[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzjia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, but what's it going to cost you the other way around? You're paying for VR/IS for every VR/IS lens you purchase, instead of paying only once for the body and reap the benefit even with budget lens. Buck-for-buck wise the value can't be disputed.

How can you compare buck-for-buck with clearly superior results? That's like saying buck-for-buck a cheap 18-55mm zoom is better than a 24-70 f/2.8 Pro Zoom. Absolutely meaningless comparison because they allow you to do totally different things. Quote:

Besides the fact that you can't get stablized version of fast prime lens in the wide-to-normal range (50mm and under).

You don't NEED VR/IS in focal ranges that short. At 50mm on a film body, I can hand-hold down to 1/20 just fine. As you get wider, you can hand-hold exposures for a second or more if you're good.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzjia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, but what's it going to cost you the other way around? You're paying for VR/IS for every VR/IS lens you purchase, instead of paying only once for the body and reap the benefit even with budget lens. Buck-for-buck wise the value can't be disputed.

Boring old reasoning. Seeing as Pentax doesn't have a lens line up that's directly comparable to Nikon's, who's to say that you aren't paying for optical quality instead?

Also, Nikon does have cheap lenses with VR. The 18-55 and 55-200. Then there is the 16-85 and 70-300. The first two are budget, the second two are a step above them.. and ALL of them have been proven to be close to flawless when it comes to bang for buck optical quality. To some extent, the 18-200 also comes in, though it's convenience far outweighs it's IQ performance.

Quote:

Besides the fact that you can't get stablized version of fast prime lens in the wide-to-normal range (50mm and under).

And in Pentax's case you don't get as good an stabilization system in the telephotos, where it was originally DESIGNED for seeing as shake is most obvious and irritating in the telephoto range. Ever wondered why Canon or Nikon haven't introduced stabilization in fast wide primes anyway? If you ask me, I'd rather have good stabilization in an area that really needs it, than not so good stabilization in an area that doesn't really need it.

IMO the K100 and K10 are great cameras, but because of the value they offer at their price points as a whole, not specifically the stabilization. If stabilization is a main requirement, I'd recommend a D40 or D80 + 18-55 VR any day.

 

[dj_mocok]

Although I don't use flash much, but Nikon flash system is excellent - that's one of the thing that makes it stand out from the rest.

 

[episiarch]

Further to dj_mocok's point, the $100 SB400 flash combined with the D40 is a real beauty. I took a ton of indoor shots at Voltron's meetup the other week (none posted, sorry) using the SB400 in bounce mode, some of them in pretty tricky situations (rather long room with dark wood ceiling, subjects near foreground and far background, some ambient light through windows to throw things off, but far from enough to expose the shot properly), and they were just remarkably well exposed. I love that little flash.

 

[coolshot]

Personally I went with an XT body used and got an 18-55IS lens. I figured go cheapest body I could get and save for L glass. Once I have the glass I needed, I could get whatever XXD body was refreshed to.

 

[lan]

For the original poster, I would suggest going to the store and play with each one. You can also download the manuals for the cameras and read through them to get an explanation of all the features at your own leisure. My personal experience, I like the XTi menu system. I can navigate everything very fast and it's very easy. I got my neighbor a D40x and I don't like it as much. You just have to mess with each to decide.

I'm not in total agreement with the comfort argument because you don't hold the camera all the time as it's on a strap around your neck. A small body only gets crazy to hold if your holding a lot of weight (with a bigger lens and flash) then the extra surface area to grip would be nice.

----------------------------------------------------------

I like the auto ISO feature and flash system of Nikon. Enough that that is why I'd recommend it to a beginner like my neighbor.

I can see how auto bracketing is nice. There are plenty of people who shoot JPEGs and JPEGs with a large memory card can handle a lot of photos. It's good to get the exposure right. For more advanced users, they could use RAW or RAW autobracketing for HDR photos.

There's nothing magical about Canon L lenses if you get serious. The Nikon pro stuff is good also. I can't see why one would recommend over the other with the exception of price. Nikon's are a bit more $.

Nikon D300 and D3 might have lower noise than Canon's but Canon's have more detail retention so I think. This is a moot point anyway since these are all not entry level cameras.

What's so hard to understand about in body image stabilization? You get stabilization with any lens you put on. You pay for it on every lens on Canon and Nikon. Having stabilization on any lens opens up possibilities even in wide angle and lenses which are fast already.

 

[wanderman]

+1 for d40

 

[spookygonk]

As Ian wrote, go and try some DSLRs out, physically pick them up and use them. What is perfect for someone may well not be right for you. I have big hands and these small form DSLRs are too fiddly for me.

I work with a guy who bought the Pentax K100D setup, & then a K10D, and he loves it. Personally I think the lack of built-in focus drive motor with the Nikon D40(x) is a hindrance and instead I picked up a mint D50 (which I think is a better camera all round) for not a lot of money as my back up camera.

My main digital camera is a Nikon D70, though I still shoot a lot of film, mostly 120 roll.

 

[dj_mocok]

Just save up a bit and get a D80, you won't regret it a bit. It will last you for a long time.

 

[wanderman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just save up a bit and get a D80, you won't regret it a bit. It will last you for a long time.

if you are a casual photographer wouldn't the d40 be fine?

 

[dj_mocok]

The thing is, D80 is only maybe less than 200 bucks extra. I mean unless your sole purpose of getting D40 is because you love small sized DSLR, I don't see why you can't get a better D80 even though it means you have to save a bit and if you're only casual photographer.

Casual doesn't mean that you are not allowed to enjoy better gear.

If you consider that extra $200 will give you so much better in a long run (say, 3-4 years using it), the extra cost means almost nothing really. It's not like you're deciding between D40 or a D3.

The time when I purchased my D80, the D200 was considerably more than D80, that's why I opted for D80. But if it was between D40 or D80, I'd get D80 without a second thought.

 

[Kees]

Hi guys, I don't mean to thread-crap, but I have a question that I think the OP might also be interested in.
I am in exactly the same boat as the OP and on my search for the right camera I came across an alternative that never gets mentioned here: Olympus E-410/510. One of the reasons I am attracted to it is that it offers the possibility to take pictures using the LCD display. I find it often advantageous to be able to take pictures while looking at my subject without a camera in front of my face... Plus I find it often easier to assess the composition of a picture from a display than through a viewer.
My question: why is the Olympus never mentioned/discussed here? Is it very inferior for some reason?

 

[sigsegv0x0B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are those stereotypes still relevant when the D300 has cleaner files and more dynamic range at high ISOs than the 40D (and 5D?), and the D3 has cleaner files than any Canon model?

D300 most certainly does not have cleaner files nor has more dynamic range then 40D. It has 2 extra mega pixels though and many other advanced features.

D3 is probably just a *tad* outside his price range.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif The thing is, D80 is only maybe less than 200 bucks extra.

Not quite. It's about $400 difference between the kits here so it's not a small difference.

Maybe you are thinking of D40x?

 

[troymadison]