In he market for a DSLR.....some help?

[grooveattack]

hi there
so i am looking at getting my first DSLR. I have been using collage and uni's one for to long and i want my own. i was looking into getting a D40 as its a good place to start and affordable. BUT i was looking around and found the Sony DSLR-A200K, a better camera and only for a bit more money. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with it and what you thought about it?
any help is good thanks

 

[I'm a Mac]

Honestly, I think the d40 is a better camera, and definitely better for a first DSLR. The d40 takes great pictures, is very user-friendly, and since it's a nikon, there is great support available for it. (all the sony does have cool features) availible

If you want a step up from the d40, look into the d60 and d80- and maybe the canon rebel xsi. (depending on how much you want to spend)

I have a d60 and I love it- active-d lighting and the VR in the kit lens make it better than the d40, but both cameras are excellent, and with a smaller, lighter body- they are very good for travel.

 

[grooveattack]

i see, well i think the d60 is out of my student budget which is annoying. The only reason the A200K caught my eye was that for abit more money it came with abit of a better lens ( and alot more MP) but my friend uses a D40 and it is a great camera.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

Groove, I'm not sure of your level so I'm going to assume less knowledge, not more. Hope that's okay!

WRT the Nikon. Okay, you can go higher or go to another comparable brand - the only one is Canon. IMO if you like the Nikon (or Canon) but maybe want to get a Pentax/Sony/Olympus, then don't bother looking at the Canon (or Nikon).

The reason is simple: Canon and Nikon are equivalent technologically. The other three have one fundamentally different philosophy: anti-shake is built into the bodies so you don't have to buy expensive anti-shake/VR/IS lenses. It is not perfect but IMO the best trade-off.

WRT your comments on the Sony: more megapixels are meaningless at your level. Nice to have, though, and don't knock them back. Is low-light performance (i.e. high ISO) very important to you? Anti-shake can alleviate that problem but only for static subjects. How does the Nikon's high ISO performance look compared to the Sony's?

Check DPReview to compare:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/page17.asp

Lenses: for goodness sakes, man, you should know that most zooms suck. Expensive zooms are usually as good as the price tag implies. I will make a quick recommendation based on other people's testimonies: Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 for wide angle and whatever primes you can get for telephoto. A good zoom (preferably constant aperture) is a good thing to have, too, if you don't want a bunch of primes in your bag).

FWIW I like Nikons. I also have confidence that Sony is serious about the DSLR market. Canons are great - I just don't care for them in the slightest (but I love their video cameras). Pentax and Olympus worth looking at, too.

 

[wheelhot]

the D40 will be nice, but my dad already have a Canon lens (and no he don't own a Canon body because he bought the lens for some other purpose). Somehow, I really like the XSi because of its functions and these will be useful as my skill grows but the price.....

 

[hhlee]

the most improvement to your work will come with high quality lenses, not a better body. the only exception is if you're doing bird and/or action shots which require a lot of burst frames.

that said, i went with an affordable canon and then went trolling on different forums like fredmiranda.com and or photograph-on-the.net to buy lenses. there are lots of canon users so there are a lot of canon lenses sold on the cheap. i actually prefer to buy used lenses. they're cheaper and people more obsessed with photo quality have prescreened them for defects.

in your case, i'd go with canon over sony.

 

[Slovak]

Another vote for the D40. It works extremely well. Save money on the body, invest in glass (lenses).

Ultimately, it is the photographer, not the camera, so most of the excuses of getting a high-end DSLR are just that. Understanding photography and practicing the art is much more important than the actual tool used for the process.

 

[ChrisA]

hi there
so i am looking at getting my first DSLR. I have been using collage and uni's one for to long and i want my own. i was looking into getting a D40 as its a good place to start and affordable. BUT i was looking around and found the Sony DSLR-A200K, a better camera and only for a bit more money. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with it and what you thought about it?
any help is good thanks

Don't think so much about D40 vs. A200. Think Sony vs. Nikon. If you buy an SLR body yo are committed to buying lenses flashes and replacement SLR bodies from the company. Which entry level body you buy is the smallest part of the deal. The lenses ad other parts of the system will eventually be the largest part. One good high end lens can cost double the price of a D40 easy. So it pays to research the largest part of the SLR system first. Think abot what lenses and so on you'd like to own in five years. People go with Nikon and Canon mainly so that their future options are more open. They know for sure the Nikon always will have a replacement/upgrade body and the lenses they want. Sony? We don't know yet they have only a very short history in the SLR business Sony got into this business by buying Minolta's line of SLRs

The features and the price of the D40 and A200 are not the most important things to worry about. You will replace either camera body in a few years but you will be locked into that brand by you collection of lenses and accessories, that like I said cost more than the SLR body.

 

[wheelhot]

replacement/upgrade body

What you mean? Do Canon have the same thing or this thing only Nikkon has it?

Yea, the lens will cost more then the body. The only thing I dont like about the D40 that I kept hearing is the lack of lens choices because of something missing?

 

[dukeblue91]

. The d40 takes great pictures, is very user-friendly, and since it's a nikon.

LMAO,

Thats a nice looking pen in your pocket, you must write some great books.

 

[UltraNEO*]

I'm not sure of your skill level but I think to buy a new dSLR for learning on is a bit of waste IMO... I don't know have you looked at the used market, cause as a beginner you can find some great deals!

For your limted budget you could get a better kit for less. Right now, there are lots of people upgrading from their Canon EOS 350D and 400D's for more professional bodies, so maybe they might appear to you? Similarly if you're a Nikon fan, there will be people selling their entry kits for an upgrade.

Sony is a new kid on the block when it comes to digital photography, their colour is a little warm for my liking and technically unskilled when it comes to refinements, on the occasions they do get something right. If i was looking for a handycam or a professional DVcam I'll be more than happy to look at Sony but for dSLR? Forget it...

Just my two cents.
Good luck finding something you'll adore using.

 

[wheelhot]

Sony is a new kid on the block when it comes to digital photography, their colour is a little warm for my liking and technically unskilled when it comes to refinements, on the occasions they do get something right. If i was looking for a handycam or a professional DVcam I'll be more than happy to look at Sony but for dSLR? Forget it...

Yeah, even thought the Sony has better features (considering the same price) then its competitors, the image quality at higher ISOs make it a let down.

Anyway, with DSLRs starting to have video recording, I wonder will this give Sony a home field advantage? Image the 09 A350 has Sony Video Cam technology.