I've finally decided to go DSLR!

[840quadra]

I'm very certain that if I go to a car dealer and walk out with a stack of sales pamphlets none of those images were done with a Canon or a Nikon DSLR

Wrong

I know a couple of the photographers for Audi. They have people within their group, and other contracted services that use Canon and Nikon DSLR equipment to shoot photos for media information, and for brochures. Some of them also do work for Porsche as well.

EXIF Data
File size : 173507 bytes
File date : 2006:12:07 15:28:58
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

EXIF Data
File size : 209064 bytes
File date : 2006:09:02 20:35:31
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon EOS-1D Mark II


Figured I would slip in a Saab for good measure

EXIF Data
File size : 1014319 bytes
File date : 2005:11:09 01:13:04
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon EOS-1DS

And an Opel

EXIF Data
File size : 2335429 bytes
File date : 2005:10:20 10:36:01
Camera make : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera model : NIKON D100

Many many more examples if needed. But rest assured car manufacturers use "normal" DSLR cameras for images within brochures, and the discerning press.

 

[coldrain]

Sometimes having more features just to have them is worse. If you don't need them, they just clutter the interface. Kind of like an Acer laptop vs. a Macbook. Sure, you can list out a ton of nice little features, but which works better? I like my Macbook.

And sometimes missing features make a tool bothersome. And that is the case here. And do not tell me a D40 works better because of it compared to a 400D or D50 or D80 or 30D. *shakes head*

 

[compuwar]

I didn't see him recommend Canon or Pentax over Nikon, I only spotted him recommending the D50 over the D40.

I've yet to see a camera thread where he doesn't.

 

[raptor96]

Stepping back a bit...I'd clarify that as I'm neither an older woman nor do I have a bad back and I *am* interested in the D50's additional features over the D40 (which I also think is a piece) I'm going to continue to look for a D50. I think I may just end up buying from B&H if my local dealer can't come through (they sold all of theirs before xmas and he's trying to trade w/ a dealer for some for me). I'm hoping to know by Monday so I can get mine.

Do you guys think I should get it with the 18-55 kit lens (I currently have a 35-70 lens that came with my N6006) or should I buy body only and shoot with my 35-70. I know the 18-55 is ED glass and is a really nice lens but I can get a used body for $400 from my local guy or a new one body only for like $440 shipped. I'm just trying to figure out if the 18-55 is worth the additional $160. The last thing I could do is buy the used body and buy the 18-55 lens separately (thus still saving money). What do you guys think? Should I go for the 18-55 or is there another lens that I could save my money and buy instead (meaning I should get the body only?)? Thanks!

 

[840quadra]

First off
I am glad you are not an old woman with a bad back!

Secondly
That is a tough call.

I guess it would depend on the type of photography you do, and if you anticipate needing to use that focal range.

I know that the Kit lens on a Canon is only a $100 premium, and you can easily sell it for that on eBay. I would assume the Nikon variant (with better optics) would be able to do the same, if you decided you didn't need it or like it. I am actually surprised how often I actually need to use my kit lens for specific types of shooting (Canon 18-55 EF-s in my case).

I've yet to see a camera thread where he doesn't.

I guess I have ignored that fact

 

[coldrain]

No lens will give you wideangle for less... in that sense the 18-55 is a YES if you do not want to spend aroun 400$ on another lens that will offer you that.

You can of course consider the cheap but surprisingly capable within its limits Sigma 18-125. It will give you a bigger range yet without the price (and severe barrel distortion) of the 18-200 lenses.

But then again... a 18-55 kitlens, and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG (which offers you an 1:2 macro mode for free) would give you even bigger range, of quite good quality for the price.

 

[ChrisA]

So... you basically agree with me, a pro will not look for a lowest end 6mp DSLR? And the pros you decribe have no need or wish for lightest + smallest?

I guess we agree... My point was that most professional photographers have needs that are completely different from the average DSLR buyer. Looking at what the pros shoot with is like looking at what professional drivers drive when you go car shopping --- Do you really want to buy an 18 wheel truck or a taxi cab?

 

[ChrisA]

Wrong

I know a couple of the photographers for Audi. They have people within their group, and other contracted services that use Canon and Nikon DSLR equipment to shoot photos for media information

Ok we should never make absolute statements. The universe is a large enough place that always one counter example can be found. It only takes one counter example to disprove an absolute statement.

I think the best statement about what camera is best comes from Ansel Adam's book "The Camera". He said basically "The largest one that will get he shot" and then shows an example of a shot he could only have made with his Lieca M-series camera.

 

[compuwar]

What do you guys think? Should I go for the 18-55 or is there another lens that I could save my money and buy instead (meaning I should get the body only?)? Thanks!

It totally depends on what you like to shoot. I don't do much wide angle work, so for me the 18-55 wouldn't be that useful (I got an 18-something or other with a D200 kit that I've shot with to make sure the camera worked, then immediately lent out and never missed.) If you shoot wide, then it's a cheap option to get there, if you don't it's a waste of money that should be put towards a (ballhead, tripod, flash, lens that fits your style better...)

 

[raptor96]

I think I'd really be into getting a good zoom lens. But Coldrain's suggestion of getting the 18-55 then later getting something like the Sigma is a really good one because it gives me a broad range quickly and allows me some more time before I really start feeling the need to accumulate good lenses. I'd really like to get into macro photography but all I've heard about it make it seem expensive to get into though what photographic pursuit isn't I suppose

 

[DZ/015]

After my Canon P&S died, I began looking for a dslr. I was going to buy a Canon XTi online until I went into a local shop. After handling all the cameras they had, I decided against the Canon (way too small) and bought a Nikon D70s with an 18-70mm lens. Why? Because it uses compact flash (I have too many laying around), it was on sale, it takes decent photos and it fits my hand well. I have not regretted the purchase.

 

[Father Jack]

-The camera (D40) has no good RAW conversion software standard. It costs another 150$.

-The camera HAS to have a programmable func button because Nikon did not put an ISO or WhiteBalance button on the body. How annoying and weird is that?

-The camera has NO internal motor, which makes it not really an option to use a few years old lenses, and lenses that you can still buy like almost the entire range of primes. And which makes it impossible almost to buy lenses from 3rd party manucaturers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina.

-The camera has no depth of field preview. I personally hardly use it on my 350D, but others do find it valuable and the Pentax and Canon models I mentioned do have it.

-The camera as a 3 point autofocus compared to the 5 point autofocus of the D50 (other cameras have more).

-Exposure and white balance bracketing possibility has been removed (D50 has that) (as do the others).

-The camera does not have mirror lock-up like the mentioned Canons and Pentax have.

So... while the D40 has gained in the toys department (bigger LCD, in camera editting like "red eye removal" and "image overlay"), it has been drastically cut down in areas that matter (internal motor gone, from 5 to 3 AF points, no ISO and WB button).

And you wonder why I will not recommend a D40 over the K100D, 350D/XT, 400D/XTi and D50? A very odd mission I have over the D40 indeed .

And anyone with 10 AF-S lenses already will have a Nikon DSLR I am sure, and they are more likely to UPGRADE to a D80 or D200 than to DOWNGRADE to a D40.

I don't know a lot about photography but this seems to make a lot of sense.


FJ

 

[coldrain]

I don't know a lot about photography but this seems to make a lot of sense.


FJ

It should make a lot of sense... but not to Nikon apologists who seem to love every single product the brand produces.

A big difference between (in general of course) Nikon and Canon users. Canon users often are very critical, especially about lenses. Nikon users attack any critisizm with passion... even when the facts are clear.

 

[Abstract]

Which is its primary ratget audience? Average customer joe who has no idea that the camera lacks valuable features, and gets drawn by the low price and marketing blurb?

They're valuable to you.

-The camera has NO internal motor, which makes it not really an option to use a few years old lenses, and lenses that you can still buy like almost the entire range of primes. And which makes it impossible almost to buy lenses from 3rd party manucaturers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina.

This "problem" wouldn't be an issue at all for my stepfather, who's 60. In fact, none of the things you mentioned would be an issue for him. Give him an 18-55 mm + a telephoto zoom lens and he can photograph anything he'd ever want, and the photos would turn out very good. He'd never take it off AUTO mode, and he'd never most certainly never spend more than $200 on a piece of "glass." You see lenses as something of value. He doesn't.

Why not get a D50? Because it's noticeably larger, and the viewfinder is smaller. His eyes are getting worse, and a good viewfinder and large, bright LCD is more important than mirror lock-up. Haha....my stepfather using mirror-lockup. If I tried to explain what mirror lock-up was, he'd probably say "Soooo....does that mean the camera won't work?" Agonizing over minute details isn't his style, and neither is mine.

If you were a salesperson and tried to explain all the things you listed as great reasons a 400D or D80 or K100D is better than the D40, he'd probably say "Thanks", then leave the store and never come back. All that crap screams "Sales pitch." Know. Your. Customer.

There's only 3-AF points, right? Think he'd notice? To him, it's just marketing. 3 AF points, 5 point......200 point: Why does it matter if the photos look "pretty groovy"? Even if a photo isn't sharp to me, he might like the photo anyway because of the funny face I made. It's good to be old.

He'd also never print out 20" x 30" photos because of sticker shock, so MP isn't an issue. He could also buy a better camera, but he would probably buy any DSLR for the lowest price possible, but one that allowed him to take nice photos. I'd recommend a D40, and maybe a Pentax for him, but it would depend on whether a Pentax was cheaper because lets face it....he won't care about what you mentioned, only things like LCD and viewfinder size and brightness. Yes, he places value in "photo quality," but that term is different between me, you, and my stepfather.

 

[compuwar]

I'd really like to get into macro photography but all I've heard about it make it seem expensive to get into though what photographic pursuit isn't I suppose

With macro, you're focusing manually- all you need is a good tripod, a decent lens and a flash or some foam core for reflectors (eventually a ring flash if you get really serious.) A good tripod and head are going to be relatively expensive anyway (especially compared to a low-end body.) If you already have a god lens and can see well enough to focus stopped down a bit, then a set of three Kenko extension tubes for Canon or Nikon will run you $169 at B&H. It's not as convenient as a macro lens, but the results should be similar.

 

[miloblithe]

It should make a lot of sense... but not to Nikon apologists who seem to love every single product the brand produces.

A big difference between (in general of course) Nikon and Canon users. Canon users often are very critical, especially about lenses. Nikon users attack any critisizm with passion... even when the facts are clear.

The Rebel XTi/400D doesn't have a spot meter option. It's metering system is worthless. And it doesn't have a top display panel so you have to use the back LCD to see the settings. It's got to be the worst camera ever made...

Cameras are tools, each with advantages and disadvantages.

And you're not doing a very good job of proving your point that Canon users are less of zealots than Nikon users.

 

[coldrain]

The Rebel XTi/400D doesn't have a spot meter option. It's metering system is worthless. And it doesn't have a top display panel so you have to use the back LCD to see the settings. It's got to be the worst camera ever made...

Cameras are tools, each with advantages and disadvantages.

And you're not doing a very good job of proving your point that Canon users are less of zealots than Nikon users.

You just only prove that you ae a nikon zealot.
But that was already clear of course. My points about the D40 are very valid, and you saying the metering system of a 400D is worthless just is totally ignorant.

Sad stuff.

 

[Abstract]

You just only prove that you ae a nikon zealot.
But that was already clear of course.

She owns a 400D. She even said so in this thread.

Credibility falling fast....

My points about the D40 are very valid, and you saying the metering system of a 400D is worthless just is totally ignorant.

Sad stuff.

....as is your literacy.

I'm quite sure he was using "sarcasm" to prove a point. In fact, he was imitating you, which is the funniest thing of all. "Sad", is it?

At least I gave you an example of a real person who could buy a D40 and be perfectly content. There are a lot more people who fit my step-father's description than you believe. Same with Miloblithe's mother. And it's not just for old people. My friend James (age 26) probably fits the D40 customer bill as well. I'd point him towards Pentax as well, but since I own lenses he can borrow, it may be beneficial for him to go with a D40.

I'd never recommend it to an amateur photographer, or even a hobbyist, but only because these people might miss the features you listed, some of which may be important to a hobbyist. I agree with you, but it depends on who's going to use this camera.

Know the target market.

 

[miloblithe]

Thanks Abstract for getting my post, although I'm not sure I appreciate the sex change.

 

[Abstract]

I thought you were an old female monkey.

I'm a young kangaroo in the prime of his life.

 

[compuwar]

The Rebel XTi/400D doesn't have a spot meter option. It's metering system is worthless. And it doesn't have a top display panel so you have to use the back LCD to see the settings. It's got to be the worst camera ever made...

Cameras are tools, each with advantages and disadvantages.

And you're not doing a very good job of proving your point that Canon users are less of zealots than Nikon users.

Hilarious post!

You just only prove that you ae a nikon zealot.
But that was already clear of course. My points about the D40 are very valid, and you saying the metering system of a 400D is worthless just is totally ignorant.

Sad stuff.

Hook, line and sinker...

 

[Curren~Sea]

I have the D50. I bought it just before Chrismas. I love it and would highly recommend it. The price/performance ratio is better than anything else I've seen. Plus, it just feels great in my hands and is a joy to use.

 

[840quadra]

Thanks Abstract for getting my post, although I'm not sure I appreciate the sex change.

I loved your post as well , just didn't comment on it

I have the D50. I bought it just before Chrismas. I love it and would highly recommend it. The price/performance ratio is better than anything else I've seen. Plus, it just feels great in my hands and is a joy to use.

Sounds like the D50 is a great choice .

Either way, a new DSLR is loads of fun!

 

[bob5820]

I know Ken Rockwell is not necessarily the last word in digital photography, but for those who are interested here is what Ken had to say:
"Get a Nikon D200 if you don't mind the weight, get a Nikon D40 for everything else"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/d200-d80-d70-d50-d40-5d-xti.htm

It would seem there is yet another profesional photographer who shots with a D40.

 

[raptor96]

Whoooooooo! I ordered my D50 + 18-55 ED Lens for $560 shipped. This was even cheaper than my local photo store's cost on the kit (he even recommended I buy it online when I went in and told him I wanted to buy it from him since I've been coming in for free advice for so long). But yeah they've sold out of their stock (and sold other retailers' stocks of the D50) since before Xmas so I didn't feel too bad ordering online (plus I saved over $100). I'm sooo stoked to have this camera in my hands! Thanks for all the advice guys.