Witch one?


No. They are a scam website, or rather I don't doubt they have D300's, but they will try to upsell you, by adding on things that should come with a new camera: battery, maybe even a body-cap. Stay away from them. If you want packaged deals, check out Cameta Camera on ebay, or other stores on eBay. Generally they will have good deals on "demo" or "refurbished" units. A lot of people will tell you to buy "new", but the only difference between a new unit and a demo/refurbished unit is about 0-2000 or so shutter clicks and a few hundred dollars.

As for an "all around" lens, the 18-200 is an ok lens, and gets consistently good marks. The main thing is (again) for that price you could split the lens up and get two better lenses that have better performance indoors, if you are interested in kid photography. Although, if you get a dedicated flash (like the SB-400 for 100 bucks, or the much better SB-600 for about 170 bucks), performance in low light (like in your home) will mean absolutely nothing.

Are you dead set on the D90? It is a good camera, but you can get the D80 for significantly cheaper, you just lose the HD-Video function. For example, if you really just wanted a camera, you can get a D80 VR package (18-55 and 55-200) for about 1000 bucks (from Cameta), and then use the other 500 to invest in a flash and maybe some other accessories.

I guess what made me doubt about the Nikon is the sky pictures i have seen taken with the canon are so colorful and I just haven't seen as many pictures taken with the Nikon

That is 100% user operation. Really, image quality should NOT factor into your choice if you are choosing between a Nikon and a Canon. Anything like "brighter" skies, or more pleasing skin tones can ALL be adjusted after the fact, and most are.

And to reiterate - do NOT buy from SonicCamera. Check out ResellerRatings.com for online shops - generally these REALLY good deals are going to be the scams. B&H and Adorama are good places to buy, but generally you will be able to find better deals on eBay.
 
I love my D90. It has been a great camera so far. I think it handles color quite well! This is my first DSLR, and I'm still learning, but here's a few pictures that I have taken with my D90:


3078819550_165165ea59.jpg


...DAMN THUMB!

3078826880_1c8c861214.jpg


3049007319_3f0aec9c33.jpg
 
Excellent grab on that last one.

Was that fire hydrant really that red? Or did you punch it up?
 
Great pics! Love the water!
 
Excellent grab on that last one.

Was that fire hydrant really that red? Or did you punch it up?

I kicked the saturation up a notch on the camera, there was no PP.
 
Hmmm. Theres a bit too much yellow in that picture then (you can tell by the grass). Generally I've found the VIVID control to be pretty good at punching up color.
 
Hmmm. Theres a bit too much yellow in that picture then (you can tell by the grass). Generally I've found the VIVID control to be pretty good at punching up color.

Thats What I use, "Vivid > Saturation +2 or 3"
 
I'm going to be getting a new camera in a couple of months and I can't deside between the Nikon D90 and The Canon 40D.

I would love to know what you think

What I think is that you should forget about these two particular cameras features and look at what is REALLY important...

I will say look at the LENS systems for the two cameras. Digital cameras come and go (both of the cameras you mentioned will be obsolete in two years), but the lenses you will own for 10 or 20 years... so my advise is to look at which LENS system you like the best.

I shoot Nikon because I like Nikon lenses... not because of a particular camera body.

That choice is far more important than which camera body you will buy, especially when both cameras will make excellent pictures (as the D90 and 40D both will).

As far as the 18-200 VR goes, I have one... it is my wife's lens. I personally would MUCH rather save $350 and buy the combo of the 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR because both are sharper, have less distortion and less CA than the 18-200 does at about half the price.
 
OK. Well the canon is out... But I am considering the D300...
 
Either Nikon or Canon will have a robust lens lineup (ESPECIALLY for a newcomer to photography), so that really isn't that big of a factor unless you are doing super specific photography where either company has a lens that the competition does not.

Having said that the D300 is a great camera - but it is a ROBUST camera. Certainly not a point-and-shoot affair, but it does have a pretty forgiving learning curve. It comes ready to go out of the box, yet has a wealth of customization at your disposal.
 
So would you say that it would be better to get the D300 and grow into it rather then getting the D90? Or would the D300 be to much camera?
I have been taking pictures for awhile with an older Minolta 35mm. This will be my first DSLR, but photography is something I have been wanting to get serious about for the last ten years and now I have the money to do it. I'm also considering some photography courses.
 
Personally, I would get the D300 as it will no doubt force you to start thinking of your camera less in terms of a P&S. The movie mode WOULD be nice, but without an Autofocus, keeping your kids in focus might be a pain, and probably not worth. That is just me however. Another incentive on getting the D300, is that the used prices of one (you can check out Fredmiranda.com or Nikonians.org) are consistently seen in the 1000-1200 range for lightly used bodies. Buying from a forum member with good feedback is essentially the same as buying from a store with better deals. Inevitably, someone will tell you to buy "new", yet buying used free's up more cash for lenses and usually these cameras will still have their warranty on them.

If however you choose to get the D90, you wont be disappointed. Essentially it is a "mini-D300-lite" just as the D80 was a "mini-D200-lite" (and those two cameras are still kick ass).
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top