Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Going from Prosumer to DSLR, D40 or D50? Earnest Advice Needed!
- Thread starter carbonmotion
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok then judging from the lenses you said you plan in purchasing (the kit lens, another lens, possibly a third lens in the future), I'd say that Nikon D50 and Pentax K100D/K110D are all great value, and the best you're going to do. If you were going to uni for photography or something, I'd say go for Nikon, but Pentax has a lot to offer, and the camera body and kit lens are the best combo you're going to get for the price.
The Pentax K100D has Image Stabilization (IS) built-in (good when your hands are shakey, low light photography, etc), while the K110D is essentially the same camera, but without the IS. I think the K100D is amazing value, and Pentax will offer you the lenses you seem to be looking for.
The Pentax K100D has Image Stabilization (IS) built-in (good when your hands are shakey, low light photography, etc), while the K110D is essentially the same camera, but without the IS. I think the K100D is amazing value, and Pentax will offer you the lenses you seem to be looking for.
Your whole post is full of misinformation and opinions based on nothing.
If you compare the 2 18-55 kit lenses from Canon and Nikon, the Nikon is a bit better since it is more contrasty. The Canon one has less distortion though. But what other rock bottom lenses do you mean?
Only the 55-200mm lenses spring to mind, and the Canon lens, while constructed a bit awkward in comparison, is optically a bit better. The Canon EF 75-300 also is better than the Nikon 70-300 G, both in optics and construction. Both the Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 and the Nikon are quite good, the Canon having the edge with its fast accurate USM and colour reproduction.
The only 2 lenses I can think of where a Nikon actually has the edge is with the 50mm f1.8's where Canon's version is considerably cheaper, and that shows in its construction, and Canon's 17-85mm IS USM, that disappoints a bit optically in colour and contrast.
So, what rock bottom lenses remain that make Canon lenses just cheap in comparison? Your opinion seems not to be based on knowledge of the matter.
What about middle end lenses? Here actually Canon has the edge. Just compare the Canon 70-300 IS USM with the Nikon 70-300 VR. In optics the Canon is a lot better, in build quality it is at least as good if not better.
Canon's 85mm f1.8? Great build quality, as is the Nikon 85mm f1.8. Both great optically.
Canon's 10-22mm f3.5-4.5? Constructed very well... as is Nikon's 12-24mm f4. Both very good optically.
Their 50mm f1.4's? Good construction, the Canon is the sharper of the two.
Then there is of course the Canon EF 70-200 f4 L, which has great build quality and optics, and no equivalent on Nikon. And the Nikon 18-200 VR, which has a convenient focal range, but optics and build quality are not all that impressive.
Depends on what lenses you look at. Canon's 85mm f1.2 USM II beats Nikon's 85mm f1.4 in just about everything, but it costs more. While Canon's 100-400 IS USM zoom has its faults, it is miles better than Nikon's 80-400 VR, which performs very disappointingly at 400mm.
Canon's EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is very sharp throughout its total range, where Nikon's 17-55 f2.8 DX loses resolution towards the long end. And the Canon includes IS, for a slightly lower price at that.
The 70-200 f2.8's from both companies are very good, as is the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma. Both have good macro lenses and long primes.
This is just not true. The 350D is just as well constructed as the Nikon D50/D70/D80, and can handle long tele lenses well. Just because you do not like how the plastic may feel does not mean it is not well constructed.
There is no difference there between the 350D/400D and the Nikon D50/70/80. And where you get that the 400D is a massive improvement is a mystery, both are totally similar.
Both the Nikon D50 and Pentax K100 D are good cameras (as is the Canon EOS 400D/XTi, but it is a bit more expensive).
The Pentax has the edge in RAW software and image stabilization. The Nikon will need an extra 150$ for its (very good though) RAW conversion software, which will put it close to the XTi's price.
The Nikon 18-55 kit lens is a bit better than the Canon and Pentax offerings on the whole, a bit more sharp and contrasty.
If you want more than just the kit lens, the choice gets even more complicated.
The Pentax has the edge in RAW software and image stabilization. The Nikon will need an extra 150$ for its (very good though) RAW conversion software, which will put it close to the XTi's price.
The Nikon 18-55 kit lens is a bit better than the Canon and Pentax offerings on the whole, a bit more sharp and contrasty.
If you want more than just the kit lens, the choice gets even more complicated.
You don't need CaptureNX if you have Photoshop. Not just because PS has its own raw converter. Nikon View will install the Nikon converter into ACR if you want. Personally, I find the interface in CaptureNX to be better, and I prefer the ACR interface to that of the NV plug-in, but it's not _necessary_ to purchase Capture NX to deal with RAFs.
Frankly though, NX has enough in it that I'd probably not use PS if I didn't already own it.
I'm pretty sure Nikon View will also convert RAFs, but I admit to never trying it since I had Capture 4.0 when I got my D200 and upgraded to NX with my D2x.
Can I confuse you more?
There are a million of these threads. EVERY beginner askes the same question. They all ask what CAMERA to buy. Really what matters is the lens or set of lenses you have. If you have one DSLR body or another no one will be able to look at a photo and know what body you used. Not so with lenses. The lens will affect the "look" of the image.
Some lenses have features that will drive you nuts like very naroow focus rings or rotating filter rings. Some lenses are just to slow for some tasks. But ALL DSLR camera bodies work about the same.
So you should be asking yourself about the set of lenses you want to own both right off and on five years. Look at who makes the set you want. Then buy a body that fits your budget.
camera bodies have a short usfull lifespace. 3 to 5 years and you will replace it. Lenses, god ones, can last decades.
If you budget is low look at used lenses. Like I said good lenses will last decades. A 15 year old 85mm lense is as good as they make today. But you would not want a 5 year old DSLR body.
So will a D50 body last me 5 years?
And who makes the best glass? I heard someone say the D40 has the best glass, so by this logic should i not get the D40 instead?
At this point, I'm calling bull****. I have owned the EF 75-300 III USM (the non-IS model). It is junk. Chromatic aberation something shocking, very soft focus wide open at all focal lengths (and remember that it's f/5.6 at the long end) ... anybody who buys this lens to put on a DSLR is going to be very bitterly disappointed. It's barely adequate for 4x6 prints.
The only thing it has going for it is its low price.
I understand, but cannot verify since I've never used it myself, that the 70-300 is an improvement ... but to hold the EF 75-300 up as being better than the Nikon 70-300 G is something I find very hard to believe. Against that, I've never shot with it, and I can't quickly find any reviews that I'd trust (fredmiranda)
What exactly are you intending to do with it in terms of photographic subjects? The kit lens with the D40 is very nice, and as others have mentioned you need AF-S lenses. Nikon make a 55-200 AF-S lens that's pretty cheap.
Is camera size something important to you? The D40 is considerably smaller than the D50 and has a much better viewfinder and LCD screen.
You can see a size comparison between the D40 and D50 here: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d40-review/index.shtml
Is camera size something important to you? The D40 is considerably smaller than the D50 and has a much better viewfinder and LCD screen.
You can see a size comparison between the D40 and D50 here: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d40-review/index.shtml
Don't obsess too much- unless you're very picky, you're not likely to see/appreciate the difference unless you're pixel peeping at 100%+ on a computer screen. You can always get more/different lenses later.
The D50 and D40 have the same quality of glass. The only difference being due to the lack of the AF motor in the D40, you are limited in your choice of lenses if you want to use AF. And lets face it, most of the time we all do.
The D50 comes with the best kit lens (18-55mm) of all the cameras mentioned. Just go buy it already!
David
Well, I knew someone would object. But it is true anyway. So you knowing the Canon 75-300, can now totally imagine just how wonderful that Nikon 70-300 G is. And just imagine your 75-300 at 300mm with half as much contrast. Just for fun (in case you do not trust all the negative user reviews you find of that G lens in forums and review sites, look at Nikon's own MTF charts for that lens. It is one sad lens (as is the 75-300 Canon, but the Canon IS the better of the two).
Jeez, can we quit arguing over which line of lenses, ad-infinitum, have better test results on various reviews or test charts? I'm sure both Canon and Nikon make an occasional dog lens, and some stunners, but none of this is helping the original purpose of this thread. Don't make it into a Ph.D dissertation. All of the cameras he could choose from (under $575) will do the job, so ultimately he'll have to choose for himself based on what feels right, looks right, works right, seems right... to him. It's interesting how we all have our own perceptions of quality and desirability. Which can change... interestingly enough, down the road.
Back to carbonmotion's original question: In the "real world," I have never used the D40, but I do know it can take great photos (based on the reviews I've read.) So can the D50. I know this from experience. So can the Canon digital Rebels. All have some shortcomings, and they have their own ergonomics to get familiar/used to, but nothing that will prevent you from having a blast taking pictures with any of them. Don't get all hung up on whether you will be "stuck" with a certain family of lenses, because for most folks it doesn't really become an issue, other than for endless debate. In the future, if you really need something the "other guys" have, you can simply sell your gear, and re-invest in the other system. Maybe not too practical, but definately doable if it becomes that critical. So just don't worry about that.
Simplify your decision process, don't over complicate it. I have the D50, and can easily recommend it, but it ain't perfect. But, it's still fantastic for the price. If it were me, I'd get one in a heartbeat, and not look back. They won't be around forever, and after they're completely discontinued, they might be looked back on as a classic in time. In the price range they are currently going for, not much compares in overall build quality and performance, and battery life is flat-out ridiculously amazing. Then, there's the legions of fellow users/fans of this camera. Will it last 5 years? Sure. Probably much longer. As long as you don't abuse it. Once you make your decision, you'll feel better. Just don't spend all your time afterwards trying to justify your choice. Instead, take photos, make some creative art. Celebrate life! Along the way, try to save some change for additional lenses, a SB600 flash, a decent tripod w/quick release, camera bag, extra SD cards, and a good camera neck strap. But, if you don't, you'll still have a great camera. Most of all, have fun!
Back to carbonmotion's original question: In the "real world," I have never used the D40, but I do know it can take great photos (based on the reviews I've read.) So can the D50. I know this from experience. So can the Canon digital Rebels. All have some shortcomings, and they have their own ergonomics to get familiar/used to, but nothing that will prevent you from having a blast taking pictures with any of them. Don't get all hung up on whether you will be "stuck" with a certain family of lenses, because for most folks it doesn't really become an issue, other than for endless debate. In the future, if you really need something the "other guys" have, you can simply sell your gear, and re-invest in the other system. Maybe not too practical, but definately doable if it becomes that critical. So just don't worry about that.
Simplify your decision process, don't over complicate it. I have the D50, and can easily recommend it, but it ain't perfect. But, it's still fantastic for the price. If it were me, I'd get one in a heartbeat, and not look back. They won't be around forever, and after they're completely discontinued, they might be looked back on as a classic in time. In the price range they are currently going for, not much compares in overall build quality and performance, and battery life is flat-out ridiculously amazing. Then, there's the legions of fellow users/fans of this camera. Will it last 5 years? Sure. Probably much longer. As long as you don't abuse it. Once you make your decision, you'll feel better. Just don't spend all your time afterwards trying to justify your choice. Instead, take photos, make some creative art. Celebrate life! Along the way, try to save some change for additional lenses, a SB600 flash, a decent tripod w/quick release, camera bag, extra SD cards, and a good camera neck strap. But, if you don't, you'll still have a great camera. Most of all, have fun!
As one of the many beginners who asked this same question a while back, I know how daunting it is. The D50 is a great buy and I'm very pleased with it. One thing I would note with the D40 that a lot of people don't say (I haven't read this thread that closely but if it's been said I apologize) about it is that it also lacks a lot of the controls (like jog dials etc) that you may not need now but you might find useful later. Instead on the D40 you have to go into the on-screen menus (good thing it has that nice big LCD). Anyway, I went with the D50, just because I really didn't want to give up the AF motor and I like the larger camera size and the D50 was already feeling a little small.
I would say you've gotten a lot of really good information and all the cameras you're considering/you've been told about are great (D40 included) so basically go to the store and PLAY WITH THEM! Get a feel for what you like and dislike about how they feel in your hands and then make a decision. Additionally the D50 is discontinued (as in production has stopped) and a lot of retailer are completely clearancing them so good deals are to be had (I got my D50 for $560 w/ the 18-55). Good luck!!
I would say you've gotten a lot of really good information and all the cameras you're considering/you've been told about are great (D40 included) so basically go to the store and PLAY WITH THEM! Get a feel for what you like and dislike about how they feel in your hands and then make a decision. Additionally the D50 is discontinued (as in production has stopped) and a lot of retailer are completely clearancing them so good deals are to be had (I got my D50 for $560 w/ the 18-55). Good luck!!
You're um. Kidding right? I mean - compare it to the D50 all you want, but the D80? To the 350D? Your loyalty to canon is impressive indeed - but watching you try to contain yourself in a reply about Nikon vs Canon is a joke. You must have said "...but canon edges it out" "..but the canon is better" "..but the canon still wins" at least 10 times in your last message. The original post wasn't even about Canon! I'm all for a factual argument, but pitting the 350D against the D80 is ridiculous.
350D weighs 540g, the D80 weighs 668g. Everywhere I look the D80 has a more thought-out design - from (again) the spring-loaded CF doors, to a much better viewfinder (350D has a crapola .8x magnification versus .94x for the D80) um. I'm not even going to keep going, I'll be the first to admit that it's not even a fair argument based on one being newer and more expensive but that's obviously not a good way to pick fights!
I'd love to know where you get your information from. The D50 isn't discontinued, at all. Just 'cause the D40 recently came out doesn't mean they're going to drop the D50. Same with the D70s - just because the D80 was introduced doesn't mean they're going to drop that. (D40 with no status LCD and 6mp to the 10.2mp D80 with 11-point AF is a pretty big jump!)
edit: I got bored, here's your moment of Zen.
Broken record anyone? - that was one post
It actually does seem the D50 has been discontinued. Many retailers are running out of stock and haven't gotten more in. Nikon probably can't support both bodies as well in that market segment, so it's likely a business decision.
The "we're trading up from a P&S" market is very price sensitive and the D40 seems to be a direct response to that market, as was the D50- but at a lower production cost.
that "one post" was rebutting a rather anti-canon post in a pretty detailed manner. One guy said that canon's low-end cameras and lenses were no where near as good as nikon's. This guy posted some well-known examples of lenses that contradict this claim (he's mostly right about most of those lenses).
He wasn't giving a run-down of all lenses that each company makes in each price bracket.
I'll say this, my two most-used lenses, EVER, are my canon 70-200/4 and my canon 50/1.4. And my parents grew me up on Nikon lenses. I'd honestly never heard of Canon cameras and lenses until college.
A card reader is cheaper (and more useful) than ANOTHER spare battery for a camera. And that's pretty much what it comes down to...Unload a 2GB CF card from the camera (even at USB 2.0 speeds) and it's almost time for a battery change. And by the way, there is no "USB 2.2" specification. USB 1.1 on a camera body is annoying, but it certainly isn't a deal-breaker if the camera is otherwise ideal from a cost/benefit standpoint.
I know, I'm just saying that it would be nice to see a less one-sided point of view from him instead of trolling the photography forum waiting to pounce on anyone that thinks Nikon is better at something.
I'll be the first to admit that Canon has some positives, including (most) of their sensors, their (PRO) bodies and their optics. That doesn't mean every other manufacturer on the planet is sub-par.
..and I agree with the card reader thing, the D200 has the fastest in-camera USB transfer on the market and I still use card readers. (However your comment about moving 2 gigs and needing a battery change is a little over the top!)
I use Extreme III cards and the USB 2.0 Extreme card reader with min. read/write of 20mbps - it's twice as fast as the D200 (the reader uses the same ESP write enhance codes as the camera bodies do.) At $25 it's probably my favorite camera gadget for the money.
compuwar:
Eh.. it's still on Nikon USA's page, B&H, Penn Camera, Sigma4Less, Adorama, etc etc.. while the 40 and 50 are both entry level cameras, there are still some rather large differences (the biggest of which is the absence of a status LCD and internal focus motor on the D40 - that's reason enough to keep the D50 in production, as a logical progression to the D40.) I mean, it's possible - but the D50 is still a GREAT seller, and Nikon can only lose money by taking it out of production and taking that option away from consumers. But.. what do we know. I guess it has been out for a while (then again, look at the D70!)
I know it's still there, but many retailers are out of stock and saying they won't get more in (at least from what I've read in forum postings.) While I found it difficult to believe that Nikon would drop one of its hottest selling cameras yet, but it sure seems to be the case.
Prices of the D50 have been under a lot of pressure for a long time now, look at how low they have gotten. My guess is that the D50 does not make much profit at these prices, and that is where the D40 comes in. Especially since prices will remain to fall.
It probably is a lot cheaper for Nikon to make, and it also forces people into AF-S lenses, cutting out most 3rd party competition too.
Selling either a cheaper camera (D40) for the same amount as the D50, or a more expensive D80, does make sense.
It probably is a lot cheaper for Nikon to make, and it also forces people into AF-S lenses, cutting out most 3rd party competition too.
Selling either a cheaper camera (D40) for the same amount as the D50, or a more expensive D80, does make sense.
I'm getting used to getting attacked for posting some factual and clear posts I make when Nikon is the subject. Thanks for your support in this case though, benpatient.
Go with the D50
I picked up the D50 before the D40 came out, so my decision was a little easier. But my Dad was in the market just after X-Mas. He was in the same position as you OP. His choices were between the D40, D50 and the Pentax. He went with the D50. The D40 is a nice camera, but it does lack some features that the D50 has. The top LCD and the ability to use some of Nikons older lenses was a big sale point for the D50. The Pentax was also in the running. Nice camera, has the built in IS and you can use every Pentax lense ever made. Even the very old clunky ones. But he just didn't like the feel of it in his hands. He liked the feel of the D50 better. As far as how the camera feels in your hand, you have to be the judge of that. Don't let anyone tell you one feels better than the other. All 3 are good cameras. I would lean towards the D50 though. My 2 cents.
I picked up the D50 before the D40 came out, so my decision was a little easier. But my Dad was in the market just after X-Mas. He was in the same position as you OP. His choices were between the D40, D50 and the Pentax. He went with the D50. The D40 is a nice camera, but it does lack some features that the D50 has. The top LCD and the ability to use some of Nikons older lenses was a big sale point for the D50. The Pentax was also in the running. Nice camera, has the built in IS and you can use every Pentax lense ever made. Even the very old clunky ones. But he just didn't like the feel of it in his hands. He liked the feel of the D50 better. As far as how the camera feels in your hand, you have to be the judge of that. Don't let anyone tell you one feels better than the other. All 3 are good cameras. I would lean towards the D50 though. My 2 cents.
Heh, yeah, I put Coldrain on "ignore" a while back because of his attitude, his zealous pimping of Canon and his failure to contribute in a meaningful way to this forum.
While I'll agree his fanboyism is over the top, he does contribute meaningfully, if not for his anti-everything-Nikon I think he'd be more valuable than not.
I don't wonder that he gets attacked ever other post though, it's the first time I've been tempted to ignore someone on a forum.
He kinda reminds me of the old USENET kooks though...