First DSLR recommendations

[996GT2]

I've been researching entry level DSLRs for a while now as an upgrade to my current camera (Panasonic DMC-FZ8). My main reasons for getting a DSLR are better high ISO performance and the ability to mount different lenses (current camera doesn't have much wide-angle coverage).

I'm considering the Nikon D40 as a potential first choice right now. I realize it has no internal AF motor and that the AF is only 3 point, but I don't have a collection of lenses right now so the lack of a motor like on the D50 or D70 is not a big loss to me. From what I've read, it produces good quality images up to ISO 800 or 1600. It's only got 6 MP, but that's plenty for what I need and the price is pretty good at around $400 with the kit lens.

I considered the Rebel XT, but from what I've read the kit lens is pretty bad (worse than the Nikon 18-55) so a second lens might be needed and that would considerably increase entry cost.

One of my friends currently has an Olympus E-500 with 2 lenses, and she's going to upgrade to a Nikon D300 soon. If I bought her E-500, I could probably get an excellent price, but she told me that the viewfinder is blurry despite having the sensor and optics cleaned...I don't know how much it would cost to fix that issue. Also, the E-500's high ISO performance isn't as good from the reviews I've read.

So what would you guys recommend? Go with the D40 or look at other cameras?


Edit: I found a Sony A-200 brand new for only $436. Given the improvements in features over the D40 and XT, this seems like a no brainer...so should I go for the Sony?

 

[ElFenix]

i dunno if her E-500's finder is blurry, or it's just small (they are very small), or she's got the diopter set improperly.

 

[jpeyton]

Get a D40 kit; fantastic value IMO. I have one and use it as a second body. The kit lens is surprisingly good.

Here is the photostream of a friend of mine who shoots entirely with the D40 + kit lens (including the inexpensive but also awesome Nikkor 55-200mm kit lens), if you want to see what it's capable of in an amateur's hands.

 

[996GT2]

Hmmm...I'm thinking about the D40 right now but I just managed to find a really good price of $436 on a Sony A-200. Should I go for this instead since it has many more features than the D40, such as built in IS, sensor cleaning, 10MP, 9 pt AF, etc?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Hmmm...I'm thinking about the D40 right now but I just managed to find a really good price of $436 on a Sony A-200. Should I go for this instead since it has many more features than the D40, such as built in IS, sensor cleaning, 10MP, 9 pt AF, etc?

new, and not a scam? and with lens?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Hmmm...I'm thinking about the D40 right now but I just managed to find a really good price of $436 on a Sony A-200. Should I go for this instead since it has many more features than the D40, such as built in IS, sensor cleaning, 10MP, 9 pt AF, etc?

new, and not a scam? and with lens?

Yes, brand new, with lens, and is marked down currently at my local Best Buy. Definitely not a scam.

Question is, though, the A-200 supposedly produces noticeable image noise at and above ISO 800. If one of the main things I'm looking for in an SLR is good high ISO performance, is it still advisable to go with the A-200 over a D40?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Yes, brand new, with lens, and is marked down currently at my local Best Buy. Definitely not a scam.

Question is, though, the A-200 supposedly produces noticeable image noise at and above ISO 800. If one of the main things I'm looking for in an SLR is good high ISO performance, is it still advisable to go with the A-200 over a D40?

there may be more per pixel noise but i bet total noise for the whole photo isn't any worse and detail is improved by 60%.



100% crop pixel peepers and equipment measurebators (centering around dpreview) have gotten way too concerned with per pixel noise and have forgotten that the more important measure is overall scene noise.



anyway, read these notes on what to look for while looking at the A200 at ISO 1600 and D40 at ISO 1600 test shots.

imho, neither camera is working miracles at ISO 1600, and i can't really say that one is better than the other in terms of noise. the sony is pulling out way more detail, though, and if you print or have regular monitor-sized images, that'll come through. the best place to see it is the mosaic shot on the wine vinegar.

i wouldn't put too much stock in the scale on the right as they've moved it. for the sony it's hanging above the cup, for the nikon it's on the wall behind the cup. i'm guessing it's now closer to the center of the lens's depth of field.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Get a D40 kit; fantastic value IMO. I have one and use it as a second body. The kit lens is surprisingly good.

Here is the photostream of a friend of mine who shoots entirely with the D40 + kit lens (including the inexpensive but also awesome Nikkor 55-200mm kit lens), if you want to see what it's capable of in an amateur's hands.

That's my setup. D40 + kit lens + 55-200 VR lens. I wish I could come up with pictures like that, though. I think my problem is that my engineer side likes to beat on my creative side with a hammer.

 

[Heidfirst]

I honestly believe that (at least in the UK) the A200 is the best vfm entry-level DSLR.
Of course if it doesn't suit you ergonomically or you have access to lenses in another mount via e.g. friends or relatives those would weigh against it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyway, read these notes on what to look for while looking at the A200 at ISO 1600 and D40 at ISO 1600 test shots.

The noise from the A200 image is notably worse than the D40. That's a good example of Sony's "watercolor" noise processing. The edges have horrible aliasing, and the detail is muddied; for example, look at the wheel of fabric swatches. Compare the fine fabric detail on the black swatch (at the 10 'o' clock position) between the A200 and D40.

 

[Heidfirst]

Unfortunately I can't see where they say how they got their jpegs & using what settings.
Sony's jpeg engine is known not to be the best & it's also known that Adobe ACR does a pretty horrible job with Sony RAW files if they derived them from that.
With familiarity (which of course review sites rarely get as their time with test bodies are usually too brief) people can get extremely usable images at ISO1600 from the A200.

I've got absolutely no doubt that I would rather have an A200 than a D40.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyway, read these notes on what to look for while looking at the A200 at ISO 1600 and D40 at ISO 1600 test shots.

The noise from the A200 image is notably worse than the D40. That's a good example of Sony's "watercolor" noise processing. The edges have horrible aliasing, and the detail is muddied; for example, look at the wheel of fabric swatches. Compare the fine fabric detail on the black swatch (at the 10 'o' clock position) between the A200 and D40.

Even as low as ISO 200 I can hardly make out the detail on the black swatch.

On the D40 @ ISO 200 you can clearly make out the white pattern on the black swatch.

On another site, the reviewer says "It doesn't take long for noise reduction to start kicking in on the DSLR-A200. As soon as you hit ISO 200, you can start to see details softening."

 

[greengrass]

Get a D40 is a good choice.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyway, read these notes on what to look for while looking at the A200 at ISO 1600 and D40 at ISO 1600 test shots.

The noise from the A200 image is notably worse than the D40. That's a good example of Sony's "watercolor" noise processing. The edges have horrible aliasing, and the detail is muddied; for example, look at the wheel of fabric swatches. Compare the fine fabric detail on the black swatch (at the 10 'o' clock position) between the A200 and D40.

i was mostly looking at the color chart and the shadows between the bottles. looking at it, i see what you mean.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Even as low as ISO 200 I can hardly make out the detail on the black swatch.

On the D40 @ ISO 200 you can clearly make out the white pattern on the black swatch.

On another site, the reviewer says "It doesn't take long for noise reduction to start kicking in on the DSLR-A200. As soon as you hit ISO 200, you can start to see details softening."

the D40 looks like it's been sharpened. compare the xti

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
I honestly believe that (at least in the UK) the A200 is the best vfm entry-level DSLR.
Of course if it doesn't suit you ergonomically or you have access to lenses in another mount via e.g. friends or relatives those would weigh against it.

vfm would be value for the money?

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Even as low as ISO 200 I can hardly make out the detail on the black swatch.

On the D40 @ ISO 200 you can clearly make out the white pattern on the black swatch.

On another site, the reviewer says "It doesn't take long for noise reduction to start kicking in on the DSLR-A200. As soon as you hit ISO 200, you can start to see details softening."

the D40 looks like it's been sharpened. compare the xti

Thats would be pretty shady of Imaging-Resource to do PP on comparison shots.

I do notice the Noise Reduction is turned off on the D40 on all ISO tests, maybe thats why theres more detail.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: greengrass
Get a D40 is a good choice.

I found a used D50. Is this a good deal for a first DSLR?

Nikon D50 DSLR w/18-55mm lens, 55-200mm lens - $500.

Seller says:

"Slightly used Nikon D50 (6.1 megapixels) for sale in great shape. Includes two auto-focus lenses: Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G), and Nikkor 55-200mm lens (f/4-5.6G)."

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: greengrass
Get a D40 is a good choice.

I found a used D50. Is this a good deal for a first DSLR?

Nikon D50 DSLR w/18-55mm lens, 55-200mm lens - $500.

Seller says:

"Slightly used Nikon D50 (6.1 megapixels) for sale in great shape. Includes two auto-focus lenses: Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G), and Nikkor 55-200mm lens (f/4-5.6G)."

Depends on what "slightly used" means. An EXIF reader can pull the total number of shutter clicks off any image shot with the camera. Ask what the shutter count is.

I would say that is a fair deal. You give up some screen real-estate to the D40, but you gain the ability to autofocus with any AF lens (including my favorite budget lens, the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D).

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Muse

vfm would be value for the money?

it would.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: greengrass
Get a D40 is a good choice.

I found a used D50. Is this a good deal for a first DSLR?

Nikon D50 DSLR w/18-55mm lens, 55-200mm lens - $500.

Seller says:

"Slightly used Nikon D50 (6.1 megapixels) for sale in great shape. Includes two auto-focus lenses: Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G), and Nikkor 55-200mm lens (f/4-5.6G)."

Depends on what "slightly used" means. An EXIF reader can pull the total number of shutter clicks off any image shot with the camera. Ask what the shutter count is.

I would say that is a fair deal. You give up some screen real-estate to the D40, but you gain the ability to autofocus with any AF lens (including my favorite budget lens, the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D).

Ah, ... what's an EXIF reader?

By screen real-estate you are talking about the area of the LCD? It's a 2 incher. The D40 has a bigger LCD?

I was under the impression that the D40 has no AF built into the body but that AF would work on it if you use AF lenses with it. Not the case? Please indulge me, but I read you to be saying that you need to use an AF lens to have AF work with the D50. The reviews I read at Amazon.com suggested that with a D50 you would have AF using old non-AF lenses, such as the great legacy of old Nikon lenses (and, I guess, others) around. I am so green, I know.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Muse
Ah, ... what's an EXIF reader?

Text

Try the freeware Opanda IExif 2.3. EXIF information is embedded by the camera in every image it takes; it contains information about the picture, such as exposure, shutter speed, ISO, focal length, aperture, etc...but it also contains other camera information, such as the number of shutter clicks. Shutters have a life expectancy, so the fewer the clicks, the better.

By screen real-estate you are talking about the area of the LCD? It's a 2 incher. The D40 has a bigger LCD?

Yes, the D40 has a 2.5" screen with 230k pixels, while the D50 has a 2.0" screen with 130k pixels (much lower resolution). But the D50 has a top status LCD which contains information about your cameras settings, something the D40 lacks. It's a trade-off.

I was under the impression that the D40 has no AF built into the body but that AF would work on it if you use AF lenses with it. Not the case? Please indulge me, but I read you to be saying that you need to use an AF lens to have AF work with the D50. The reviews I read at Amazon.com suggested that with a D50 you would have AF using old non-AF lenses, such as the great legacy of old Nikon lenses (and, I guess, others) around. I am so green, I know.

I'll break it down like this; here are all the different types of Nikon lenses available:

AF-S: These have a built-in focusing motor for autofocus.

AF-I: These also have a built-in focusing motor for autofocus.

AF: No built-in focusing motor; the autofocus mechanism is driven by the camera's autofocus motor.

AI: Manual focus lens.

Pre-AI: Manual focus lens.

The Nikon D40 can mount and use ALL of them. However, it can only autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses (and their third-party equivalents...Sigma's HSM lenses will autofocus with a D40). AF, AI, and Pre-AI lenses are manual focus only on a D40.

The Nikon D50 can mount and use everything but Pre-AI lenses. It can autofocus AF-S, AF-I, and AF lenses. AI lenses are manual focus only. Pre-AI lenses cannot physically mount on the D50; however, sometimes people convert these Pre-AI lenses so they can fit.

The D40 is actually quite popular for its ability to mount and use 50 year old Nikon Pre-AI lenses; here is a Flickr group dedicated to using older manual focus lenses on new Nikon DSLRs. The quality of the glass on these old lenses is spectacular, and bargains can be found on the used market, but they require you to manually focus and expose the picture (fun but it takes practice...definitely not "point-and-shoot" until you get the hang of it).

The two lenses you mentioned being included with the D50 are actually both AF-S lenses and are often included in D40 kits as well. Here is a small table listing the differences between the D40 and D50; besides what I already mentioned, the size of the D40 is notably smaller. The image quality of the D40 is slightly better with JPEGs (less noticeable with RAW/NEF); the D40 has slightly more magnification in the viewfinder. The shutter sound of the D40 is notably quieter. Battery life is roughly the same. Both take SD cards, but the D40 can also take SDHC (4GB+ cards, although that provides an obscene amount of 6MP pictures per card). If you want to take bracketed exposures for HDR, the D50 can do it, the D40 cannot.

 

[ElFenix]

D40 doesn't exposure bracket?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
D40 doesn't exposure bracket?

It does not

 

[jpeyton]

From the DCResource review, the bottom line with the A200:

Great if you shoot RAW all the time and post-process.

JPEGs are good at ISO 100-400 in good light; at ISO 100 in poor light. Outside those parameters, JPEGs are sub-par compared to the competition. It's not the sensor's fault, it's Sony's decision to apply an obscene amount of noise reduction on in-camera JPEGs.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
From the DCResource review, the bottom line with the A200:

Great if you shoot RAW all the time and post-process.

JPEGs are good at ISO 100-400 in good light; at ISO 100 in poor light. Outside those parameters, JPEGs are sub-par compared to the competition. It's not the sensor's fault, it's Sony's decision to apply an obscene amount of noise reduction on in-camera JPEGs.

You can't turn the NR off like you can on a D40?

If so, then I guess the D40 will still be my top choice right now...the lack of features isn't a huge deal since I really, really care about high ISO performance.