Ready to step up to DSLR

[Silverstar]

I know I know, there is about 5 threads on this page about buying DSLR cameras, but I'd like to give you all my choices and a few questions.

My current camera is a Panasonic Lumix TZ1. It's been a great camera so far, taken about 3000 pictures with it in about 1 1/2 years having it. But I've been bumming out with my pictures I've taken lately, looking for more diversity depending on the conditions and more quality. Plus I have thought of taking a photography class during the next school year, been really interested in the past year.

So I've accumulated a lot of gift certificates and a 10% discount on top of that for a camera through Best Buy. I'm looking at four choices that are in my price range at Best Buy

These are my 4 choices.

I've noticed that the D40 is a favorite to some of you here, as is the 350D. I've only used a DSLR twice before. Once out at my cousin's cabin, and once in a store. The time I used it out at the cabin it was a EOS 350D, we were on the water pulling the kids on tubes and I was loving it. But I never touched the settings, the guy who owned the camera told me to just start shooting.

The Sony looks to be a strong competitor between the Canon, but I am trying to base it off of DPreview.com's 350D review. Although I have SD/xD cards, and I see it uses a different storage. The Olympus seems to be the newest camera of them all, but I have only found one good review of the Olympus, but kinda wish there was a side-by-side shot comparison like DPReview's. Overall I have a strong lean towards getting the Nikon or Cannon, the Nikon being the cheapest for me.

Few questions.
1. Is the Canon 350 body only, or do they typically come with a lense? From some websites I cannot tell. Or rather, I hope all 4 have lenses from what I can tell?
2. Would the Sony/Olympus choices be a bit too risky to go for, considering they are new?
3. What else would you all suggest to get along with what comes in the boxes, I do have SD/xD cards already depending on my choice.
4. Is there much difference between the Nikon D40 and D40X? I have a gut feeling that I saw one there also.

So I was wondering what everyone's opinions of my choices are. I'm most likely going to go buy one tommorow (Tuesday already depending on your location) or Wednesday.

It's time for me to make the big leap!

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Before you get suggestions from anyone, post your budget.

 

[Silverstar]

I'd like to walk off below $600, at most $650 for camera and needed/suggested accessories to use it hassle-free. But I will be limited to what I can get at Best Buy for everything to get started.

 

[eddysdaman]

Answering what I can.

Few questions.
1. Is the Canon 350 body only, or do they typically come with a lense? From some websites I cannot tell. Or rather, I hope all 4 have lenses from what I can tell? It depends, the typical pack includes the 18-55mm lens but some sites will sell you only the body. Typically look for the work 'kit' when browsing.
2. Would the Sony/Olympus choices be a bit too risky to go for, considering they are new? From what I've heard, these are both good, sensible options aimed at the amateur, but when you compare them to the likes of Nikon and Canon, they really are a few steps behind if you want to get the most use out of the camera.
3. What else would you all suggest to get along with what comes in the boxes, I do have SD/xD cards already depending on my choice. The latest Canon entry level (450D) (DR Xsi) has ditched the CF card for SDs. That might help. xD is Olympus only and rather hopeless and the Nikons are all SDs I think (of the ones you mentioned). So that may or may not help you. Depends on what you want to spend and what results you really want to achieve before you go out and buying addons.
4. Is there much difference between the Nikon D40 and D40X? I have a gut feeling that I saw one there also. Much difference? No. Comes down to the sensor size 10mp vs 6mp. The other updates and upgrades are negligible.

Personally I think it sounds like a Nikon would suit your equation.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Then you're limited to Nikon D40 + kit lens, Canon Rebel XT + Kit lens (If you can find one, been discontinued for years), or the Sony A200 + kit lens.

The XT is a decent camera, but is comparatively ancient, has an old AF system and is built like a plastic toy. The A200 is a decent camera, but high ISO performance is lacking and it's a Sony and therefore has a reduced lens selection. Also the lenses and accessories are expensive. The Nikon is a decent camera but lacks AF support for older Nikon lenses, like all the good primes, and has a megapixel deficit if that's important to you.

So, yeah. Go to the store, play with all of them (assuming you can find the XT) and buy the one you like, because they're all fairly decent cameras with flaws due to being beginner DSLR's.

Also, Olympus fails due to the Four-Thirds system. So does Panasonic.

 

[Silverstar]

Thanks for the replies guys. I kinda had the idea that it would come down to the Canon/Nikon toss-up.

I'll definately going to wait for some more replies, though the Nikon is starting to grew on me by the minute . Hopefully by the time I get up in the morning, should be a clear cut choice for me when I walk in the doors!

 

[LeVeL]

Best Buy is, predictably, overpriced. Check this place out:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371191-REG/Canon_0209B003_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XT.html
Also, check for eBay kits - there are some really good finds on there.

Main thing to remember is that the lens matters a lot more than the body. I've read quite a few opinions about canon vs nikon and so far no one can decisively put one over the other.

And like eddysdaman said - it varies. Usually it will say "body only" or "kit" or mention that it comes with a lens.

Equipment - I'd get (well, I am getting actually) more than one lens, a tripod, a case or two...

 

[Davetouch]

^ Yeah, eBay is pretty good: I found a new D40 with 2 lenses and memory card for ?300. But I couldn't get it.

 

[Silverstar]

Well, I gotta say I think I'll be satisfied with my choice!

Last shot with my old camera, saying goodbye and hello to a Nikon!
http://img222.imageshack.**/img222/232/p1130124jn8.jpg

Got a:

- Nikon D40
- 4GB SDHC card
- Neutral density filter
- Nikon starter pack w/ extra battery

 

[Jay]

Yet another Nikonian... You will love that camera, and will be blown away by its image quality.

Good move on getting a ND filter, I would also strongly recommend a circular polarizer filter, too. Me, I recommend Hoya as something affordable but good.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What lens is that? If its the 55m lens you really should look at getting Nikon's 18-135mm lens. I have it for my D80 and it works wonders! Also, make sure you get yourself a tripod and a big bag to put it all in. And as jayhawk said, you will LOVE the camera.

 

[Shadowness]

Welcome to the club!

 

[SpecOpsBob]

That's funny, just been thinking of getting my first DSLR today and been interested in the D40 too. By the sound of it, looks to me like it's a good choice!

 

[the Interceptor]

As some of you know, I've been looking into getting a new cam not too long ago. After reading loads of reviews on dpreview.com, I also ended up with the entry DSLRs. And as it is the cheapest model by far, I got the Nikon D40 with the 18-55 lens. It does make great pictures, and I just finished my first holiday making over 700 pictures in 4 days.

A great camera, congratulations!

 

[Davetouch]

Man I can't wait until Thursday. Thats when my camera is due to arrive. (Nikon D50)

 

[Silverstar]

So awesome to see everyone making the jump to SLR, good choices everyone!

 

[nomix]

Also, Olympus fails due to the Four-Thirds system. So does Panasonic.

I am sorry for posting so late in the thead, it's late here, and I'm having trouble sleeping, but that is the biggest load of rubble I've heard for a very long time!

The actual differences between APS-C and the newer generation sensors in the E-x20-cameras and the E-3 is so minute that you would in fact have to print quite larges prints to even get close to see any difference. And that's above ISO1600, at ISO100-800, you would struggle to see the difference at all, even at 100 % pixel peeping levels!

Further, Olympus produces some wonderful lenses, from the bottom line of standard lenses to the excellent line of top pro lenses.

I can see the argument that the E-x00 and E-x10 cameras were lacking in high ISO quality compared to ie. the D40x/D80 and the 400D, but to disqualify a whole system because of a silly stereotype that the tiny little sensor make the cameras useless, when it does not, that's just stupid, propagandistic horseradish.

And before you run off to tell me that I should try a Canon or a Nikon or whatever you use yourself, I've done that. I use Canon on a regular basis at my newspaper, and I know a lot of Nikon shooters. Heck, I've even done a concert in a church with an Sony a100. My system is not superior to your, but it's surtanly not inferior.

/rant

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I am sorry for posting so late in the thead, it's late here, and I'm having trouble sleeping, but that is the biggest load of rubble I've heard for a very long time!

The actual differences between APS-C and the newer generation sensors in the E-x20-cameras and the E-3 is so minute that you would in fact have to print quite larges prints to even get close to see any difference. And that's above ISO1600, at ISO100-800, you would struggle to see the difference at all, even at 100 % pixel peeping levels!

Further, Olympus produces some wonderful lenses, from the bottom line of standard lenses to the excellent line of top pro lenses.

I can see the argument that the E-x00 and E-x10 cameras were lacking in high ISO quality compared to ie. the D40x/D80 and the 400D, but to disqualify a whole system because of a silly stereotype that the tiny little sensor make the cameras useless, when it does not, that's just stupid, propagandistic horseradish.

And before you run off to tell me that I should try a Canon or a Nikon or whatever you use yourself, I've done that. I use Canon on a regular basis at my newspaper, and I know a lot of Nikon shooters. Heck, I've even done a concert in a church with an Sony a100. My system is not superior to your, but it's surtanly not inferior.

/rant

Rant all you want, but the fact remains that 4/3 has inferior ISO performance, has a proportionally larger depth of field at all apertures which keeps you from using it to isolate subjects as effectively, reduced dynamic range, and the whole system is built around never using a larger sensor. The hideously expensive f/2 zooms are the only good part of the system.

I'm not saying don't continue to use it, but I refuse to recommend a system built around a tiny sensor when all the competition has larger ones and the ability to cover the 35mm frame.

 

[nomix]

Rant all you want, but the fact remains that 4/3 has inferior ISO performance, has a proportionally larger depth of field at all apertures which keeps you from using it to isolate subjects as effectively, and the whole system is built around never using a larger sensor. The hideously expensive f/2 zooms are the only good part of the system.

First of all, Canon now has inferior high ISO performance to Nikon. You don't discard Canon for that reason, and the differences are not big enough to justify anything close to discarding the system. That is just a lie.

As for larger DOF, that is an argument. I could argue that an APS-C system has the problem of getting enough DOF in surtan cases. But I won't. The difference between 4/3 and APS-C is miniscule. The difference up to full frame is another matter all together, but that's also true for APS-C compared to full frame.

The hideously expensive f/2.0 zooms are not the only good part of the system. They are one good part of the system. If you wish, I'll run you through some good points of the 4/3 system.
- The 7-14. To go as wide with a zoom lens, you have to get a D3 and a 14-24. That's a cracking combination. but a lot more expensive. You could make an argument for the EF-S 10-22, but that's not playing in the same league. The Nikkor 12-24 is good, but not as wide.
- The cheap lenses. There are two bad lenses in the fourthirds system. The 18-180, which is not good. But it is a super zoom lens, so that's to be expected. The second is the 14-45, which came with the E-500. It was a dark moment from Olympus. It was still a bit better than the likes of the EF-S 18-55 nonIS, but still. As for the rest of the lineup, they are all sharp.
- The mid range lenses. There is not one of them that can't be used wide open. The only real reason to stop down is to get more DOF, or if you're thinking of printing the size of your a couple of doors.
- The high end lenses. They are all superb, just as what Canon can give us with red lines and Nikon with gold lines. Really, they are all superb.
- Weather sealing, in the price bracket, no camera is better weather sealed than the E-3 with a pro or top pro lens. The K20D comes close, but neither the D300 or the 40D are contenders in comparison.
- Ease of use. I've used all systems except Pentax for extended periods of time. None has been as intuitive as Olympus to use. Even my mother managed it without tutoring. That was not true with the 350D.

Saying the only argument is the 14-35 and the 35-100 is like saying the only argument for getting a D3 is the 14-24.

I'm not saying don't continue to use it, but I refuse to recommend a system built around a tiny sensor when all the competition has larger ones and the ability to cover the 35mm frame.

First of all, if your whole argument is the size of the sensor, then it's a bit silly. Second of all, if your argument is IQ, there is no significant difference between any of today's systems.

I see the argument of DOF, but for the occational shooter, that won't be an issue. It will neither be an issue for those who shoot sports, those who shoot reportage photo (I do quite a bit of this, and the shallow DOF I can produce is more than enough for almost any case), snapshots, dog racing, landscapes, press conferences or arcitecture.

And anyhow, it's not a very good argument, since the differences between a fourthirds camera and an APS-C camera are minute in this respect. The difference up to full frame is another thing, but as said, that's valid for APS-C too.

If you are planning to upgrade to full frame, then you are best off getting either a Canon, a Nikon, a Sony or a Pentax. But it's only a matter of time before the results gained from small sensors will be good enough at high ISO settings to relegate full frame to those who need shorter DOF, higher resolution or wants to work without crop factors. I know a few guys who come into that category, if you're in that category, then good for you. But that's a long way from actually being relevant to a beginner. The percentage of those who start off getting a new DSLR gets a full frame camera. Some do, either because they think they need a full frame, or because they need one. The 5D, for its price, can offer IQ few other cameras come close to. It's a great camera.

I shoot a bit of film. You know, that dinosaur technology where you get all the features of a full frame camera, except the performance at higher ISOs. And I love it. Primes on a 35mm camera finished in silver, it's the highlife.

But having used all systems except Pentax, I would say I am in a position to actually say a thing or two about the real differences, not just those one imagine.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

First of all, Canon now has inferior high ISO performance to Nikon. You don't discard Canon for that reason, and the differences are not big enough to justify anything close to discarding the system. That is just a lie.

Oly's top-end camera is only usable to ~ISO1600, while even the prosumer Canons and Nikons achieve or surpass that.

As for larger DOF, that is an argument. I could argue that an APS-C system has the problem of getting enough DOF in surtan cases. But I won't. The difference between 4/3 and APS-C is miniscule. The difference up to full frame is another matter all together, but that's also true for APS-C compared to full frame.

The difference may be small, but it is still smaller and has the attributes of a smaller sensor. Why would I pay more money for less of something I want?

The hideously expensive f/2.0 zooms are not the only good part of the system. They are one good part of the system. If you wish, I'll run you through some good points of the 4/3 system.
- The 7-14. To go as wide with a zoom lens, you have to get a D3 and a 14-24. That's a cracking combination. but a lot more expensive. You could make an argument for the EF-S 10-22, but that's not playing in the same league. The Nikkor 12-24 is good, but not as wide.

Nikon APS-C + Sigma 10-20 = 15mm, which is as close as makes no difference and also quite a good lens.

- The cheap lenses. There are two bad lenses in the fourthirds system. The 18-180, which is not good. But it is a super zoom lens, so that's to be expected. The second is the 14-45, which came with the E-500. It was a dark moment from Olympus. It was still a bit better than the likes of the EF-S 18-55 nonIS, but still. As for the rest of the lineup, they are all sharp.
- The mid range lenses. There is not one of them that can't be used wide open. The only real reason to stop down is to get more DOF, or if you're thinking of printing the size of your a couple of doors.
- The high end lenses. They are all superb, just as what Canon can give us with red lines and Nikon with gold lines. Really, they are all superb.

Hey guys, all manufacturers make good lenses and a few subpar ones. The only lenses that stand out in the Oly range are the f/2 zooms. And they are hideously expensive. I stand by my original statement.

- Weather sealing, in the price bracket, no camera is better weather sealed than the E-3 with a pro or top pro lens. The K20D comes close, but neither the D300 or the 40D are contenders in comparison.

What? Nikon and Canon pro bodies (and the D200/D300) are fully weather-sealed and perform in the pouring rain day in and day out, and have for years. Did you think all the National Geographic shooters just stayed indoors, waiting for Olympus to release the E3 every time it rained?

- Ease of use. I've used all systems except Pentax for extended periods of time. None has been as intuitive as Olympus to use. Even my mother managed it without tutoring. That was not true with the 350D.

I found the Olympus not any harder, and not any easier than any other system, just different.

Saying the only argument is the 14-35 and the 35-100 is like saying the only argument for getting a D3 is the 14-24.

If f/2 zooms are what you need, Ollympus is the only game in town. If the sharpest, fastest ultrawide in FF is what you need, Nikon is the only game in town. See how that works? It's called niche marketing.

First of all, if your whole argument is the size of the sensor, then it's a bit silly. Second of all, if your argument is IQ, there is no significant difference between any of today's systems.

If sensor size and the attributed performance advantage is what I want in a camera, how is that silly? Also, ISO and dynamic range are part of image quality.

I see the argument of DOF, but for the occational shooter, that won't be an issue. It will neither be an issue for those who shoot sports, those who shoot reportage photo (I do quite a bit of this, and the shallow DOF I can produce is more than enough for almost any case), snapshots, dog racing, landscapes, press conferences or arcitecture.

And I can tell you that when I do event coverage, I want as little background distractions as possible, especially in crowded environments. APS-C + an f/1.4 lens gets the job done nicely, and FF would be even better. If I'm doing portraits, the same rule applies. If I'm shooting motorsports, background blur helps accentuate motion blur.

And anyhow, it's not a very good argument, since the differences between a fourthirds camera and an APS-C camera are minute in this respect. The difference up to full frame is another thing, but as said, that's valid for APS-C too.

Again. Why would I pay more money for less of what I want, no matter how much less?

If you are planning to upgrade to full frame, then you are best off getting either a Canon, a Nikon, a Sony or a Pentax. But it's only a matter of time before the results gained from small sensors will be good enough at high ISO settings to relegate full frame to those who need shorter DOF, higher resolution or wants to work without crop factors. I know a few guys who come into that category, if you're in that category, then good for you. But that's a long way from actually being relevant to a beginner. The percentage of those who start off getting a new DSLR gets a full frame camera. Some do, either because they think they need a full frame, or because they need one. The 5D, for its price, can offer IQ few other cameras come close to. It's a great camera.

Indeed, it won't matter to most beginners. But people aren't just buying a camera, they're buying into a system. Why would I recommend what I consider to be a crippled system with no leeway for fixing the problem?

I shoot a bit of film. You know, that dinosaur technology where you get all the features of a full frame camera, except the performance at higher ISOs. And I love it. Primes on a 35mm camera finished in silver, it's the highlife.

You say that like I've never heard of film before. I carry my rangefinder 10X more than I carry my DSLR, and I've shot almost every kind of film short of 8X10. I'm not new to this game.

But having used all systems except Pentax, I would say I am in a position to actually say a thing or two about the real differences, not just those one imagine.

Hahaha, again there's not much hardware out there I haven't had a go with. I think the only modern digital cameras I haven't demoed at some point are the H3D and the newer Leaf Aptus backs. Well, there's those LF scanning backs too, but they don't interest me.

Bottom line is that no matter how much you rant, you're not going to convince me to recommend Four Thirds to anyone. I'm not telling you not to use and enjoy your equipment, I'm not telling you to switch systems, because I don't care. However, if someone asks my opinion on it, I will give it. You really needn't continue debating this, because I've shared my piece and that's enough for me.