses, or would it be better to buy a cheaper camera, like Nikon D40, and buy appropriate lenses (which at the moment, I don't know what they are)?

Thanks for any advice!

PS I see photos like these and it's what I dream about capturing;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theantrider/253913844/in/set-72157594301640185/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/veruku/1751343367/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyjuristar4allseason/472496270/

[fionndruinne]

One thing to think on - with kit lenses you will not have the low-light capabilities, no matter how you cut it, that you would with a good f/2.8 or larger lens, which costs the big bucks. There's the 50mm f/1.8, yes, but no cheap low-light zooms, so no matter how you slice it, unless you want to stick with a prime and a bunch of slow kit lenses, the "cheap lens" solution is not the right one.

[Rooz]

there's nothing in those images that can;t be reproduced with any dslr. remember cameras dont take photos. people take photos.

the 50mm f1.8 can be used for portraits and low light concert photos but you need to be very close for it to work at that focal length. for the macro photo you need a macro lens or extension tubes. low light concert photos of high quality generally require good quality telephoto lens' which can cost the same amount as the bodies you are looking at.

yes, the d80 can take images like that if the user is skillful enough. the 40d is a much more expensive camera and is the latest of canons semi pro dslr's. not really comaprable to the d80 for many reasons. and again, of course it can take great images.

for the d80; the kit lens, 50mm f1.8 for portraits and low light plus a set of extension tubes for macros will get you started. with the canon 40d you can do the exact same kit. or if your budget allows, buy the body only and get the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro lens.

the d40 will not AF with the 50mm f1.8 lens, you will have to use MF. but the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 HSM lens will AF. still, you are much more limited with the d40 if you are seeking to go semi-pro or pro down the line.

there is also the canon xti, olympus e510, sony a700, pentax k10d to consider aswell.

[edl]

I want a camera that will do well in lowlight, close-up concert photography, and also portraits, macro, and outdoor evens (weddings, etc)

Would it be better for me to buy ... say... a Nikon D80 or Canon EOS 40D and only use the kit lenses, or would it be better to buy a cheaper camera, like Nikon D40, and buy appropriate lenses (which at the moment, I don't know what they are)?


It's not the camera that does well in low-light or macro, it's the lens. Kit lens glass won't do for the photos you intend to take.

You never mentioned budget, but given your choices above it looks like you're in the $1200-1400 range. A Sigma 18-50 2.8 DC EX Macro is about $450 shipped, comes in Nikon, Canon, or Pentax mount and will give you zoom decent speed to start with. Tamron 28-75 2.8 is also similarly priced and will give you a bit more reach. If you truly intend to do concerts and need speed, get a 50 1.4 prime for $200-300.

From the flickr examples you posted, you should be able to achieve similar results with any one of these lenses listed above.

Any of the bodies will do (except Olympus, their lens selection is a bit limited at the moment). Go to a store, try them all and see which one works for you.

I would personally avoid the D40/D40x in your situation since the 50 prime is a good candidate for your targeted uses. If cost is truly a concern D50/D70 bodies can be readily found on the used market (they will autofocus 50's just fine).