New Camera selection help
 

I'm looking at getting a new camera. I was looking at the Cannon and the Nikon. My budget is around ~$600. These are what I have picked out so far as a starting point. Amateur use. Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

The ones I've picked so far:

Nikon D40
Nikon D60
Cannon EOS Rebel

Any others worth looking into?

Did you look at the Cannon EOS 40D? It might be at the high side of your budget.

No I didn't. I'll have to look into that one.

is there a reason you want a dSLR? What do you want to shoot?

A few people at work have them and really like them. So that's where I started.

I want to shoot just normal stuff. Cars, kids, sports, family photos, kids plays at school, maybe try some artsy stuff as well. I have a small digital cannon power shot, but the shutter speed is to slow for sporting events, and sometimes by the time it focuses and shoots my young (5 & 3) have moved or looked away. Plus at my sons x-mas play the powershot couldn't zoom close enough and with the very low light, just spot lights on the kids, non of my pics turned out. Very disappointing, and was the deciding factor of getting a better camera.

cgarr - If it was off about a hundred bucks that's not a big deal, but that camera is out of my budget.

D40 or D40x

www.kenrockwell.com

We (my wife) has the EOS 40D.
You can get them as a kit with an entry level lens and the cash outlay isn't that bad.
She ended up getting a very good lens with it so that bumped up the price.
Good features on the body itself and limited only by the amount you want to spend on a lens.
I thought I would get a zoom lens for her at Christmas and was shocked at how much the Cannon image stabilized 85-200 units were. More than the original purchase price...
She got a Kitchen Aide stand mixer instead!

Realize that you're going down a slippery slope. One downside to the D40 is no image stablization in the body - you have to buy a more expensive lens. IS doesn't help in low light with moving subjects, but it can make a big different in low light with static objects.

You might want to take a look at the Canon G10. It likely has better shutter response than your current p&s, and has decent zoom range. For dSLR, upgraditis is strong, and you can soon be well north of 4 figures for a setup. That being said you can also look at Olympus (e-420) or even the new Panasonic G1. Those are a different sensor size though, and there are advantages (smaller) and disadvantages (not as much market penetration). It is hard to go wrong with a D40 though - good basic camera. Just don't start messing around with the higher priced ones, because once you do the D40 will look like a toy.

good args. for putting I in the lens, not the body...

where are you going to go with this in 5-10-20 years?

with Nikon or Canon or other DSLR's you are buying into a System.

Get a small $250-$300 digital cam w/ a zoom otherwise...
- decide what you do NOT like about that and then move "up" to address those issues.

or get a D40 and do the same with that body

there is nothing out there like the D40 right now for the price -- but you can bet that Canon is readying a strike force to defeat the hated Nikon enemy...

I say this as a guy with 2 Nikon DLSR bodies; 3-4 film bodies left, and about $10,000 in Nikon glass accumulated over the years...

The main argument for putting it in the lens is that you can sell a cheaper body and then a more expensive lens. And you purposely limit the usefulness of old lenses. I can put a 30 year old Pentax K mount lens on my K20d body and have image stabilization. Your old Nikon glass on a D40 body won't. Of course at least Nikon made the old glass mostly compatible as opposed to Canon changing the mount.

As for 5-10-20 years, who knows what we'll be shooting. I think it is somewhat difficult for a newbie to make those sorts of predictions and buy according to "needs" because those will likely change. Most dSLRs sit on the shelf once purchased. Others get used like point and shoots (and in fact the owners would likely be better off with a point and shoot). Some get used regularly, and others lead someone into photography as a hobby. None of those scenarios require someone to think 5 years down the road. Only when someone starts buying lenses do they need to stop and think about the system aspect of things.

I have a DSLR and I like it. If you want to spend money, then get an SLR. You'll find that you'll want several lenses. You'll want most of them to be "fast" which isn't cheap. For the amatuer, the advanced high-end point and shoot is the way to go these days. Get one with a long optical zoom, and you'll be able to take lots of pictures of lots of stuff. If you find that in a year or two, you've gotten more and more into photography, and you want more serious equipment, then go for an SLR. Even then you'll still have use for the P&S, so it won't be wasted money. Or, you may find that the P&S is all you need.

The Canon XTi (released in 2006) trumped the D40 in every aspect, 10mp instead of 6, 9point AF instead of 3 and a ultrasonic self cleaning sensor. The D40 doesn't even have the auto focus motor on the body so you'll have to buy the AF-S or AF-I ($$) lenses if you want auto focus. The XSi (replaces the XTi) has been out for some time now as well ... man where have you been?

I say hold out.

This whole "digital" thing is a fad.

The pinhole camera is poised to make a comeback!

I purchased a D40 a year ago. Absolutely no regrets on camera choice. I got sick and tired of the limitations of point and shoots. The slow shutter speeds (when trying to take pics of my kids, who are young like yours) really frustrated me. I found the D40 advanced enough that I can use the manual settings and play around a bit, but not so complex and beyond my abilities that I feel like some sort of poseur, either. I don't know if I "miss" the few added capabilities of the D40x and D60 that my camera lacks. Then again, you can now get a D60 for about what I paid for my D40 a year ago. D40 is about $400-450, these days.

nostatic is right about the upgraditis. You start wanting stuff like other lenses (which cost several times the value of the camera you've got), tripods, filters, etc. But, hey, that's a good thing.

One short-coming of the D40, like 87 coupe points out, is that the autofocus motor is in the lens, not the body. So you have to buy Nikon lenses with autofocus motors (unless you're willing to ditch that feature), and can't just stick on other companies' lenses which may be far cheaper.

for $600, i think the panasonic lumix FZ50 cant be beat. I also like the canon G10 but i think the FZ50 is better

been using the lumix for 2 years. amazing zoom 35-420mm equiv. NO serious need for other lenses, though i wish it went down to 28mm cant complain when it goes up to 420 mm

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/


took this (w/ FZ50), probably 75 feet away, no flash, no tripod, low light...not bad because the zoom is great


jeff tweedy/WILCO
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottoneeleven/3093330843/" title="Wilco - Rochester, NY by scoTToneEleven, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/3093330843_fa398246bf_o.jpg" width="900" height="600" alt="Wilco - Rochester, NY" /></a>

I gave my g/f a new Pentax K200d for xmas, but after playing with it, I'm returning it and getting her a K20d instead. The price on the K20d body has dropped, and at $742 it is a ridiculous bargain. What was interesting is that we pulled out my old Nikon D70 with the "good" kit 18-70 lens. We compared a couple different lenses on the Pentax bodies (16-45 f4, 43/1.9 ltd). Here's a few thoughts given that I got her a dSLR so she could take higher rez pictures of her work and also create art prints with a different tool (other than the Leica DLux3 that I gave her).

The Nikon does AF quicker in low light than the Pentax. And it is quiet (to get quiet with Pentax you need the newer SDM lenses). But the Nikon kit lens is slow (supposedly f3.5 at 18mm) and indoors with low light the pictures were crap. The image stabilization made a significant difference with the Pentax (the K200d as well as the K20d have IS in the body). But again, there is no substitute for good glass, and the 43/1.9 prime gave very good results under the given conditions. FAR better than either of the zooms, and made the difference between good images and blurry crap.

So the bottom line is that there are a lot of different variables to consider. A dSLR is not necessarily the best choice for some things. For instance if I was going to shoot in low light alot without flash (I hate flash) and wanted a really flexible tool that was still dead easy, I'd get a Panasonic LX3. Yes, it is a point and shoot, but you get a very fast and wide zoom (24-70mm equivalent, f2-2.8) that will outperform most dSLR kit lenses. No question in my mind. It also has image stabilization, will shoot raw, and has pretty good manual controls. I find shutter response to be just fine...but you have to learn the camera and if you're trying to get fast action, you need to anticipate. You have to do that with a dSLR as well, just to a lesser degree.

But if you are going to shoot action sports outdoors in good light, then a dSLR with a fairly long lens will probably be a better choice. However if you want to shoot indoors you'll need another lens. That is a blessing of dSLR and also a curse.

Another option is one of the wide/long p&s cameras like the Panasonic FZ-18 or 50 (28-504mm equivalent). I have the first iteration of that camera and it is pretty flexible, though I find the image quality of it lacking. It supposedly has gotten better though, and will likely be close to a budget dSLR with a kit lens.

Lots of choices these days, it just depends on your budget, how much time and effort you want to spend learning the camera, and what you think you'll want to shoot. But again this warning is worth repeating - dSLRs are a slippery slope and will be a money sink if you're a gadget guy. I for one have worked very hard to quit reading spec sheets and machine tests because frankly I don't think they are that important. Just like a car, it is mostly about the driver. So pick a decent tool and then learn it and practice.

I have the G9 which I am very happy with. Almost tempted to pick up the G10, but from what I have been reading its not much of an improvement over the 9. some even say the G9 is the better camera.

G9 seems a little smaller too

circuit city today had the G10 on sale for $475...tempting

another FZ50. typical daylight shot quality...very good i think

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottoneeleven/1298753208/" title="Untitled by scoTToneEleven, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1362/1298753208_b9ddbc092c_b.jpg" width="1024" height="576" alt="" /></a>

and again, the zoom is wonderful on FZ50

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottoneeleven/1297886193/" title="Untitled by scoTToneEleven, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1424/1297886193_9f2f87e476_b.jpg" width="1024" height="576" alt="" /></a>

If choosing between the Nikon D40 and D60, I'd consider the D40x. It is basically identical to the D60, minus a couple non-essential (IMO) improvements, and its a lot cheaper.

I appreciate your permanent and perhaps phatal Pentaxophilia...

BUT, the main argument if that different lenses need different motors.

Worst thing you can do is buy some aftermarket lens. The lens forms the image. Memorize that sentence.

If all you do is post on the Internet - - no big deal.

If - someday - you may be putting prints up on the wall - - big big deal.

BTW - film has much higher resolution than digital - and contrast is better too. Unclear how long that will last.

Once you have a digital camera, the cost to take a pic is zero.

No, the main argument is $$$ and history (Canon and Nikon put IS in lenses during film days when there was no option of IS in the body). I like Nikon stuff and in fact shoot Canon for video stuff so I'm not a raging Pentax fanboy. And there are some minor technical advantages to IS in the lens (eg you can optimize to a certain focal length).

But imho that is outweighed by having IS in the body and being able to use it on ANY legacy lens that fits the body. Instead of having to buy a brand new VR lens (which Nikon wants you do to), you can go on eBay and pick up some nice fast glass for cheap *and* have IS if your body has it.

Just different approaches, each with their advantages. But you know that Canikon know they can differentiate lenses based on VR, and then charge more money. Essentially they are charging an IS tax with each lens whereas with a Pentax, Olympus, Sony, you pay only once. The value is up to the buyer...

So you wouldn't buy one of these "aftermarket" lenses for your Nikon?

http://www.adorama.com/images/Product/ZI5014PTZF.jpghttp://www.adorama.com/images/Product/ZI2528DTZF.jpg

http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg3/VoigtSL2_58a.jpg

Dude, put down the Nikkor kool aid :p

RWebb, your showing yourself a poor source for information regarding digital photography. Hardly objective or well informed. Those Voigtlander lenses above are just one of many "aftermarket" lenses that are more than enough reason to explore outside the camera body brand for lens options.

BTW, if we're talking 35mm film, many of the digital cameras on the market have surpassed film in resolution. Seriously, your spouting some very outdated information. Have you read anything with regards to digital photography in the last 5 years?

For the record, the first two are Zeiss (50/1.4 Planar T* and 25/2.8 Distagon T*) in Nikon mount. The last is the Voigtlander 58/1.4 (which they make in both Nikon and Pentax mount). Both are made by Cosina in Japan.

I'm likely going to get the Voigt 58 to use as a "fast 50". Manual focus only, but very fast and dreamy bokeh (all for $379). Certainly as good or better than any 50 that Nikon is making or has made.

Depending on your use there are sometimes good packages out there with 2 or 3 lenses and the body. I bought a Sony Alpha 300 2 lens package, not high end but really does all I want well.

wow!

first - get the lens right

2nd - my comments obviously apply to the typical aftermarket lens -- not to the rare lenses that try to outdo Nikon.

AND:
I advise people to do some careful research to find the truth re resolution. I could say 87 coupe has no idea what resolution is, but I won't... maybe he is thinking of the Hassy digital backs -- but of course the proper comparo there is to 21/4 film not to 35 mm.

Finally - your words will no doubt appear more convincing if you learn that "your" is a possessive, and not a contraction of "you are."

ummmmhh ... but is that 58 as good as the 58 that Nikon used to make.


yes - I am talking about the fabled Noctilux. I know - it is rare & expensive.

BUT if you needed a low light lens that performed like nothing else, then you needed that lens.

That is the thing about Nikon. If you need the "Eye of God" they make it. And if you are in the special program whose name I dare not mention, they will rent you that $20,000 lens.

The Voigt is neither rare nor expensive. And is as good or better than anything Nikon currently makes. It might have a tough time running against a Noctilux, but then you're into esoterica, not a current production lens. That is less than $400.

But if I had Noctilux kind of money I'd be shooting Leica and be done with it...

My point is that you made a sweeping statement ("worst thing you can do is buy some aftermarket lens"). I provided a counterpoint because I find it to be an overgeneralization. You also made a pronouncement about the reason behind IS implementation and I disagreed and provided alternative (and widely accepted) reasons for the current respective technologies.

Zeiss and Voigtlander are aftermarket lenses, and will blow much of the current Nikon lineup out of the water wrt IQ. Features and other performance factors are another matter, but that is all part of the problem - there are no clear cut answers, and everything is a compromise.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1230359890.jpg

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/unleashing-the-beast/

of course the irony there is that he fitted it to a Canon body :p

Details! It's a manual lens anyway... The next gen is supposed to be AF...

First - I did get the lens right. I was unable to tell from a quick glance that the first two were not Voigtlander - hardly important. The point still stands that there are many worthy "aftermarket" lenses.

Second - Nostatic already corrected you with regards to the cost / rarity of the lenses.

And: 21/4 is a medium format, and is definitely an improper comparison given digital camera sensor sizes. Comparing digital to 35mm film (the only "consumer" film) is the proper format and many digital cameras now surpass 35mm film resolution. Once you get past 16 or so megapixel you've passed even Velvia 50 in 35mm.

Finally - Saying "film" is about as specific as saying "car". Real photographers refer to sizes, such as 35, 4x5, 6x17, 8x20, etc, but never "film". If YOU'RE going to correct someone on grammar maybe you should avoid using made up words like "comparo".

I'm done spamming this thread with photography geek debates. I'm sure having the last word is in your DNA so have at it. The original poster is looking at possibly buying an entry level DSLR - hardly what we're talking about at this point.