Help recommend me a beginner DSLR!

[DeusEx]

Nikon or Canon +1. I'm going to inherit my dad's Nikon, and my friend, who's a pro photographer, uses all Canon

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for the 1000D/Rebel XS/D3000, it has a smaller sensor than the D40/D70, and for the fact that they are trying to squeeze upwards of 10megs on smaller sensors, they probably will have inferior image quality, and I won't take that risk.

Not quite. Although the Rebels use very slightly smaller sensors, they make up for that in the superior image processing compared to the low-end Nikons of the same vintage as those particular Canons. As for the D3000, it is actually the D40x/D60, refreshed with a few "new" features, an improved image processor and the D5000's shell.

 

[blackbird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not quite. Although the Rebels use very slightly smaller sensors, they make up for that in the superior image processing compared to the low-end Nikons of the same vintage as those particular Canons. As for the D3000, it is actually the D40x/D60, refreshed with a few "new" features, an improved image processor and the D5000's shell.

I guess that makes it quite difficult to choose.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure about others, but I don't really like the idea of kit lense (18-55) when I upgrade with 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200, the kit lense is useless afterward and it doesn't worth much in used market.

I don't know about Cannon, but with Nikon, the kit lenses have just as good image quality as the high end ones. The main difference is speed. I still have my 18-55 VR. It's a terrifically sharp lens and super lightweight. I use it for daylight situations where I don't want to carry heavy gear around.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know about Cannon, but with Nikon, the kit lenses have just as good image quality as the high end ones. The main difference is speed. I still have my 18-55 VR. It's a terrifically sharp lens and super lightweight. I use it for daylight situations where I don't want to carry heavy gear around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I should say the body should be replaced more frequently than lenses, or the body will depreciate faster than lenses.

In general, cameras are lousy investments. Better to buy one and use it until it wears out. Then it doesn't matter if you get a penny for it in resale. You've gotten your money's worth out of it in the way that matters... taking pictures.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know about Cannon, but with Nikon, the kit lenses have just as good image quality as the high end ones. The main difference is speed. I still have my 18-55 VR. It's a terrifically sharp lens and super lightweight. I use it for daylight situations where I don't want to carry heavy gear around.

I don't find the image quality the same though. It seems like the results I get from Nikon's 14-200 triad are consistently better than the ones I get from the 18-200VR, 16-85VR and 18-70, especially at the wide and tele ends. In addition, there's also build quality and weather sealing (NB: useless if your camera body is not weather sealed too!). Weight is never an issue for me (just get used to it) as long as I bring along a good bag. The weight also helps with the balance so it's not all bad. Anyhow, I don't think I'm helping the OP at all

 

[blackbird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't find the image quality the same though. It seems like the results I get from Nikon's 14-200 triad are consistently better than the ones I get from the 18-200VR, 16-85VR and 18-70, especially at the wide and tele ends. In addition, there's also build quality and weather sealing (NB: useless if your camera body is not weather sealed too!). Weight is never an issue for me (just get used to it) as long as I bring along a good bag. The weight also helps with the balance so it's not all bad. Anyhow, I don't think I'm helping the OP at all

NOPE. I still don't know which to get. Any reasons to pick one over the other?(Rebel XS over D40 or D40 over XS?)

 

[dj_mocok]

I personally think your best option is to get a used Canon 40D or Nikon D200 or even D80.
Some people are selling their 40D for ridiculous price.

I personally would rather have a used higher end camera in great condition than a new entry level DSLR.
Rebel series feels too much like a toy for me, but this is personal preference.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't find the image quality the same though. It seems like the results I get from Nikon's 14-200 triad are consistently better than the ones I get from the 18-200VR, 16-85VR and 18-70, especially at the wide and tele ends. In addition, there's also build quality and weather sealing (NB: useless if your camera body is not weather sealed too!). Weight is never an issue for me (just get used to it) as long as I bring along a good bag. The weight also helps with the balance so it's not all bad. Anyhow, I don't think I'm helping the OP at all

Perhaps this is because the 14-200 triad is designed for full-frame FX (35mm-sized) sensors while the cheaper 18-something zooms are designed to cover only the DX-sized frame? And the DX sensor uses only the centre of the coverage area of the 14-200 triad (and thus, any corner degradation that's noticeable on FX gets diminished on DX). No wonder.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't find the image quality the same though. It seems like the results I get from Nikon's 14-200 triad are consistently better than the ones I get from the 18-200VR, 16-85VR and 18-70, especially at the wide and tele ends. In addition, there's also build quality and weather sealing (NB: useless if your camera body is not weather sealed too!). Weight is never an issue for me (just get used to it) as long as I bring along a good bag. The weight also helps with the balance so it's not all bad. Anyhow, I don't think I'm helping the OP at all

With pro lenses, you're usually paying for excellent build quality and large apertures; not always better image quality. Even if the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 lenses produce sharper pictures than, say, the 18-55 VR, the actual optical differences between them are usually slim to moderate at best.

 

[Braver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbird /img/forum/go_quote.gif NOPE. I still don't know which to get. Any reasons to pick one over the other?(Rebel XS over D40 or D40 over XS?)

Technically, no. The Nikon feels to me more rugged, but what really decided the issue for me was handling both: Nikon is miles ahead in ergonomics.

 

[Sherwood]

Yes, for goodness sake, do find a way to hold them both. NYC has a number of fine retailers where you can physically hold a camera. Handfeel is very important.

 

[plaidplatypus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm now throwing this a bit left field, but... Pentax K2000

I think the K2000 would be a good choice too for a first DSLR. I like the feel of the K10D and K20D more but the K2000 can be had new with the 18-55 lens for around $400 Pentax | K2000 SLR Digital Camera with 18-55mm Lens | 17312

With the Pentax DA lenses you can manually re-adjust the focus in AF mode if you don't like what autofocus chose to focus in on. You can use the old FA film lenses too but without the same feature.

Canon and Nikon are good choices too, try them all and buy what you like best. Try to attend photo schools if you can, you will get alot more out of them then just a shiny new toy.

 

[blackbird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally think your best option is to get a used Canon 40D or Nikon D200 or even D80. Some people are selling their 40D for ridiculous price. I personally would rather have a used higher end camera in great condition than a new entry level DSLR. Rebel series feels too much like a toy for me, but this is personal preference.

i've only been able to find a 40D at about $600, which is over my budget($400>). As for trying out cameras, I'll probably go to Adorama or B&H this week. I would prefer Canon or Nikon over the Pentax ones. I wonder when the price of new D40s will begin to drop, since the D3000 is now shipping.

 

[dj_mocok]

I don't know how much you like Canon cameras, but generally speaking regardless of brand, if possible, don't let the sum of $200 extra get in the way of you and the camera that you really want.
Postpone the purchase and save a bit more if you have to. The camera will be used for a few years, so better get something you really like.

Canon 40D is not comparable to Nikon D40 or D3000, the Canon is in higher class altogether. If you are okay with the handling of 40D in your hands, I suggest you get Canon 40D instead. But I think if you compare it with D200 Nikon, I would rather get D200. But I don't think you can get a used one for $400 though.

By the way did you put aside a different budget for lens, or $400 is with lens budget included? If $400 is with lens, I think that's a bit too little for DSLR budget I'm afraid.
In that case you can always go for prosumer camera, some of them are really decent as long as you know what do do with them.

If what you mean shooting people as in portrait, then it's better to have a DSLR. But if people you mean just everyday activity, eg. dinner, going out with friends, etc. you can also have a look at Panasonic LX3. That is one seriously nice camera. A bit over $400 new though.