Im stuck? Cant decide what dslr to get

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

The D90 and don't go lover than D60.

Could you explain? I usually recommend the D40 over the D60. They are nearly identical in most features, and the D40 does have that wonderful fast sync speed.

[isaiah40_31ph]

hello

i agree with vandergus and loveDSLR

i started with a canon S5 IS, learned the basics from there. then i got the D60 last september..and it was a pleasant learning journey for the past 9 months.

as a beginner, you might get overwhelmed by too much technology..i was looking at my friend's D200 a couple of months ago (last december actually) and i most of the features there were like beyond my understanding.

it was the same when i wanted to get my first DSLR..i was choosing between the D60 and D80..the shop salesman told me, aside from the difference in sensor size and top panel, the D60 doesnt have an AF motor, but i doest have a self-cleaning filter for its sensor.. back then, the AF motor was all greek to me and the self cleaning sensor would be better for a beginner, so i got the D60.

other than not able to auto focus on two of my lenses (nikkor 50mm, f1.8 and tokina 12-24mm f4), the d60 for me was a good starting camera.

i suggest go for the basic models, learn the basics first. then you'll know what to buy next. save up for the glass, its an investment. camera bodies come and go.

hope this helps.

oh yea..go to the shop and try em, feel them in your hands as what most say.. and no prob if you try other brands. at our level, the technical aspects doesnt matter much (yet)

mike

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by isaiah40_31ph

hello

i agree with vandergus and loveDSLR

i started with a canon S5 IS, learned the basics from there. then i got the D60 last september..and it was a pleasant learning journey for the past 9 months.

as a beginner, you might get overwhelmed by too much technology..i was looking at my friend's D200 a couple of months ago (last december actually) and i most of the features there were like beyond my understanding.

it was the same when i wanted to get my first DSLR..i was choosing between the D60 and D80..the shop salesman told me, aside from the difference in sensor size and top panel, the D60 doesnt have an AF motor, but i doest have a self-cleaning filter for its sensor.. back then, the AF motor was all greek to me and the self cleaning sensor would be better for a beginner, so i got the D60.

other than not able to auto focus on two of my lenses (nikkor 50mm, f1.8 and tokina 12-24mm f4), the d60 for me was a good starting camera.

i suggest go for the basic models, learn the basics first. then you'll know what to buy next. save up for the glass, its an investment. camera bodies come and go.

hope this helps.

oh yea..go to the shop and try em, feel them in your hands as what most say.. and no prob if you try other brands. at our level, the technical aspects doesnt matter much (yet)

mike

Sorry, but I'm not sure if I agree. My belief, once you get past the ergonomics of your choice, is get the most camera for the money that you can afford. If you don't, you may regret it in six months as you advance. All the DSLR cameras mentioned so far are considered entry level cameras, and all will allow you to shoot in full auto mode...how basic is that? As you grow with your equipment more of the advanced features will come to you, and more importantly, be available for you if you start with a higher level camera.

[vandergus]

My belief, once you get past the ergonomics of your choice, is get the most camera for the money that you can afford. If you don't, you may regret it in six months as you advance.

That's a valid sentiment but, for the majority of first time DSLR buyers, I don't think it's the best way to go. I bought my first DSLR about a year and a half ago and have recently been thinking back to my state of mind at the time of my purchase. I did a lot of research and still didn't come close to the aspects of the camera that actually turned out to be important. It's taken me a year of solid use to really figure out what works for me and what doesn't, and I'm still learning new stuff everyday. I don't think it's the best choice to spend a ton of money on a high end camera when you don't really know what your needs are. What if you sunk $1500 into a Nikon body just to find that what you really want is in-body stabilization, or Pentax's unique pancake primes, or Canon's high quality 70-200mm f4L. How could you possibly know any of that without ever having owned an SLR? It's going to hurt a lot less to swtich if you only spent $400 on your camera.

As far as being limited by your camera, I'd say that there isn't really a photograph that you can take with a D300 that you can't take with D40. There are many photographs that would be more easily taken with a D300 but very few that you simply can't get. That's why pros love high end cameras, cause they make their job easier, not possible.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by vandergus

That's a valid sentiment but, for the majority of first time DSLR buyers, I don't think it's the best way to go. I bought my first DSLR about a year and a half ago and have recently been thinking back to my state of mind at the time of my purchase. I did a lot of research and still didn't come close to the aspects of the camera that actually turned out to be important. It's taken me a year of solid use to really figure out what works for me and what doesn't, and I'm still learning new stuff everyday. I don't think it's the best choice to spend a ton of money on a high end camera when you don't really know what your needs are. What if you sunk $1500 into a Nikon body just to find that what you really want is in-body stabilization, or Pentax's unique pancake primes, or Canon's high quality 70-200mm f4L. How could you possibly know any of that without ever having owned an SLR? It's going to hurt a lot less to swtich if you only spent $400 on your camera.

As far as being limited by your camera, I'd say that there isn't really a photograph that you can take with a D300 that you can't take with D40. There are many photographs that would be more easily taken with a D300 but very few that you simply can't get. That's why pros love high end cameras, cause they make their job easier, not possible.

I'm not including the prosumer level cameras in my argument...as in the ones that sell for $1300 and up. I am, however, looking at entry level DSLR's that, if affordable, give you a better growth path at say a $600 investment Vs a $400 investment. Will it take better photos..? except under certain conditions it might not, but it's still nice to have the capabilities available when you want them. Cameras, like so many other things you buy are an investment, and not something you want to be replacing yearly, and I'll continue to stand behind my logic of buying the best you can buy for the amount of money you can afford.

[vandergus]

Very well. Two different points of view. Hopefully the OP will consider both.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by vandergus

Very well. Two different points of view. Hopefully the OP will consider both.

Sure, we can agree to disagree ...and I'm sure we can respect each other's opinion and agree to move on. My logic was drilled into me by my Mom, so I guess I'm stuck with it..lol

Vinnie

[isaiah40_31ph]

hello

we sometimes have the notion that the basic (and cheapest) models cant perform up to par..though its very true about some other stuffs

we can see wulf still uses his D40 and he takes awesome pictures with it..

i started with the S5, because i didnt know then what direction i'd go regarding photography. so i stayed on the safe side.

but hey, just like you, this is the general thinking i grew up with..and it works for me just as yours works for you.

hope we didnt confuse the inquirer.. hehe

mike

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by isaiah40_31ph

hello

we sometimes have the notion that the basic (and cheapest) models cant perform up to par..though its very true about some other stuffs

we can see wulf still uses his D40 and he takes awesome pictures with it..

i started with the S5, because i didnt know then what direction i'd go regarding photography. so i stayed on the safe side.

but hey, just like you, this is the general thinking i grew up with..and it works for me just as yours works for you.

hope we didnt confuse the inquirer.. hehe

mike

In all due respect Mike, I'm not saying the D40 does not take good photos, that's not the question. After all, it's the photographer, and not the camera that takes good photographs. What I am saying is if you can afford an upgraded model, one that's in your budget range, it should be considered. You have to look past the fact that they all are capable of taking good photos, but look at features of the each camera...those that might be less obvious. Examples would be, but not limited to, include things like faster burst frame rate, larger internal buffer, internal electronics upgrades (as in Canon's Digiac III to the latest Digiac IV), better noise handling, etc. A novice may not look for these things when making a purchasing decision, but may regret not having some of these capabilities as he/she advances with their skill and equipment. Believe me, it's not my intent to confuse the inquirer..I just want to help him make the right decision.

[isaiah40_31ph]

Believe me, it's not my intent to confuse the inquirer..I just want to help him make the right decision.

no no no..i didnt mean to say that.. not at all..

i understand your point, about if its within the budget, then why not? im just sharing my experience with the inquirer that whatever model he/she will get, itll definitely be a performer.

i did squirm about the d60 not having a built in af motor, or about the not having the top lcd panel, or the 200th only xsync..but it probably wouldnt make any sense to me back then