photography question

Mark

Mark

Active member
so i'm planning on buying my first dslr. any suggestions? i'm looking in the range of the rebel xt or nikon d50/40. anyone particularly better than the other. i found a good deal on an xt body for 275 so i'm kind of leaning towards that. if i go just body what would be the best suggestion for a first lens?

 
If you can live with the tiny screen, an XT isn't a bad DSLR. IMO, I'd go with the D40 because of the sensor quality.

If you end up going with the body only setup (make sure it comes with Battery and charger, USB cables and software, too!!!) then a good first lens would be to SKIP the 18-55 POS and perhaps go with a 17-85 or 28-70(ish). The 18-55 is -OK- but you'll see it's limitations before too long.

Or you can buy my 18-55mm for cheap ($75) lol. I'm thinking of picking up a 17-85 IS USM lens - but the $530 is kinda scary, even after my 15% disc @ ritz camera.

my .02

 
Oh, and the D40 - while it is only 6mp, it shoots more like an 8.5-9... it's a great camera for the money and the 18-55mm that comes with it (for $449 at Ritz) is an excellent 'kit' lens.

 
i had been leaning towards the d40 before i had found the xt for such a low price anyway. i had heard the kit xt lens blew so i wasn't so worried about the body only. at this point i think i still may be looking at the d40, i do like the build of it much much more as well.

good point on what basics are included too redline, that would be horribly annoying if the camera came with nothing to operate it with

 
if you're coming from the point and shoot world, and think you'll stay pretty close to it, i'd say the d40. its the most user friendly for people who know p&s cameras.

the downside of that is a lot of the features are buried in the menus. if you dont see yourself switching back and forth between different iso, quality, white balance etc settings, then the d40 would be fine. if you want to get older non-digital oriented lenses (i just picked up 3 this weekend for $50 total ;D) then you'll want at least the d50 (d70 isn't worth the price bump imo). i'll probably be going to the d200 or d300 sooner or later just because more features/options are outside the camera instead of in menus.

i often want to switch between say spot metering (best for shooting models) to matrix metering (best for a whole scene) and back again, and would like to be able to you my pinky to do it with the flip of a switch. if things like that wouldnt matter to you, i'd say d40.

as for lenses, the 18-55 isn't bad, and you can get them cheap. get one with the lowest 'f' number you can get. a lower number means higher shutter speeds, which means less shots lost to camera shake and moving subjects. when i went from the f3.5-5.6 lens to the constant f2.8, the difference was AMAZING. but if you dont want a lens that's $500 or more, i'd go with the regular 18-55 kit lens. that is unless you plan to shoot a lot of outdoor events, then i'd get the nikon 55-200mm VR (vibration reduction. i'll sell you mine
default_wink.png


as for nikon vs canon, i see it as mostly a build quality thing. nikons cameras seem to be more durable/sturdy to me. go pick up a nikon at the store and a canon of comparable price. and i've read some reviews of the cheaper canon lenses falling apart etc, whereas i've never heard anything of the sort with nikon (nikkor) lenses.

other than that, apparently nikon is better about keeping its lenses compatible with more of its cameras, canon reportedly 'updates' things and outdates their old lenses.

insaneboy also feels that the actual image itself coming out of nikons is nicer than canons. 'too much contrast' he says.

redline, what do you mean the 6mp d40 shoots like a 8.5-9mp? maybe i'm missing what you're trying to say but pixels are pixels....

 
I have a rebel xti and while I'm happy with it and it serves its purpose for my wannabe photography kid needs I really wish I had a d50+.

 
that it is.

plan on doing blow up prints larger than 11x14"? then get the d40x or d80. not so much? save the money and get the d40.

 
the D40X is just an updated version of the D40, really. It actually uses the same sensor, just with more MP being captured. Nikon really has their act together when it comes to building on a good thing and making it even better, but with the same reliability and quality so that nothing is sacrificed.

Just keep in mind:

IF YOU BUY A D40, D40X OR D60..... you MUST use a DX series lens in order to have Auto Focus. This is the only major downfall to these cameras. If you plan on getting more lenses (read: 4+) then you may want to consider grabbing a D50 like Evan said.

For Evan:

What I was saying is that the quality of the information makes up for the lack of quantity. If you compared a shot from the XT, to one from the D40, you'd observe there are little-to-no differences in pixelation when printed at 12x18.

For everyone else:

Think of Mega Pixels like horse-power. It's not always more is better, it's how you achieve it. Raw HP means nothing without a good ECU or EM software. Much like raw MP means nothing without a good on-camera image processor. So you capture image data... and then the data goes through built-in software/hardware and out comes a visible image. It's what that processor does that greatly determines the quality of your picture. Yes MP does have quite a bit of say in how large you can blowup your pic, but when it comes to quality of a shot, the responsibility lies with the processor almost as much as the photographer.

 
although all things being equal (or close to it), its mostly about the lens in my opinion. that's why i suggest better glass rather than a better body to people with a budget. if you dont know or care, just get the kit lens, but if you want something more, buy the lower body (d50 instead of say a d80 or d200) and get a $500 lens instead of a $150 lens.

i'd rather shoot with a d50 ($350) and a nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 ($1400) than a d300 ($1800) and a 18-55mm kit lens ($150).

the 17-55 would own even with the d50.

a shitty lens on a nice camera is kind of like putting snow tires on an sti in the summer. to those that know, it would be laughable.

 
that's why i always laugh inside when someone asks me how many mp my camera is (as though that's the only thing that matters) and then they tell me that their point and shoot pocket camera has more. :
default_wink.png


 
in your experiences how often do you find yourself with the need for anything larger format than 8x10? i mean i like the idea of being able to have larger format prints but i'm not so sure i'd ever actually do that

and so what i gather is that the d50 has the ability to use essentially any nikkor lenses? thus making it less expensive in the long run assuming i wish to have a bounty of lenses. if i got a d40/x and wanted more lenses it wouldn't necessarily be harder to find, just more expensive correct?

 
in your experiences how often do you find yourself with the need for anything larger format than 8x10? i mean i like the idea of being able to have larger format prints but i'm not so sure i'd ever actually do that

and so what i gather is that the d50 has the ability to use essentially any nikkor lenses? thus making it less expensive in the long run assuming i wish to have a bounty of lenses. if i got a d40/x and wanted more lenses it wouldn't necessarily be harder to find, just more expensive correct?
Click to expand...
i have a printer that does 13" wide, so i more commonly print larger than 8x10 than most people. if you dont have a medium format printer, you'll be paying decent money at say ritz camera or somewhere to get them done. that said, i have several framed prints around my place that are of pictures i've taken, and done more prints for models and whatnot. unless you think you'd mount your own stuff on a wall, i wouldnt worry about it.

as far as lenses go, as said i bought 3 last weekend for $50. they're non-auto focus, but still very nice lenses and the equivalent DX sensor lenses for the d40 would probably be $200 or more each (albeit autofocus). if you think you're going to be more like trevor seems to be, and buy the camera but never really get into it, then its not too much of a worry. a lot of casual people dont care about the selections of lenses that much. if you think you're going to start a collection then i'd say d50.

any input yet on what you think you'll be shooting the most?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top