Help recommend me a beginner DSLR!

Aug 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 58

blackbird

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 29, 2009
Posts
354
Likes
12
I've been hating the fact that my point and shoot camera(Canon A540) always shows a low battery indicator, and the viewfinder is SO much different than the actual picture. I've been thinking about an upgrade for a long time, but since I broke the lens @ York's Wild Kingdom on Sunday, I finally have an excuse to upgrade. And what better place to ask than my favorite Headphone forum?

I am not exactly a complete amateur when it comes to photography, as I do know how to edit ISO, shutter speed and aperture, but I don't exactly know the purposes of each. the a540 wasn't exactly a good camera to learn from, because of it's lowrez screen(sure, it was big though). I suppose a DSLR would be better in that regard. At first, I was considering a prosumer P+S camera like the Canon G10, but because they are arguably inferior to DSLRs(especially when taking pictures of people, which 60% of my photos are of), and I am in the process of making an upgrade anyway, why not take that extra step?

I don't know what brand(Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Olympus, etc) is best, since I don't really have brand loyalty, but because of my semi-good experiences with my a540, I've been looking at the low end Rebel XS. I've also taken a look at the Nikons and the Leicas(which are WAY out of my budget), but I am unsure. Which models/brands do Head-fiers recommend?

Some more information, my budget is around <400, and I don't really care if I buy used. I've heard that KEH and B&H are good places to buy used. Do I need to increase my budget in order to get a decent budget DSLR? Perhaps I should wait till black friday or other holidays? When is the best time of year to buy a camera? I would probably need a live preview, because everyone else in my family are simply amateurs and do not even know what a megapixel is. But maybe I shouldn't worry, because I take most of the pictures(99%) anyway. As a side note, it is funny how my family is more willing to spend money on a decent camera(200+), than on a pair of decent headphones in the same price range.
 
Aug 18, 2009 at 7:50 PM Post #2 of 58
Nikon D40

Different "scene" modes for beginners, full manual controls, great high ISO image capabilities, small and portable, the battery life is outstanding, great screen, although it doesn't have live view. The newly released D3000 and D5000 have live view. But in all honestly, I've only used it once on my D300 for about 5 seconds just to see what it looks like, and it's useless (to me). One of the selling points for buying the D40 (for me) when I used to have one, was the ability to mount and USE old lenses. As long as you don't mind manually focusing and metering, you could find all sorts of deals on used glass from the 60's, 70's, and 80's and build quite an arsenal.

I found a 135mm f2.8 on ebay for $27, a 55mm micro for $31, and an old 28mm f2.8 AIS for something like $49 IIRC. So maybe you know someone who used to shoot Nikon "back in the day", you can get the hookup on all their old gear and use it now.

You are definitely on the right path for shopping on KEH.com, its a great site. Also check out your local craigslist. I see people upgrading from a D40 all the time and selling them for as low as $225 in some cases.
 
Aug 18, 2009 at 8:13 PM Post #3 of 58
I'd go with a used D50 over a D40 for one reason. The D50 will auto-focus with older "AF" lenses. The D40 only auto-focuses with "AF-S" lenses.

But as mentioned... the D40 can mount and manually control very old pre-ai lenses. Those are the ones made between 1959 and 1977. The D50 can mount any AI lens made after 1977, so you're only gaining the really old stuff.

The D50 and D40 share the same sensor. The D40 is smaller, has a much nicer LCD screen, has the newer "post processing" built-in, and has an ISO 3200 setting. The D50 has a smaller, much worse LCD screen, but has an LCD on top for current settings and light meter (The D40 uses the rear screen for that).

Keep in mind, neither camera has a "live view". The LCD is only for menus and viewing pictures AFTER taken.


I have owned both and traded the D40 for the D50 since I started accumulating AF glass and really wanted AF to work. I got proficient at manually focusing, but it was very difficult with moving children
smily_headphones1.gif
.
 
Aug 18, 2009 at 10:41 PM Post #5 of 58
Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1son /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'd go with a used D50 over a D40 for one reason. The D50 will auto-focus with older "AF" lenses. The D40 only auto-focuses with "AF-S" lenses.

But as mentioned... the D40 can mount and manually control very old pre-ai lenses. Those are the ones made between 1959 and 1977. The D50 can mount any AI lens made after 1977, so you're only gaining the really old stuff.

The D50 and D40 share the same sensor. The D40 is smaller, has a much nicer LCD screen, has the newer "post processing" built-in, and has an ISO 3200 setting. The D50 has a smaller, much worse LCD screen, but has an LCD on top for current settings and light meter (The D40 uses the rear screen for that).

Keep in mind, neither camera has a "live view". The LCD is only for menus and viewing pictures AFTER taken.


I have owned both and traded the D40 for the D50 since I started accumulating AF glass and really wanted AF to work. I got proficient at manually focusing, but it was very difficult with moving children
smily_headphones1.gif
.



Well, if they don't have live preview, then the difference in the screen wouldn't really matter anyway. If the D50 is cheaper, then i'll go for that. How does the D50 compare to the successor, the D60, and the Rebel XS? Should I just buy the body, and worry about the lenses later, or get a complete set? I'm not in a rush, so I can wait a while.

I found some on Craigslist.

Nikon D50 Digital SLR Camera Outfit with Lens
This one looks like a scam, or something they probably stole.

Nikon D50 SLR Digital Camera. Used, Mint Condition
This one is more reputable.
 
Aug 18, 2009 at 11:00 PM Post #6 of 58
Lenses are more important than body. In five years, you'll be on a new body, but good lenses last a long time.

I'd certainly opt for the D40 over the D50, for two reasons.

1) The lenses you lose are regrettable, but not a deal breaker for me. You might really strongly wish to use lenses from 1977, but I can do without. There re a lot of great bargains in Ai lenses, but they require a devotion to the hobby of camera gear you might not be interested in.

2) The screen matters a lot, and you use it for everything. You use it to review levels, evaluate angles, everything. A better screen can facilitate your becoming a better photographer faster, and that's the point of an entry-level SLR, right? Better pictures ASAP.

I'm biased, as I owned and loved a D40, but I'd take it. It's light, easy, and takes astonishing pictures when used well.
 
Aug 19, 2009 at 12:54 AM Post #7 of 58
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Lenses are more important than body. In five years, you'll be on a new body, but good lenses last a long time.

I'd certainly opt for the D40 over the D50, for two reasons.

1) The lenses you lose are regrettable, but not a deal breaker for me. You might really strongly wish to use lenses from 1977, but I can do without. There re a lot of great bargains in Ai lenses, but they require a devotion to the hobby of camera gear you might not be interested in.

2) The screen matters a lot, and you use it for everything. You use it to review levels, evaluate angles, everything. A better screen can facilitate your becoming a better photographer faster, and that's the point of an entry-level SLR, right? Better pictures ASAP.

I'm biased, as I owned and loved a D40, but I'd take it. It's light, easy, and takes astonishing pictures when used well.



Actually, I'm kind of moving toward the D40 now, since it accepts SDHC cards, can control white balance, has a bigger screen(which my family will appreciate), and I don't have or plan to build a collection of older lenses. Likely when I get my own job, I will be able to afford another DSLR which I can upgrade from. Maybe someone can give me more reasons to buy the D50 instead? Does the D50/40 have face detectors? How does it compare to the Rebel XS?
 
Aug 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM Post #8 of 58
If you are starting from scratch, get the D40, not the D50. There is no reason for you to buy legacy lenses. Just get kit lenses like the 18-55 / 55-200 and go to town with them.

Face detection is more a feature for point and shoots. DSLRs are more for people who want to manually adjust settings. (even though the auto settings on DSLRs are good too)

The Rebel and D40 are pretty comparable. Either one would do a good job. The Nikon might be a bit more user friendly, and the Rebel would have a few more lenses to choose from.
 
Aug 19, 2009 at 1:41 AM Post #9 of 58
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you are starting from scratch, get the D40, not the D50. There is no reason for you to buy legacy lenses. Just get kit lenses like the 18-55 / 55-200 and go to town with them.

Face detection is more a feature for point and shoots. DSLRs are more for people who want to manually adjust settings. (even though the auto settings on DSLRs are good too)

The Rebel and D40 are pretty comparable. Either one would do a good job. The Nikon might be a bit more user friendly, and the Rebel would have a few more lenses to choose from.



No no no, I don't mean face detection to detect what you are looking at, I'm talking about face detection as, does it detect MY face when its on the viewfinder? Should I wait for the D3000?

Edit, it seems that the D3000 will have a smaller sensor, but more megapixels, so the D40 might be better. Perhaps I should wait until the D3000 comes out so I can get a hefty discount on a new D40. Looks like I can get a used D40 for about $350(LN- condition, don't know if that's bad) at KEH, so I'm going to wait about a couple of months to see if the release of the D3000 allows me to purchase a New D40 for the same price. $350 for a "like new" camera definately isn't bad though, considering there are some P+S cameras around the same price.
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Produ...BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

Stupid question. How do you zoom with a DSLR?
 
Aug 19, 2009 at 2:45 AM Post #10 of 58
The D40 is definitely a nice camera. As I said, I owned that before the D50, I actually traded my sister. My problem was, I really like fast prime lenses and at the time they didn't have any AF-S primes (except the long pro glass). I originally bought the D40 right when it came out.

I bought a 50mm f/1.4 AF and a 35 f/2 AF. I also have a 70-300 AF (doesn't get used much since I have the 55-200VR, which is a great bargain lens). The primes are just the ones I use the most. The sharpness and color rendition on those is just amazing (not to mention the low light abilities). They're up there with the pro glass in quality, for much less.

However... I guess with the newly added 35 f/1.8 AF-S cheap lens, I'd be mostly satisfied with just AF-S. Nikon sells an AF-S 50 f/1.4 now, but it's not cheap.

The D50 LCD is pretty darn awful... without the histogram it'd be almost useless. The D40's is leaps and bounds ahead.

I take back what I said. Go with a D40 and buy yourself the best lenses you can. Immediately buy the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and learn photography like everyone used to. One standard length lens was what cameras used to come with. You'll be amazed what you can do with it.

The zoom stuff is fun, but you'll never get the shallow depth of field or light gathering abilities of a fast prime lens.

EDIT:
I wanted to also say that, don't worry about the megapixels. 6 is plenty. I've printed vertically cropped 8x10s that look amazing.

Here's a couple samples of what that 6mp sensor can do in the hands of a relative amateur.

70-300VR




50f/1.4




50f/1.4


 
Aug 19, 2009 at 3:44 AM Post #11 of 58
Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1son /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The D40 is definitely a nice camera. As I said, I owned that before the D50, I actually traded my sister. My problem was, I really like fast prime lenses and at the time they didn't have any AF-S primes (except the long pro glass). I originally bought the D40 right when it came out.

I bought a 50mm f/1.4 AF and a 35 f/2 AF. I also have a 70-300 AF (doesn't get used much since I have the 55-200VR, which is a great bargain lens). The primes are just the ones I use the most. The sharpness and color rendition on those is just amazing (not to mention the low light abilities). They're up there with the pro glass in quality, for much less.

However... I guess with the newly added 35 f/1.8 AF-S cheap lens, I'd be mostly satisfied with just AF-S. Nikon sells an AF-S 50 f/1.4 now, but it's not cheap.

The D50 LCD is pretty darn awful... without the histogram it'd be almost useless. The D40's is leaps and bounds ahead.

I take back what I said. Go with a D40 and buy yourself the best lenses you can. Immediately buy the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens and learn photography like everyone used to. One standard length lens was what cameras used to come with. You'll be amazed what you can do with it.

The zoom stuff is fun, but you'll never get the shallow depth of field or light gathering abilities of a fast prime lens.

EDIT:
I wanted to also say that, don't worry about the megapixels. 6 is plenty. I've printed vertically cropped 8x10s that look amazing.

Here's a couple samples of what that 6mp sensor can do in the hands of a relative amateur.



Amateur as in you?
tongue.gif


Anyway, the only thing stopping me from getting the D40 is its sucessor the D3000. I want to see which one will be better, although I am probably sure that the D40 will be better. Perhaps it'll decrease the price of a new D40. Some questions. How exactly do you zoom with a DSLR? What lens does the D40 come with?

Today, I was looking through my closet looking for my family's old 35mm camera, but then I found something else. I saw a Canon AV-1 box in mint condition, with a brand new Auto Chinon 1:28 f=35mm 526225 (I have no idea what it means, i'm just copying it verbatim), and the most complicated lens configuration i've ever seen. It has NO fungus, scratches or dust, whatsoever. The first dial is a distance thing with the scale from infinity to 0.5m. Then the second dial is 22, 16, 11, 8 R, 2.8, 2.8, 5.6, 8 11, 16, 22 . You can't turn that one. What does that mean? The last dial is a thing that says 2.8', 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22. It probably means aperture, but I'm not sure of this scale. The DSLR won't be this complicated, right? Can I use this lens with my D40? I have no ideal where the actual camera is, so I'll take a look around the apartment this week. I'll take a picture of it if you want. I never knew that my dad had a 35mm SLR.
 
Aug 19, 2009 at 4:52 AM Post #12 of 58
The D40 and D50 are both good cameras. We got my father a D40 for Christmas a couple of years ago and it takes great photos - he loves it. However, I'd scout around for a used D70 or D70s. I use a D70s and couldn't be happier with it. You can use the legacy lenses, however, the reason I prefer it to the D40 is the battery.

My father's D40 always runs out of juice before mine does. I've gotten as many as about 1,300 shots on one charge. I don't know precisely what the D40 does, but to be fair, it'll take several hundred.

Also, big CF cards are cheap today. I got a 16GB not too long ago and it holds something around 4,000 photos. With that and a spare battery, I can keep shooting and shooting and never have to think about running out of battery or memory.
 
Aug 19, 2009 at 7:32 AM Post #14 of 58
Aug 19, 2009 at 7:48 AM Post #15 of 58
Since you live in NYC go to stores and try some out.

I tried out the G10 a couple times in-store and both times thought that it's price wasn't justified. It's not small enough to pocket. It doesn't have a focus ring. It's viewfinder is a joke. It doesn't have a big enough grip to comfortably hold it with the weight of an external flash. Basically it's no replacement for either a DSLR or a small point and shoot.

I'm still shooting with 35mm SLRs, so take my advice with a grain of film.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top