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.

Originally Posted by Silverstar

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/produc..._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...

[Speedtouch]

^ 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!


Got a:

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

[jayhawk]

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.

[starfox07]

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!

[Speedtouch]

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]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

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]

Originally Posted by nomix

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]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

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