Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by brandonXcore, Nov 25, 2007.
Rebel XTi or D40x,
Canon XTi, because the XT is what I chose, that and the nikon D40(x) only takes Nikon AF-S lenses (for autofocusing anyway) and that keeps you from a lot of the budget friendly used Nikkor glass. That and only 3 AF sensors? The Nikon D40(x) is a very flawed camera. It's not bad, just not really serious in the modern DSLR world.
Canon for the reasons above. Amatures rarely settle for sticking with a single camera and one set of lenses. The D40x may be fine for mum and dad users, but anyone taking this on as a hobby will quickly get disgruntled by the lack of in my opinion required lenses which can no longer autofocus.
And no you can't manually focus a modern camera. You can but good luck getting it accurate, especially in a viewfinder as small as the D40x's.
D80 is ok but I do not advice D40 D40/x because you will be limited by lens choices.D40 does not have lens focusing actuator in its body so the lens must have actuator (AF-S). No need to limit your choices, so choose Canon. I use Pentax K10D and like it and maybe you would like to take it in account?
XTi, but play with them both and see whats right for you. you may hate them both and wind up with a sony or pentax.
im a nikon dude, but the d40x is crap imo.
to give you a real response we need to know what kind of photographer you are, what the application of the camera will be etc.
and if you dont know what you want then it prolly wont matter much which camera you end up with until you learn enough to know, in which case you can sell what you bought in a year and upgrade to what you need.
please dont end up with a sony.
I'm just a beginner really, I'm looking for a sturdy camera that I'll probably be using mostly outdoors, but there will be times that I will use it indoors. A camera that can handle high ISOs with little noise.
I've tried a D40x once for about a couple of months and I thought it was an okay camera. It really lacked contrast in most of the photos I took, but I was pleased with how it handled high ISOs. The only thing I was probably disappointed about was the amount of plastic used compared to the XTi. But I haven't really tried an XTi out yet so I wouldn't know.
One thing I'll say, and this applies to any dSLR... is that if it seems to be lacking in contrast, it is most likely not a fault of the camera. If you are used to using compact digital cameras, or shooting colour film, then you may be used to quite contrasty and saturated images, which are the result of processing applied to the image (in-camera in the case of digital compacts)... however dSLRs tend to produce images with lower saturation, sharpening, and generally less 'punch'... the idea being that the user wants to take more control over the image in post-processing.
Of course, apparent lack of contrast could also be due to a number of other factors, including the lighting and the lens used.
Regarding construction, I'm afraid most dSLRs in this price range ('entry-level' bodies) use a lot of plastic... none are going to be really solidly built in the way that higher-end bodies are... on the other hand none are really likely to fall apart on you; just try to avoid dropping them. My 'entry-level' body has taken a few knocks and falls and keeps working... so I wouldn't worry too much about the build unless you expect to be shooting in environments where damage to the camera is not only possible but likely.
Your advice helped a lot. I guess you're right, I have been shooting a lot with compact digital cameras prior to the switch from p&s to slr. I completely understand now what you're saying when you said it gives the user control over the image. And I just wanted a camera that's solidly built. I don't mind plastic because I really don't want to be hauling a body made of magnesium around. And I guess I might be in environments where the camera might experience a few dings, but I guess that wouldn't me too much of a problem.
Separate names with a comma.