What dSLR do you love and why?

[nivram]

Originally posted by Jon770
Ritz/Wolf Camera sells the camera in two bundled options: one with just the standard Canon 18-55mm lens, and the other with a Canon 75-300mm lens (in addition to the 18-55). I was wondering whether the 75-300 is really worth the extra money. It's not all that much more (about $100), but if I'm never going to take it out of the bag than to me it's just a waste of money....

Thanks for your help!

I would suggest you get the IS version of the 75-300 telephoto lens. This is a great lens. The IS means image stabilization.

I have the Digital Rebel (300D) and this lens. It's really nice if you are into outdoor photography or taking pictures where you need the extra length.

For those that are interested in MACRO photography, but not Macro lens prices. There is a set of screw on lenes/filters that will magnify your existing lens. They usually come in a set of 1x, 2x and 3x. The only drawback if any is that you must use manual focus. I cant think of what these are called right now. But I bought a cheap set from Ritz/Wolf for like $20.

[jeffbrig]

Extension tubes are typically a higher quality option than inexpepensive diopters. Instead of an add on filter, where quality of glass is a concern, they're simply spacer rings that fit between the camera body and the lens. By moving the lens away from the sensor, the minimum focusing distance of the lens is reduced, without sacrificing image quality.

Jon, the 18-55 or 75-300 are not Canon's best lenses, but they are perfectly adequate for the average user. It's mainly a cost/quality tradeoff. More expensive lenses typically have better/faster focus motors, show less distortion at the extremes of the zoom range, better sharpness, more vivid color reproduction, etc. Other fancy features include internal zoom (the lens barrel doesn't extend/retract) and constant apertures through the zoom range.

But, let's be honest, if you're new to SLRs, these differences probably won't jump out at you. When you've used a lens enough to recognize it's shortcomings, perhaps then it's time to upgrade. But more times than not, the photographer will be the weakest link.

[itzyroe]

i have a 30 d grat camera

[Jon770]

OK, sorry to keep reviving this thread, but I can’t seem to make a decision. I’ve come to the realization that the best ‘entry-level’ D-SLR for the money is either the Canon XTi or the Nikon D40x. Then there is always the ‘mid-level’ Nikon D80, which everyone here seems to love. As a true novice with SLR photography, I feel comfortable getting an entry level camera, but at the same time I don’t want to kick myself a couple years down the road for not spending the extra couple bucks to get the D80. While money is definitely a factor in my decision and I would prefer to save the $400, if it will make THAT big a difference, then I will pay the extra $$$ for the D80.

So….here are my options of cameras/kits to get. Which one do you think I should go with, and why?


OPTION 1: $749 – Nikon D40x with Two-Lens Bonus Outfit (18-55 & 55-200)
Main accessories besides camera body:
Nikon AF-S DX ZOOM-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
Nikon bag and Nikon instructional DVDs

OPTION 2: $749 – Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi 2 lens Zoom Kit (18-55 & 75-300)
Main accessories besides camera body:
EF-S 18-55mm II
EF-S 75-300mm III

OPTION 3: $1,043 – Nikon D80 Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-135mm Lens
Main accessories besides camera body:
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor lens

OPTION 4: $1,099 – Nikon D80 Digital SLR Two-Lens Bonus Outfit (18-55 & 55-200)
Main accessories besides camera body:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Lens
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
Nikon bag and Nikon instructional DVDs

OPTION 5: $1,149 – Nikon D80 Digital SLR Two-Lens Bonus Outfit (18-55 & VR 55-200)
Main accessories besides camera body:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Lens
Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor Lens w/ Vibration Reduction
Nikon bag and Nikon instructional DVDs

[Aimiel]

Your decision as well as your hindsight are going to depend upon your future. Do you see yourself studying photography professionally? Are you looking to enter a career where having a top-of-the-line camera might become necessary? Would you be satisfied with a D40, knowing what a D80 can do? If you want a good camera, but don't see yourself taking some serious time to get into photgraphy as a hobby or moving into the field (portraits, weddings, real estate, etc.) then go with the D40. It is a good all-around camera with lots of perks over the Canon.

I don't expect to become a professional photographer, but I do want to get into computer graphics, and for that, sometimes photography is necessary. I bought your option # 3, and am currently very satisfied, although I do want to get a 'short' lens for portraits / 'quick' shots, a macro lens and a longer zoom lens (down the road). I have to stress that I'm pro Nikon on this one for many reasons. I am extremely happy about the functions and abilities of my camera, and; the Canon EOS has a lot of shortcomings, when compared side-by-side with the D40. Nikkor are better lenses.

If I had it to do over again, I would save my money and get the D200.

[jeffbrig]

My honest advice for someone starting out is to buy the cheapest entry level kit you can get. Or, if you KNOW you're going to buy several different lenses, buy the body by itself (skip the cheap kit lenses), and put the money towards 1 or 2 quality lenses.

Personally, I went for the inexpensive XT when I was SLR shopping, the body was about $600 after rebates. I ended up getting the 18-55 lens in a kit because it was only $60 more. I knew I wanted a 100mm macro and a 70-200, so I got those as my quality lenses. Those two have spent the most time on my camera by far.

Another option you haven't considered is to buy a used body from someone who's upgraded to the "latest greatest". Even an older XT or the Nikon equivalent still take fantastic pictures, and any money you save with a cheaper body is money you can put towards better glass. Glass makes a bigger difference. You can always upgrade the body one day if you want, it will use these same lenses.

[FleeVT]

Jon, checkout Costco if. I was in there this weekend and saw a 2 lens D40x setup (I think the exact setup as your option #1). I wish I remembered the price, etc. but it is probably worth a look if you are considering that option.

I picked up the D40x about 6 months ago and am extremely pleased with it so far. I consider myself an informed amateur. I am aware of my camera's features, know when to use them for the most part, try to use them sometimes, but swear that all you need to worry about is shutter speed, aperture, and (in reef photography) white balance.

[Saiyan]

Just thought I would voice my .02. I have a Canon 40D and have used a 5D. Both are absolutely awesome. I would have purchased the 5D if I could have afforded it and it comes with an L series lens. But alas the 40D was expensive enough.

I haven't used the Nikon DSLRs but have used several of their SLRs. I can't imagine that the Canon menus and setup can be beat. I am a tech junkie and just can't get over all the cool features that the 40D has.

I really like the three custom positions. Allowing you to have each one set up however you like with all the available features turned on or off and even different WB settings. I am sure Nikon has a very similar set up but I just love Canons. I also love the live view mode for close up photography. It really lets you get perfect focus and exposure. Plus there is a setting the lets the screen show as an exposure simulation so you can decide if you like it before you click.

The only thing about the Nikons that I find interesting is the higher ISO support. However since I usually only use 100 for everything except movement shots I don't know if it makes much of a difference.

I really think though that going with any full featured DSLR (as long as the lenses you want are available for it) people will be happy. Also check the build quality. I personally wouldn't buy anything that isn't a metal body.

[ReefWreak]

I would say that even with my limited experience with Cannons, that the nikon DSLRs will tend to have as much "techie" settings in them as the Cannons do.

I've got the D40, and it's a composite body, which I really like, and feels just as strong and durable (if not more so) than any metal body. They don't make Formula 1 spoilers out of metal.

[Saiyan]

Originally posted by ReefWreak
I would say that even with my limited experience with Cannons, that the nikon DSLRs will tend to have as much "techie" settings in them as the Cannons do.

I've got the D40, and it's a composite body, which I really like, and feels just as strong and durable (if not more so) than any metal body. They don't make Formula 1 spoilers out of metal.

I fail to see how a formula 1 spoiler has anything to do with a camera. The magnesium bodies are made to be used and abused. My 40D is rock solid and has some weather proofing. The composite bodies are not made for harsh environments and do not feel as solid as a composite body and yes I looked at and tried them all before I bought my camera. My father has a D40, it is a nice camera but not in the same league as Canon's 40D IMO. And remember these are all just opinions. Build quality is very important to me, some people don't care. Also nothing made to last is made out of plastic unless metal is either incapable of doing the job or when cost or as in a formula one car when weight is a consideration.

[Saiyan]

I just noticed this was a reef club forum if I am not supposed to be posting here I apologize. I got to this thread from a search.

[Jon770]

no, it's fine. I appreciate your input...