First time DSLR buyer

[akshatp]

Looking to start taking some better pictures, and the point and shoots just arent going to cut it.

Can anyone provide some advice to someone in the market for a digital SLR?

I was thinking of buying this Nikon D40:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16830113068

Dont mind that its a refurb, but dont want to spend money on something I will outgrow very quickly. Conversely, I dont want to waste extra money on something too advanced for me where I wont use the features I am paying for.

ANy advice/help appreciated!

 

[PurdueRy]

What reasons are you switching from to a DSLR for? What features are most important to you in a DSLR? What lenses do you plan on using?

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: akshatp
Dont mind that its a refurb, but dont want to spend money on something I will outgrow very quickly. Conversely, I dont want to waste extra money on something too advanced for me where I wont use the features I am paying for.

The D40 is a great starter camera, if you know its limitations. For one, it lacks a focus motor to focus lenses without a built in motor, for example the AF-D 50mm F1.8 is only ~$140 but will not AF on the D40. Not such a big deal unless you plan on buying lots of old glass or newer primes. There are plenty of lenses with motors to choose from.

The D40 also cannot do wireless flash by default. Again, not a big deal unless you plan on using flash off-camera, which requires you to buy a strobe.

So basically the answer to your question is its all up to you on how far your going to "grow" into photography. You could start with a D40 to see, then in a year or so the nicer featured bodies will be cheaper than they are now. Or you could pay more now, and by the time you learn what your doing you'll be lusting over the "latest" body anyway, lol.

Either way you go, the body you choose is just a drop in the bucket compared to the price of strobes and lenses you may want. Thats why many suggest to invest in glass, as they hold there price (some go up), where a camera body is like a car, it depreciates as soon as you buy it.

 

[JDub02]

Can't go wrong with a D40 to learn on. I have one and it's a great camera.

I only have 2 complaints:
Can't auto-focus the 50mm F/1.8
No auto-bracketing (for later HDR processing)

Other than that, I can't knock it.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: akshatp
Looking to start taking some better pictures, and the point and shoots just arent going to cut it.

Can anyone provide some advice to someone in the market for a digital SLR?

I was thinking of buying this Nikon D40:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16830113068

Dont mind that its a refurb, but dont want to spend money on something I will outgrow very quickly. Conversely, I dont want to waste extra money on something too advanced for me where I wont use the features I am paying for.

ANy advice/help appreciated!

The D40 is a good starter camera, but you might want to check your local Craigslist or POTN for deals on used Canon Rebel XTis. I see them for sale all the time over at the Canon forums on POTN and they usually fetch around $300 in mint condition, 350 ish with a lens. The XTi has better high ISO noise performance, built in sensor cleaning, 4 more megapixels, and auto-bracketing along with some other features not found on the D40.

Also, Canon has a much greater selection of lenses compared to Nikon. And the XTi will autofocus with every Canon EF and EF-S lens, unlike the Nikon D40 which won't autofocus with the older Nikkor AF and AF-D lenses.

 

[twistedlogic]

To the OP, no matter which DSLR you choose, regardless of brand, you really can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs. I'd suggest you try as many as you can in your hand just to get a feel.

One thing that does make the D40 so special, unlike the $4000 Pro bodies, is the 1/500 flash sync speed, great for using fill-flash.

 

[Munky]

I have a D40, and other than the lack of AF support for older lenses, I can't fault it. It's light weight, has great low-light performance, 1/500s flash sync, customizable Auto-ISO function, and a built in AF assist lamp. The Canon models don't have the lamp, and you have to strobe the flash instead, which annoys the hell out of me. Even worse, on older Canons you can't strobe the flash without using it in the picture.

 

[jpeyton]

Get a D40 and a 35mm f/1.8; that combo rocks.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: munky
I have a D40, and other than the lack of AF support for older lenses, I can't fault it. It's light weight, has great low-light performance, 1/500s flash sync, customizable Auto-ISO function, and a built in AF assist lamp. The Canon models don't have the lamp, and you have to strobe the flash instead, which annoys the hell out of me. Even worse, on older Canons you can't strobe the flash without using it in the picture.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
To the OP, no matter which DSLR you choose, regardless of brand, you really can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs. I'd suggest you try as many as you can in your hand just to get a feel.

One thing that does make the D40 so special, unlike the $4000 Pro bodies, is the 1/500 flash sync speed, great for using fill-flash.

I never used D40 so I might be missing something here but how's 1/500s flash sync. a good thing? Sure, 1/500s is better than 1/200s or something but my understanding is that you can't go over 1/500s even when external flash unit is attached. To me, that's a big let down because 1/500s just doesn't cut it.

Is there something else I'm not aware of?

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Get a D40 and a 35mm f/1.8; that combo rocks.

My 35 f1.8 came today and it's a great combo. It's light and you'll want to carry it everywhere. I did a few shots and it's nice. I pumped the ISO up to 800 at f1.8 and took a picture of my watch without flash, turned out great awesome considering i was sitting in an elementary lunch room at 730PM!

D40 is a nice starter camera. I'm looking at good deals for a D90 body only.

I own the kits original 18-55 kit lens, 35 f1.8, 18-200 and 70-200 f2.8VR

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: munky
I have a D40, and other than the lack of AF support for older lenses, I can't fault it. It's light weight, has great low-light performance, 1/500s flash sync, customizable Auto-ISO function, and a built in AF assist lamp. The Canon models don't have the lamp, and you have to strobe the flash instead, which annoys the hell out of me. Even worse, on older Canons you can't strobe the flash without using it in the picture.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
To the OP, no matter which DSLR you choose, regardless of brand, you really can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs. I'd suggest you try as many as you can in your hand just to get a feel.

One thing that does make the D40 so special, unlike the $4000 Pro bodies, is the 1/500 flash sync speed, great for using fill-flash.

I never used D40 so I might be missing something here but how's 1/500s flash sync. a good thing? Sure, 1/500s is better than 1/200s or something but my understanding is that you can't go over 1/500s even when external flash unit is attached. To me, that's a big let down because 1/500s just doesn't cut it.

Is there something else I'm not aware of?

AFAIK, you can go over that speed if you do manual flash exposure. I haven't tried this myself though. The advantage it that it allows me to use the built-in flash more effectively in daylight or freezing motion. And first time dslr buyers are probably not gonna spring for external flashes, huge telephoto lenses and start doing bird photography to require even faster x-sync speeds.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: munky
I have a D40, and other than the lack of AF support for older lenses, I can't fault it. It's light weight, has great low-light performance, 1/500s flash sync, customizable Auto-ISO function, and a built in AF assist lamp. The Canon models don't have the lamp, and you have to strobe the flash instead, which annoys the hell out of me. Even worse, on older Canons you can't strobe the flash without using it in the picture.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
To the OP, no matter which DSLR you choose, regardless of brand, you really can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs. I'd suggest you try as many as you can in your hand just to get a feel.

One thing that does make the D40 so special, unlike the $4000 Pro bodies, is the 1/500 flash sync speed, great for using fill-flash.

I never used D40 so I might be missing something here but how's 1/500s flash sync. a good thing? Sure, 1/500s is better than 1/200s or something but my understanding is that you can't go over 1/500s even when external flash unit is attached. To me, that's a big let down because 1/500s just doesn't cut it.

Is there something else I'm not aware of?

AFAIK, you can go over that speed if you do manual flash exposure. I haven't tried this myself though. The advantage it that it allows me to use the built-in flash more effectively in daylight or freezing motion. And first time dslr buyers are probably not gonna spring for external flashes, huge telephoto lenses and start doing bird photography to require even faster x-sync speeds.

O.K, now I'm sure I'm missing something here. How can you go over high sync. lock by manual exposure? Isn't the shutter speed limited once the flash is active?
I don't understand why huge telephoto lenses or bird photography requires faster sync speed? 1/500s seems fast enough for that matter, if you aren't concerned about exposure or having to step down aperture due to shutter speed being low. My understanding is that you need higher sync. for exposure, not for capturing high speed moving object: typical daylight portrait shooting with flash and fast lens requires high speed sync becuase you don't want to step down aperture due to maximum shutter speed being low. Same logic can be applied to bird photography(not to mention flash distance being better with faster sync.)but you sounded like it's the matter of fast moving object rather than exposure matter. I probably read it wrong.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: munky
I have a D40, and other than the lack of AF support for older lenses, I can't fault it. It's light weight, has great low-light performance, 1/500s flash sync, customizable Auto-ISO function, and a built in AF assist lamp. The Canon models don't have the lamp, and you have to strobe the flash instead, which annoys the hell out of me. Even worse, on older Canons you can't strobe the flash without using it in the picture.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
To the OP, no matter which DSLR you choose, regardless of brand, you really can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs. I'd suggest you try as many as you can in your hand just to get a feel.

One thing that does make the D40 so special, unlike the $4000 Pro bodies, is the 1/500 flash sync speed, great for using fill-flash.

I never used D40 so I might be missing something here but how's 1/500s flash sync. a good thing? Sure, 1/500s is better than 1/200s or something but my understanding is that you can't go over 1/500s even when external flash unit is attached. To me, that's a big let down because 1/500s just doesn't cut it.

Is there something else I'm not aware of?

AFAIK, you can go over that speed if you do manual flash exposure. I haven't tried this myself though. The advantage it that it allows me to use the built-in flash more effectively in daylight or freezing motion. And first time dslr buyers are probably not gonna spring for external flashes, huge telephoto lenses and start doing bird photography to require even faster x-sync speeds.

O.K, now I'm sure I'm missing something here. How can you go over high sync. lock by manual exposure? Isn't the shutter speed limited once the flash is active?

I was referring to using manual flash exposure, as opposed to TTL metering. Something similar to using an old flash with a modern camera. Not that I actually tried it myself, but this is what I read elsewhere.

I don't understand why huge telephoto lenses or bird photography requires faster sync speed? 1/500s seems fast enough for that matter, if you aren't concerned about exposure or having to step down aperture due to shutter speed being low. My understanding is that you need higher sync. for exposure, not for capturing high speed moving object: typical daylight portrait shooting with flash and fast lens requires high speed sync becuase you don't want to step down aperture due to maximum shutter speed being low. Same logic can be applied to bird photography(not to mention flash distance being better with faster sync.)but you sounded like it's the matter of fast moving object rather than exposure matter. I probably read it wrong.

It can be a matter of both, actually. In bird photography you sometimes want a shallow DOF as well.

 

[akshatp]

Hey guys.. thanks for the replies and general discussion. After reviewing some of your thoughts, doing some research online, speaking to some friends who own both Nikon/Canon, and most importantly visiting the local camera shop and actually holding both the D40/D60 and Xsi, I have decided to go with the Canon Xsi kit.

Its the body, an 18-55 and 55-250 lens for $850 plus tax. Bit more than I wanted to spend honestly, but Ill make it work.

Gonna buy locally so I can get post-sales support from the local shop. The people there are nice, and said to come in whenever I want to ask questions about the camera, or photography in general. Ill save tax and maybe a few bucks buiying online, but wont get the same post sales experience.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
O.K, now I'm sure I'm missing something here. How can you go over high sync. lock by manual exposure? Isn't the shutter speed limited once the flash is active?

Bypass the TTL by disabling the correct pin that attaches to the hot-sync. Or by using a wireless trigger or older type TTL flash cable or PC cable.

You can bypass the x-sync limit, but this won't assure the frame is evenly exposed by flash, as the shutter curtain may cause some blackout.

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
I don't understand why huge telephoto lenses or bird photography requires faster sync speed?

Birders use focal lengths well beyond 333mm. A 1/500 shutter speed is not enough to stop camera shake at such a high focal length.

Using High Speed sync, (ala the D200 and above) you can shoot at any shutter speed, but the flash actually fires pulses, since the whole sensor will not be exposed at one time.

Originally posted by: akshatp
Its the body, an 18-55 and 55-250 lens for $850 plus tax. Bit more than I wanted to spend honestly, but Ill make it work.

Congrats, IMO the 55-250mm lens is well worth the extra cost.

 

[akshatp]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

Originally posted by: akshatp
Its the body, an 18-55 and 55-250 lens for $850 plus tax. Bit more than I wanted to spend honestly, but Ill make it work.

Congrats, IMO the 55-250mm lens is well worth the extra cost.

Only $150 more than the standard kit with the current Canon promotion. $200 instant credit. Cant wait to pick it up tomorrow

 

[shortylickens]

I have one.
For all the reasons already listed, it is a good starter camera. I havent felt the urge to buy anything else besides a memory card.
One day I'll get a tripod and flash and proper lens assortment, but I've already taken 4000 pics with just the camera and kit lens.

 

[Aharami]

ive played with the D40 and the XSi. I liked the XSi better. Not too small like the D40, yet not too big.
Im also considering buying an XSi

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Aharami
ive played with the D40 and the XSi. I liked the XSi better. Not too small like the D40, yet not too big.
Im also considering buying an XSi

I initially liked the XSi until I tried the 40/50D(same body). Even with small hands I enjoyed the ergonomics of them much more. Even though they are larger.

 

[akshatp]

Originally posted by: Aharami
ive played with the D40 and the XSi. I liked the XSi better. Not too small like the D40, yet not too big.
Im also considering buying an XSi

Did you end up getting it? I started taking photos, and I am impressed. Even with my lack of skills, some of them are coming out exeptionally nice.

Cant wait to really learn how to use this thing!

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: Aharami
ive played with the D40 and the XSi. I liked the XSi better. Not too small like the D40, yet not too big.
Im also considering buying an XSi

Did you end up getting it? I started taking photos, and I am impressed. Even with my lack of skills, some of them are coming out exeptionally nice.

Cant wait to really learn how to use this thing!

Now get on over to the photography on the net forums and start reading *cracks whip*.

TONS of great guides, friendly community (you'll even find us reccomending nikon stuff over there sometimes)....

(if you did get the xsi), go post in the xsi thread in the eos section. My username over there is Woos, check out my hummingbird pic. *giggle*

 

[akshatp]

Originally posted by: extra

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: Aharami
ive played with the D40 and the XSi. I liked the XSi better. Not too small like the D40, yet not too big.
Im also considering buying an XSi

Did you end up getting it? I started taking photos, and I am impressed. Even with my lack of skills, some of them are coming out exeptionally nice.

Cant wait to really learn how to use this thing!

Now get on over to the photography on the net forums and start reading *cracks whip*.

TONS of great guides, friendly community (you'll even find us reccomending nikon stuff over there sometimes)....

(if you did get the xsi), go post in the xsi thread in the eos section. My username over there is Woos, check out my hummingbird pic. *giggle*

I did get the Xsi. Ill head over to those forums soon.

 

[BabaBooey]

Is there a reason nobody mentioned the D40x ?

I am looking myself and was wondering why,it is supposed to be the same as a D40 but 10M.P. and faster shooting ?

 

[soydios]

PSA: Now that the AF-s 35mm f/1.8G DX is available, people can stop listing the lack of autofocus with the AF 50mm f/1.8D as a significant problem. That said, there's a lot of used AF (not AF-S) Nikkor glass that definitely makes a D50/D70/D70s/D80 a highly recommended alternative in my book.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: bababooey
Is there a reason nobody mentioned the D40x ?

I am looking myself and was wondering why,it is supposed to be the same as a D40 but 10M.P. and faster shooting ?

There are more differences internally than just the resolution. The D40 has better low light sensitivity, faster xsync speed, and it usually costs less. Not that the D40x is a bad choice, especially if you can find one for a bargain price, but unless you really need the higher resolution, the D40 is usually a better option.