Complete beginner question

[Solution_63]

I'm thinking of buying a Nikon D50, but I'm concerned that it will become `out-dated` in a relatively short period of time.

I know it's a great camera, and that the advancement in technology in digital cameras appears to have slowed down compared to, say, 3 or 4 years ago, but if i buy this camera now will i regret it in 2 years time? How long until 6MP just isn't good enough?

I'm interested to know what everything thinks about this. I suspect I'm worrying unnecessarily, but any opinions are welcome.

Thanks

[Sintares]

Well what size are you planning to print at ?

After all an ancient 3mp camera can be used for decent prints upto A4 (8¼ × 11¾)

So, if you are only planning 5x4s then 6mp will last you a while !

[DonSchap]

I'm thinking of buying a Nikon D50, but I'm concerned that it will become `out-dated` in a relatively short period of time.

Uh... too late. This camera is about done... and after September and "Fotokina", you can stick a fork in it.

Start looking at the next generation of beginner dSLR cameras. Best coming out, in this low end, is the SONY A100 (due out late July 2006). You will have unmatched control of your picture through "camera-body image stablization". You have to pay big bucks to get that in Canon IS & Nikon VR lenses. You use this SONY camera... and ALL your glass will have it... by default (That's not an opinion, that's just fact).

Anyone talking you into a Nikon D50... needs to re-evaluate life in 2006. Good luck.

[coldrain]

First thinsg first, any fact stated by DonSchap is always just an opinion.

Now with that out of the way, while digital cameras are not the cheapest things on earth, the D50 is not exactly the most expensive camera you can imagine.
4 years ago 3.2 mp seemed to be more than you could ever want, now the 3mp cameras are gone... it is all 5, 6, 7 8, or more. Does that make the very good 3.2mp cameras from 4 years ago throw aways? No.... they are still as capable as the ever were.

Now.. lets look at what the 6mp D50 actually offers. It offers an entry in the lineup of one of the two big names in camera land. Canon and Nikon have the biggest lens lineups available... lenses are more important than the sensor in ways. I prefer the Canon lens lineup, but Nikon has some good lenses in their lineup that you will not find in the Sony lineup for instance.

The 6mp sensor of the D50 performs quite a bit better than the 10mp sensor of the Nikon D200. Better dynamic range from ISO400 and up... better noise handling from ISO 800 and up. Better graduations in skin tones and shadowy parts.
That is all due to the sensor... it is not like only the megapixel count is important, ine the D50 -> D200 case the sensor has a big impact in image quality, and not in the 10mp sensor's favor.

So... do you want to spend the next two years not making photos? Do you want to wait till something new, and miss all the photos you can make this summer? If you would buy the much more expensive D200 now, you will be wanting a new camera in 2 years anyway, due to its disappointing performance in certain areas, and by then probably there will be a new camera/sensor that outperforms it.

So, I would say, if you want to buy into the Nikon lineup, just go for it. If this mp thing is still bugging you, then you could check out the Canon EOS 350D/XT (8mp), or you could take your chances on that Sony (10mp), but I am not too hopeful about the sensor used in thatone, it will probably show the same faults as the sensor in the Nikon D200.

[krzkrzkrz]

Is the Sony A100D really taht good? Right now, I'm thinking of either getting the Canon Rebel XT 350D or the Sony A100D. What do you guys suggest?

[Rex914]

Is the Sony A100D really taht good? Right now, I'm thinking of either getting the Canon Rebel XT 350D or the Sony A100D. What do you guys suggest?

I would advise against purchasing an unreviewed and unevaluated camera. While there haven't been any "bombs" so to speak in the DSLR market, contrary to what DS is suggesting, DSLR's have a much longer lifespan than compact cameras. Even a DSLR that's been out on the market for a year is still a formidable tool to wield. For the record, a DSLR that debuts at $899 body only (A100) is by no means "entry level" anymore. It's a step above entry level. Not quite a 30D, but somewhere between entry level and prosumer.

Even if the D50 is getting replaced (my sources indicate a D70 sucessor and no successor to the D50 yet), it won't receive major changes. It's selling far too well to warrant any improvements from a business standpoint.

At this very moment, I will still suggest the 350D or D50 as the standard entry level choices. The D50, if you can find one, goes for $550 body only. Slap on a decent third party lens (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is one of those, or a first party 28-105mm lens), and you're good to go for a while.

p.s. If I may venture a guess, doesn't the A100 use the same sensor as the D200?

[Solution_63]

Thanks for your responses. I asked a simialr question on another forum and the general consenus seems to be, if the D50 and its 6MP is good enough for me now, it'll still be a good camera in a few years time.

[some guy]

All camera bodies will get outdated fast. It is a fact of life with all things electronics. Having said that best to invest the money on good glass. Lens will transfer from one body to the next assuming you are staying with the same brand. With the D50 you have access to Nikon's diverse lens and flash systems. Still leagues ahead of the A100 upstart. No wait a minute, A100 allows you to use the legacy KM lenses too. Hmm.... But who knows how integrated the Sony will be with old KM lenses. Just because it can mount on the body doesn't mean it will shoot good pix. I can mount a Quantaray on a 5D too.

Having said that I find the D50's feature list is quite basic. It's a 'castrated' version of the D70s. So you may outgrow it quickly. But it's still a good entry level SLR.

[DonSchap]

The SONY A100 (body only ) has one thing that NONE of the Canon, Nikon, SIGMA or Olympus dSLR bodies have...

staple here.............................................. ....staple here
ANTI-SHAKE!

For goodness sake... print the above words, cut them out, and staple it to your glasses if you cannot remember. That costs, on the average, $300+ in any lens. Yes... every lens w/ IS in it... is "$300 + the cost of the glass!" You get ANTI-SHAKE 24/7 in this camera body... unless you shut it off! So, I figure that draws this 10MP APS-C sensored camera down to effectively $599... or less!

It will add "IS" or "A-S" as the case may be, to your old Minolta AF glass... How cool is that? Minolta made some real great lenses, also.

Not quit your crabbin' about the price and get one. Good Gosh Almighty!

In fact, buy the whole set up!

[coldrain]

Just ignore DonSchap's nonsensical rants, they are always this way, totally weird, slanted and biased.

It is never based on research or facts, just a rant from a guy who has little real knowledge and a load of prejudice.

It is fine to buy a Sony DSLR, or course. But do not expect its image quality to be flawless, it has the same kind of sensor as the D200 and that one has some flaws in its performance that you almost never see being written about. Bad high ISO performance, bad transitions in skin tones, shadow areas. It seems that its real dynamic range is somewhat limitted.

So... the Sony has to prove itself yet, and the KM lens line up had/has some gems in between there, but on the whole is not overly impressive. So... if it does offer the lenses you want, it can be a good choice. But remember, you are buying into a lens system. And the Canon and Nikon lens systems are preferable at this point in time.