Another new DSLR thread!

[Whiternoise]

Howkay, i want to get an SLR because my S9500 is beginning to annoy me in a number of ways - mainly that it doesn't offer quite as much manual control as i'd like.

I'm going to put the 9500 on ebay - it's in practically mint condition so i'm expecting to get around 150-160 for it. So that'll be money towards a new camera.

I'm looking for a reasonably cheap SLR - however i'm willing to wait a bit to save up if it would mean a significant jump in quality/features. My price range is about 300-400 (as the 150 would be money taken off) and i'll probably sell the kit lens if it comes with to get a better one - that said, if i go with the D40, the kit lens looks very nice.

Some of the things that i'd like to be able to do that i can't at the moment:

- Time lapse, presumably by a remote?
- Bulb, on pretty much all so not an issue i don't think (i mean proper bulb here, not "60 seconds")
- Decent manual focus, not the pseudo-manual focus that the 9500 has (more control basically
- Good for HDR
- Reasonably easy to use, but not in a limiting way - so not dumbed down
- Lens compatibility, i had a look at the D40, and whether this is being noobish and i suspect it won't affect me, but i was a bit put off by the fact that you have to manually focus if you use lenses that don't support Nikon's focusing system

Amazon currently have the D40 for 270, so do Jessops, and both have the option for getting cashback from Nikon so that seems like a very sweet deal.

There's also Canon, who i haven't really looked at, but the Rebel seems like a fairly popular choice.

Thoughts?

Couple of other extras i'd like to get:

A 55/200mm lens seems like a good plan as a decent upgrade to a kit lens or whatever,
A circular polarising filter for taking nice pictures of deep blue skies

EDIT:

From a bit of looking, i think i'll probably go with the D40, but feel free to comment otherwise - only hitch is that HDR might be a bit iffy as there's no auto exposure bracketing, but i'm sure i can survive!

And from another look, it seems that you can use Camera Control Pro 2 via USB to shoot on a tripod with a laptop and adjust the exposure there, so it would take a bit more effort, but what the hey

[BUFF]

D40 is "only" 6Mp though whereas most entry level DSLRs are now 10Mp or higher so capable of higher resolution with high quality lenses.
Also look at the Sony A200 ~ (£299 incl. kit 18-70mm)/A300 if you want Live View, Olympus E510 (again ~£299 incl. kit lens but just about to be replaced by the E520 hence cheap price) & Pentax/Samsung also have their pros (& cons).
These 3 brands also all have in-body image stabilisation & support AF both via screw drive or sonic motor.

They are all capable of taking great pictures but they handle differently & what suits one person may not suit another so get to a shop & handle them.

[IBM]

Go second hand!

You can pick up a used Canon 20D for around £200, and there's a selection of pretty good starter lenses available for £100-200.

It's more of a camera than you could possibly use right off the bat, and is more of a semi pro camera than the cameras Buff's mentioned (although I'll plead ignorance if he wants to dispute it). It's got great pedigree, produces fantastic pictures, and has excellent build quality.

I picked one up when I lost my 10D, and loved using, so much so that I've hung on to it despite upgrading to a 5D.

If you're really in Nikon, I'm sure that there are similar deals to be had on their slightly older models...

[BUFF]

Originally Posted by IBM

and is more of a semi pro camera than the cameras Buff's mentioned (although I'll plead ignorance if he wants to dispute it). It's got great pedigree, produces fantastic pictures, and has excellent build quality.

certainly got better build quality & more pro features but the current entry level DSLR bodies (with the exception of the D40 due to 6Mp) imo will almost certainly produce higher resolution pics given decent glass.
it's certainly a valid approach & a 30D shouldn't be that much dearer either.

still say that he should handle them though to see what suits him handling wise.

[Bobster]

pictures aren't just about the resolution..

or i'd be on a 1Ds MKIII by now

[Saracen]

Indeed. There's a number of other factors that go into image quality, not least, decent lenses and the nature of supporting electronics and any in-camera processing. And, unless you're intending to heavily crop an image, increasing resolution beyond that needed to produce optimum resolution for your intended output device simply results in increased file write times, and a need for ever-largely memory cards.

I always suggest people think about what they'll be doing with images, and from their highest level usage, work back to the sort of resolution they need from a camera to achieve that. For instance, do they have (or have access to) an A3 (or larger format) printer?

[Flibb]

Go and have a play in a shop, all the curent crop of cameras are great, and its only when you get hands on that you find out how easy it is to get at the features you want. Might be worth looking at used stuff, I was offered a mint D200 (body only) for £400 the other day, have to say I was extremly tempted.

Best shop I found for trying stuff out was a London Camera Exchange, had all the cameras, all charged up, and had photos printed from each with various lens combinations.

[Bobster]

good job you didn't got for it then, you'd have been ripped right off!! 400 for a D200! i'd offer 150 at the most!

oh and a decent quality 6mp camera will happily print A3, i used to take my 300D up to 18x12

[Flibb]

Nikon D200 is still £700-800 new, d70 goes for over £150 on ebay.

If you can find a D200 for under £200 in good condition I will buy it now.

[Saracen]

Yup, not surprised at that, Bobster.

At an image size of the 300D, that's about 170dpi on an inkjet. You'd perhaps get a marginal increase in print quality from going a bit higher than that. It does, of course, produce arguments as to exactly where the optimum resolution is, but as a rough guide, I'd say 200dpi. Much above that and you have to be being VERY critical to tell the difference, though some people insist on 300dpi. Personally, after having tested it on several dozen printers over the years, 200dpi will do me. Unless, of course, you're referring to a non-inkjet, where there may be a fixed resolution on the output device (like my Olympus dye-sub), unlike the stochastic dithering algorithms of inkjets.

And another reason why I'm not surprised at 18x12 from a 300D - if you present someone with a 7x5, even 8x6, they may well view it by holding it and so are pretty close. If you are printing at 18x12, a fair assumption is that it'll normally be viewed hanging on a wall, and therefore from some feet away. Even if printing at 200dpi, or 300dpi, resulted in a print improvement, it wouldn't be visible from wall-hanging viewing distances. That's all part of what I meant by selecting camera resolution according to the usage the output will be put to.

There's a growing tendency, in camera as well as computing, for people to chase the latest technology. I guess I'm guilty too, because I'm currently selling an EOS 30D for a 40D. But NOT because of resolution.

[BUFF]

there have of course been other improvements in the ~4 years since the 20D launch e.g. improved AF performance, improved DR, improved in-camera processing etc.
In terms of IQ the entry level bodies are pretty much as good as the "semi-pro/advanced amateur" bodies (after all many of the components are shared) but lack some features & build quality is lesser.

[Whiternoise]

I had a look in a shop today, got them to let me have a play with a D40, must say i was pretty impressed with it. Live view i can cope without i think, since the viewfinder does pretty much the same job. It felt really nice actually - smaller than i was expecting and really light as well!

New from amazon with cashback it'd be 240, so i'm more than happy to pay up rather than second hand.

My compact is 6MP and i don't care at all. I'll only end up shrinking the pictures down to desktop resolution anyway!

The only issue is the AF-S lens limitation, but there are some decent lenses to be had which i guess are fine. And from what i've read, the kit lens on the D40 is top notch

[icanhazburger]

I got a D40 last Friday, i love it, i never liked live view on other cameras anyway, viewfinder makes more sense and for me it means steadier pictures.

As said before, megapixels are not the be all and end all.

I love the feel of the D40, and the controls really seem to fit perfectly for me.

[Whiternoise]

Cool, anyone know how the cashback thing works?

I'm going to get it from Amazon, purely because they're selling it at the price that other shops sell it with the 30 quid Nikon rebate. And presumably i can get another 30 off it as well?

If not then i'd rather get it from a shop, purely for conveniences sake..

But i dunno, anyone care to enlighten me on this one?

Simply:

Amazon: £271, £241 final price
Shops (local camera shop and jessops): £299, £269 final price

Oh and aalllso.. Jessops are doing a deal for a 55/200mm Sigma AF-S (i assume) for 99 quid when bought with the camera - so i was wondering about that one as well?

ARGH so many questions!

[icanhazburger]

Originally Posted by Whiternoise

Cool, anyone know how the cashback thing works?

I sent mine off yesterday, you download a form from nikon

Nikon Cashback Offers

then you send it off with a photocopy of your receipt, and the B slips from the warranty things that come with camera and lens in the box.

I got mine from Jessops, 299 with a lowepro bag for free, that 160aw, its a not bad bag, and the 30 quid cashback to come later.

I did not mind getting it from jessops, its not that much more pricey and I hate buying online, if something goes wrong i want to be able to walk in there at lunch time and shout in person

[colmo]

Considering your wish to avoid a 'dumbed down' camera, I'll chime in with a recommendation for the Sony A200, £299 at Argos:

Argos - www.argos.co.uk

As you pointed out, the Nikon D40 is crippled in one specific way; it has no focus screw drive, which means you need newer, more expensive in-lens focus motor driven lenses. The £60 saving quickly vanishes when you start adding lenses. Note that while some Sony lenses are quite expensive in the UK, Tamron and Sigma lenses are viable alternatives. Note the Tamron 55-200mm is a very fine lens considering it costs barely over £50 new, and it will focus on the Sony, whereas the Nikon version will not on the D40.

You also mentioned HDR - this suggests a requirement for exposure bracketing. The Sony A200 has limited bracketing (allows variations in increments up to 0.7 EV), whereas the Nikon D40 has no exposure bracketing at all.