How did you finally make a decision?

[RSCDoug]

I'm going to be buying my first dSLR in the next few days. It'll be either the D60 or the A300...I have tried a lot of cameras to get a feel for what I like...These two feel the most comfortable for me. My issue is that I have to pick one, and I am having a hard time pulling the trigger...I'm afraid of buyers remorse...

I'm leaning towards the A300, but it's hard to completely discount the Nikon...I mean, it's a Nikon...but, I am leary of the lack of AF and VR unless I get specific lenses. From what I've read they use the same image sensor, but then I read that the A300 kit lenses are no good....This is just so hard.

Argh...What to do...Suggestions?

[Gobae]

it's a Nikon...but, I am leary of the lack of AF and VR unless I get specific lenses.

Unless you've got a ton of old lenses that you want to use with AF, there's no reason to worry about that. The range of AF-S/AF-I is pretty decent and cost pretty much the same as Nikon's other AF lenses.

Of course if it's still a worry point, you might consider a D80/90 or any other Nikon body since it's only the D40(X)/60 series that is limited to AF-S AF-I lenses.

[OeterB]

Originally Posted by RSCDoug

I'm afraid of buyers remorse...

Well, I got my camera, mmm, end of November... my parents were putting in money for Christmas, so I didn't actually use it till December 24. I spent 4 weeks completely stewing whether I'd made the right choice.

I still have doubts from time to time. In the end, you've gotta just take the plunge and buy. And use it.

What helped me make the decision (I was settled on Canon, but tossing up between the 450, 50 and 40Ds), purely, was price. Uni student, price comes into everything. If it feels comfortable in your hands, and does what you need it to, cost is the thing that comes into it for me. Because, no matter what you spend, there's always something better... so, you've gotta draw the line somewhere. *shrugs*

[sk66]

OK, to me this is a simple choice, the Nikon.

• Sony has few lenses and the better ones ore not cheap for what they are(supply/demand).
  
• Sony doesn't make very many cameras, so later "upgrading" will be difficult with another Sony.
  
• Most Sigma lenses have HSM and are cheap/ good quality lenses to fit Nikon. (same with other aftermarket lenses)
  
• Any lens which fits a D60 will fit any other Nikon (but there IS an issue if you upgrade to a D700/D3 at some point)

A more difficult question for me might be Nikon or Canon, but you didn't ask that one...

[dcclark]

Go try both in your hands, and see if one of them really sticks out to you -- as easier to hold, nicer to navigate the interface, easier to reach the controls, etc.

As for AF-S lenses and VR -- don't worry about it. Almost EVERY single new Nikon lens is AF-S, and some of Nikon's best recent lenses are AF-S (think the 18-200mm VR). It's pretty much the way of the future for lenses. VR is never a bad thing, because (least of all) you can turn it off.

[WooD]

Nikon.............

[wattsbw2004]

"Doesn't Sony make the Nikon sensor?"

Lol I had to put that out there, I have the A700 and love it. There aren't many lenses out there right now and 18-70 kit lens is decent but not completely horrible. I would say definitely try them out for yourself first before you ask for help at a store. They can be too biased at times and just try to push you to something completely else. As of right now I have the kit, 75-300 and Sigma 10-20 to cover my range and although I know there are other way better lenses out there, I am completely satisfied with what I got with no complaints.

[digirebelva]

Here is one, is VR (or IS) better to have in the camera or in the lens...the one in the lens has been specifically tailored to that lens, while the one on the camera is going to have to make some compromise between a short focal & long (zoom) focal length lens. I.E. the requirements are different for stabilizing a short focal lens then they are a long focal lens where shake is much more of an issue..

[Mr Guy]

There's a trade off between in body and in lens. There's only one or two body/lens combinations in the world that can directly compare, there's a sigma you can put on Olympus and a different one you can put on Pentax. That's really the only way to make a direct comparison and the results people have posted are controversial at best. The edge in direct comparisons seems to go to body stabilization, but only just barely.

The only real definite answer is that in body stabilization has a clear advantage over no stabilization at all (such as all older glass) and then in lens stabilization has a clear advantage at focal lengths over 300mm. People have jumped on that long focal length fact to state that in lens is "better", but forget the clarification that the statement is only made for long focal lengths.

The only time I'd let in body versus in lens sway your opinion is if you are using legacy glass. For comparing new systems, it's a non-factor really.

Personally, though, I'd never suggest anyone go for any brand beyond Canon, Nikon, or Pentax just due to lens selection unless they had a really compelling reason why, and plenty of people scoff at Pentax because most of that lens selection is gorgeous old manual glass that can be put on Canon with adapters (although without in body stabilization).

[sk66]

Originally Posted by digirebelva

Here is one, is VR (or IS) better to have in the camera or in the lens...the one in the lens has been specifically tailored to that lens, while the one on the camera is going to have to make some compromise between a short focal & long (zoom) focal length lens. I.E. the requirements are different for stabilizing a short focal lens then they are a long focal lens where shake is much more of an issue..

One nice thing about in body is you don't need to buy lenses with it....There are a lot of very good lenses out there without VR/IS and they are cheaper too.