Entry Level DSLR

[Ish]

Does anyone really buy a camera with the KIT lens?

I've always as a rule bought the body, then picked out the lenses that I was going to use.

A comparison of " kit " lenses is fine -IF- you are going to buy a kit lens!

And given the OP is asking about entry-level DSLRs it seems a distinct possibility and a valid comparison to make.

Supposing you decided you wanted the Nikon D40. Here in the UK I know of no Nikon dealers that sell it body only, they come with a kit lens by default. I've seen some great pictures taken using the Nikon kit lens, so we shouldn't knock it, just because there are better, more versatile ones out there at greater expense.

 

[SuperDaddy]

I'd recommend finding a used Nikon D50 (seeing that they dont make them anymore). It has served me very well as I progress through the learning stages of DSLR photography. As you, too, move forward it will inevitably become a fantastic back-up/secondary camera.

The D50 offers a straight-forward approach that wont overwhelm you with features (that are unnecessary at the beginning stages) like some of higher end models. The basics of "photographic control" (so-to-speak) are present, and not much else. It is a great camera to learn with.

And like others have said, it will definitely be priced cheaply (relatively speaking of course).

 

[CrackedButter]

And given the OP is asking about entry-level DSLRs it seems a distinct possibility and a valid comparison to make.

Supposing you decided you wanted the Nikon D40. Here in the UK I know of no Nikon dealers that sell it body only, they come with a kit lens by default. I've seen some great pictures taken using the Nikon kit lens, so we shouldn't knock it, just because there are better, more versatile ones out there at greater expense.

Something I remind people on occasion is, whatever camera you get today, it going to be better than anything Henri C Bresson will have ever used. Just the optics on probably any camera is going to be better than what he used. So small details shouldn't matter as much as they should when it comes to things like kit lenses.

 

[iDmitry]

Is it me or are people hating on the d40? I am a college student and cannot spend 700 on a camera. The D40 is perfect for me and it is a good camera, so all you negative feedbackers need to lay off and admit that it is a good entry level dslr at a reasonable price.

 

[Fiasco]

I'd recommend finding a used Nikon D50 (seeing that they dont make them anymore). It has served me very well as I progress through the learning stages of DSLR photography. As you, too, move forward it will inevitably become a fantastic back-up/secondary camera.

The D50 offers a straight-forward approach that wont overwhelm you with features (that are unnecessary at the beginning stages) like some of higher end models. The basics of "photographic control" (so-to-speak) are present, and not much else. It is a great camera to learn with.

And like others have said, it will definitely be priced cheaply (relatively speaking of course).

I would go the same route if I was starting from scratch. If you're leaning towards Nikon then find a good used D50, D70 or D100 and start with that. They have the autofocus pin in the body unlike the D40/D60 models and the lenses you buy for that will work on any Nikon DSLR you decide to upgrade to in the future, if ever you do upgrade.

I started with a Canon Rebel XT, but it felt small in my hands and as mentioned above, the body felt like flimsy, higher end Canon's are built so much better then the Rebel line. I then checked out various camera models and came down to either picking up a Canon 20D or Nikon D50, I got the D50. I learned the D50 and when I was ready, I upgraded to the D80 I have now.

 

[form]

The D60 is newer, produces better image quality, and is what I'd choose.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD60/page18.asp

Oh?

Better image quality when? Nikon never got their entry level 10mp sensors right. 6mp, yes, 12mp yes, D300, yes pretty well. D40x and D60 both suffer at higher ISO. Canon's 400D does better, and unlike the D60, it doesn't throw ISO3200 out there as an option when it can't handle it.

The rebel xt never felt flimsy to me; just small and light, and it had more prosumer controls.

 

[rogersmj]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD60/page18.asp

Oh?

Better image quality when? Nikon never got their entry level 10mp sensors right. 6mp, yes, 12mp yes, D300, yes pretty well. D40x and D60 both suffer at higher ISO.

Yep. That's exactly why I bought the D40 instead of the D40x. I preferred the feel of the Nikons, and didn't care about having more megapixels beyond 6 (megapixels don't equal image quality, folks -- why are people saying the D60 has better image quality than the D40??).

 

[Abstract]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD60/page18.asp

Oh?

Better image quality when? Nikon never got their entry level 10mp sensors right. 6mp, yes, 12mp yes, D300, yes pretty well. D40x and D60 both suffer at higher ISO. Canon's 400D does better, and unlike the D60, it doesn't throw ISO3200 out there as an option when it can't handle it.

I see a pretty good performance from the D60. I don't like the blotchy noise from the Canon 400D at all, neither in the grey patch, or the black patch. It's nearly identical to the D40x. The benefit of the 400D is the greater detail at ISO 1600, which isn't even big deal unless you're a pixel peeping measurebator. Why? Because this is beyond noticeable in any sort of situation. You'd seriously have to stare at a 16" x 20" print from a distance of 12 inches to see that level of difference these types of tests prove.

Besides, this is probably a better page to see whether the performance difference is negligible or not.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page28.asp

To me, it doesn't look like it. Heck, I see more detail in the bush on the very right side of the D60 and D40X images (at ISO 1600) than in the 400D. Does it mean the D60 is superior?




Alsoooooo......the original statement compared a D60 with a D70, which is an ancient Nikon. I don't fail to see how my statement that the D60 produces better images is wrong. The D70 wasn't even better than my old D50, which isn't better than any model that came after it (although definitely not a bad camera at all).

The rebel xt never felt flimsy to me; just small and light, and it had more prosumer controls.

It didn't even have spot metering. They (finally!) just added it to the XSi. Not an advanced feature. Rather, it's a very very basic, ancient metering mode that Canon wanted you to pay for.

 

[Ish]

Besides, this is probably a better page to see whether the performance difference is negligible or not.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page28.asp

I'd very much like to see a picture quality comparison with the D40. Wonder why they compared the D60 with the very similar D40x instead? I'm still wavering between the D40/60. I want to make the right choice as, having small hands, I don't necessarily see myself upgrading to something bigger.

 

[rogersmj]

I'd very much like to see a picture quality comparison with the D40. Wonder why they compared the D60 with the very similar D40x instead? I'm still wavering between the D40/60. I want to make the right choice as, having small hands, I don't necessarily see myself upgrading to something bigger.

Look for the D40x review, I'm pretty sure they compare that to the D40. I remember reading that comparison when I was deciding between the D40 and D40x.

 

[Ish]

Found it. Many thanks!

 

[cliffrouse11bas]

I have the D40 and has been an enjoyable camera. Just dont have enough time to shoot.