Digital SLR camera

IDLEchild

IDLEchild

Well-Known Member
Anyone here have one or plan to own a Digital SLR?

I use to love working with film but when digital pretty much made film retardedly expensive to work with I started to look into dslrs. I've been researching canon models for a while now.

Problem is, everytime I finally make up my mind to get one a better follow up model comes out and I am stuck in a loop of saving money for that model which means eventually that money ends up getting spent on other neccessaties.

I did my hw on the Canon EOS 30d for a year or so then EOS 40D came out. Finally decided to take the plunge and get 40D and found out EOS 50D was announced. But when EOS 50D was announced as a so-so update (Not bad by any means but not the "killer" update everyone was expecting) I decided to just get 40D...

...and the next day I hear announcement of EOS 5D MII. Didn't care much untill I read further and found out it shoots full HD video with any lense which is designed to work with that camera.

Full HD video is too good to pass up. I've seen the samples shot with that camera and WOW. With the right glass and settings you can pretty much recreate actual movie quality.


I've always stuck with Canon even though Nikon has some great camera. Canon just seems to be better at ISO performance and I hate using the flash.

Well time to save more...
 
I bought a Nikon D40 a few months ago.
I'm still new to using a DSLR so I went with an entry level camera to see if I could figure out how to do it. I didn't want to lay out the cash for a higher end camera right away.
 
I bought my wife a D-40 for her birthday. Fabulous imaging. I looked at the D-60 but unless she's shooting for posters or billboards the extra 3megapixels were pointless & a waste of money.
 
Dave said:
I bought a Nikon D40 a few months ago.
I'm still new to using a DSLR so I went with an entry level camera to see if I could figure out how to do it. I didn't want to lay out the cash for a higher end camera right away.
Click to expand...

See I am going with the opposite approach. Instead of spending on an entry level dslr I am just gonna go ahead and get an advanced one and learn on that. By the time I get ready to buy another dslr technology would have advanced light years at the rate I save money.
 
Originally I wanted a Nikon D70, but cost concerns have me leaning toward a D40 instead. But I've also got those nice Canon cameras to think about, too. I have a 35mm slr, so I just haven't had the incentive (or the money) to go digital yet. The last digital camera I had was a kodak easyshare. It was 2MP, and I lost it somehow.

But otherwise, the only reason I haven't gotten a new digital camera yet is because I want a dslr. And I don't have the money yet.
 
IDLEchild said:
See I am going with the opposite approach. Instead of spending on an entry level dslr I am just gonna go ahead and get an advanced one and learn on that. By the time I get ready to buy another dslr technology would have advanced light years at the rate I save money.
Click to expand...


I couldn't justify to myself buying a more advance camera as a first DSLR. I could just as easily get bored with photography as take to it with enthusiasm.
I really like the camera and am taking more pictures with it than the P&S I used to use. By the time I get familiar with all the controls, I don't doubt I'll be upgrading. Then I'll give the D40 to the wife and she'll send the P&S back home.

Gonz said:
the extra 3megapixels were pointless & a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Its not the extra MPs your paying for. Its the better processor and sensor chip.
 
My understanding is there's something different about the D40 lenses compared to the rest of the Nikkor lenses.

At work, I use a D100 that was bought in April 2003. I wish I could see how many shutter actuations it's had, but the D100 is one of the only Nikon models to not save that in the EXIF data. In any case, it's been tough and reliable, although very noisy at 1600 ISO. I do sometimes wish for a couple extra megapixels because I'm using it to print on a broadsheet-size page.

I once drowned the camera. I shot a football game in a driving rain storm and the camera got waterlogged. I took the bottom off and found that water had pooled by where the card reader connects to the rest of the camera. I dried it out and put the camera back together and it worked fine.

Both people I've known with a Canon 30D have been very heavy users, and both had to send theirs in for some sort of repair eventually... I think something to do with the shutter. That's the reason I wish I could find out how many shutter actuations the Nikon has; then maybe I can compare it to how many those Canons had so I'd know if it's something that happens regardless of brand or if it's a Canon weakness.
 
Inkara1 said:
My understanding is there's something different about the D40 lenses compared to the rest of the Nikkor lenses.
Click to expand...

I think the only difference is the image stabilization feature of the higher end lenses.

Inkara1 said:
very heavy users, and both had to send theirs in for some sort of repair eventually
Click to expand...

Probably for dust collecting on the image sensor. Common problem with DSLRs.
 
True.
The only other difference I can think of was they used a new auto focus motor on the D40. You can't use older auto-focusing lenses on it. The lens will fit on the mount, but you need to focus manually.
 
I have the Nikon D40, and love it! I did have to buy another 18-55m lens as the one that came with the camera hung up. I bought the vibration reduction as it was only $14 more than the standard lens. I also have the 55-200m lens with vibration reduction. They are both great lenses and for what I use it for it takes fabulous pics. I'm very happy, and I doubt that I will upgrade any time soon.
 
If you go to www.atascaderonews.com and click on sports... they're only letting me show previews of my stories on there now, but I can still post pictures and you can see some of the shots I get with the Nikon.
 
We have a Canon 350D. I want to get an ultrawide lens (like the 10-22mm) as soon as budget allows.
 
I currently have the Canon D40 - a nice piece of work. When I picked it up, the D50 was just coming out. I looked at lens compatibility issues and found that the D40 and D50 effectivly supported the same types, and the main difference was the extra 3mpxls.

From there, my choice was clear. Save money on the D40 (the price for the body was dropping quickly) and use the difference on lenses instead.

I picked up a 18-55, a 70-300 (w/ macro), a telephoto doubler and a wide-angle add-on. My next buy will be a real macro.

So far, I am impressed with the quality of the images from both the D40 AND the canon lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top