Lame employee? Or am I too much of a newb

[metaphile]

I'm preparing to invest in a system. I guess I am thinking of starting with a more entry-level dslr and then slowly and strategically incorporating some good glass. In talking to a camera rep at an electronics superstore that will go unnamed <coughbestbuycough> I discussed how I really am interested in investing in one great lens that would fill a lot of my needs. For instance, the Nikon 18-200VR has me salivating and the sales rep kinda laughed at me saying how ridiculous it was for me to place a lens like that on something entry level as a nikon d40. I'm hoping here that we're just dealing with a fellow who had hoped to sell me on a more expensive camera, but I'm not quite sure though. He acted as though it was an oxymoron to buy a lower end camera and then put good glass on it. Maybe I'm just too new to the digital world and I'm way too used to the ways of film, but seriously is that crazy thinking? to use a great lens, start with a beginner dslr and then upgrade the body as I grow and get used to digital? Maybe I'm way off base here, and you can tell me if my question is dumb. But is it really that absurd to put say a nikon 18-200vr on like a nikon d40? i'm not invested or committed in either of those items but i guess it was the path i had considered taking.

Also, he kept pressing canon which makes me think he had a lot of those to sell. Although he kept mentioning he had only one 40d left in stock, which I'm fairly certain wasn't the case. Just out of curiosity, what's a comparable lens to the nikon lens i mentioned above? anyone know?

[TheWengler]

No, a 18-200 on a D40 is a fine set up. Investing in quality lenses is a great idea. This is both because the lens will have more effect on your images than the body and you'll almost certainly upgrade your camera body before your lenses. That said, ultra zoom lenses usually have a slow max aperture. This can limit you in low light situations and for portraits.

[griptape]

First answer; you're right to think the lens is far more important than the body. The sensor in the body can't take a picture without a lens, and it can only capture an image looking through the glass in front of it. Hence, a $2000 lens on a $500 body will generally give extremely superior results over a $2000 body and a $500 lens. Having said that, the 18-200 isn't exactly a great lens. It's convenient, but aside from that, it doesn't have a lot going for it.

Second answer; it doesn't sound like the salesperson had any idea what they were talking about.

[TenD]

That is exactly my preferred way to fill out a camera bag. Place good to great glass on less expensive bodies rather than buying a very expensive body and getting inexpensive glass kind of as an afterthought. The glass takes the photo the body is a fancy lightbox that meters the light getting to the sensor which is virtually a parity product. A better body may make getting a certain photo easier, but the same photo can be taken with any body with good glass.

[VTEC_EATER]

But is it really that absurd to put say a nikon 18-200vr on like a nikon d40?

Nope. Not at all. In fact the 18-200 should really shine on a D40. I do not own one personally, but many say that the 18-200 is not really the best performer on a high megapixle semi-pro/pro camera body. However, on the D40, its a great piece of glass. I would highly recommend the 18-200 VR for use on the D40/50/70/70s/80/200. Anything in the 10MP range and under.

Many will say the 18-200 is not a great performer and really is just a convenient "consumer" lens. While it is a convenient lens, and is certainly out-performed by the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR, you have to look at the price point, size, weight, and convenience. The lens really is a nice lens when you consider your other options. The lens will perform better then the 18-55 and 55-200 combo, but wont perform as well as the 17-55/70-200. However, consideting the latter costs 4x's the price of the 18-200, I would definately take it over anything else if price, portability, and convenience were my main concerns.



Also, he kept pressing canon which makes me think he had a lot of those to sell. Although he kept mentioning he had only one 40d left in stock, which I'm fairly certain wasn't the case. Just out of curiosity, what's a comparable lens to the nikon lens i mentioned above? anyone know?

Canon has a fine system as well. Some people are still under the impression that Canon has the "better system" and is vastly superior to Nikon, or Olympus/Sony/Pentax, etc... There really is no "better system" between Nikon and Canon. Both perform amazingly. Both offer almost endless expansion in your photographic needs. Both offer amazing image quality.

What it really comes down to now-a-days is how you like the camera. Are you going to be happy with using this camera over the other? Does this camera offer the features you require, or shold you look at a different camera/system?

I would suggest going to the store and trying out the Nikon D40/D80 and the Canon XTi/40D. Even if you cannot afford the higher end models, one day you may wish to upgrade to something within this caliber, and this should have a pretty good pull in either system. Take a look at the menu systems. Are they easy for you to understand? Does the feel of the camera, and button arrangement feel good to you? What do you like or dislike about either camera body? Do things feel natural to you or not.

If you are not pleased with how the camera feels and operates, you will never be happy with your camera choice.

Dont let the store people push you into buying something you dont want. Its your money and they are lucky if you spend it at their store, let alone on what they push you into.

Best of luck.

[iamaelephant]

Sounds like the guy is a douche, to be honest.

[zmikers]

To be honest we had one fellow in here try to suggest the same thing a while back. I believe it was about putting L glass on the xt or xti. Anyways, some (very few and far between) people will try to suggest this as the truth, but most people who know anything about photography know that the glass is what controls the IQ not the body. I think you're on the right track. Let us know what you decide.......Good Luck:D

[tim11]

It's not you, it's the LAME EMPLOYEE.

[seo]

Glass lasts. Bodies don't.

[SpecialK]

In talking to a camera rep...


You have right idea. The saleman is a bed-wetter.

[Nickcanada]

hehe, I'd like to see the look on his face when I bought the 35mm 1.4L for my XT! hahaha.

[DonSchap]

Look at it this way ... the glass is the one common element (pun intended) in your camera bag. The APS-C sensor technology (6MP, 8MP, 10MP, 12MP) in the camera bodies has changed four times ... in as many years ... but, the lenses remain the same. SO ... by just deductive reasoning ... a great lens is still a great lens ... four years later.

You simply get a better image through better optics. If you shoot through a coke-bottle bottom, it doesn't matter how expensive a camera body is that it is mounted on ...


32721


you still get crap, with a ™ symbol embossed on it.

Now, that's not to say that if you can afford a better camera than an introductory body, that's such a bad thing either. You certainly get a few more options in your bag with that purchase, also. Intro-DSLRs can only go so far ... then they abruptly stop. Take the time to sit down and check out the differences between the intro-DSLR and the next one up on the food chain. It may not make a whole lot of difference to you, at this point, but it is good reference to fall back on ... as you begin to take images and find your shortfalls.

Just a thought ... :rolleyes: