[niko-time]

I have by no ways decided sir, it just seemed like a good option...until you guys have posted

For a similar budget of a D40 what should I go for then? Or should I just save more? I don't want to waste money

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by niko-time /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have by no ways decided sir, it just seemed like a good option...until you guys have posted For a similar budget of a D40 what should I go for then? Or should I just save more? I don't want to waste money

If you must buy new then you probably should save your money. Otherwise I highly recommend buying used.

Let me put it in terms that you might understand... Its like if you bought a pair of ipod ear buds that would only work with the most expensive ipod and that ipod was a thousand dollars and each song you bought cost like 10 dollars. It looks cheap at first and seems like it will work, but once your start getting into it you want more and you just can't work with it without buying a new camrea unless you want to shell out a hell of a lot of cash.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif My opinion is that if you want a DSLR, you should get one that you can really grow with, otherwise you are actually much better off with an expensive P&S. The people you call P mode shooters get a DSLR because they think they need it - they don't. Buying a DSLR and one lens is buying yourself trouble - you need more PP, you get less DoF (correct focus more important), you get less reach with the lens, and you still pay a lot more. And for what? Sure, the camera house is the least important part of the equation :: lens, skill and post processing is a lot more important. Those shots are taken with a lens that costs 4 grand and by a good photographer, it's going to look good. And sure, you could think they are taken with a D3, since you only get a small version (which could be compared with a small print of course) of it. But not a lot of people that buys the D40 will buy a lens for $4000, are they? And since you wont get the focus motor, you will not be able to use (well you will without AF of course, but manual focus on crop cameras sucks anyway) the great Nikon prime lenses, you wont be able to buy a lot of the Nikon second hand lenses, so you'll just end up wasting money when you have to get a new house or buy more expensive lenses in the end. So save yourself the trouble and get a proper camera right away, or just get a good long zoom P&S.

You can grow with D40, it just takes a bit more press of a button. The thing is, the OP is a young man with other hobbies (to spend) beside camera, and he clearly stated he's unlikely want to upgrade and want something good and affordable. The sample shots I posted is just to illustrate that D40 is by no means a crap camera that you can quickly 'outgrow'.

I've seen too many of these "I-think-I-outgrew-my-camera-and-it's-time-to-go-pro-body" people and they still take same old crappy shots and all they do to justify it is to 100% pixel peep it in order to see this 'improvement'. Yes, apart from IQ, more expensive camera gives you more feel, more convenience, but the poster has a budget and don't even sure what sort of things he wanna get yet, I don't think it's wise to recommend something even more expensive.

He's not gonna shoot high-paced shots, so no need to recommend D3, for something basic and you can go walkaround with, within tight budget, D40 is just right. But if you don't mind spending extra 200 bucks or so, by all means get the D80 - yes it's a much better camera in terms of handling (relative) and viewfinder, but the thing is, if you can be happy with a D40 why not? And if you wanna get a lowlight performer, get a 50mm 1.8 used. Yes, it doesn't AF, but hey, if you practice it can still take great results.

In my case, when I was buying my DSLR, what I actually feel better with was the D200, I could afford it but I didn't wanna spend that much, so I opted D80, with the spare money, I got lenses. I shoot MF lens 95% of the time, so yes, it's inconvenient, but the image I got is excellent and I'm happy with it. Don't mind manual everything, for me it's fun and for what I shoot, it's perfectly fine. So yeah, instead of going all out, buy smart and get what you can afford and can tolerate.

PS: Haibane: Cameras and Ipods is very different thing altogether. In audio, crappy gears give you crappy result no matter what but you can still make great pictures with limited gears in photography. It's all about balancing your budget and what you can do and what flaws you can tolerate.

 

[haibane]

I'd recommend a d1x or d1h over the d40 he simply won't buy used. D3 is a ridiculous comment cause no one really needs that.

Honestly I wound sooner recommend a
Canon Powershot S5 IS digital camera
Then that camera. The Lack of an AF internally is just a huge downfall.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by niko-time /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have by no ways decided sir, it just seemed like a good option...until you guys have posted For a similar budget of a D40 what should I go for then? Or should I just save more? I don't want to waste money

Oh, ok... darn.


Well, what you should do first is tell us what you intend to be photographing, and how much time and money you are willing to spend on this hobby. Because using a DSLR is more work than your regular P&S, and if you just want a bit better picture quality, a good P&S and some skills will take you a long way.



Have you considered something like this:
Canon PowerShot S5 IS Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Long zoom cameras like that are really what most people want when they think of DSLR. Some of the things that differ from a real DSLR is:

* Changing lens - a lot of people that buys cheap DSLRs don't want more than one lens though.

* Short DoF (when the background is blurry) - A great artistic technique, but you'll need another lens for that with DSLR, super zooms aren't very good at it. Also, this gives you problem because if you just want to point and shoot anyway, you really want everything in focus.

* Speed - Everything is faster with DSLR, startup time, amount of shots per sec and so on.


The list could be made longer of course, but I have to get ready for new years eve stuff... have a good evening everyone!

 

[haibane]

On a note about your d40 pictures. The nikon 80-200 is not AF-s so it won't auto focus on the camera. The 200mm is a rediculously expensive lens if you are using the f2 one which I believe you are. So for budget he would be killing himself to get the lenses you have when he could do the same with a better camera and cheaper glass. The sigma is the only one that might be close to his budget that auto focuses

 

[haibane]

Martook. I wouldn't say everything is faster with a DSLR, look at the fujifilm stuff. Extremely slow, but a lot of people rank them high. Also Speed is highly dependent on the card being used.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd recommend a d1x or d1h over the d40 he simply won't buy used. D3 is a ridiculous comment cause no one really needs that. Honestly I wound sooner recommend a Canon Powershot S5 IS digital camera Then that camera. The Lack of an AF internally is just a huge downfall.

A horrible idea. Not only is the image quality inferior, the battery situation is horrendous. Bulky, heavy, major memory problems, and they don't last for crap. The D1 series should all be found and destroyed. I love the convienience of my DSLR over my film bodies, but I'd take my good old (fully manual) FE over a D1H.

Also, the 80-200 was made in an AF-S version that he could find used. Alternatively there's the Sigma 70-200, the Nikon 70-200 VR...plenty of choices out there.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif On a note about your d40 pictures. The nikon 80-200 is not AF-s so it won't auto focus on the camera. The 200mm is a rediculously expensive lens if you are using the f2 one which I believe you are. So for budget he would be killing himself to get the lenses you have when he could do the same with a better camera and cheaper glass. The sigma is the only one that might be close to his budget that auto focuses

Read my comment above. The sample pictures of D40+200mm is just to show my point that you can still take nice pictures with a D40. Heck, if you give me a D40 + something like Sigma, I'll be perfectly happy with it. You seriously think I'm gonna recommend a 4-grand lens for someone who just started?

PS: There are many kinds of 80-200mm. One of them happens to be AF-S I'm afraid.

You mentioned about ISO performance and all that and now you're actually recommending someone a D1 or D1H? I don't get you. As Arainach said, it's probably close to death already by now. Even if they're still selling new in box, I'm not sure I'd get them. We're talking about DSLR, not lenses. Great lenses are almost like diamond - they hardly age. DSLRs are not.
If you don't want a D40, get a D50 used (and yes, get a 50 over a 70). Or if you don't mind to spend more, get a D80. If you want a fun general purpose shooting under limited budget, get a D40+Sigma 30mm HSM.

 

[niko-time]

Okay then sirs, what could I get used?

I only said that before as I am scared that camera's broke fairly easily, I general buy all my wears used.

Things that I will photograph will mainly be scenery, but I do go skiing yearly and would like to hand the camera to my dad and for him to take the odd picture of me mid-jump/grind. So, it needs to have pretty good speed and be fairly user friendly, if that is at all possible. By user friendly I mean that my dad will be able to work out what to do (but this isn't a large necessity).

I will probably not own many lenses, probably 2 eventually. I really want to dabble into photoshop though and play with some photo's which I take, I'd love to get good at that.

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif A horrible idea. Not only is the image quality inferior, the battery situation is horrendous. Bulky, heavy, major memory problems, and they don't last for crap. The D1 series should all be found and destroyed. I love the convienience of my DSLR over my film bodies, but I'd take my good old (fully manual) FE over a D1H. Also, the 80-200 was made in an AF-S version that he could find used. Alternatively there's the Sigma 70-200, the Nikon 70-200 VR...plenty of choices out there.

In response to the guys complaining about my d1x/d1h recommendation the majority of pros I see from the paper around here are using either one or the other. The majority of the pros shooting on the sidelines are using one or the other. Its not the camera its the talent. The best nikon camera I ever used was a d2h, well beat out the d70/d50 in image quality. The d40 doesn't strike me as anything but the most stripped down nikon camera ever. The only reason I was talking about noise is to show nikon has a huge downfall to canon. I still think canon is the way to go if you can only afford both entry line cameras. If you are willing to go old school I'd still recommend the ones I suggested as they are a good budget and can be used well with a flash and another lens instead of buying a camera you will just boost the iso on. Personally old school pro nice lens standard flash will beat out entry line new no budget for flash kit lens and some high noise in dark situations or a spotty flash. FWIW, pixel to pixel a d1x/d1h will beat out a d70/d50. Megapixel size isn't everything. The d2h was used for the Olympic billboards in Atlanta and its only "4mp"

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you don't want a D40, get a D50 used (and yes, get a 50 over a 70). Or if you don't mind to spend more, get a D80. If you want a fun general purpose shooting under limited budget, get a D40+Sigma 30mm HSM.

D70 is a much better camera than the d50. Image quality is better, features are better, build is better. I have used both and d70 was far superior.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif D70 is a much better camera than the d50. Image quality is better, features are better, build is better. I have used both and d70 was far superior.

Not sure about IQ is better part. Handling, yes, much better, but when it comes to ISO performance, it'll get butt-whooped by D50.
Maybe I'd get D70s over D50, but not D70. If you think IQ in general is much better, you probably relied too much on the auto bit or not setting it right.

 

[haibane]

I shoot mostly manual. The d50 does have it beat in high iso performance, but I sitll think the d70 image come out much better quality wise.

 

[ronin74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do try and remember that Ansel Adams took his shots with a camera technically inferior to today's disposables.

Arainach, which disposable do you mean? His Hasselblad or Linhof? Are you thread baiting or crapping or both?