Amateur Looking for a DSLR

[teko]

Background

A month ago, I wanted to get a new camera to replace my 6-7 year-old pocket camera. My candidates were the Canon PowerShot SD850IS and the SD870IS. I thought with current advances in technology, the latest pocket cameras should produce great image quality. Boy was I wrong.

Over the holidays, I had the chance to play around with my dad's Canon PowerShot SD1000 and my sister's Nikon D40X. The image quality difference is pretty staggering, especially in low lit areas. The Canon, while having nice features and size, produce a lot of grain. Grain is probably something that I dislike the most from the images produced by my old camera. I looked into super/ultrazoom cameras, and after some reading, I found that it seems with current technologies, the quality is still far from a DSLR's.

I'm a (very) amateur photographer. Again, I had wanted to get a pocket camera, but through the last holiday I've gained interest in DSLR photography. I think to gain that quality I always wanted in my photos, I will have to jump to the SLR bandwagon. My experiences with SLR is still pretty limited. I had used my dad's old camera, a Canon A-series (probably the AE-1), years ago, and the Nikon D40X, just recently.

In sum, what I need is a more user-friendly camera, but still with the options to go a bit advanced after I've learned more.


Budget
Previous budget was around $400, but now I'm saving more for a DSLR. Probably can go up to $600.

Size
Doesn't matter much, as long as not as big as the Canon EOS 1D series.

Features
- Anything above 3mpx (not going to print)
- Standard zoom is enough
- Image quality is very important (9/10), would like to have as less grain as possible
- At the moment, don't care much about manual controls, but an option might be nice

General Usage
Main usage will be for family and vacation pictures (landscapes, buildings). Mixed of indoor/outdoor, also moving/still objects. Basically what I need is an all-around camera.

Miscellaneous
- Prefer something with SD Card, and SDHC support, as I already own multiple 4GB+ SD cards.
- Maybe the Nikon D40, since it's similar with D40X, but a tad cheaper.
- Some form of IS will be nice, as I don't have the steadiest hands.


Is it better to get current cameras or something older, like the Nikon D50 or Olympus E-300? I'm not in a hurry, can wait a couple of more months if something new is coming out (price drops).

[DonSchap]

No matter what DSLR you decide on ... it's not just the camera, but the quality of the glass you hang off the front of it. With a budget of $600 ...

Okay ... time to look at a few prices just to clear the air of what we are talking about, here

Simply go to Yahoo.com ... in the window provided, type "EOS XTi" and then click on the "Shopping" tab and "Search".

There's your base body price, randomly selected. - about $525 from B&H

Now ... let's get a relatively good lens ... say a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, as a starter/stabilized lens. Back to the Yahoo.com page and type in "EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM", the "Shopping" tab and press "Search", again. Now you have the price of a lens. $410 at B&H

Add them together ... that's your total ... $935.

So, figure $1000 for DSLR ... just to start. It's being a lot more reasonable than ... $600?

Yes, you could go with a lesser lens, but in the end ... you are compromising something you will miss, down the road. That's your choice, but I suggest you seriously compare a few lenses before you settle on the final choice.

[teko]

As an amateur, is lens really that important? I'm willing to go with the standard kit for now, and when I get better (months or years ahead), I can upgrade it.

As I said before, I have played around with the Nikon D40X (with 18-55mm kit) and I love the image quality. To me, it's good enough. I think the camera is currently priced around $680-700, so the older model, D40, should be at my budget.

Am I really mistaken here to think that the 18-55mm kit is good enough for all-around starter photography?

[griptape]

Don really enjoys spending other peoples' money. But he is right that in the long run you won't be satisfied with a kit lens. But just to start out, as long as you realize you're buying into a long term money pit as you get more and more picky about the quality of your pictures, an inexpensive lens will be okay. And both Canon and Nikon have a $80-ish 50mm f/1.8 prime that's very sharp.

[Honest Gaza]

As an amateur, is lens really that important? I'm willing to go with the standard kit for now, and when I get better (months or years ahead), I can upgrade it.

As I said before, I have played around with the Nikon D40X (with 18-55mm kit) and I love the image quality. To me, it's good enough. I think the camera is currently priced around $680-700, so the older model, D40, should be at my budget.

Am I really mistaken here to think that the 18-55mm kit is good enough for all-around starter photography?

Without knowing how "set" you are on your budget, the only point I would like to make is that the kit lens will obviously have limited focal reach....and this may be an issue if you can't afford another lens for a while.

The Canon 870IS P&S camera you referred to has a 35mm equivalent of 28-105mm. If you find this range a bit too limiting, you will be limited even more with the 18-55mm kit lens (Nikon x 1.5 = 27-82mm)....so factor this in when considering your choice of lens.

[WestCoast]

Don really enjoys spending other peoples' money. But he is right that in the long run you won't be satisfied with a kit lens. But just to start out, as long as you realize you're buying into a long term money pit as you get more and more picky about the quality of your pictures, an inexpensive lens will be okay. And both Canon and Nikon have a $80-ish 50mm f/1.8 prime that's very sharp.

Good info here.

Keep in mind that you're not going to have much telephoto capability with the 18-55 mm kit lens. I don't know about the price of the Canon equivalent, but you can get a Nikkor 55-200 mm lens with VR (image stabilization) for $200 right now.

Unless you're going to be doing a significant amount of cropping, the D40 is a much better value than the D40x.

[DonSchap]

Look, while I've got my hand in your wallet ... I'm going to dig just a little deeper and suggest you take a few extra minutes to consider another lens ... the TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) which will deliver super overall range and balance to the camera, until you can figure out just what you want to shoot with.

They just redesigned it to work with the Nikon D40 ... so it is right on time with your needs.

"Luke, I mean, teko ... good glass ... it is the only way."

32025


Good luck with your hunt ... and for goodness sake ... when it comes to a DSLR ... spending is just another aspect of photography. It does not matter what anyone else may tell you, the fact stands. If you don't believe it, just open about any issue of Popular Photography ... head for the "reading room" and take a good long look at the last 40 pages. :cool:

[WestCoast]

Different people have different needs and different financial priorities. For example, I currently drive a 12-year-old Oldsmobile. Although I could easily go purchase a brand new Ford Explorer in cash tomorrow if I wanted to, I don't want to spend my money on that. My current vehicle gets me from Point A to Point B just fine right now, and that's all I need.

Somebody who is just starting out isn't necessarily going to benefit from purchasing $1,000 worth of lenses RIGHT AWAY. Especially when said person has a current spending limit of $600. Playing it by ear and not purchasing more than one needs is a prudent course of action in any endeavor.

[Rhys]

With a $600 budget the Olympus E510 looks tempting. Having said that it's a camera that even temps me although I am not going to change systems again. Done that too many times in the past!

By the way, I drive a Nissan Xterra - it guzzles gas like it's going out of style but it's safe, comfortable and carries me safely from a to b.

[SpecialK]

You can still find a in-body stabilized Pentax K100D at www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKK100D for $359. Add the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 zoom from Cameta Camera for $270. It is sharp, and pretty good for low light...a budget 70-300 zoom runs about $225.

[WestCoast]

You can still find a in-body stabilized Pentax K100D at www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKK100D for $359. Add the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 zoom from Cameta Camera for $270. It is sharp, and pretty good for low light

For somebody on a $600 budget, I agree that setup is better than a D40/kit lens.

[swpars]

The Pentax K100D has great out-of-camera JPEG quality, and Sigma glass (especially f2.8 stuff) will meet all your needs. My advice is to pick that up as well, given your budget.

Regarding the slamming of entry-level glass by Don as a "compromise", here are some pictures I would like to share.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2317/2160558893_f37853d590.jpg

Taken with the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens that came with my Nikon. Street price for this lens is $100 if you were to buy it alone (came free with my D40).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2148/2130201928_b7002f1af0.jpg

Taken with the 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR (image stabilized) Nikon telephoto. Street price, $199.

For indoor sports/action, you'll want faster lenses, but for 95% of the shooting that amateur photographers do, consumer grade glass is good enough and delivers fine results.

So don't worry about having to buy a bunch of expensive lenses right away. You don't need to as a newcomer to the DSLR world.

[WestCoast]

This was taken with my crappy consumer-grade Nikkor 70-300 mm VR at f/5.6 and ISO 800... at an angle though a 30-year-old window on an overcast/drizzly morning.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2160611795_d66b2e431c_b.jpg

Yeah, those consumer-grade lenses sure are garbage. :rolleyes:

[swpars]

This was taken with my crappy consumer-grade Nikkor 70-300 mm VR at f/5.6 and ISO 800... at an angle though a 30-year-old window on an overcast/drizzly morning.

Yeah, those consumer-grade lenses sure are garbage. :rolleyes:

Your garbage lens is probably my next acquisition. I like the idea of 300mm and VR II with panning detection :D

[JTL]

Yeah, those consumer-grade lenses sure are garbage. :rolleyes:Your garbage lens is probably my next acquisition. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen any "garbage" lenses discussed here. I only saw some garbage advice (IMO, of course ;)) from a particular member who has no regard whatsoever for any OP question, budget or requirement.

[teko]

Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions. Also Darth Don, though it's a bit on the extreme side.

So far I've round up my alternatives to:

- Olympus E-510 (around $650)
- Nikon D40: around $450 at local store. Or body only (around $380) + Nikkor 55-200mm lens ($200 on amazon)
- Pentax K100D ($359 at beachcamera.com) + Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (about $225)

We'll see how the prices go in February...

[3In2Out]

D40 + kit lens for $450, plus $200 for the 55-200VR...puts you around $650 if you can spend that much. Thats a nice little setup there and gives you a nice focal range and decent glass. Hardly pro stuff, but good results non the less.

[DonSchap]

I'm still waiting to see a D40-image (http://www.moli.com/p/views/v24I_bVT0KbnPblr_eIeRE3w../) setting the world on fire. All I have seen are people who look like they are taking images of their neighbors, a few farm ani-mules and other townsfolk from Georgetown, South Carolina, with "free" cameras.

It's kinda weird, but ... uh, okay. I just have to get out more, I guess.

Go Nikon freebies! :o

[WestCoast]

I'm still waiting to see a D40-image (http://www.moli.com/p/views/v24I_bVT0KbnPblr_eIeRE3w../) setting the world on fire.

I'm still waiting for you to show some of your super-awesome photos that blow away what a D40 is capable of taking. It'd be nice for you to justify your obnoxious assertion that everybody should spend top-dollar on over-priced SONY equipment. It'd also be nice for you to show that you're something other than an obnoxious gearhead hack.

[DonSchap]

I'm still waiting for you to show some of your super-awesome photos that blow away what a D40 is capable of taking. It'd be nice for you to justify your obnoxious assertion that everybody should spend top-dollar on over-priced SONY equipment. It'd also be nice for you to show that you're something other than an obnoxious gearhead hack.

Oh no ... don't turn me into an artist, WestCoast ... I'd be ... intolerable. I'll play it safe ... for now ... and just let you impress the Hell out of me with your contributions with your ... econoliner.

Thanks. :D

[WestCoast]

Oh no ... don't turn me into an artist, WestCoast ... I'd be ... intolerable. I'll play it safe ... for now ... and just let you impress the Hell out of me with your contributions with your ... econoliner.

Thanks. :D

So, you admit that you're just an obnoxious windbag who likes to put down people who don't want to pay $2,000+ for their equipment?

[DonSchap]

Pal,

I came here for the atmosphere and the lighting ... what's your excuse? Just to harrass me? How about we use your camera for something more than a doorstop and we'll discuss how well YOUR shutter finger is working, later on. :cool:

As an aside, I still don't get where in this discussion we arrived at a $2000 budget .... at the worst, it was a $1000, body and lens. Canon XTi with a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM. A decent starter combo ... that can deliver relatively all-around shots. Not something I'd be thrilled with, but when the funds aren't there ... you do the best you can ... or you just go out and get more money ... shovel show (there's plenty), work a few more hours ... pump gas. The possiblities are ... non-stop.

Hey, Nick .... did this seem to be a thrilling combo for you? You had it, right?

Thanks again :D

[3In2Out]

I can assure you, if the individual wasnt working on a small budget, I wouldnt have recommended a D40.

[Thronsen]

Im in a similar position to the original poster. (Very) amateur point and shoot compact guy looking to trade up to a SLR.

His $600 or so budget sounds just about what I would like to spend, but I could technically spend more. Is the $600 camera/lens basically wasted if I decide later that I want to upgrade?

Also, is there some good 'Intro to SLR' guide that can get some of us P+S amateurs up to speed on SLRs?

[SpecialK]

Im in a similar position to the original poster. (Very) amateur point and shoot compact guy looking to trade up to a SLR.

His $600 or so budget sounds just about what I would like to spend, but I could technically spend more. Is the $600 camera/lens basically wasted if I decide later that I want to upgrade?

Also, is there some good 'Intro to SLR' guide that can get some of us P+S amateurs up to speed on SLRs?

Operationally, there is very little, if any, difference between P&S and DSLR.

Shutter
Aperture
ISO

The rest are bells and whistles :-)

For $600 you can get a capable Nikon/Pentax/Oly camera body and fair kit lens, a couple memory cards and an extra battery. Future upgrades are mostly in the lenses, the cost of which vary widely from $100 to over $1000.

There are tons of basic books.
http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Arts-Books/b/ref=amb_link_12?ie=UTF8&node=2020&pf_rd_p=249347001&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=1&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=13AT8NVJ8ZYEPDJNJA99

You might as well get "Understanding Exposure" now as everyone will recommend it. But get a different one, too.

[DonSchap]

Personally, I can recommend a couple of books I used during recent photography classes.


Complete Digital Photography, 4th Edition, 2007, by Ben Long
Understanding Exposure, Revised Edition, 2004, by Bryan Peterson


Between these two books, you should be able to understand most apsects of shooting with a DSLR. The most important aspect is the DLSR's recovery time between shots. There effectively is none, where a P&S is definitely annoying when it comes to this.

Focus is usually faster on a DSLR lens ... and some camera/lens combinations are just incredible.

Only a few P&S have external flash/flash-sync abilities, where every DSLR can do this. This improves your lighting choices enormously.

[Rooz]

wouldn;t you just love to spend an arvo in the french alps with Bryan ?

[swpars]

For $600 you can get a capable Nikon/Pentax/Oly camera body and fair kit lens, a couple memory cards and an extra battery.

Canon EOS Rebel XT body + 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS would also fit in with this crowd, in the same price range.


'm still waiting to see a D40-image setting the world on fire.

Don, I would love to see you post a link to an image that "sets the world" on fire so that I (and others) can understand your standards of said.

By the way, have you seen a Sony a100 or a700 image that "sets the world on fire"? Better yet, have you taken one yourself?

Just a couple of questions.

[WestCoast]

Pal,

I came here for the atmosphere and the lighting

Funny, I thought that you came here to listen to yourself type.

How about we use your camera for something more than a doorstop

I have a better idea. Why don't you stop making condescending remarks about my camera and show us something impressive that you've shot with your oh-so-awesome prosumer equipment.

As an aside, I still don't get where in this discussion we arrived at a $2000 budget .... at the worst, it was a $1000, body and lens.

Since you obviously didn't bother to read the first post of the thread, the budget limit was $600.

Is it really that difficult to answer a simple question based on the OP's budget restraints, or is the opportunity to act like a complete ass just too tempting for you to pass up?

[Rooz]

I'm still waiting to see a D40-image (http://www.moli.com/p/views/v24I_bVT0KbnPblr_eIeRE3w../) setting the world on fire. All I have seen are people who look like they are taking images of their neighbors, a few farm ani-mules and other townsfolk from Georgetown, South Carolina, with "free" cameras.

It's kinda weird, but ... uh, okay. I just have to get out more, I guess.

Go Nikon freebies! :o

thats a bit of a silly thing to say Don. some of the best images on this site have been taken with a d40 thats for sure. certainly of a far higher quality than anything i've ever seen from an a100/a700 on this site...if indeed any images, (apart from product shots), have ever been posted ?? :confused:

as i reminded you before. sony has their own unique way of selling the pic taking attributes of the a700. they use Nikon images. :) can't blame em really. http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35557

[chardog]

the pentax deal seems like the best bang for the buck.

here is a spectacular deal:

http://www.berger-bros.com/page/BBCVD/CTGY/PENTAX_SLR

399 after rebate for K100D, kit lens, 2gb memory. You can add the zoom later. I suggest you play with it for a while before you get the zoom. Personally I would spend a little for on the nikon because of lens selection, but if you're not shooting to be a pro, then the pentax is perfectly fine. Great images at a great price.

[DonSchap]

You know something, you guys are soooo right. I'm just going to roll up all my investment and go with the tiny Nikon D40 the half usable Nikon array of lenses ... because I really need a "pocket-DSLR", anyway. There's no point in having a pair of fully capable DSLRs, one with ISO-6400 capability, anti-shake or dual speed focus capability. How silly I was.

Thank you so much for this enlighting exchange. It's off the the camera shoppe ... for a swap. :rolleyes:

Oh hey, wait a sec, here ... oh I get it, I have to post shots because I am happy with my rig ... Nah ... I decided a long time ago to stick with Minolta (now SONY) becuase it delivered what I was looking for. Obviously, others are looking for something ... different. You don't have to agree ... and that's fine and your choice. I offer an opinion ... have seen the competition ... and look ... still SONY. Hmmm, what's with that? Sure isn't money. LOL :D

[hokeyguy]

I'm still waiting for you to show some of your super-awesome photos that blow away what a D40 is capable of taking. It'd be nice for you to justify your obnoxious assertion that everybody should spend top-dollar on over-priced SONY equipment. It'd also be nice for you to show that you're something other than an obnoxious gearhead hack.
Here's one...
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31829&d=1198651237
As seen here. (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36329)

Add the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 zoom from Cameta Camera for $270.
:eek:That seems really cheap. I couldn't find it. You have a link?

[SpecialK]

:eek:That seems really cheap. I couldn't find it. You have a link?

Yep. here:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-Pentax-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0002P19PI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title


Oops - looks like they finally sold out :-( Double oops - look like it is back in stock. LOL...

[WestCoast]

Here's one...
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31829&d=1198651237
As seen here. (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36329)


:eek:That seems really cheap. I couldn't find it. You have a link?

Wow, that's just an AWESOME photo. I bow down to Don's technical and artistic brilliance. :D

[hokeyguy]

Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions. Also Darth Don, though it's a bit on the extreme side.

So far I've round up my alternatives to:

- Olympus E-510 (around $650)
- Nikon D40: around $450 at local store. Or body only (around $380) + Nikkor 55-200mm lens ($200 on amazon)
- Pentax K100D ($359 at beachcamera.com) + Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (about $225)

We'll see how the prices go in February...
Sorry about the direction this thread has gone.

The choices you have listed have very different focal lengths. I think for your stated desire to shoot landscapes and indoor shots, the 18-50mm range is better.

Although I don't own many of these items, I do own the macro version of that Sigma and love it. The Pentax/Sigma combo really looks attractive to me considering your budget and subject preferences. I don't think you would be disappointed.

[erichlund]

I think the Pentax is a nice camera, but I'm not sure it's the right camera for someone who's not confident of their post processing skills. The jpg quality is described by the reviewers as somewhat lacking, though I don't recall the specifics. The Pentax shines when you switch to shooting RAW, but that is a lot more work.

[DonSchap]

Sorry about the direction this thread has gone.


I apologize for the simplistic image I used for my demo, in the completely different thread ... I know I should have been using a brilliant layout and design, but I was simply pointing out that in a rather "normal" setting with limited lighting, the intro-DSLRs aren't going to deal with it very well. In fact ... you'll be asking, while you futz around ... "What the heck is wrong with this thing?" Struggling with 2800K White-balance, High-ISO (ISO-1600), Wide-open Aperture (f/3.5) and reasonable Shutter-speeds (1/60th sec - because you are trembling with fury, trying to coerce your limited equipment into doing more for you).

But ... the artists that are among us want more from their forum ... and I cannot say that I blame them. You should get more ... so pony up the coin and buy the camera body and lens that can deliver it. Yeah, 2500K WB, ISO-6400 ... f/1.4 ... 1/15th sec shutter-speed (oh-oh, there is no IS-equipped f/1.4 lens out there, is there? On Heavens ... in-the-body-IS to the rescue ... :eek: ). Take those low light images and post them ... you know, the ones you cannot ... with anything less. :cool:

We're all waiting ... we're always ... waiting. Well, at least ... some of us are. ;)

[WestCoast]

I apologize for the simplistic image I used for my demo, in the completely different thread ... I know I should have been using a brilliant layout and design, but I was simply pointing out that in a rather "normal" setting with limited lighting, the intro-DSLRs aren't going to deal with it very well. In fact ... you'll be asking, while you futz around ... "What the heck is wrong with this thing?" Struggling with 2800K White-balance, High-ISO (ISO-1600)

Don should run for President, since he's so good at spreading misinformation and flat-out lying at times. The D40 and A700 are actually pretty comparable at ISO 1600, as demonstrated in Jeff's review. And unlike the A700, the D40 doesn't automatically apply a crapload of noise reduction, forcing you to shoot in RAW mode. And, of course, the SONY costs $1,000 extra. What a bargain! :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

Oh, c'mon ... play fair ... Hillary. Who said anything about a SONY? :confused:

Oh my ... you did? :eek: So much for generics, eh? :cool:

Just get a decently powered rig and don't lament. I say, whatever works for your images and be happy ... oh, and be well lit, too. :)

BTW: "Hokey" I appreciate your trying to point things out to the apparently near-sghted. The Lord gave them eyes, but they still cannot see. Well, maybe, just not too well. I will try and type c l e a r e r ... maybe it'll ... nah, I'm not that optimistic about optometry.

I lament the not giving you a better example to ... uh, re-post.

[SpecialK]

I think the Pentax is a nice camera, but I'm not sure it's the right camera for someone who's not confident of their post processing skills. The jpg quality is described by the reviewers as somewhat lacking, though I don't recall the specifics. The Pentax shines when you switch to shooting RAW, but that is a lot more work.

Not really accurate for the KHundredD, though some people have a JPG issue with the KTenD.

Here are highlights of the KHundredD review from Jeff Keller, owner of this site and reviewer...


1. You need a sharp eye to see the difference between the ISO 200, 400, and 800 shots. All three are very clean, so making large prints at these settings is a piece of cake...

2. Overall the K100D's photo quality was excellent, which is just what you'd expect from a digital SLR. The camera took well-exposed photos, save for one underexposure (linked here). Both color saturation and sharpness are set pretty high, which is what consumers moving up from point-and-shoot cameras seem to want. Noise levels are nice and low through ISO 800, as the previous test illustrates...

3...this entry-level digital SLR won me over with its excellent photo quality, built-in image stabilizer, and low price. It's not great for sports/action shooters, but for everyone else, it's absolutely worth a look.

4. Photo quality was excellent in most cases. The K100D took well-exposed photos with vivid colors and pleasing sharpness...

5. What I liked:

Very good photo quality; low noise through ISO 800
Great value
Image stabilization system works with all Pentax lenses
Solid construction; doesn't feel "cheap" despite the low price
Large 2.5" LCD display
Full manual controls, as you'd expect
Good (but slow) low light focusing
Redeye not a problem
Decent RAW editing software included
Uses AA batteries
USB 2.0 High Speed support

What I didn't care for:

Buffer memory fills up way too quickly; unimpressive continuous shooting mode as a result
Performance not quite as good as other D-SLRs
Some vignetting with kit lens
Menus not terribly user friendly
Limited white balance options (no fine-tuning or color temperature setting)
No backlight for LCD info display

...

That all sounded pretty good, even when I got mine for considerably more than $359.

In reality, non-sports people don't have a problem with the buffer or continuous shooting, get a differnt lens than the kit, you get used to the menus easily, and shooting RAW makes WB insignificant. And converting to RAW to JPG in a batch takes about 4 mouse clicks.

[swpars]

Take those low light images and post them ... you know, the ones you cannot ... with anything less. :cool:

We're all waiting ... we're always ... waiting. Well, at least ... some of us are. ;)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2112/2169808087_f2b2e3591b_b.jpg

Camera: Nikon D40
Exposure: 0.04 sec (1/25)
Aperture: f/5.3
Focal Length: 165 mm
ISO Speed: 1600

Taken with 55-200mm VR in a dimly lit kitchen. Hmmm...the entry-level DSLR got the shot.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/2053159570_a03cd6ec63_b.jpg

Camera: Nikon D40
Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture: f/1.8
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 1600

As you can see, taken with one of those super expensive Nikkor lenses full of ED elements -- wait - this lens sells for $109, brand new and has no ED glass inside.

As you can see, there is no problem getting a shot with an entry level DSLR and a cheap 50mm f1.8 in a room lit by two 75 watt bulbs diffused by a light fixture.

[Rooz]

Don should run for President, since he's so good at spreading misinformation and flat-out lying at times. The D40 and A700 are actually pretty comparable at ISO 1600, as demonstrated in Jeff's review. And unlike the A700, the D40 doesn't automatically apply a crapload of noise reduction, forcing you to shoot in RAW mode. And, of course, the SONY costs $1,000 extra. What a bargain! :rolleyes:

comparable yes, but don't forget that the a700 crams double the amount of mp's on the same size sensor. as opposed to the a100, (the most expensive paperweight on earth), the a700 is an excellent dslr. you don't need to be dragged down to don's idiotic level of argument here.

every time don posts some nonsense about the d40 link him to the d40 pic thread and ask him to show you images of his that are so much better.

when i was boxing my coach used to say to me "let your fists do the talking." well i say to you guys, "let your images do the talking." and let the product promos attract the response level they deserve which is pretty much zero.

you guys produce stuff that speaks for itself.

[DonSchap]

When all you have is lemons ... you do what you can.

Check out the other thread, concerning the "α100 paperweight" ...

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=276698&postcount=17

and reproduce the work at the same EXIF data (with single 60W overhead lamp) ...

32202
EXIF: 50mm - f/2.8 - 1/30 sec. - ISO-400 - Tungsten - Manual

handheld. Then you can run ya chops. Otherwise ... (pointing to the door) time for some reconsideration. Yes, big time. I simply have to replace those burned out lamps. This is a little too ambient, even for me. :cool:

It's all about improving ... moving with the flow ... and trying something outside the box. You want the same old shots everyone else comes back with ... you are moving in the right direction. No guts, no glory. Ah, why bother? You know the answer ... it's bottle shots.

[coldrain]

thats a bit of a silly thing to say Don. some of the best images on this site have been taken with a d40 thats for sure. certainly of a far higher quality than anything i've ever seen from an a100/a700 on this site...if indeed any images, (apart from product shots), have ever been posted ?? :confused:

as i reminded you before. sony has their own unique way of selling the pic taking attributes of the a700. they use Nikon images. :) can't blame em really. http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35557
Uhmmm*cough*!

Some of the best images on this site have been shot with the Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D! :rolleyes::D:p;)

[DonSchap]

Considering how many 350/XTi's have been sold to the masses ... somebody with some talent had to show up, eventually. I suggest that it's probably more of an "odds" thing. :D

Take a moment and look at it this way:

You have 6 whole people with an α100 each ... and 6000 with an XTi each ... okay ... go! Take pictures.

You figure it out ... what are the chances?

[coldrain]

So only 6 out of 6006 people actually did not think straight? Woah, not bad!

[JTL]

So, you admit that you're just an obnoxious windbag who likes to put down people who don't want to pay $2,000+ for their equipment?That's $2,000+ for relatively CRAPPY equipment! When you stop to think that you could get a 5D for that price...well, why bother even explaining any further...we all know that Don's posts are really just Sony billboards. ;)

[WestCoast]

comparable yes, but don't forget that the a700 crams double the amount of mp's on the same size sensor. as opposed to the a100, (the most expensive paperweight on earth), the a700 is an excellent dslr. you don't need to be dragged down to don's idiotic level of argument here.

I merely stated that Don was flat-out wrong in his assertion that the A700 is that much better at ISO 1600 than a D40. I pointed out that the D40 and A700 have comparable IQ at ISO 1600 and cited Jeff's reviews to back up my statement. The A700's heavy noise reduction is also described in Jeff's review.

Never did I say that the A700 wasn't an excellent D-SLR, because I'd be lying if I did. THAT would be stooping down to Don's level.

[Rooz]

Uhmmm*cough*!

Some of the best images on this site have been shot with the Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D! :rolleyes::D:p;)

but of course. that goes without saying ! but here is a challenge or you coldrain. can you take a picture of a lamp or a lens ? i don;t think so. :p

RE: the hi iso shot. swpars images, (especially the cat), are FAR more impressive at hi iso Don. they have shadows and dark colours which brings out the most challenging of iso conditions. they also aren't DIRECTLY lit by the light source.

[JTL]

Never did I say that the A700 wasn't an excellent D-SLR, because I'd be lying if I did. THAT would be stooping down to Don's level.Well I'll say it then: for the price it IS NOT an excellent DSLR. It does not even come close to the D300...not even close. Hell, it's not even as good IMAGE WISE as a $400.00 D40. So, what's so excellent? ;)

[coldrain]

Well I'll say it then: for the price it IS NOT an excellent DSLR. It does not even come close to the D300...not even close. Hell, it's not even as good IMAGE WISE as a $400.00 D40. So, what's so excellent? ;)
How about the liberal use of the colour ORANGE?

[WestCoast]

Well I'll say it then: for the price it IS NOT an excellent DSLR.

But if you have no problem with over-paying for good-but-not-great equipment, it's great! :D

In all fairness, it looks like Sony's new A200 may be a big upgrade to the piece-of-garbage A100. Sony finally dug their head out of their posteriors.

[JTL]

How about the liberal use of the colour ORANGE?ROTFLMAO!!! You are too funny sometimes! :D:D:D

Nice mushroom pics in the other thread by the way...I have to go over there and offiicially comment!

[JTL]

But if you have no problem with over-paying for good-but-not-great equipment, it's great! :D

In all fairness, it looks like Sony's new A200 may be a big upgrade to the piece-of-garbage A100. Sony finally dug their head out of their posteriors.Oh, man! Don't get me started. So, my brother-in-law calls me up AFTER he buys a camera for his wife for X-Mas and asks me all excitedly: "So I got her a Sony A100, what do you think?" Now, what am I supposed to say? Tell him it's a P.O.S. and that he should rip it out of her hands and return it? What is the purpose of that sort of stupid phone call? I did chastise him for not calling me BEFORE he purchased it. Frankly, I was pissed off to get the call. Knowing his wife, I would have suggested the D40 (the XTi might have been a bit too much of a challenge for her, if you catch my drift ;)). But, since she'll probably shoot it once or twice and it will sit on a shelf for the next twenty years, it doesn't matter anyway. But it still pisses me off! I'm glad I can finally vent about it! :D:D:D

[Thronsen]

Hi everyone-

Thanks for all the advice on this thread a couple months back. I went to the store to buy my DSLR today, planning on the Nikon D40x.

I was chatting with the sales guy for a while. He suggested that the D80, while more expensive, might give me greater value. I read the review on this site, and it seemed to be pretty good.

I had a couple questions I hope someone can answer. Here is where I am coming from. The camera is for my wife, who is only just learning beyond P+S. The camera will be used to take photos of a small child, mostly indoors. So some indoor light, fast turn on/shutter times, and inexpert user.

1. If I am going to take the next step from an intro camera like the D40x to the D80, is the D80 a good choice, or should I look at others?

2. If the D80 is a good choice, is the kit lens 'good enough', or is there another lens that is clearly better at a similar price?

3. Should I worry about the 'next step' cameras at all? Or should we bash around with the D40 for a year, and if we find it useful, make a decision then based on better informed personal preference?

This is all new to us, so while we can spend more then the $600 originally mentioned in this thread, we dont mind spending a little more now to save us down the road. But of course we dont want to buy a Ferrari either when all we know how to drive is a golf cart.

Thanks for all your help everyone.

[downtrodden]

Were it my money, I'd go for the D40X and just forget about the D80. I'd take the extra cash you're saving and invest it in some sort of prime lens to play around with. This route will provde a great learning platform for the two of you and the artistic uses for a decent prime lens are practically endless! not to mention they tend to be tack sharp and speedy, speedy, which would be important while shooting kids, man those moments go away quickly!

You'd probably have enough left over for more memory and maybe a bag...

OR... you could get a Flash Unit... these are tremendously useful for shots of people indoors, especially once you learn to use them! Someday really soon, I will be taking my own advice and picking one up!

Remember, that D40X body will last you longer than a year, so over the next year or two, if your wife loves the hobby, you two can add some really nice lenses to your collection, lenses which will likely stay with you no matter which Nikon body you purchase in the future! Once she's reached the limitations of her venerable D40x, you guys will have a nice lens collection and can buy whatever nicest body you can afford at that time... Maybe a D400? D500?

But that's just my opinion...

[Thronsen]

'not to mention they tend to be tack sharp and speedy, speedy, which would be important while shooting kids, man those moments go away quickly! '

The lens can affect how quickly you can get a shot off as well?

What would a good lens be to look at thats a step above the kit lens?

Thanks again.

[TheWengler]

The D40/D40x won't auto focus with most primes so you probably won't be getting any shots off very quick. However, usually large aperture lenses such as primes auto focus faster because they can take in more light. If you want this then go with the D80. If you're getting a D40 then stick to the Nikon AF-S and Sigma HSM lenses unless you're willing to try your hand at manual focusing. If you get a D80 then you can look into some primes. Something around 35mm would give you a "normal" field of view. Something a little longer would be better for portraits. The kit lens alone probably won't be enough to start (regardless of the body you choose) if you're shooting indoors. You might consider adding a flash to that. If you have lowish ceilings (preferably white) then you can bounce the flash to achieve a better result. If you're looking for a zoom lens a step above the kit for the D40x then consider the Simga 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM.

[bass7858]

i just bought a d40x. its our 3rd digital camera. cant even remember what our 1st one was. it was stolen in a breakin a few yrs ago. we replaced it with a fuji finepix a350. we liked it at the time. over the next couple yrs we became frustrated because the majority of pictures taken were pretty much bad. every now and then we'd get a good'un.
then our daughter and grandchildren moved to virginia. now time spent with them is very important to us, we want to capture all we possibly can on photo.
so we decided we we're gonna shop for a new cam. after about a month of reading reviews on point and shoots AND dslr's we visited a camera store to actually hold them and hopefully try them out.
the only point and shoot i would/was considering was the canon g9. thats one hell of a camera. it has flexability and a lot of features u find on dslr's. and u wont believe how good it feels in your hands. its just about the same price as the d40. but nice.
we looked at the canon xti, the olympus 510, pentax k10 and 100 and then started looking at nikons.
we knew were in the ball park then. i was leaning toward the d80. it has some very nice features. admitedly a better cam than the 40 or 40x.
but it and 1 lense was several hundred more than the 40x with 2 lenses.
we totally love it!!! lets just say if u put it in auto mode its worlds ahead of any point and shoot!!
it focuses, shoots, saves and displays the image all in the blink of an eye. only thing i can say about the auto setting is sometimes it'll pop the flash on u and those pics seem to be a lil bright looking. (over exposed?) a bounce flash would maybe fix that. i'm a newbie and just learning.
i percieve the camera as an incredible point and shoot that if u so wish to learn the art of photography it has most the bases covered. later on in life if u wanna get a big gun u surely can.
but its one hell of a starting point. if like me u r just moving up to a dslr i think u will be satisfied with the kit lenses. just bear in mind that the 40 series does not have body mounted focus, it relies on a lense mounted system. they r more expensive. but i dont see myself running out in the next yr or so and buying any more.
my wife loves the way u can just hold the trigger down and just continually take pictures.
i dont think u can go wrong with the 40 or 40x.
but i am uneducated, unenlightened. happy with what i got.
good luck!

[bass7858]

i just bought a d40x. its our 3rd digital camera. cant even remember what our 1st one was. it was stolen in a breakin a few yrs ago. we replaced it with a fuji finepix a350. we liked it at the time. over the next couple yrs we became frustrated because the majority of pictures taken were pretty much bad. every now and then we'd get a good'un.
then our daughter and grandchildren moved to virginia. now time spent with them is very important to us, we want to capture all we possibly can on photo.
so we decided we we're gonna shop for a new cam. after about a month of reading reviews on point and shoots AND dslr's we visited a camera store to actually hold them and hopefully try them out.
the only point and shoot i would/was considering was the canon g9. thats one hell of a camera. it has flexability and a lot of features u find on dslr's. and u wont believe how good it feels in your hands. its just about the same price as the d40. but nice.
we looked at the canon xti, the olympus 510, pentax k10 and 100 and then started looking at nikons.
we knew were in the ball park then. i was leaning toward the d80. it has some very nice features. admitedly a better cam than the 40 or 40x.
but it and 1 lense was several hundred more than the 40x with 2 lenses.
we totally love it!!! lets just say if u put it in auto mode its worlds ahead of any point and shoot!!
it focuses, shoots, saves and displays the image all in the blink of an eye. only thing i can say about the auto setting is sometimes it'll pop the flash on u and those pics seem to be a lil bright looking. (over exposed?) a bounce flash would maybe fix that. i'm a newbie and just learning.
i percieve the camera as an incredible point and shoot that if u so wish to learn the art of photography it has most the bases covered. later on in life if u wanna get a big gun u surely can.
but its one hell of a starting point. if like me u r just moving up to a dslr i think u will be satisfied with the kit lenses. just bear in mind that the 40 series does not have body mounted focus, it relies on a lense mounted system. they r more expensive. but i dont see myself running out in the next yr or so and buying any more.
my wife loves the way u can just hold the trigger down and just continually take pictures.
i dont think u can go wrong with the 40 or 40x.
but i am uneducated, unenlightened. happy with what i got.
good luck!