I'm looking to buy an entry-level Digital SLR...

[MrToilet]

I decided to start learning some photography this summer, and need some help choosing a digital SLR. I'm looking to stay under $500 if possible, for a body +18-55 lens, and then buying a 55-200/70-300 lens down the road sometime. I'm not looking for anything high-end or fancy; this will be more of a hobby than anything else.

I'm just having a hard time keeping all the models straight, and would appreciate some advice regarding camera and lenses. I know, I know, pretty vague, hehe.

I read through the camera choosing guide, and have pretty much decided between Nikon, Canon, and Pentax. A friend of mine has a Nikon D50, and I really like the Nikon series - but I hear the lack of a lens AF motor on the D40/D40x/D60/D5000 is kind of annoying. I'm wondering if buying a D50 is worth it, even if it's an older model.

Sidenote: I found a Pentax *ist DL refurb at Best Buy for $179, pretty good price - but is the camera worth it? Reviews are mixed at best, but you can't beat the price.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Fardringle]

Does that Pentax include a lens and a warranty? If so, I'd say it's a no brainer, particularly in your situation where you just want a nicer than point-and-shoot camera for hobby photography! If it's just the body, that's still a good price but maybe not a "must go buy it NOW" situation.

Steve's Digicams liked the Pentax quite a bit, and personally the only two "negatives" I can see with it are the moderate continuous shooting speed (which probably won't matter to you at all), and the 3 focus points instead of the 11 in the "big brother" DS2, but again you probably won't see many situations where that will matter at all.

 

[Deadtrees]

Pentax DL would probably suit your need but I just wouldn't recommand it. Its focusing speed in low light is just painfully slow and I even found it to useless.
Unless it's dirt cheap compared to others, go for the one that came out recently.

 

[jpeyton]

Did you already buy the *ist DL?

Refurbished clearance DSLRs don't stay on the shelves very long; it might not be there when you check again.

 

[MrToilet]

I just found the *ist on BB's web site, still there as of this morning... Just the body though, no lenses. My gut feeling is, since I'm starting from scratch, that I should find a camera/lens package; buying a lens for the Pentax brings it almost to the same price point as some package deals.

 

[shortylickens]

I have a Nikon D40 and am happy with it. There are plenty of AF-S and AF-I lenses to keep me well supplied for now. If you look around you can find a complete kit for as low as 300 bucks.

If you consider the fact that you will almost certainly upgrade your camera body on a regular basis, then the D40 is a great starter camera. Yes, its the bottom of the line, but thats what makes it a good jumping off point. You wont be losing much money when you inevitably upgrade. Nor will you feel bad about selling it dirt cheap or giving it to a close friend or relative. Its cheap enough you just wont worry about such things. Whereas if you spent 800 dollars on a starter camera, you might actually worry a bit about its value when you inevitably upgrade later on.

Of course, with an 800 dollar camera you might go much longer before upgrading, so you have to consider that side as well.

 

[MrToilet]

So I was doing some online shopping/thinking today - I'm thinking of getting a D40/D50 with a 18-55 and 55-200 zoom lens. Not too pricey, covers 99% of what I'd need it for. Any thoughts? I'm probably going to order a camera within the next week or so.

 

[jpeyton]

The D50 is discontinued; if you find a used one in good condition for a fair price get it.

Otherwise the D40 kit is a great option. I'll upload some pictures from my D40 if you want examples.

 

[shortylickens]

These were all taken with a D40.
http://picasaweb.google.com/sh...s/ReddishKnobVirginia#
Picasa scaled them down a bit, however you can still see the image quality.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...sFlowers_Nikon_D40.JPG
If I had used a little tripod or sandbag I could have gone with better apeture vs. shutter settings and perhaps this would have come out even better. The very slight motion of my hand blurred it a bit.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...s/mom_flower_2_D40.jpg
Same here.

The only downside of the D40 (that is not even an issue for other SLR's) is it does NOT have an ISO 100 setting. However, I cant seem to find any noise in my ISO 200 images.
Also, it doesnt have a real ISO 1600. After ISO 800 comes a HI+ setting thats not quite as good as the 1600. Full of noise and low image quality.
As with many cameras you will probably want to use the NEF or RAW format when setting ISO to 800 or above.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...ontroller_NikonD40.JPG
If you want to truly understand why image quality is more important than resolution, zoom in to about 300% and look at the small numeral 4 in the center of the pic.

 

[jpeyton]

Here's some examples:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...33170_7f5a2066e7_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...55932_b8e0b8cecc_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...42278_4d73a99932_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...68461_5dd86a83d8_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...57066_6c8dd0af97_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...33144_39da29b577_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...18725_b1928d36fc_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...43803_95a1f29a18_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...42188_9a9b3b626c_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...42250_a432d3eb10_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...43849_0d6f1b7646_o.jpg

Macro
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...88922_3e9be8d7c7_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...58508_1b6d497e32_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...84150_2392457ba8_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...78190_c3de2d9e2f_o.jpg

 

[jpeyton]

BTW this is one of my favorite D40 sets on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/isayx3/tags/d40/

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Also, it doesnt have a real ISO 1600. After ISO 800 comes a HI+ setting thats not quite as good as the 1600. Full of noise and low image quality.

I believe the D40 has true ISO 1600. HI1 is for ISO 3200, which is just ISO 1600 underexposed by a stop and then pushed via software.

 

[Munky]

I have a D40, along with the newer 18-55 VR lens and the 55-200 VR. The lack of a AF motor is not an issue unless you already have a bunch of old Nikon glass that you want to use. Now that the 35mm 1.8 AFS is available for just $200, there's no need to bother with old AF primes. It has no ISO 100, so what? It doesn't need to bother with it, since with 6MP those pixels are more sensitive and less noisy than similar higher resolution cameras. I actually like having a base ISO 200. Along with 1/500s x-sync, customizable Auto-ISO that works all the way up to ISO 1600, a real AF assist lamp, and light weight, it has a lot going for it at just $400. It may be a "starter camera", but I actually know how to use all the features it offers, and I have no complaints about missing features or annoying limitations with the D40.