What Camera to Buy?? - Read me Before Posting

Thirdfox · 17-11-2007 12:42AM

If these are the only things you buy than D40 no doubt - as both of these lenses (I'm assuming you mean the VR version of the 55-200mm lens) are better than the Canon equivalents.

However - the D40(x) can't autofocus with older lenses (including all the Nikon lowlight cheap primes). Canon's lenses all have motors built-in and can autofocus.

I would actually get a D40 (non-X version) and use the difference to buy a speedlight (flash) - SB600 - bounce flash is a god-send especially when using slow lenses.

Billie May · 17-11-2007 10:57AM

and the D40 does not have this 'problem' with the 'autofocus'?
what is the issue with the Canon lenses?

do you by any chance know if they both have a video option with sound recording?

also...what are the advantages of a 50mm f1.8 lens )the one that 'everyone should have')

thanks

5uspect · 17-11-2007 11:48AM

SLRs generally don't do video/audio recording. They're decicated photo cameras.

The f1.8 is very cheap, fast, and sharp.

Pigwidgeon · 17-11-2007 04:23PM

finally bought nikon d40 today!

so happy with it! easy to use aswell!

Thirdfox · 18-11-2007 12:05AM

Billie May wrote: »

and the D40 does not have this 'problem' with the 'autofocus'?
what is the issue with the Canon lenses?

do you by any chance know if they both have a video option with sound recording?

also...what are the advantages of a 50mm f1.8 lens )the one that 'everyone should have')

thanks

The D40 also has this limitation. But I can live with it (I either use it with the really modern lenses that autofocus or I (am planning) to use it with old manual focus lenses that are extremely cheap

)

The reason the D40 series does not autofocus with older lenses is that it does not have a motor in the camera body, instead relying on a motor being present in the lens. Canon switched to this system a long time ago with their EF/EF-S lenses (open to correction by the Canon experts). So their old lenses are inoperable on new cameras whereas the old Nikon lenses will not autofocus (or meter in some cases) but can still take pictures - in a completely manual setting. The problem is that some/many of Nikon's current lens line-up do not have motors in them and so are unable to autofocus (but will meter correctly).

There is no such "problem" with older Nikon cameras like the D50, D70 etc. or with the current line-up from the D80 onwards.

50mm f1.8 - is cheap for a lowlight lens. But many people do not like the 75mm it represents on digital - it is neither wide nor tele for some. But I've seen great pictures taken with it.

dSLRs don't do video yet (they have implemented live view in many models now though... perhaps video will come).

snickerpuss · 18-11-2007 02:05AM

Okay, so I was thinking about getting a DSLR, mainly cos I'm just not happy with the film SLR I have. I have a lovely Fuji F30 which is actually quite good but I can't resist the temptation of a new SLR and I'm feeling a bit restricted since my non SLR digital means no lenses to waste all my money on.

I was looking at a Canon 400D (like everybody else) Is the lens that comes with really so bad? The 50mm 1.8 sounds lovely. It's all hurting my head at this point, I've read too much!

I wasn't sure about Nikons so I've mainly been looking at Canons but not for any particular reason, I've no preference. I have about €1,000 or so. (Am meant to be getting a car in January and really want to pack that idea in and suddenly have €5000 for the camera, but its not really a realistic option!):p

So any ideas? I will be using it mostly for taking photos at gigs and also some portraits, mainly gigs though. Any ideas?
Thanks in advance!
Karen

Thirdfox · 18-11-2007 11:26AM

Don't limit yourself to looking only at Canon (or Nikon!); Olympus, Pentax and Sony also have very strong offerings - which seem to offer a lot for a very reasonable price.

I normally recommend the Nikon D40 for those who are entering the dSLR market but I wouldn't in this case if you're looking to shoot mainly gigs as the only non-telephoto low light prime that it would autofocus with is the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (which costs around E300). You wouldn't be able to autofocus with the 50mm f1.8 Nikkor. Or consider getting a 17-55mm f2.8

(costs around E2000 if I remember correctly).

The Canon kit lens (18-55) is of poorer quality when compared to the other kit lenses offered by competitors - sharpness is never that good from the test pictures I've seen. But whether that translates into highly visible softness in real life pictures I don't really know. But as you said the 50mm f1.8 is available cheaply enough.

Billie May · 18-11-2007 06:23PM

"The reason the D40 series does not autofocus with older lenses is that it does not have a motor in the camera body, instead relying on a motor being present in the lens. Canon switched to this system a long time ago with their EF/EF-S lenses (open to correction by the Canon experts). So their old lenses are inoperable on new cameras whereas the old Nikon lenses will not autofocus (or meter in some cases) but can still take pictures - in a completely manual setting. The problem is that some/many of Nikon's current lens line-up do not have motors in them and so are unable to autofocus (but will meter correctly)."

Hi,
I am lost now...I thought the whole issue with Nikon was that 'older and non-Nikkon lenses would not communicate with the body (because there is no motor in the body), therefore lenses would be more expensive (and a 50mm f1.8 would be also expensive)
It also sounds like the Canon does not operate with older lensen. I thought it was the otherway around...

- if I buy the Canon 400D, would I be able to use old Canon lenses (or other lenses that fit) without problem
- if I buy the Bikon D40, would I be able to use older Nikkon lenses (or others that fit) but I just need to focus myself? Are there any other brands with the motor in the lens that work with a Nikon body?

Is Nikkon the only brand that has no motor in de body?

Have you tried to use other (older) lenses on your Nikon D40?

Thanks!

Billie May · 18-11-2007 06:23PM

What lens(es) did you get?

Billie May · 18-11-2007 06:38PM

another question,
is the Canon Rebel Xti the same as Canon 400D, seems so but I could not find anything on the Canon website about it...

challengemaster · 18-11-2007 06:47PM

it is one and the same. I have the Rebel XTi - the only difference is the sticker on it that says the name. the XTi is the american name for it.

For what thirdfox is saying, i've got to call bullshít on this one. sorry mate, but about 80%+ of my pics on flickr have been taken with the canon kit lens. (clickeh the sig for pics)

and yeah, the nifty fifty f/1.8 is a must get

really great. 60€

Thirdfox · 18-11-2007 07:35PM

Billie May wrote: »

Hi,
I am lost now...I thought the whole issue with Nikon was that 'older and non-Nikkon lenses would not communicate with the body (because there is no motor in the body), therefore lenses would be more expensive (and a 50mm f1.8 would be also expensive)
It also sounds like the Canon does not operate with older lensen. I thought it was the otherway around...

- if I buy the Canon 400D, would I be able to use old Canon lenses (or other lenses that fit) without problem
- if I buy the Bikon D40, would I be able to use older Nikkon lenses (or others that fit) but I just need to focus myself? Are there any other brands with the motor in the lens that work with a Nikon body?

Is Nikkon the only brand that has no motor in de body?

Have you tried to use other (older) lenses on your Nikon D40?

Thanks!

No current digital Canon camera has a motor in their body. But all of their modern lenses have the built in motor so you would be found lacking in the lens choice department. A quick search on google told me that Canon switched to motor in lens in 1987 so any lenses produced after that will have no problems. Unless you have a really old Canon lens you should not have a problem with compatibility (however any pre-1987 lens will not fit onto your camera at all). For more info see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount

The situation with Nikon (as regards the D40 series) is that you can mount old lenses onto the camera. But functionality will be reduced depending on what type of lens it is. Meaning that any lens made after 1959 will mount and take pictures on the D40. For more info see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount

For the 50mm f1.8 - it's not a question of price. No version of the Nikon nifty fifty (there are nine) will autofocus on the D40. Will that change? Maybe but it's highly debatable. There is however a Sigma f1.4 30mm (which gives a 45mm view on digital) available for Nikon that will autofocus.

Billie May wrote: »

What lens(es) did you get?

My current lens list is small but mostly adequate for my needs: 18-55mm II kit lens and 55-200mm VR lens. I'm looking to get a 50mm f1.8 manual focus lens in the future (which will mount on the D40 but needs manual focus and manual exposure calculation).

challengemaster wrote: »

For what thirdfox is saying, i've got to call bullshít on this one. sorry mate, but about 80%+ of my pics on flickr have been taken with the canon kit lens. (clickeh the sig for pics)

and yeah, the nifty fifty f/1.8 is a must get really great. 60€

I'm glad to hear that you've got great shots with your lens but what I said wasn't plucked out of fantasy - searching on google you can find many people saying that they are not satisfied with the sharpness of the lens and want to upgrade - discussion on the lens here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_18-55mm_lens
http://flickr.com/groups/canoneos350d/discuss/72157600531550407/
http://www.photosig.com/go/forums/read;jsessionid=aBY20OZGZn1gSizK1y?id=234387

and reviews here:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-II-Lens-Review.aspx

however even they accept that you have to stop down a fair bit to get good sharpness and that it is widely reported (rightly or wrongly) that the kit lens is very soft wide open.

The fairest verdict is to be found here I suppose:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm

In lens land there's no such thing as a free lunch and the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II is an example for that. Under controlled conditions (stopping down two stops at 18mm) the lens can provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual users (who are the target group anyway). Distortions are very high at the wide-end but no issue at the tele end. The construction quality is soso at best.

In its price range there're few alternatives in Canon EOS mount and they probably aren't better either. However, serious users looking for a good quality lens should save a little more and look elsewhere.

Since I do not own the lens I can't give a personal opinion on the lens but I can report what a lot of people have said about it. And I don't think I've seen as many people comment on the softness of the Nikon, Olympus, Pentax or Sony kit lenses (that may be due to the smaller market share of these companies.) But thank you for making me look up facts to back up my statements!

Thirdfox · 18-11-2007 07:40PM

Compare that to the 18-55 kit lens for Nikon:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556_II/index.htm

The Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX II is a marginal update to the original mk I variant. The optical design has not been changed so the general observations regarding image quality remain the same. The tested mk II sample has a sightly better centering thus resulting in an improved center quality but regarding the mechanical qualities of the lens this is a gamble rather than a new feature of the mk II series. The resolution figures are actually very good and no worse than those of much higher priced models - truly remarkable. The contrast level at large apertures (primarily wide-end) leaves something to be desired though. The distortion characteristic is about average whereas vignetting is surprisingly well controlled for a DX-type lens (APS-C image circle). Chromatic aberrations are quite high and can be field relevant in some situations. Naturally this has all to be seen in the context of the extremely low price tag so all-in-all it is almost surprising what the lens is capable to deliver. If you use ~f/6.7-f/11 you'll be a happy camper in most situations. Nonetheless there's no such thing as a free lunch and price level of the Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX II shows up in the build quality which is clearly sub-standard. This is probably a sufficient reason alone for some to think about the AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX or AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX as alternative investments.

And you can see why I usually say that the kit lens offered by Canon is poorer than others.

Pentax kit lens review here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_1855_3556/index.htm

The Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL is a surprisingly good kit zoom although it has its weaknesses specifically at 18mm. The center and border performance is fine here but the extreme corners are somewhat soft. Pronounced vignetting and reduced contrast are also present at f/3.5. At 35mm and 55mm the situation is much better. CAs are very well controlled. The build quality is good for a kit zoom and a level up from the rest of the gang such as the Canon EF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED. All-in-all a good offer from a price/value perspective but naturally there're better lenses out there ... with a much higher price tag.

edit:
And I hope you can believe me when I say that I'm no Nikon fanboy - I do sincerely believe that people should know all the facts (and opinions) before making a significant purchase.

challengemaster · 18-11-2007 07:47PM

End of the day, it's not the camera that alone makes a shot good or bad.. gear isnt everything.

all i'm saying is, if i'm able to achieve decent-ish shots with my kit lens, then why aren't other people? lens is the same.. so what's to blame, the lens, or the photographer?

if you want, check my exif data (should be on flickr with the shots) - quite a few have f/3.5

Billie May · 18-11-2007 07:49PM

lens 17-70 f2.8 - 4.5 DC Macro Autofocus, any experience with that? (either with Nikon D40 or Canon 400D...)

If I would go for this lens with body (so not the kit-lens) would that change your opion about the waht to buy 'Nikon or Canon' question?

Thanks

Thirdfox · 18-11-2007 08:01PM

I agree with what challengemaster has said above - it's very much down to the photographer to produce a good image. And you're taking better than "decent-ish" shots from what I've seen

Side note: the images that I clicked on didn't seem to have exif info (Opanda couldn't find it) - maybe photoshop stripped them out?

Billie: I do not have experience with any lens apart from the cheapest kit lenses (due to financial constraints

) And I'm happy with the images I get (mostly!) And challengemaster feels the same about Canon. So in the end - the advice I'll give you is to go to the shop and forget about MTF resolution charts etc. pick the one that feels right to you. Only you will know the camera that works for you.

go for Nikon

*fanboy alert!*

edit: the Sigma would be exceeding the quality that I would need I'm sure - so you're going to be happy with either camera I suppose (which doesn't help you in deciding I know

)

challengemaster · 18-11-2007 08:10PM

Thirdfox wrote: »

I agree with what challengemaster has said above - it's very much down to the photographer to produce a good image. And you're taking better than "decent-ish" shots from what I've seen

lol. really?

Side note: the images that I clicked on didn't seem to have exif info (Opanda couldn't find it) - maybe photoshop stripped them out?

open the image on flickr, down the side, under the tags/etc there should be a 'more properties' button.

it'll lead to a page like this - http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=1991212177

go for Nikon *fanboy alert!*

no! there's a reason that most of the people on this forum have Canon!

edit: the Sigma would be exceeding the quality that I would need I'm sure - so you're going to be happy with either camera I suppose (which doesn't help you in deciding I know )

the best advice either of us can really give, is - go to a camera shop or if a friend of yours has either of the cameras - get a feel for each, and whichever you like best, really. after that, it's the photographer that makes the shots

Arciphel · 18-11-2007 08:45PM

A word of caution, I bought a d40x a few months ago as my first digital slr, but already i am thinking about upgrading to the d80 as soon as possible. if you are considering buying i would urge you to go for the D80 for the extra €300ish.

Reasons -
- automatic exposure bracketing, so you can do hdr more easily, and less chance of missing a shot due to burnt out capure.
- mirror lock up delay, better for tripod mounted long exposures.
- motor in camera body, so you can autofocus with old af-d lenses and you are not just confined for the newer (and more expensive) af-s lenses.
- increased number of autofocus & metering zones (only 3 on the d40x, this is definitely a backwards step).
- better (faster) shutter-flash sync on the d80 (don't know too much about this myself).

Thirdfox · 18-11-2007 09:15PM

I wouldn't get the D40x either - either D40 or D80 if you go for Nikon. Although I have heard the there is a greater dynamic range on the D40x compared to the non-x version.

Chunky Monkey · 20-12-2007 09:39PM

Funny I went on this thread to ask about the Nikon D40 (non-x, 18-55mm) and saw it was already being talked about

Won't have a chance to get a 'feel' for it, it'll be a Christmas present (my first SLR

). I've only glanced through the thread so sorry if this has already been answered but does anyone have this camera? I'd love to see pictures taken with it. I'm quite new to photography and wouldn't understand technical details but I'm working on that

5uspect · 20-12-2007 10:09PM

Have fun:
http://flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/

Chunky Monkey · 21-12-2007 12:08AM

Ye I was looking at that (Flickr is pretty cool) thanks

I have no experience with SLRs at all. Just wondering what the difference is between 3x optical zoom on that and a point and shoot? Is it the diameter/depth of the lens or the distance between them?

Pigwidgeon · 22-12-2007 12:00AM

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Funny I went on this thread to ask about the Nikon D40 (non-x, 18-55mm) and saw it was already being talked about Won't have a chance to get a 'feel' for it, it'll be a Christmas present (my first SLR ). I've only glanced through the thread so sorry if this has already been answered but does anyone have this camera? I'd love to see pictures taken with it. I'm quite new to photography and wouldn't understand technical details but I'm working on that

i just got it a few weeks back. im also quite new to photography and found it fairly simple to use i find just messing around with all the different settings and everything makes me understand it all more!

Chunky Monkey · 22-12-2007 09:46AM

Hey kate you have some really nice photos there

Is your moon picture a water reflection?

Pigwidgeon · 22-12-2007 12:41PM

thanks nope its just from the sky i thought the clouds looked cool! :P

5uspect · 22-12-2007 01:28PM

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Ye I was looking at that (Flickr is pretty cool) thanks I have no experience with SLRs at all. Just wondering what the difference is between 3x optical zoom on that and a point and shoot? Is it the diameter/depth of the lens or the distance between them?

Okay well normally xtimes zoom factor isn't used mush for SLRs. Focal length is more important.
The effective focal length of a lens depends of the physical size of your sensor.
Nikons, I think, have a 1.5 crop factor (compared to 35mm film) so an 18-55 lens will be a 27-83mm lens on the D40.

Normally telephoto lenses (ones with lots of magnification) are longer as they need more distance between the glass. Cheap telephotos extend as you zoom whereas good ones are designed to not to. The telephoto range starts around 100mm and goes up to around 500mm. At 500+ you're getting serious super-telephoto range.

At the opposite end of the scale you have wide angles with decreasing focal length. 20mm is relatively wide (but not that wide on a D40 because of the crop!)
and anything below 10mm is essentially fisheye.

Another thing to bear in mind is f-number. P&S cameras have tinny tiny pin hole apertures. A lens with a wide (big hole) aperture has a low f number and allows more light in compared to a lens with a higher f-number. So low f-numbers are great for low light shots where the extra light you get allows shorter exposures. Very handy in Pubs! Usually fast lenses with low f-numbers cost €€€ so usually most affordable lenses are around f4 or f5. Both Canon and Nikon do great 50mm f1.8 lenses that are cheap and sharp. (its a 50mm prime which meant fixed focal length so you zoom with your feet). Another important consequence of a wide aperture is narrow depth of field. This is a very attractive feature in portraits as it isolates the subject while blurring the messy background.

Chunky Monkey · 22-12-2007 07:54PM

Thanks suspect, you answered a load of questions I had on my mind there

Aperture, like your pupils in the dark? I'm gonna leave my questions for now until I get my camera and then I'll be back, watch out

suppafly · 23-01-2008 12:33AM

so unfortunately i lost my last camera. I was a sony cybershot p200. I had it fro about 3yrs. Was a really good camera. Now I'm looking for a new one and none of the new sonys interested me. A couple of my mates have cannons and they seem to take pretty nice pics and vids. My mate has the Powershot SD750 and says it pretty awesome. i've seen some of the vids he's taken with it and they r really good. The other one i'm looking at is powershot SD850 IS. Just wondering what people opinions r? also about the buying, i'm going to the US in 3 weeks so I was thinking of buying and having it send to my mates house. I've seen the sd750 for $205 on beach camera . anyone heard of them?

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/basket.aspx?sku=CNPSSD750S&act=add&sks=CNPSSD750S,

These r the 2 camera's i'm looking at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd750%2Ccanon_sd850is&show=all

Rael · 08-02-2008 11:19PM

Hi folks,

I need to get a digital camera as a birthday present for my mother. She's had some bad experience of late getting films developed (personally I think there's been some screw ups at the labs when she sent her photos in to be developed).

I'm hoping to get a digital camera for her. I have a budget of approximately €200 and I'm looking for something that will give good results for a beginner, I'm also hoping for a model that doesn't require messing about with too many settings because shes going into her 60's and isn't the most tech savvy but has no problem with simple technical suggestions.

Also can anyone recommend a photo printer to go along with it?

Thanks for any help,

Rael

Thirdfox · 08-02-2008 11:36PM

What does she hope to photograph? Family outings and snapshots for memory keepsakes?

I'd suggest looking at a camera that has a 28mm equivalent lens. She'll appreciate the wider angle of view.

Perhaps something from the Panasonic Lumix range? It had image stabilisation built in so it's handy for shaky hands.

What Camera to Buy?? - Read me Before Posting

Comments