Printable View
I'm looking to buy my first D-SLR camera. I had pretty much decided on the Canon EOS 450d when I learned that Nikon have recently released their D90 model. It is a slight step up from the 450d but is also a little bit more expensive. I need a camera that will last me at least five years. Which one should I buy?
Go to a shop & try them to see which suits you best.
You may also want to check out the Pentax K20D & Sony A700.
I've just bought (literally last week) a 450D and I love it. The large LCD screen is a definite bonus, and I'm quickly learning where the controls are. My advice would be to go to a shop and handle both cameras. It doesn't matter if something is "on paper" a better camera, if you aren't comfortable holding it, you won't like it. Secondly, I'm quickly finding that quality lenses matter more than the body, as a rule of thumb.
Whatever you choose, your taste as a photographer, and enjoyment of what you shoot, are the most important things :D Good luck
If it were my money I'd go for the 450D.
No idea why, but I feel more comfortable with the way Canons are laid out, seems more natural to me :)
theres somebody asking the same question in both the nikon and canon forums in dpreview, the canon users seem to think the d90 is more comparable to the 40/50d. Suprisingly the d90 has anoyed quiet a few d300 owners,as its dynamic range and high iso appear to be up there with the d3oo, looks like the d400 will be released next year ;)
The big problem with any suggestion is that its not until you have a good long play that you can decide how a camera suites you. I should have moved from pentax 35mm film bodies to their dslr, but when I actually used one I couldnt get on with it. Still got a z1p and couple of me supers in my bag.
Out of those 2 - D90. Its controls are closer to what you get when you move up the range than the 450's, which are very close to the entry-level models. Never liked the basic Canons - from the 40D onwards they're great, but the entry level ones just don't fit with me.
Also worth a look are Sony a700 and Canon 40D - you'd probably be shopping for a 2nd hand lens for either to come within the budget but they're both a step up from the D90 and because they're older they're better value.
A Pentax 20D is an odd-ball choice - a fine camera with appalling AF and a small system - they don't seem to be showing the vigour that Sony do when it comes to closing the gap with the big 2. Advantages for sure - some great ergonomics and compatability with older lenses, but be sure you really want it if you go for that.
If you are going to have this camera for five years, something from the mid-range D90/A700/40D segment will prove to be more robust than a top-end entry-level like the 450D (or A350). I noticed the K20D going for £450 second-hand at Ffordes recently - the marked devaluation suggests Pentax have considerably over-priced this camera. It's not meant for sports shooting, but has excellent IQ and a nice viewfinder, as do all the mid-range models. As a digital shooter myself of almost two years, the thing I most yearn for is a better viewfinder (more like my old film cameras) for reliable manual-focusing.
Never count on keeping a digital camera long, they're somewhat like computers that way. I will say that the mid-range models do seem to devalue a bit less (in percentage) than entry-level models. Good lenses are rarely a bad investment.
Be really careful putting the D90 alongside the 40D/A700 colmo... While it's up there in a lot of ways due to the newer tech, it lacks in a lot of others. Lots of specs that initially look great don't really stand up to inspection - 4.5fps - for & 25Jpgs. An A700 will shoot at 5fps until you fill the card - hugely useful for sports.
In a similar vein, although a D300 might look to rank alongside A700/40D with only a couple of features ranking above, it's actually a fair bit better and justifies its higher price.
As to how long you're going to keep your camera... I really think it depends what you buy. If you gave an amateur a 1dsIII I don't think he'd ever grow out of it - I certainly wouldn't and I'm fairly demanding. Growing out of a D40 could happen very quickly indeed!
However I would echo your comment that a D90 will last a while - I'm currently speccing up a D80 for a friend having swayed him away from the entry levels for exactly the same reasons.
Colmo is completely right
If I was only interested in the 450D and D90. I would get the D90 (just because its got the D300 sensor). However cameras like the canon 40D are getting to be around the £500 now( or less). The 450D and D90 don't come close IMHO. So I would seriously be considering one.
Its going to last you so much longer especially when you consider that the 40D is really up there with cameras like the nikon D300. It may not have 51 point auto focus but it has a lot that the nikon doesn't.
if you set a d90 correctly, and shoot jpg fine+large it will do 4.5fps untill you fill the card. This does require the latest cards to work, San Disk Extreme III SD 30mb/sec is the one most people grab.
I'm aware the D90 is not quite level with the D40 or A700, but I have commented in the past how the broad categories Entry-level, Midrange and Pro have become subdivided into their own low/mid/high bands. I think the D90 belongs in the Mid-range (on a lower band than the D40 or A700) rather than the Entry-Level (the top band of which features the 450D and A350). The D300 and 50D feature in the top band of the Midrange (or the lowest band of the Pro range - it's subjective where exactly you draw your boundaries).Quote:
Originally Posted by brammers
The Pentax K20D and it's twin, the Samsung GX20, are rather hard to classify in this way - the sensor is about as good as you'll get in APS-C format, but has AF that is embarrassed by entry-level models. It probably competes with the D90 most closely (therefore low-band of Midrange), much as the K10D/GX10 competed with the D80.
I'd pretty much agree with that - 50D excepted - I think the D300 is out on its own.
As to the D90 filling a card with basic quality jpgs... Hmmm! OP can decide if he's happy with that.
My primary objective is to get a camera that can produce very good quality pictures. RAW output may become a factor later on. I am a big fan of saving all my media in lossless format when possible and then to transcode to a lossy format as and when required.
The D90 will fill the card with fine high, not basic jpg. The initial numbers from nikon were for slower cards, with the new sandisk 30mb/sec card it can do continuous 4.5fps. The cavet is that NR must be off, and auto iso off.Quote:
Originally Posted by brammers
certainly is, id rate it below a 40D in terms of quality..Quote:
Originally Posted by brammers
and so what if you can continually shoot until a card is full, you only get 1 moment in sports to capture the action and you either get it or you don't, doesn't matter if you shoot @ 10fps you could still hit the shutter at the wrong time and miss it..
Yep you only get the one chance in sports, and if your sitting there waiting for the buffer to clear its gone.
As to which is better, havent had enough hands on time with either to say, but for some interesting reading try the canon 50d-10d forums in dpreview. Looksl ike the 40d is actually btter than the 50d!!