Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 16, 2007, 2:49 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default

I'v been shooting with a point and shoot Nikon 5900 for the last few years and was wanting to get my first DSLR. Since I'm going to be experimenting and learning along the way I was wondering if I should get myself the Nikon d40 or the more expensive Nikon d80. I undertsand that the D40 will autofocus with only a few lenses. I want to buy a camera which would benefit me in the long run as well as give me enough room to learn considering I don't plan to get another one for at least the next 4-5 years or more.


Thanks!
dush is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 16, 2007, 6:06 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Within the narrow context of your question, yes, the D40 can only autofocus about 1/3 of Nikon's and Sigma's lenses, and can't autofocus any of Tamron's or Tokina's lenses. So, if you're interested in a dSLR that will serve you well in any circumstance for any type of photography, wellinto the future, the D80 is the better choice.

But there are other dSLRs that might suit you better still. Perhaps you could tell us how you happened to narrow your choices down to the D40 and the D80. And perhaps you could tell us what type(s) of photography you'd like to persue.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 7:23 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default

thank you for your reply. I'm a student studying at an Art academy. Since I'm an amateur enthusiast, I mostly shoot city life, nature, people , urban and rural, landscapes, some macros and offcourse art and whatever appeals to me. I narrowed it down to Nikon only because they feel more comfortable in my hands than the Canons and theyr both fine cameras.


dush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 7:33 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alex 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ariel/Israel
Posts: 1,177
Default

Hi!

Seriously...if you are "Short" of money...maybe a Pentax K100/100 Super will fill your need much cheaper, because has "Image Stabilization" inside the body...so ANY lens that you will acquired will be "Automatically" "Stabilized". The body is small...comfortable to use (First check this issue at any photo store...of course!) use ONLY 4 rechargeable or Alkaline AA batteries (You WILL find them around all the World), per example instead a "Unique" battery for a Nikon D-40/80 ones. Lenses...MAYBE not so ample selection...but exist 3rd part lenses brand (Tamron/Sigma/Tokina)...which will fit & do the job well done.

Take in account my point!

Peace,

Alex 007:|
Alex 007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 11:06 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The main players in the dSLR market are Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus. FujiFilm resells Nikon bodies, Samsung resells Pentax bodies, Sigma makes their own, and Panasonic makes its own and makes some for Leica.

By far, the top two are Canon and Nikon, with Sony a distant third, and Pentax and Olympus not far behind.

There are four companies that make the best lenses in the world: Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and Leica. Canon and Nikon also make less great lenses for less money. Zeiss makes lenses for different cameras, but have partnered with Minolta and now Sony. Leica makes lenses for itself and for Panasonic.

Canon and Nikon bodies do not include any sort of image stabilization. Instead, they use optical image stabilization in some of their lenses. That makes the lenses bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Sony, Pentax, and the Olympus E-510 and E-3 use sensor shift image stabilization in the camera body, so it's available whatever lens you're using. Plus, you only have to pay for it once. There are valid arguments for using either method, but neither seems to be clearly superior to the other.

Olympus makes the smallest, lightest dSLRs, and for equivalent angles of view, the smallest, lightest lenses as well.

Given the broad spectrum of what you want to shoot ("city life, nature, people , urban and rural, landscapes, some macros and off course art"), I'd say that you should base your selection on the choice of available lenses. Since Canon and Nikon have the broadest selection, and you prefer the feel of Nikons to Canons, then you're on the right track, unless something else jumps out at you. But you should consider that many people don't like the feel of Canon's Digital Rebel dSLRs but like their higher end dSLRs. So if you tried the XT or XTi and excluded Canon on that basis, you might want to go back and try the 30D or 40D.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 2:06 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I only sort-of agree with the statement that Canon and Nikon make the BEST lenses. They certainly make more than those in mounts that fit Pentax, Sony and Olympus, but in some cases, they make two versions of a similar lens - one with stabilization and one without. The reason I somewhat disagree with the "BEST" part is that Pentax has made some outstanding lenses in the past, and even their current offerings are quite good. All of their old lenses will work on their dSLR cameras (though they retain whatever capabilities they had originally - my old manual lenses do not suddenly become auto focus/auto exposure - yes, I use Pentax).

Having said that, if the Nikon feels best, then that's the one you should get. You are already aware of the limitations of the D40 and are willing to accept that, so why not?
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 2:53 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
Having said that, if the Nikon feels best, then that's the one you should get. You are already aware of the limitations of the D40 and are willing to accept that, so why not?
Normally I would agree completely with this concept. The part that worries me is the OPs statement that they want a camera that will last for 4-5 years. Without knowing where your photography is going to take you in that 4-5 years, the lens limitation may end up a real crippling affect.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Assume after a year the OP wants to get into work involving short, fast primes. Unless Nikon has released af-s primes by then (they might but they might not we don't know) suddenly you're crippled relative to the position you would have been in if you had chosen another body (either a d80 or another system). And yes I do say 'crippled' relatively - autofocus is to me a very BIG part of modern photography. I would not want to revert back to my manual focus days - ESPECIALLY without split-prism and 100% viewfinders.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"So if the plan is to get something that is going to last 5 years I disagree with the concept of skimping now. If you want to buy a car that will last 10 years you don't buy the cheapest car on the market. Same here. Don't save a few pennies now that could hurt you big time over the life of the product. If you like Nikon I strongly enncourage you to try the D80 and if it still feels good, then push your budget to buy it (again because you indicated you wanted to keep the body for 4-5 years). Spending a little more $ now sets you up for success down the road. In the original post you indicated the d80 was a possibility. I think that's the model you should go for.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 3:04 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default

I just looked at the canon 30d and it costs just a little more than the D80. I'll probably go have a look at it sometime soon. The only thing is that, considering I'm just starting out, does it really make sense spending that much on a more expensive DSLR like the D80 or the canon 30d or should I just buy myself an entry level nikon d40.







dush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 3:10 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

dush wrote:
Quote:
I just looked at the canon 30d and it costs just a little more than the D80. I'll probably go have a look at it sometime soon. The only thing is that, considering I'm just starting out, does it really make sense spending that much on a more expensive DSLR like the D80 or the canon 30d or should I just buy myself an entry level nikon d40.
It depends on how serious you are.

Either way, you're going to spend a lot of money on a camera. If you have a camera that you spent $500 on that you have found doesn't quite meet your needs, will you be able to justify to yourself spending another $800 to replace it? Will you be able to justify it to a significant other?

My wife has a horse, so she can't say anything about how much I spend on photography. What about you?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2007, 3:18 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Thank you JohnG and TCav for your suggestions. So if Nikon D80 or the Canon is the way to go . . is there a better out of the two? I'v read a few reviews and the Canon 30D seems to have an edge over the D80. If the ergonomics of the Canon suit me fine, should it be the way to go?
dush is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:08 PM.