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.
Trying to figure out which camera...
- Thread starter chase71320
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ouch, and here I was trying to give you an unbiased factual answer. Nevermind then.
Frankly the whole Canon vs Nikon fanboy thing is something I don't encounter on other photography sites. I think it's a side effect of mad Apple fanaticism.
Personally I don't believe in brand support. Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Canon, Nikon, they can all go screw themselves. Do they pay me? NO! I'm a customer and it's about my needs, dammit.
Irrelevant. The OP asked about an affordable camera now to get started with, not what he needs for his grandpappy's lens collection.
Companies change technology all the time. As a Pro in the Canon scenario, I could see being upset (back in the 80s). As a newbie simply asking for a camera recommendation, this is irrelevant.
Do you deny you knew what I meant when I said a bigger buffer helps with "jpg, raw and burst shooting"? Did I need to delineate that further? Why? What confusion did it cause? It was just nitpicking, termina3 even pointed it out, and I agreed.
honestly -- I have no allegiance to Canon or Nikon, nor am I a pro. As a newbie to DSLRs, which is what the OP is, I gave my perception on the issues with the d40. Termina3 jumped in with comments like "you must be joking" and nitpicks on my sentence structure. Review the progression for yourself.
I have no desire to start a flame-war with you. I am sure you know more about Nikon in your pinkie than I know in my whole body. I've also seen your knowledgeable, helpful posts all over this forum. But it's odd (funny, peculiar?) to see termina3 call in the attack-dag ("Compuwar... where are you?") and here you are.
I'll still stick with my position -- that the XTi would be a greater first camera for the OP, and while I've read a number of defensive postings on the d40, I've seen nothing about why it would be a great first DSLR for the OP, and a couple of reasons why it shouldn't. even PNW, who was piping in support Nikons, steered the OP from the d40 to other options.
Re-read the posts again without being defensive for Nikon. I don't think anyone set out to bash Nikon. The OP asked "XT, XTi or d40" and people responded to that question. Only one post talked about Nikon's naming convention and, as a newbie to DSLRs, that post exactly represented my experience when I started comparing Nikon with Canon -- the Nikon lens scheme created more questions than answers for me. I still don't understand why termina3 jumped into the thread in such a defensive mind set, as if people bashing Nikon in general, which they weren't.
The change from FD to EF happened 20 years ago, and back then I am sure it was to some peoples bother that their existing glass wouldn't mount on new bodies, but such is life. I've got a box of old AGP video cards that I paid thousands for over the years, that are now pretty much worthless. Also are you suggesting that Canon should have stuck with a breech-lock mount?
And this is my beef with Nikon. You and I may not be confused as to what lenses will work and to what extent with the lower end Nikon DSLR's, but your average soccer mom with a D40 who is looking at buying a fast prime so she can take pictures of her kids in low light, won't.
Remember that the D40 is marketed to people with little technical knowlege or understanding of technical photography terms.
It's not a big deal to me either, but you've got to understand how other people could be confused as to why their lens has "AF" for auto focus in the name on the lens, yet it doesn't auto focus on their D40.
Anything from the last 20 years or so, oh wait that was when Canon changed to EF! Anything that is pre-AI or AI won't meter, how common are these lenses is not something I could tell you, but it is still something that an inexperienced user could run into after hearing that they could find old lenses off ebay for their Nikon because the lens mount hasn't changed in 45 years.
A good number of Nikons best inexpensive lenses (50mm F/1.8 anyone) are still AF, the very kind of glass your D40 user might be interested in.
They're not stuck re-buying, but they're left with the same FOV on their expensive FF body as they were on their APS-C body. Don't get me wrong, I find it nice that Nikon allows the capability, and this is less of a problem than the AF vs AF-S issue, but why not just sell your DX glass at a small loss and rebuy the correct lenses? If you're contempt with a 6MP image at 1.5FOV, you can always crop the ouput later.
No, it's that they are smart enough to know better, and aren't likely to be wanting to mount a el-cheapo 18-55 on their 1DsIII anyways...
And isn't that like a $6000 lens that was is a more recent design?
I would consider anyone considering taking off their stock lens in exchange for something else to be a "advanced amerature". Take a look at the people on here who own D40's, most of which just can't afford thousand dollar bodies and thousands of dollars in glass like you can. So they turn to eBay and the large variety of second hand Nikon glass to mount on their D40, the question is whether or not it will work like they expect.
And yet people are confused. Denying the fact that people are confused doesn't make the problem magically go away. Nikon advertises the D40 to people who want simplicity with the advantage of interchangable lenses, then have other people tell them that they can use any lens Nikon has made since the 60's.
The question is, why would someone want to pay for an $8000, then throw 50% of that sensor away by using glass that can't provide for the full size sensor? It's not like the "buy in" argument is all that big of a deal on the Canon side as most of the EF-S glass is junk, and the decent lenses (2) hold their value.
I could explain everything I've said here, but I'll only focus on a selection:
The reason I jumped in with my second post was that I saw some misleading information that needed to be corrected. When I post something that might mislead a consumer (like everyone here, I try not to, but it happens), I like to be corrected. I don't mean to imply that I'm the only one (or even in the minority) with this opinion, I mean to clarify my reasoning.
I said "you must be joking" because I thought, given the style and diction of the post, there was a legitimate possibility he was joking.
I didn't call in the attack dogs; I had no idea what compuwar was going to say, only that he had an extensive knowledge of the Nikon system that could back up what I'd already said (a fact check of sorts). I considered sending him a PM, but didn't. I was surprised to see him post when he did, because I thought that he'd decided this thread wasn't for him (or hadn't seen it at all). It's degrading to call compuwar an attack dog, and imply that he's merely doing my bidding, especially when neither are true.
As I tried to in my post immediately before this one, I'm disengaging. Hopefully this time it's in a more peaceful (and ultimately successful) fashion.
To the op: pick up an XTi and a D40, and go with whichever feels better in your hands.
The reason I jumped in with my second post was that I saw some misleading information that needed to be corrected. When I post something that might mislead a consumer (like everyone here, I try not to, but it happens), I like to be corrected. I don't mean to imply that I'm the only one (or even in the minority) with this opinion, I mean to clarify my reasoning.
I said "you must be joking" because I thought, given the style and diction of the post, there was a legitimate possibility he was joking.
I didn't call in the attack dogs; I had no idea what compuwar was going to say, only that he had an extensive knowledge of the Nikon system that could back up what I'd already said (a fact check of sorts). I considered sending him a PM, but didn't. I was surprised to see him post when he did, because I thought that he'd decided this thread wasn't for him (or hadn't seen it at all). It's degrading to call compuwar an attack dog, and imply that he's merely doing my bidding, especially when neither are true.
As I tried to in my post immediately before this one, I'm disengaging. Hopefully this time it's in a more peaceful (and ultimately successful) fashion.
To the op: pick up an XTi and a D40, and go with whichever feels better in your hands.
No harm, no foul. Maybe "attack dog" is too strong a term, but you called, and Compuwar posted, so I thought that was funny (and hopefully just a coincidence ;-)
People buy the d40 -- it must have something going for it. I was just relating my perceptions and experience with the d40. The confusing lens issue scared me off. The Canon was easier for me to understand. I also had an older Canon lens I could use (though ultimately I decided it was junk and replaced it).
I'm actually hoping the Panasonic G1 comes down in price and gets HD video like they've been talking about. I have the Canon right now because I need a DSLR for a couple of particular uses, but I'll be re-evaluating later in 2009, once the micro 4/3rds system is more filled out. If it looks real, I'd prefer the lighter weight and bigger crop factor! If not, I'll stick with Canon.
Happy shooting
What I am saying is that the "won't meter" argument is practically meaningless in terms of Nikon v. Canon since it's an artifact of lens mount choices made >20 years ago.
Once again, which lenses work are documented in the manual that comes with the camera. Every single one of those lenses (except one, but I can never remember which one- I think it's the 35mm AF-D) hasn't had a change since ~1992.
Who buy less than 1.2 lenses per camera body. How many people do you know with D40s? I know at least four well- and have spoken to at least a dozen (if I'm shooting in public, the "I have a Nikon too" crowd tend to approach,) and none of them has a lens issue. In fact one of them borrowed an AF-D lens from me to shoot his stepdaughter's track meet and had few problems manually focusing (I was unwilling to lend the fast prime that WOULD AF on the D40, and shooting for the first time in MF mode on a D40 without understanding DoF calculations he missed about the same number of shots that a friend with a D70s misses with AF when they borrow the same lens.)
Frankly the intended audience isn't likely to go out and buy a used lens because of their lack of knowledge, but if they do then they just need to adjust to manual focus or throw it back- every retailer I've seen has heavily advertised lens compatibility for the D40 too, so it's not difficult to get right outside of online auctions.
I never said I didn't understand it- I said it wasn't that difficult to get around, was well-documented and moot for most of the intended audience.
Actually, pre-AI lenses were from 1959 to 1977, so that's more than three decades ago. AI lenses were introduced in 1977, and manufactured until the mid '80s. AI-S was introduced in 1982, you have to go all the way up to 1992 to get lenses with CPUs that meter- but the D40 actually has very good lens compatibility in manual mode (better than some of the more expensive "advanced amateur" cameras.) All that said, frankly the optics of today's consumer lenses are better than most of the venerable old glass, so it's pretty moot too. The exceptions to that are lenses that are in the "advanced amateur" category, not the "soccer mom" category.
No, the typical D40 user doesn't know what a 50mm prime is, nor do they look specifically for that focal length, because it's covered by the lens that came with their camera body. People who are thrown by the D40 issue are enthusiasts who simply can't afford another DSLR, or people who are given advice by well-meaning folks who don't know the limitation that the three lowest end bodies have. For most people, their first DSLR is their only DSLR, and if they hit "enthusiast" status, they're quickly looking for the next body up anyway. Finally, lots of us happened to shoot just fine before autofocus and autoexposure were created.
I don't know what you consider a "good number" or "inexpensive" but other than the cheap 50mm, almost all of the new lenses that won't work cost more than the D40- and for a budget-conscious buyer, "that dog won't hunt."
(For the record, it's AF-D that you want to whine about, introduced in 1992, not AF introduced in 1986 but no longer in production.)
Because you often don't want to lose the depreciation if it's a focal length that you don't use frequently, or it may be that the AOV is pretty expensive to do on an FX sensor. For instance, my Sigma 10-20mm lens gives a 15-30mm FOV- that'd mean I'd need a 14mm to get that wide- now you may shoot enough wide stuff to justify a 14mm lens- I don't, so why should I have to pay ~$1400 and lose a ~$900 investment just because I went from one tool (an APS-C body) to another tool (an FX body?) That's at least $1600 of lens inflexibility. I like my tools to be flexible- I don't want to have to buy or rent a tool every time I'm doing a few shots when I don't need to. Surely a champion of the budget-body-buyer can see that?
Odd- on the one hand, you argue it's bad not to be able to AF with an el-cheapo lens, on the other you argue it's good to not be able to use one at all.
There are plenty of good ultra-wides that are crop-sensor lenses from different manufacturers.
Actually, my current body and *all* of my lenses except for my Sigma 10-20mm are second-hand lenses (every Nikkor I've ever owned except one for my 4x5 enlarger when I used to shoot LF film has been second-hand.)
I would argue with your definition of "advanced"- the ability to change lenses on an SLR- is something that takes no skill and little advancement- after all, that's the whole point behind an SLR. If your "advanced" lens-changer ignores their camera manual, doesn't understand that buying the lowest-cost body has an effect, and buys a used lens that works fine in manual mode, they can pretty-much always resell it for what they paid- used Nikkor prices are relatively stable and have been for quite some time.
First, technically they CAN use almost any Nikon lens from ~1962, they just have to shoot like people shot in the '60s. Secondly, advice from "other people" who don't use or understand the system is hardly Nikon's fault as you seem to want to say. I've recommended the D40 to several people, and none of them's had a problem- I've met others who made the purchase decision on their own, none of them has had a problem. Four of my regular friends have them, they're not confused- either they read the manual, they don't need anything other than the kit lens or they've gotten good advice.
Because it's a tool- sometimes you're not building a work of art with the tool- you just need a basic item that the tool is capable of producing. Sometimes, you want a specific AOV with a tool you're used to, and let's not forget that Canon isn't the only lens manufacturer who makes glass in a Canon mount that has a crop factor. The bigger question is why would you want a less flexible tool instead of a more flexible tool? The Swiss Army Knife and Leatherman and their clones all exist because sometimes we're not sure what we're going to need out of a tool, and in those cases flexibility wins over exactitude. If suddenly the AD says "Oh! I need a shot of everything in one frame!" and I've got a 10-20mm with me, I shouldn't have to go on eBay, sell it, go to B&H and order a 14mm, then wait for it to get delivered.
Wonder if the thread starter is even still reading 
I'm new to photography and had similar questions. My parent's have an XTi and seem to like it (unfortunately they set it to 'AUTO' and never looked back), however that was a bit too expensive for me. I'll admit I didn't even think about refurbs though.
I ended up buying the Nikon D40 with the 55-80mm lens and 80-200mm lens with "vibration reduction"/"Image stabilization" for $500, and that sounded good to me. The second zoom lens for itself seems to be a few hundred bucks so in my opinion it was a good deal.
Don't forget to take into account that you'll need memory cards, a camera bag, maybe some filters, and a strong desire to purchase a lot more crap down the line
I'm new to photography and had similar questions. My parent's have an XTi and seem to like it (unfortunately they set it to 'AUTO' and never looked back), however that was a bit too expensive for me. I'll admit I didn't even think about refurbs though.
I ended up buying the Nikon D40 with the 55-80mm lens and 80-200mm lens with "vibration reduction"/"Image stabilization" for $500, and that sounded good to me. The second zoom lens for itself seems to be a few hundred bucks so in my opinion it was a good deal.
Don't forget to take into account that you'll need memory cards, a camera bag, maybe some filters, and a strong desire to purchase a lot more crap down the line
Wow this is becoming more like a debate war or something. Cool down guys
This is the reason why this site should not be where you go to get camera or photography advice. The OP just wanted camera advice, and look where the thread ended up. There was another similar thread the other day, someone asking whether to get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 - that turned really nasty too.
I understand that Apple fanatics are a crazy, one-eyed bunch - but photographers should be better people. There are some disproportionately large egos here.
