Wanting DSLR

[fall3n]

So I'm thinking about getting a new DSLR, my imitation SLR (Fuji s5000) is nice, but it just doesn't give me that freedom that I want with a true DSLR. I've been looking at the Nikon D40x as it's in my price range ($1000 CAN tops) and looks very nice.

Right now photography is just a hoby, but I'm getting more and more in to it and would love to step up my game. I'm interested in HDR (but have yet to try it) so Auto Bracketing would be a nice feature (one downside of the D40x is that it doesn't have it), but not a necessity.

Would anyone else have recommendations?

 

[CrackedButter]

Fuji S5 Pro. Its a Fuji Camera in a Nikon body. It will also accept the range of Nikon Lenses to go with.

 

[Abstract]

^^It would also cost much more than $1000 CAD.



I'd get the D40x, or possibly just the Nikon D40, as the D40 has proven itself to have exceptional image quality. I don't know about the D40x image quality.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

Go with the D40 - no need for the D40x - as a hobbyist, 6.1 MP is more than enough.

 

[fall3n]

All good points. Thanks for your replies....Now to find a good deal. Does the body come with a lens or do you need to go for the kits?

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

All good points. Thanks for your replies....Now to find a good deal. Does the body come with a lens or do you need to go for the kits?

The "Kit" lens with the D40 is a Nikkor 18-55 - Ok for starting out, but you'll mostly likely want a 18-70, or an 18-135 in the near future (or even the Nikkor 55-200).

 

[sjl]

All good points. Thanks for your replies....Now to find a good deal. Does the body come with a lens or do you need to go for the kits?

Generally, an SLR will be sold either as "body only", or as a "kit". Usually, the kit lens isn't as good as a lens that can be purchased separately - eg, Canon sells "enthusiast kit" versions of the 400D and 30D, which is the body plus the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens; they also sell the base level kits (with the EF-S 18-55mm lens). However, if you choose to buy the Canon SLR body only, you can then spend an extra couple of thousand (Australian) dollars on the 17-55mm f/2.8, which whomps all over both the kit lenses. (Yes, I know you're looking at Nikon. However, I don't know what Nikon does with their kits, hence the Canon example.)

If you're not sure what you need, get the kit. It'll be good enough to get you shooting, and the odds are very good you won't notice the flaws in your shots. When you do, it's time to upgrade to better glass.

 

[Mr. G4]

I'm interested in HDR (but have yet to try it) so Auto Bracketing would be a nice feature (one downside of the D40x is that it doesn't have it), but not a necessity.

Would anyone else have recommendations?

With Photomatix you don't really need to do the bracketing anymore. If you shoot in RAW one file suffice, just load the raw file and the program do the rest.

 

[fall3n]

Generally, an SLR will be sold either as "body only", or as a "kit". Usually, the kit lens isn't as good as a lens that can be purchased separately - eg, Canon sells "enthusiast kit" versions of the 400D and 30D, which is the body plus the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens; they also sell the base level kits (with the EF-S 18-55mm lens). However, if you choose to buy the Canon SLR body only, you can then spend an extra couple of thousand (Australian) dollars on the 17-55mm f/2.8, which whomps all over both the kit lenses. (Yes, I know you're looking at Nikon. However, I don't know what Nikon does with their kits, hence the Canon example.)

If you're not sure what you need, get the kit. It'll be good enough to get you shooting, and the odds are very good you won't notice the flaws in your shots. When you do, it's time to upgrade to better glass.

Ah, well that all sounds great, but a few thousand for a lens is a bitch much for my hobby. Heh, thanks for the advice. I think I'll be getting NIKON D40 with DX 18-55mm Lens as it's affordable ($700) and i've read good reviews on both the camera and the lens.

With Photomatix you don't really need to do the bracketing anymore. If you shoot in RAW one file suffice, just load the raw file and the program do the rest.

What do you mean by this? I can shoot 1 shot in RAW and Photomatrix will do the bracketing from that one file?

 

[Richard Flynn]

What do you mean by this? I can shoot 1 shot in RAW and Photomatrix will do the bracketing from that one file?

You can do just that. However, although there is greater exposure-latitude in a single raw file, it won't always be as effective as combining three (or more) differently-exposed frames. I've experimented with Photomatix converting single raw files into HDR and it has variable, albeit interesting, results.

 

[sjl]

Ah, well that all sounds great, but a few thousand for a lens is a bitch much for my hobby.

I'm not surprised. (Bear in mind that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 costs a shade under $US1,000 from Amazon; Australia gets majorly shafted when it comes to camera lenses.) I'm not advocating that you go down that path, merely pointing out that kit lenses are invariably compromises, and if you are willing to spend more money, you can get lenses that are not so severely compromised in image quality. Most people will never know the difference, so the extra cost isn't worth it to them. That's fine; as long as you are happy with the results, you don't have to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on gear. It's the brain behind the camera that makes the biggest difference.

(I've recently seen some photos a friend took with a compact, and compared them to photos I took with my DSLR at the same venue a day later. The DSLR is probably worth seven times as much as her compact, but the improved picture quality it gives me is worth that money to me. Different people, different desires, different needs, and that's fine.)

 

[fall3n]

I'm not surprised. (Bear in mind that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 costs a shade under $US1,000 from Amazon; Australia gets majorly shafted when it comes to camera lenses.) I'm not advocating that you go down that path, merely pointing out that kit lenses are invariably compromises, and if you are willing to spend more money, you can get lenses that are not so severely compromised in image quality. Most people will never know the difference, so the extra cost isn't worth it to them. That's fine; as long as you are happy with the results, you don't have to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on gear. It's the brain behind the camera that makes the biggest difference.

(I've recently seen some photos a friend took with a compact, and compared them to photos I took with my DSLR at the same venue a day later. The DSLR is probably worth seven times as much as her compact, but the improved picture quality it gives me is worth that money to me. Different people, different desires, different needs, and that's fine.)

Quite very true, and I don't deny your statements at all. But for now, as I am just wanting to get started in the DSLR world I'm wanting to get a good camera and lens kit, such as the NIKON D40 with DX 18-55mm Lens. Seems like that would be a good place to start for under $1000 and once I adapt my skills and knowledge I can expand into greater more expensive lenses

One thing I've been reading is that it's not necessarily the body your investing in, but the lenses so I'm trying to decide which brand would be best to go with so that I'd have minimal problems switching bodies with my lenses.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

Quite very true, and I don't deny your statements at all. But for now, as I am just wanting to get started in the DSLR world I'm wanting to get a good camera and lens kit, such as the NIKON D40 with DX 18-55mm Lens. Seems like that would be a good place to start for under $1000 and once I adapt my skills and knowledge I can expand into greater more expensive lenses

One thing I've been reading is that it's not necessarily the body your investing in, but the lenses so I'm trying to decide which brand would be best to go with so that I'd have minimal problems switching bodies with my lenses.

Honestly, when looking at glass, Nikon or Cannon are really the only two ways to go.

 

[CrackedButter]

Honestly, when looking at glass, Nikon or Cannon are really the only two ways to go.

You wouldn't rate Sigma then?

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

Sigma is fine, but it's a notch below the Nikon and Canon lenses, IMO.

 

[sjl]

You wouldn't rate Sigma then?

Not for the purpose of deciding which system to buy into, no. Sigma has some good glass; they also have some mediocre glass. But they make it for every lens mount currently on the market. So in terms of deciding which brand of DSLR to buy, they are not a consideration.

Does this mean I'd never buy Sigma glass? No, it doesn't - there are a few Sigma lenses that I've heard good things about that I might consider, when the time comes to buy a lens in those categories. It's sort of like buying a games console: you ignore the games that are available on all three major platforms, and focus instead on those that are available only on one. Which ones of those you're interested in determines which console (or consoles) you buy. Same deal with lenses.

 

[Abstract]

Sigma is fine, but it's a notch below the Nikon and Canon lenses, IMO.

All of them?

I can show you numerous Sigma lenses that are better than comparable Canon and Nikon products.


Everyone makes a dud. There may be a very good Sigma alternative to a comparably-spec'd Canon or Nikon lens.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

You wouldn't rate Sigma then?

I've used some Stigma lenses on my D70s, and the results are fine. Like other's have said, the two main contenders to base a system off of would be Cannon or Nikon.

As far as prosumer bodies go, I feel Nikon's quality (in the D40, D40x, and the D50) is far superior to the Rebels, which as others will also tell you, are mainly plastic and rather flimsy feeling in the hands. Other members here find their XT and XTi bodies to be just fine (the lighter weight can also be seen as an advantage). It's a matter of personal preference.

...Then again, I suppose I'm biased after using a D70s for a few months now, as even a D50 feels somewhat small!

 

[juze]

So I'm thinking about getting a new DSLR, my imitation SLR (Fuji s5000) is nice, but it just doesn't give me that freedom that I want with a true DSLR. I've been looking at the Nikon D40x as it's in my price range ($1000 CAN tops) and looks very nice.

Right now photography is just a hoby, but I'm getting more and more in to it and would love to step up my game. I'm interested in HDR (but have yet to try it) so Auto Bracketing would be a nice feature (one downside of the D40x is that it doesn't have it), but not a necessity.

Would anyone else have recommendations?

Try Pentax. The thing is, they're trying to gain market share like crazy, and for that reason, their cameras offer more bang for buck than the competition. Also, their kit lenses are better than the competition's. I recommend you try the Pentax K100D, or, if your funds allow it, the Pentax K10D.

Now, before you accuse me of having a brand bias - personally, I shoot a huge and heavy Canon 1 series. Yes, technically it's superior to the Pentax cameras. I mean really superior. But the thing is, the Pentax user interface, attention to detail and value for money are hard to beat. I actually think Pentax is the Apple of the photography world, except that their marketing department is beyond horrible.
It's a bit like comparing a $5000 Windows workstation with a Mac Mini - the Windows workstation will have superior performance, but if you don't need it, you'll enjoy using the mini much more.

(So why don't I shoot Pentax? Well, Pentax doesn't make high-end cameras yet. And I actually need one.)

 

[carbonmotion]

Try Pentax. The thing is, they're trying to gain market share like crazy, and for that reason, their cameras offer more bang for buck than the competition. Also, their kit lenses are better than the competition's. I recommend you try the Pentax K100D, or, if your funds allow it, the Pentax K10D.

Now, before you accuse me of having a brand bias - personally, I shoot a huge and heavy Canon 1 series. Yes, technically it's superior to the Pentax cameras. I mean really superior. But the thing is, the Pentax user interface, attention to detail and value for money are hard to beat. I actually think Pentax is the Apple of the photography world, except that their marketing department is beyond horrible.
It's a bit like comparing a $5000 Windows workstation with a Mac Mini - the Windows workstation will have superior performance, but if you don't need it, you'll enjoy using the mini much more.

(So why don't I shoot Pentax? Well, Pentax doesn't make high-end cameras yet. And I actually need one.)

i like the q&a format!