Want a DSLR by the end of summer

[TraumaRN]

So I'm going to Australia in September for 17 days, traveling up from Sydney to Cairns in that span. Lots of stops on beaches, rainforests, cities, etc etc. I've already got a Canon Powershot A710IS for the indoor clubsy, partying, just need a quick picture type stuff. But I'm really dying to get back into the SLR part of town. And I really wanna get some shots that will just be fabulous/frame worthy and quite honestly the 710IS just ain't gonna cut it in that sense.

So I'm looking to pick up a DSLR in the next month or two, now I've already got an old Nikon N75 SLR with a 28-80 AF Nikkor G series lens laying around that I could use if I bought a Nikon DSLR(specifically a D40x), which at this point I've leaning towards over a Rebel XT or XTi just because of two things, mainly cost as the Nikon I'd only need the body for now, and I can grab another lens before I leave effectively splitting up the cost a bit, and secondly because with the type of shooting I'll be doing IQ between the Nikon and Canon will essentially be a draw.

So what would you guys recommend? If I get the canon it does mean I spend more RIGHT now, if I get the Nikon I can get the camera body only since I have at least one lens, then pick up another lens before I leave, splitting the cost and making it easier financially on me...which is why I'm asking you guys!

Also to note I'm into mostly amateur shooting and whatnot, I've taken a few photography classes so I have a decent idea of how to frame, compose, use varying shutter and f/stops etc..

 

[AmigaMan]

if you went with Nikon and wanted to re-use that 28-80 lens, don't forget you need to multiply that by 1.5 because of the sensor size on DSLRs. So your old lens becomes 42-120 and you effectively lose your wide angle. Plus with the D40/D40x line, any lenses you buy must have the autofocus motor in them since that body doesn't include a motor. If you're ok with that, that particular Nikon wouldn't be a bad choice, although I'd step up to a D80 personally.

The only way I would have bought a D40 was if price were my only concern. I would not get the D40x since IMO, it doesn't offer that much more for your money. As it is, I bought a Sony Alpha since I had a old set of Minolta zoom lenses and a prime that I could re-use. If I were to get the Nikon D40, I would have ended up spending much much more than the $750 I spent on the Sony to get the same lenses.

As far as the Canon, I really don't have much of an opinion. I played with a 30D today with a 28-135 IS lens on it. It's a very fast and nice camera, but also twice as expensive as I what I have.

 

[GTaudiophile]

When you buy a DSLR body, you buy into a certain lens system.

Find out which of the two companies offers the best lenses for YOU and then make the call.

 

[TraumaRN]

I wouldn't mind a D80 thats for sure and it does seem to be more up to par with what I would want and I'd probably be able to use it more effectively than a D40...and again picture quality is basically on par with the XTi...and maybe I wouldn't have to deal with that exposure compensation problem I keep reading about with the XT/XTi?

And I wouldn't mind losing a little angle from my standpoint having a 42-120(roughly) is a little better than the 18-55 you get 'standard' with a XTi. Of course that might make me sound naive but honestly, I can get a Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 for a little over 100 bucks after the fact for general purpose and maybe wider angles for those landscape shots that I'm sure to take in Australia.

Hmmm.

Now if only the D80 could drop down 50-100 bucks for the body only....

 

[teatime0315]

1135 for the body and kit lense (18-135mm) @ amazon right now with free shipping and no tax
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...&qid=1181538252&sr=8-2

 

[Rottie]

Go with Canon Rebel XT/XTi Why? I have seen they are voted #1 in some digital camera magazines all the times.

 

[rudder]

Goto a brick and mortar store and hold each in your hands. Try the menu system and see how you like navigating.

You can't go wrong with either line. Sure Canon has better high end lenses... but most people can't afford several thousand on a lens. With an average lens you won't be able to tell a picture taken with a nikon versus one with a canon.

I do notice on places like Fredmiranda.com that I see a lot more used canon lenses than Nikon. This has saved me a ton of money as I have a full spectrum of used lenses that I now own. By getting them used I saved enough $$$ to nearly pay for my DSLR.

 

[GTaudiophile]

The low-end Nikons are better built than the Canon Rebels IMO...and the Rebels may feel a little small...always a good idea to get your hands on them before you buy. I also hear good things about Nikon viewfinders. But I am still a Canon fanboi.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The low-end Nikons are better built than the Canon Rebels IMO...and the Rebels may feel a little small...always a good idea to get your hands on them before you buy. I also hear good things about Canon viewfinders. But I am still a Canon fanboi.

did you mean the opposite? I thought people were complaining about the XTi viewfinders.
Is the D80 at a different class than the XTi? The D80 is more $$ than the XTi, no? Or is the XTi a better camera than the D80?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The low-end Nikons are better built than the Canon Rebels IMO...and the Rebels may feel a little small...always a good idea to get your hands on them before you buy. I also hear good things about Canon viewfinders. But I am still a Canon fanboi.

did you mean the opposite? I thought people were complaining about the XTi viewfinders.
Is the D80 at a different class than the XTi? The D80 is more $$ than the XTi, no? Or is the XTi a better camera than the D80?

Yeah, I meant the opposite

 

[GTaudiophile]

I should add that the battery grip for the Rebel XTi greatly improves its balance and feel.

 

[Imported]

Try them for yourself at a local store. I personally hated the ergonomics of the XTi and even the 30D when compared to a D50 I had. Ended up getting a D80 as a result, but I should have picked up the D200 now that I look back on it..

 

[jpeyton]

I would suggest a D50 if you can find one. I'll echo what others have said on here; holding a Nikon feels infinitely better in my medium sized hands than any Canon Rebel. From what I've heard, even the smaller D40 far outclasses the Rebels in ergonomics.

Image quality and lens systems are a wash for amateurs looking at <$1000 bodies. Nikon lenses also tend to be less expensive than Canon, with some relative steals in their lineup.

 

[Jawo]

I didn't like the XTi until I put a grip on it at a show....and love it now, the grip is always on. It balances out heavy lenses nicely. It also is a nice grip for shooting vertical pictures (with all controls).

 

[ElFenix]

anyone who says the XT/i has a crappy grip is holding it wrong.


i swear some people would have died back in the 70s. one camera review website had the audacity (or maybe dumbassity) to claim that the left-handed holding used for the E-410 is 'new'


you're going to want a sharp lens more than a camera body. while, when used properly, the kit lens that comes with an SLR can probably make better pictures than the 'where can we make it cheaper' lens on a phd (press here, dumbass) camera, a better lens can result in better pictures.

so, with that in mind, what is your budget?

(and unless that nikon lens is AF-S, it won't work on the D40/x, i don't think even an AF-I lens will work)

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

And I wouldn't mind losing a little angle from my standpoint having a 42-120(roughly) is a little better than the 18-55 you get 'standard' with a XTi. Of course that might make me sound naive but honestly, I can get a Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 for a little over 100 bucks after the fact for general purpose and maybe wider angles for those landscape shots that I'm sure to take in Australia.

Hmmm.

Now if only the D80 could drop down 50-100 bucks for the body only....

yes, you do sound naive. and you can likely get craptastic nikon kit lenses off ebay for about the same.

i haven't used my kit lens. it's sitting in a box, gathering dust. in fact, i have several kit lenses in that box. they're all practically useless.

so, really, what is your budget?




(and yes, i have been reading the Thom Hogan threads at dpreview lately)

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyone who says the XT/i has a crappy grip is holding it wrong.


i swear some people would have died back in the 70s. one camera review website had the audacity (or maybe dumbassity) to claim that the left-handed holding used for the E-410 is 'new'


you're going to want a sharp lens more than a camera body. while, when used properly, the kit lens that comes with an SLR can probably make better pictures than the 'where can we make it cheaper' lens on a phd (press here, dumbass) camera, a better lens can result in better pictures.

so, with that in mind, what is your budget?

(and unless that nikon lens is AF-S, it won't work on the D40/x, i don't think even an AF-I lens will work)

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

And I wouldn't mind losing a little angle from my standpoint having a 42-120(roughly) is a little better than the 18-55 you get 'standard' with a XTi. Of course that might make me sound naive but honestly, I can get a Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 for a little over 100 bucks after the fact for general purpose and maybe wider angles for those landscape shots that I'm sure to take in Australia.

Hmmm.

Now if only the D80 could drop down 50-100 bucks for the body only....

yes, you do sound naive. and you can likely get craptastic nikon kit lenses off ebay for about the same.

i haven't used my kit lens. it's sitting in a box, gathering dust. in fact, i have several kit lenses in that box. they're all practically useless.

so, really, what is your budget?




(and yes, i have been reading the Thom Hogan threads at dpreview lately)

Well, given that I can get my other bills paid off in a timely fashion, 700 is my sweet spot, with 900 REALLY pushing me...

Only because I'm trying to save for a house and blah blah blah you get the idea, I don't need to drop a freakin house down payment on a camera

I've held the Nikon D40 and the Canon Rebel XT, DEFINITELY liked the nikon in my hands better..i mean I am 6'1 and have big hands with long skinny fingers so that nikon felt better. However if I could buy and/or make a custom grip for the Canon I would just because for roughly 700-800 bucks I can get that and(hopefully) a good lens to go with it and I just that the Canon does honestly have a few more bells and whistles than the Nikon...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyone who says the XT/i has a crappy grip is holding it wrong.

I think you're wrong. :thumbsup: Canon's Rebel bodies feel like cheap crap too; I think they reused plastic from recycled disposables.

while, when used properly, the kit lens that comes with an SLR can probably make better pictures than the 'where can we make it cheaper' lens on a phd (press here, dumbass) camera, a better lens can result in better pictures.

Nikon's kit lenses are great. A better 'photographer' takes better pictures than expensive camera bodies and expensive lenses. Stick with the kit lens for now and invest some money on a photography class at a local college, or some good photography books.

There are many great examples of photographs taken with kit lenses. I don't understand why you photography 'gurus' continually spread this FUD about amateur photographers needing a stable of expensive glass to take great photos with their DSLRs.

you're going to want a sharp lens more than a camera body.

Do you sit at your monitor all day and look at 100% crops of your photos for fun? I don't. If someone needs the extra sharpness to make poster-sized enlargements, they 'might' need a lens upgrade. For computer resizing and typical photo printing (16x20 and smaller), they don't.

Your post in general reeks of elitism. The great photographers of yesteryear managed to take award-winning photos with cameras and lenses that are outclassed in every respect by the bottom-of-the-barrel models of today.

If you're serious about taking better photos, become a better photographer first; worry about better equipment later.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyone who says the XT/i has a crappy grip is holding it wrong.

I think you're wrong. :thumbsup: Canon's Rebel bodies feel like cheap crap too; I think they reused plastic from recycled disposables.

while, when used properly, the kit lens that comes with an SLR can probably make better pictures than the 'where can we make it cheaper' lens on a phd (press here, dumbass) camera, a better lens can result in better pictures.

Nikon's kit lenses are great. A better 'photographer' takes better pictures than expensive camera bodies and expensive lenses. Stick with the kit lens for now and invest some money on a photography class at a local college, or some good photography books.

There are many great examples of photographs taken with kit lenses. I don't understand why you photography 'gurus' continually spread this FUD about amateur photographers needing a stable of expensive glass to take great photos with their DSLRs.

you're going to want a sharp lens more than a camera body.

Do you sit at your monitor all day and look at 100% crops of your photos for fun? I don't. If someone needs the extra sharpness to make poster-sized enlargements, they 'might' need a lens upgrade. For computer resizing and typical photo printing (16x20 and smaller), they don't.

Your post in general reeks of elitism. The great photographers of yesteryear managed to take award-winning photos with cameras and lenses that are outclassed in every respect by the bottom-of-the-barrel models of today.

If you're serious about taking better photos, become a better photographer first; worry about better equipment later.

I found the 400D to have a nasty, cheap feeling and overly small/cramped body.

Just IMHO of course...Just to stick the knife in, the silver version looks particularly tacky

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I think you're wrong. :thumbsup: Canon's Rebel bodies feel like cheap crap too; I think they reused plastic from recycled disposables.

they probably are

while, when used properly, the kit lens that comes with an SLR can probably make better pictures than the 'where can we make it cheaper' lens on a phd (press here, dumbass) camera, a better lens can result in better pictures.

Nikon's kit lenses are great. A better 'photographer' takes better pictures than expensive camera bodies and expensive lenses. Stick with the kit lens for now and invest some money on a photography class at a local college, or some good photography books.

so, you dispute that a better lens can result in better pictures?


and i'd argue that the leica and carl zeiss cameras that the photographers of yesteryear were using still outclass the bottom of the barrel models of today. of course, those cameras and lenses cost more than the GDP of several small countries.



anyway,

get the nikon. or save some more money and get a pentax. keep in mind that that G series lens you have probably won't work on the D40/40x (unless it says AF-S on it). so, get the kit lens, and be happy with it. if you get the regular D40 you can get it with the 18-135 for $725, or the D40x for $900. no idea how much they'll drop in price by the end of summer. with your budget you might want to get the D40 rather than the D40x model, so you can get some SD cards (you'll want plenty), and some accessories.

you'll want to get the camera a month before you leave so you can 1) make sure it works properly (nothing like going on a trip to find that the camera doesn't work properly), 2) read the manual through and learn how the functions work.

 

[IeraseU]

It would bug me to get a D40(x) because of the lack of computability with la lot of nice Nikon lenses which lack an AF motor. I'd prefer the D80 or a used D70(s) or D50.

I tried the Canon XTi, and it takes great photos but the ergonomics are just not for me. The 30D I think is a much better feeling camera and I would go with that if I decided to go Canon.

 

[teatime0315]

If you want to use your old lens, I'd pick up the D80. If you can't get that ... then I'd look into a used D50
I agree with the Xti ergonomics, its mostly personally preference, but it felt cheap to me "toyish".

 

[troytime]

I was VERY close to buying an XTI several months ago.
I read reviews for several months and had determined that for its price, its the best value out there.

The only negative things i heard about it was the grip and the viewfinder.
I wasn't worried, a camera is a camera (or so i thought)

Then i finally got off my butt and drove somewhere to check em out in person.
The canons just didn't feel good. I had to force my fingers into unnatural postions to hold the camera AND to use the menu system.

But when i picked up the more expensive nikon d80, it was getting out of a civic hatchback and into a lincoln towncar. It just felt so much better.
Even the menu system made more sense...from the start the buttons were easier to find and easier to push.

I saved a couple hundred bucks more and bought the d80 (circuit city, $1050 with the 18-135 kit lens, PM me and i'll tell you how)

I'm very happy with my decision.

If you can't afford a new d80, get a d70 or d50 off of craigslist.

 

[troytime]

d80 with lens for 900

 

[AndrewR]

An alternative voice here: Check out the Sony Alpha A100. I got one not too long ago for $600 with the kit lens (which isn't horrible, 18-70mm), and it's a nice camera. The best part is that the used market for Minolta lenses is pretty good, and you can pick up decent glass for less than comparable ones from the other brands. Cheap but very effective lens upgrades: the "beercan" 70-210mm f/4 (equivalent to Canon L-glass, Leica design from the '80s, metal barrel, about $150 at auction), 50mm f/1.7 (very sharp metal lens, about $50-75 at auction), 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (metal construction again, decent range, excellent color and good sharpness, about $50-75). Best part is every single one will be image stabilized, and it works REALLY well.

You could travel with the kit lens, the 70-210mm, and the 50mm, and have a very decent set. I'd recommend getting a 55mm Circular Polarizer and a step down ring 55mm-49mm so you can use it on the 50mm lens. You could likely have all those lenses plus the CPL for under your $900 top end, which is more range and capability than the equivalent Nikon set mentioned above.

Battery life on the Alpha is amazing -- best of any camera I've used. It's rated for 750 shots, and I think that's accurate, which is surprising.

Sony is about to announce a mid-level camera (Canon 30D equivalent) and soon after a professional-level camera (probably more Canon 5D level than 1DS/D2X, etc.) with several new lenses. Sony lenses are priced a little high right now, but the Minolta gear is well priced, unless you want the G-series lenses which are professional grade and consequently expensive. There are three Zeiss lenses right now for Sony: 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (not positive on f-stop), 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/1.8. Rumor has it that a 24-70mm f/2.8 is coming out soon, possibly a kit lens option for the new cameras.

 

[jpeyton]

You're going to be shooting tens of thousands of photos over the lifetime of the camera. It's essential you pick one that feels good in your hands. Look beyond the megapixel myth and lens systems (they are essentially the same).