New camera.

[Michael172]

Well, my point and shoot doesnt cut it, its good, and ive had some good pics from it in the past but its severly limited.

I want to move to a dslr, i dont really have a budget but then i dont want to spend a grand on a camera lol. i also dont knwow hat im looking for really.


Any reccomendations ? d40 any good ?

 

[182chick]

bought my b/f the d40x for christmas and he loves it great picture quality

 

[dick]

well to be honest, id do some reading around, reviews etc and find out wehat you want and get some understanding first.

the bottom of the range SLRs, nikons are much better to hold, as the canons feel a bit awkward to me and a lot of others.
but u cant have canon l glass then
so im getting the next canon up, the 40d. £650.

 

[Andy.]

The money in DSLR's is not in the camera body... it is all the lenses that you buy afterwards!

 

[Justin]

Agree with the hold, the Nikon fitted my hands better than the equivelant Canon.. being roughly the same i decided on the d40x

 

[fizzy_drink]

The money in DSLR's is not in the camera body... it is all the lenses that you buy afterwards!

I couldn't agree more, although some bodies can be quite expensive.

 

[Rasclart]

well to be honest, id do some reading around, reviews etc and find out wehat you want and get some understanding first.

the bottom of the range SLRs, nikons are much better to hold, as the canons feel a bit awkward to me and a lot of others.
but u cant have canon l glass then
so im getting the next canon up, the 40d. £650.

Yeah but its not like Nikon glass is crap......

Handle both Nikon and Canon I say and decide from there. For me its Nikon all the way.

 

[JJ!]

Nikon D40 for entry level on a budget! Cracking camera for under £300 and the standard lens is pretty good for the price you are paying, it will beat any point and shoot or 'bridge' cameras hands down.

D40x is only wirth while if you intend to print the files very large. D40 may only be 6mp but its lack of noise is a plus point.

The lenses price range depend on what quality you want. Im getting the 55-200mm VR lens which is only £130, you can get much better. But for what I use the camera for, these cheaper lenses are all good for me!

D40 is also easy to use, even helps you out if you get stuck!

I tried the 400d but much preffered the D40.

 

[Williams025]

I tried both the Nikon D40 and Canon 400D. Went for the Canon, I just thought it was the better product, and I personally managed to get better pics from the Canon. Horses for courses I guess. The Cannon 400D is much better spec'ed as well.

The D80 is more comparable, but its about £200 more on average than the 400D.

 

[ADY 554D]

well my 40d arrived this morning and all i can say is i am very impressed so far and it actually feel like a old school eos slr camera being made out of magnesium alloy it gives it that bit of needed weight compared to the 400d:approve:

 

[Rasclart]

I tried both the Nikon D40 and Canon 400D. Went for the Canon, I just thought it was the better product, and I personally managed to get better pics from the Canon. Horses for courses I guess. The Cannon 400D is much better spec'ed as well.

The D80 is more comparable, but its about £200 more on average than the 400D.

IMO the D80 and 40d are comparable not the D80 and 400d

 

[millzy]

i got a D40 and a bit of kit in the boxing day sales. £299 for camera and standard lens, £100 for 55-200 lens, £15 camera bag, and 1gb memory card. everything but the camera was half price. as a novice it does seem quite easy to use, but not had much time to try it out yet. Iv since brought David D. Busch's 'Nikon D40/D40x Digital Field Guide', £8 off amazon, worth every penny.

 

[Michael172]

Nikon D40 for entry level on a budget! Cracking camera for under £300 and the standard lens is pretty good for the price you are paying, it will beat any point and shoot or 'bridge' cameras hands down.

D40x is only wirth while if you intend to print the files very large. D40 may only be 6mp but its lack of noise is a plus point.

The lenses price range depend on what quality you want. Im getting the 55-200mm VR lens which is only £130, you can get much better. But for what I use the camera for, these cheaper lenses are all good for me!

D40 is also easy to use, even helps you out if you get stuck!

I tried the 400d but much preffered the D40.

yeah, i was thinking fo this one as its ment to be quite good. I know the money is in the lenses lol. ive had a look around.

If i can stop spending my money on booze round town then i will get a d40 after some further scouting.


Thanks for the help guys and gals xx

 

[MaLicE]

i personally prefer nikon, thats what i use and i use the pro d2x body... which cost 2k for the body alone...

i prefer the feel and layout of nikons, i like the way you have a seperate wheels for the shutter and aperture...

nikon and canon glass are compareable... nikon high end glass is just as good as any other makes... and i know i have said it before but zeiss make glass for nikon and no its not the same as nokia camera phone lenses they are mass produced the zeiss high end camera lenses for nikon etc are the best u can get...

if your doing landscape stuff i would go for the nikon over anything else the sky tones the nikon produces out perform canon and this isnt just me saying it one of my old uni lecturers who hates nikon said that nikons piss on canons for the blues it can produce...

 

[dick]

I tried both the Nikon D40 and Canon 400D. Went for the Canon, I just thought it was the better product, and I personally managed to get better pics from the Canon. Horses for courses I guess. The Cannon 400D is much better spec'ed as well.

The D80 is more comparable, but its about £200 more on average than the 400D.

IMO the D80 and 40d are comparable not the D80 and 400d

not sure i agree, the 40d is against the d300.
and the d80 or d40x is against the 400d.

d40 gotta be competing against olympus, pentax, etc. and the old 350d surely?

d40 £260 3fps no live view
d40x £320 3fps no live view
d80 £450, 3fps no live vierw
400d 370 3 fps no live view
40d £650 6.5fps live view
d300 is like £1000 6fps live view
ther about the same price in the states i think tho.
ther body only

and the 40d, d300, because they both have like 7fps, same resolution,
altho the d300 got better weather sealing etc proobly puts th price up.
the 40d is directly comparably to the d300, live view etc.
the defence rests, your honour.

and true its not like nikon is crap, ther really good, but ive just got my eye on the 70-200 f2.8l and a few others that get rave reviews.

im probly just a canon fanboy to be honest.

 

[Williams025]

I tried both the Nikon D40 and Canon 400D. Went for the Canon, I just thought it was the better product, and I personally managed to get better pics from the Canon. Horses for courses I guess. The Cannon 400D is much better spec'ed as well.

The D80 is more comparable, but its about £200 more on average than the 400D.

IMO the D80 and 40d are comparable not the D80 and 400d

As in the post above, the 40D is spec'd above the D80.

In terms of specification the D40 isnt as good as the 400d but its not as expensive (the D40x is more comparable).

They're all great cameras though, it all depends on what you stick on the front of it in reality!

 

[Rasclart]

I am not just going on Paper specs I am going on Images produced, also feature wise the D80 is similar to the 40D. What part of the 40D is specced above the D80?

Live view is a gimmick IMO and fps arent the be all and end all. How often do people use 6.5fps

 

[Williams025]

The images produced are purely to the person behind the camera! The 400d at the end of the day can produce sharper richer pictures than the d40, its almost twice the resolution than the D40 for a start...

The D80 suffers in direct comparison to the 40D. That said, the D80 is 18 months older than the 40D.

A couple of intersting forums about this;

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=58&threadID=262590&messageID=2575206

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=58&threadID=262590&messageID=2575206

All said and done, a really good photographer with a first gen DSLR could produce better pictures than a rubbish photographer with a really high end camera.

 

[JJ!]

The resolution is not an issue on the D40, and as for the 400d taking sharper richer pics.

I suggest looking at these crops here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page4.shtml

 

[Rasclart]

The images produced are purely to the person behind the camera! The 400d at the end of the day can produce sharper richer pictures than the d40, its almost twice the resolution than the D40 for a start...

The D80 suffers in direct comparison to the 40D. That said, the D80 is 18 months older than the 40D.

A couple of intersting forums about this;

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=58&threadID=262590&messageID=2575206

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=58&threadID=262590&messageID=2575206

All said and done, a really good photographer with a first gen DSLR could produce better pictures than a rubbish photographer with a really high end camera.

Yeah fair enough more so between the D300 and D80, on paper seems better than the D80 but doesnt from what I have seen produce better images with similar lens. Thats what I am trying to get at

 

[Williams025]

The resolution is not an issue on the D40, and as for the 400d taking sharper richer pics.

I suggest looking at these crops here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page4.shtml

lol, thats utter rubbish! I can zoom right in on mine in various software and there is no blurring what so ever! And those comparisons were done with kit lenses, which that vary comparison admitted was down to that particular kit lens, rather than the camera itself.

If you check the next page, you see that the 400d beats the d40 on resolution anyway, producing sharper images on the res test so your post proves my point. But then its 10mp v's 6 so it will do. The d40 applies a lot more sharpening to the image when its taken as well as a default, which the Canon always leaves up to the user.

Each camera has its pluses and minus, lets not turn it into a PS3 v 360 debate!

 

[JJ!]

Of course the 400d beats it on resolution, but 10mp v 6mp does not mean you will get better pics! Yes, you can print them on a larger scale, but for the average consumer, the resolution difference will never be an issue.

But for under £300 there is nothing that can touch the D40 for value and pic quality IMO (of course)

 

[Rasclart]

Id say the D300 and D5 are a better match!

To be fair as he has said all of them are great cameras and the pics come from the lens and the person on the other side of the lens

 

[MaLicE]

d2x owns the lot lol.... d3 is out soon i been invited to a thing by nikon to have a play with one for a day

 

[Michael172]

ok, so i thinkt e d40 would be best. are the lenses changeable.

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s47076...aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&CatId=481&comp=n

and is the standard one better than that ?

 

[Rasclart]

Yes mate that will take ALL nikon fit lenses. However some older lenses wont do auto focus they need the focus motor built into the lens (wont be a problem there are loads of lenses)

What do you mean standard one? That is the standard kit lens

 

[miltage2]

i rate the olympus e510

 

[unofficialPete]

ok, so i thinkt e d40 would be best. are the lenses changeable.

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s47076...aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&CatId=481&comp=n

and is the standard one better than that ?

Get the kit lens and learn what you want to buy as you learn but remember only AF-S lenses will auto focus so if you get into wider primes your fooked unless your happy to manual focus.

Learn a little about focal length..
http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

Read this and the Photography sticky on here and you'll be on your way.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=414088