I am looking at a DSLR Camera

[Tazziedevil]

Originally Posted by King James

I'm a canon guy.



BUT, you can get a 40D for relatively cheap right now (and it is has a better sensor than the newer 50D )

I'm a Canon guy as well, and the 40d is one of the best cropped sensor dSLR's out there. Canon's lenses are far superior to Nikon's...especially in the pro level (which you may never need- but notice next time you watch a pro sports event- 95% of all the photogs have big, giant white Canon L lenses on a monopod. That's not a coincidence.

By the way, megapixels are no longer an issue, unless you are a professional commercial or fashion photographer. You can make poster size prints from an 8mp camera that look great. Lots of megapixels just mean less space on your memory cards and unwieldy file sizes if you do any post-processing.

It's already been said, but you're better off buying an older body and investing in good lenses. Bodies go obsolete every 3 years or so, but good lenses can be used forever if you take care of them.

[King James]

Darrell, how fast are those 2 lenses?

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by King James

Darrell, how fast are those 2 lenses?

Jim,
I think one ran the 1/4 mile in about 5 seconds.
The other was sluggish as did too many "f stops" along the way.

(You can tell I am doing better - wife came home and helped tremendously)

Love my gf's D40. Great size and great images. Im hoping she gets tired of photography so i can use it as a backup to my D90

[Stogeyfish]

Nice pickup Darrell!

My sister-in-law picked up the same model after I got the D60 (I didn't have enough money for the D80/90 at the time).

Have fun with it!

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by Tazziedevil

I'm a Canon guy as well, and the 40d is one of the best cropped sensor dSLR's out there. Canon's lenses are far superior to Nikon's...especially in the pro level (which you may never need- but notice next time you watch a pro sports event- 95% of all the photogs have big, giant white Canon L lenses on a monopod. That's not a coincidence.

By the way, megapixels are no longer an issue, unless you are a professional commercial or fashion photographer. You can make poster size prints from an 8mp camera that look great. Lots of megapixels just mean less space on your memory cards and unwieldy file sizes if you do any post-processing.

It's already been said, but you're better off buying an older body and investing in good lenses. Bodies go obsolete every 3 years or so, but good lenses can be used forever if you take care of them.

As a professional photographer in my past life (although at that time, medium format was the choice as digital did not exist), I agree with Canon being far superior and the one of choice for professionals.
HOWEVER, that is on the very expensive and professional level.

On "hobby" level, they are all quite comparable and a matter of personal preference for look, feel, and features. I happened to like the features of the D80 for the money at the time as compared to the next level up on Canon. For the stuff I do now, would never need anything other than my 28-105 mm from Nikon, which is a very nice lens and higher quality than the other common ones that come with the camera.

Totally agree on the overhype of MP. I have done tests taking an 8x10 and then taking a quarter of that 8x10 and making a new 8x10 out of that. Did it with 3.2 MP and did it with 5. It was only in that manner I could detect any type of minimal difference. If comparing a 3 MP to an 5 MP to a 10 MP 8x10, with nothing other than these 50 yr old eyes, heck if I can notice what I would call considerable difference for the average buff in spite of having spent years seeing photos and negatives. No need for 10 MP other than to take up space or blow up it up to the size of your bedroom wall.

[mithrilG60]

OP, in terms of what to go with you need to mainly consider what your intended long term uses are. In the entry level ranges all the manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony,etc) produce very capable cameras that will more than do what the average consumer is looking for. Canon and Nikon tend to be more expensive than the 4/3rds crowd and have far more extensive systems that you can buy into in terms of lighting and lens options. However their advantage doesn't really come into play until you start getting into their semi-pro to pro level gear.

If you think photography is something that you're likely to turn into a serious hobby it may be worth it to go with one of those companies just for the future expansion. If on the other hand you're like the vast majority of people who just want a camera to take good photos of family and vacations and will probably stay in the standard 18mm to 200mm focal range with maybe a wide angle then any of them will do the job for you. Best bet in that situation is to go into a photography store and play with all the various makes that fall in your price range. Base your decision on which camera feels the best and most natural in your hand.

While I'm personally a Nikon guy, the best value for money in entry level DSLR's is usually found in Olympus and Pentax lines. Especially if you like very small, very light cameras.

Originally Posted by Scothew

Theres alot of great info about nikons, canons, and everything else on www.kenrockwell.com he does reviews on the stuff and as far as i know doesnt get paid from either source or anything.

Just a note about this, please take everything Ken Rockwell says with an extremely large grain of salt since he's the biggest fan boy for whatever happens to be either the latest and greatest or his current obsession. He's not taken particularly seriously by anyone in the real photography world so I certainly wouldn't take his word or reviews as gospel. There's some decent information on his site but taking it too seriously would be like going to Jeremy Clarkson for a serious review of a car you might actually buy.

Originally Posted by Chemyst

I occasionally look at getting a new DSLR, to replace
my 8MP Nikon Prosumer (Coolpix 8800).

There are two things that I'm looking for:

1) at LEAST double the number of pixels (16MP)

2) a full 24mm X 36mm sensor, to make use of
previously owned Nikon 35mm AF glass.

The Coolpix is nice, but won't make anything larger
than an OK 11X14, or a nice 8X10.

I understand that Nikon does have a full sized sensor
line, now. Good. I think it's the DX line. Not sure.

1. Pixel density is pretty much irrelevant at this point unless you plan on printing huge blowups..... and by huge I mean dimensions measured in feet instead of inches. With the exception of the top-of-the-line pro 24mp D3X ($7500), all of Nikon's current DSLR line are 12mp. Even the old 6mp D70 is capable of producing much higher quality images than your Coolpix 8800 so I wouldn't get hung up on the numbers. Rather go with the body that has the features you need and feels most comfortable in your hand.

2. Nikon's full frame line is the FX (D700, D3 and variants). All of your old Nikon glass will work on any of the current bodies however you won't have auto-focus on older glass with the entry level bodies (D60 and D3000) as they don't have an AF motor built into the body. The D90 and above will auto-focus all Nikon glass since AF was introduced however as mentioned above your TTL and metering by distance will be hit or miss. Full frame glass on a crop sensor (ie. the DX line) will simply produce a crop equivalency in the lens' effective focal range. Nikon's DX crop is 1.6x which means the focal length of full frame glass is 40% longer on a DX body than an FX. For example, using your old 50mm F1.8 normal lens on a DX body will be the equivalent of using a 70mm lens on a film or FX body.

[Dux]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

Just a note about this, please take everything Ken Rockwell says with an extremely large grain of salt since he's the biggest fan boy for whatever happens to be either the latest and greatest or his current obsession. He's not taken particularly seriously by anyone in the real photography world so I certainly wouldn't take his word or reviews as gospel. There's some decent information on his site but taking it too seriously would be like going to Jeremy Clarkson for a serious review of a car you might actually buy.

I agree 100% I find his reviews "Cameras" and comparisons to be miss leading. He seems to just toss out opinions without any type of research or data to back up his statements.

I did find his review on some Lenses helpful

[BigAl_SC]

Originally Posted by Chemyst

It would be nice to be able to afford Photoshop, and
learn it thoroughly, too. But, Adobe wants too much $$$$.
My entire wet darkroom didn't cost what Adobe wants
for just the current version of CS4 Design Premium. Sheesh.

Chemyst

You could do as I did. Adobe elements can be found in the 80 range. buy it and register it. Adobe send out upgrade to PS emails at half price a couple of times a year. Net is a lot less than PS at retail...

[Scothew]

Originally Posted by mithrilG60

Just a note about this, please take everything Ken Rockwell says with an extremely large grain of salt since he's the biggest fan boy for whatever happens to be either the latest and greatest or his current obsession. He's not taken particularly seriously by anyone in the real photography world so I certainly wouldn't take his word or reviews as gospel. There's some decent information on his site but taking it too seriously would be like going to Jeremy Clarkson for a serious review of a car you might actually buy.

I take pretty much everything in life with a grain of salt. I use rockwell's site for more of a reference point. he does a fairly good job from what i can see about listing whats coming out and whats alraedy out. Also its a easy to read format on manufacturer specs and things of that nature. as far as his test and things, i dont pay attention to them 85% of the time.

[Ginseng]

Darrell,
Since this will be your first dSLR, and you're considering the D3000, then I can reasonably guess that you:
1. WANT an economical, flexible system for about $500 plus a bit for accessories
2. WANT a device that is easy to learn and use
These were my two primary considerations when I bought my first dSLR in February of 2007. However, when I went to buy my second, the critical questions were different.

The next two questions should be answered and then, and only then, can you really confidently make a decision that will be perfect for you.

1. What is your subject? Kids running around inside the house? Birds on the wing? Teenager on the football field? The palace at Angkor Wat? You need to know this so that you can define the camera and lens setup that will meet the requirements of capturing your subject well.
For example, if it's your fast moving toddler inside the house, then you will want a short, wide lens (18-55mm in APS-C cropped), and a light body. You'll also want a flash with bounce capability. If your son the footballer is your target, then you'll want an image stabilized zoom of around 300 mm on the long end and a body that records 6-7 frames per second. If shooting in low, available light, still subjects, and where flash is prohibited (i.e., galleries, historical sites, museums) then you'll want a set of fast lenses (35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 80mmf1.2) and a body that has great high-ISO performance.

Why is this important? Because even if you can afford prestigious pro glass like the Nikon 70-200mm VR f2.8 II or 24-70mm f2.8, you'll be cursing it for its weight and/or the inability to capture all of the scene you're looking at as you're chasing the diaperless wonder zooming across your den. And while the 35mm f1.8 might be cool (I have one), you will definitely NOT want to be foot-zooming over and across Legos, Bratz dolls, or Tonka trucks just to frame your subject because 1) you'll trip and fall, 2) you'll miss the shot.

When I bought my first dSLR, I knew that shooting my infant and toddler daughters and family would be 97% of my subjects. So, the 18-55mm that came with the body was perfect, perfect, perfect...especially when coupled with a bounce head flash.

2. What is your aspiration as a photographer? You don't need to cop to wanting to be the next Ansel Adams to justify purchasing a camera system. Likewise, buying a $7,000 Leica M9 and $20,000 worth of Leica glass will not make you into one. Do you feel comfortable never using more than 10% of a system's capabilities? Not I. If you don't foresee becoming "serious" about photography (and I don't mean ever, I mean in the next 3-5 years) then spend only what you need to get by plus a bit more. I don't want to be a pro. Hell, I don't even want to be an advanced amateur or an enthusiast. I just want to be able to take good photos of my kids with minimal fuss. You decide for yourself.

As for the APS-C cropped frame versus full-frame (FX) argument, forget it. Put it out of your head. For the beginning dSLR shootist with modest aspirations, APS-C cameras will give you everything you could reasonably want, at a price that is pleasant, in a size and weight format that is manageable. Micro 4/3? Forget about it. It's new, it ain't cheap, there isn't much glass, and a couple of other things...but basically, APS-C is tested, companies know how to make reflex bodies, and for beginner units, there isn't much size or weight difference.

As for the Nikon vs. Canon, Canon vs. Pentax, etc. comparisons. Forget it. The entry level bodies in any of these lines are competent devices and performance will be limited not by the hardware but by the shooter. Decide what you want to shoot. Find out what focal lengths and speeds you need in lenses, then find the manufacturer who has these at a price you want to pay. I know Nikon because I use Nikon.

Megapixels? Forget about it. The lowest you're likely to find is 6MP and the highest, between 12-15MP. And you know what? If you're moving up from a point and shoot pocket camera, print no larger than 8x10, don't regularly crop your images like a mofo, then even 6MP will give you the most wonderful, amazing images for 4x6 prints, digital picture frames, and web album sharing. Sure, you could theoretically print a better looking 2' x 3' poster size from a 15MP file than a 6 MP file, but really...who the heck does regularly enough to justify the pixel war? And besides, there's the "secret" that makes the argument moot anyway. And remember, more MP = bigger files and greater storage requirements. 6MP files take 2.4 MB. 12MP files take 7 MB. I have three HDDs to back up my images.

Video capability? Unless you're serious, it's a novelty. This is brand new and even Nikon and Canon are still figuring it all out. Trust me, it'll do in a pinch but it is no replacement for a dedicated videocam.

So, what did I buy in 2007? A Nikon D40 kit with the 18-55mm lens, then an SB-400 flash. Am I happy. Yep. While I eventually added a few other lenses and a bigger flash, this is the setup that allowed me to document the first 2 years of my daughter's life over nearly 17,000 images. This setup gave me everything I needed. Light weight, good zoom range, fill and bounce flash, and...well that's all I needed to take some of the most meaningful pictures of my life.

I was ready for another camera in the late winter of 2008 and so I added the Nikon D90 to my kit. Different questions. Different needs and concerns. The D90 (or more precisely, its predecessor the D80) would not have been the right camera for me in 2007. And likewise, the D40 would not have met some of my requirements in 2008.

So you see, there is no pat answer. But know what you want to shoot and how much you're willing to invest (and not just in terms of cash) and you'll be able to make a decision confidently and with high likelihood that you'll be happy taking photos...which, I gather, is really what you want.

For the average beginner, snap shooter, family and dog photog looking to spend under $700-800 all told, I'd say get the Nikon D40 while you still can. Add a flash, a few 2-4GB SD cards, an extra battery, and a clear protective filter and you're ready to rock. I guarantee it. If you can spend more, have bigger hands, and dig gadgets, go for the D90. The D300 is a biiiiiiiig step up and is not a beginner's camera.

Wilkey

PS. Right now, I have a D40 and D90 body, 18-55, 18-55 VR, 18-200 VR, 18-105 VR, 35mm f1.8, SB-400, SB-600, a bunch of filters, spare batteries, and SD cards up to 8GB, a fold-up diffuser, lens brush and puffer, two Tamrac bags, a cheapo tripod, and some miscellaneous junk. I've tried a ton of other lenses, the D300, etc. but these things allow me to photograph anything that I'd care to photograph as far as kids, family, picnics, etc.

[Blueface]

Lots of good advice/info in this thread.
Here is one item I consider well worth every penny of the $49 it costs, which I alluded to earlier.

Darrell,
You put this on an SB800 or any good digital flash and you will shoot like a Pro.
Not one indoor shot needing flash should ever be without this device.
Lots of other variations in the market but I truly like this one.
What most photographers accomplish with multiple lighting and 2 to 1 ratio for portraits, this can accomplish almost the same look, without the multiple lights.
Knocks out any harsh glare on subjects, eliminates shadows cast by the flash, eliminates red eye as no direct light to eye to bounce off iris, opens up the background to simulate what the eye sees as opposed the darkness when flash straight on, etc.
http://store.garyfonginc.com/lsu-cloud.html

Originally Posted by King James

Darrell, how fast are those 2 lenses?

Im guessing the 18-200 is the AF-s 18-200mm VR f/3.5 - 5.6G DX IF-ED and the 18-55 is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor.