digital slr?

Question

I'm somewhat of a newbie to cameras, but not as much as some. I have several point and shoot cameras, no digital slr's.

what brand,make or model do you suggest to purchase,and why? I'm looking in the maximum of $700 before tax range.

I was somewhat interested in the nikon d40x and the canon rebel xti (or something like that).

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Let me help you sort out the monotony that comes with buying a DSLR.

Someone suggested the Sony Alpha or the Pentax K100D, citing the in-camera shake reduction. This would be a plus, but is really only a selling point. In truth, this shake reduction only provides around 2 stops difference. Also, on the Pentax K100D, this sucks away the battery life on a camera that runs on AA batteries. Yes, this is the only DSLR that runs on AA's, and hopefully will remain so. You see, the battery life is severely cut, giving you only around 400 pictures before they give out. My thing with the Sony Alpha are its less than good image quality at higher ISO's, and its tendency to over saturate.

The Nikon D40x is an excellent camera for the money, and the best bang for your buck in its class; a title once held by Canon and the Digital Rebel series. The Nikon D40x has great image quality, excellent build and layout, and a supurb selection of lenses. Granted, non AF-S lenses will not auto focus. The reason being, Nikon took out the in camera motor. This seems like a major flaw, but when you think about it, it really was not. The Nikon D40 and D40x are designed for people who are moving up from point and shoots, who do not have any previous Nikkors, and who do not plan to buy any besides the 18-55mm kit or the 55-200mm extended kit. This is also why these cameras cannot be found with out the kit 18-55mm. This does not mean you cannot use the older screw driven Nikkors. You can still get that great quality, only you'll have to manual focus the lens. This sucks, I know, but it's easy to get use to. Besides, photographers have been manual focusing their lenses for well over a hundred years, and they continue to do this today; look at the $1000 Canon 65mm 1x-5 macro: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7325 Yes, it's a manual focus, and a great lens, both optically and its all uses. Just look at it...!

The Nikon D40x, like all Nikon cameras is very well built. This goes from the $550 D40 to the $5,000 D3. This has held true all the way back in the days of film. Canon on the other hand always feels "Cheap", that is plasticy and fragile. I don't care what anyone says, but the Digital Rebel series, the Rebel, the XT and the XTi all feel terrible. The 40D is much better, but still feels like a Canon-light and cheap. It really only really goes away with the supurb EOS 5D and the Mark series.

One other thing that bring down Canon are its lenses. Unlike Nikon, whose lenses are stunning, Canon suffers from some optical flaws. Now, I love the way Canon USM lenses look and feel, but this is about it. Really, the optical quality does not get good until you lay out around $500. But the L series is where the optical quality become flawless.

Overall, I would suggest the Nikon D40x. For so cheap and such great quality, why would you want to miss it? For Canon, you'll have to spend a lot more money to get the same quality. If you go with Canon, at least get the 40D and a good lens. Otherwise, you'll be disapointed.

From what you've read, I might sound one sided with Nikon. Let me just say, this is how I feel, and from my own experiences with both Canon, Nikon, and Sony, Pentax, Mamiya, and others. If I use a Nikon, I know I get quality. If I use a Canon 5D and an L lens, I know I get quality as well. I would be crazy to say Canon is a bad company, as I would to say Nikon is. In truth, both make excellent products.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

I would say digital! First if you are asking this question, you aren't a pro. Digital is much cheaper on the learning curve. I have a nice little Cannon digital SLR and love it. As to the quality, the average person can't tell the difference in the prints. Also my local camera shop told me that Kodak is fixing to pull out of the film market, I think we can say that is the beginning of the end. Some will fight it, but like records and cassette tapes, film cameras will be a thing of the past for the average person. BTW if you decide you want a traditional SLR, I'll sell you my old one. Works just fine, the only thing I hated was using film. ;-)

Answer 3

Nikon and Canon are nice cameras. However, I suggest a good look at the Sony A100 and the Pentax K100D Super.

The A100 is 10mp, has Super Anti-Shake in the camera body, has dust removal for the sensor and you can use every Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985. (Sony bought the Minolta camera line in 2006 when Konica-Minolta quit the camera business to concentrate on copiers and medical imaging devices. A sad day for us Minoltaphiles).

The K100D Super is 6.1mp, has Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body, dust removal for the sensor and accepts every K-mount lens made since 1975. Of course the non-AF lenses from back then will have to be manually focused but at least they'll have the benefit of IS.

IMO these cameras offer more features and benefits than their comparably priced competition.

Answer 4

nikon d40x and the canon rebel xti

those are the 2, both brands have a great range of lenses

goto dpreview.com and compare them

a

Answer 5

I do not like the fact that the Nikon D40x does not have an AF motor.

Answer 6

Both your choices are excellent.
I'm a Canon guy myself so I would recommend the Canon.
But either one is fine.
See the link below for a great side by side comparison of the two.