New Camera - hopefully soon

cindyg2024 · Dec 11, 2007

I was tossing around the idea of getting a new camera earlier in the year (have a Sony P&S now), but my funds wouldn't allow. Now, I have been without a camera since the end of October because my Sony decided it was time to stop working, and it's not worth it to have it repaired. I was going back and forth between an SLR like camera, since I am still WAY away from being a pro, or just sucking it up, spending about an extra $150 and getting, and getting a SLR.

Of course, the two most popular SLR's right now are the Canon and Nikon (Rebel XT and D40) for "entry level". And I know it kind of comes down to feel in the hand, but I thought I had heard/read somewhere that one of them had an issue with lenses - the fact that you could only use one brand? Am I correct?

Also, do you think it is worth it to just go ahead and get an SLR now, or get an SLR like camera and learn the basics on it?

ANDS! · Dec 11, 2007

I was going back and forth between an SLR like camera, since I am still WAY away from being a pro

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the great majority of folks who post here aren't pro's either - in that the majority of their income isn't coming from the photography work.

dSLR's aren't "pro" cameras - they are cameras for folks who want a bit more robust of a photography package than a standard P&S might be able to offer. If you know how to manually get an exposure - then you can operate an SLR. Mastering the rest of the camera is part of the journey (when you start tweaking ISO and White Balance settings).

Also, do you think it is worth it to just go ahead and get an SLR now, or get an SLR like camera and learn the basics on it?

I'd pass on an SLR-like camera. Depending on where you live, you can grab an actual SLR for what you're going to pay for a new SLR-like camera.

Whats the budget.

cindyg2024 · Dec 12, 2007

I am trying to stay around the $500 range right now, but it all depends on what I have left over after Christmas shopping is out of the way.

MRivera · Dec 12, 2007

Hello, I am new at photoraphy and Forum. I was in the same situation as you with the canon, nikon and pentax to purchase. For what i read on reviews semed that either cameras were good fit to begin learning. Although when i went to store to compare both cameras the salesman explained in more details the 3 cameras. Anyway, i ended up buying the pentax i liked it because you can use any type of lens as lons as it is compatible. In addition the camera has an auto clean of sensor for the mirrow and you can also set it in shake reduction mode. whereas with the nikon and canon(not sure they have the cleaning mode) and the shake reduction is available through the lenses which could be expensive. I totally recomend go to a store and handheld the cameras. One thing with the pentax you can not save raw files. not sure if this is bad. Good luck.

Steph · Dec 12, 2007

MRivera said:
One thing with the pentax you can not save raw files.

Yes, you can. Check your manual.
BTW, welcome to TPF.

ANDS! · Dec 12, 2007

I am trying to stay around the $500 range right now

For 500, you can get a D40 online (plus shipping). Of course be aware that with the D40, there is no internal focus ring, so if you don't want to have to manual focus (which can be a pain in the keister when you first start out), you'll need to make sure you get lenses with the focus on the lens. Don't let anyone tell you that your lens options are minimal going this route. They aren't. You're just forced to buy newer lenses and unable to utilize some of the old second-hand lenses (read: cheap).

No experience with the XT or the XTi. Both are good camera, and you can probably get th XT (older than the XTi) on the cheap (cheaper than the Nikon I'm sure). In fact you can get one for 451 with 3day shipping included (or a recerted model for 400 flat - not too shabby). So that would put you in your price range as well.

Anyway, i ended up buying the pentax i liked it because you can use any type of lens as lons as it is compatible.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that like - any camera? I mean a lens is either compatible or it isn't.

As for the Pentax I would recommend doing online comparisons, especially from a Cost vs. What You Get perspective as in resale value (if you ever want to upgrade), 3rd party lens choices, etc. etc.

Sideburns · Dec 12, 2007

I'd say go with the XT. The price is falling like a lead balloon, and it doesn't limit you to only purchase digital lenses and third party lenses like the D40 does. I like Nikon as well, but I would never buy a D40...

jstuedle · Dec 12, 2007

ANDS! said:
For 500, you can get a D40 online (plus shipping). Of course be aware that with the D40, there is no internal focus ring, so if you don't want to have to manual focus (which can be a pain in the keister when you first start out), you'll need to make sure you get lenses with the focus on the lens. Don't let anyone tell you that your lens options are minimal going this route. They aren't. You're just forced to buy newer lenses and unable to utilize some of the old second-hand lenses (read: cheap).

It's true that the D40 has no internal focus motor. It will only auto focus lenses with there own internal motor, these are called AF-S by Nikon (Auto Focus - Silent wave focus motor)
Third party vendors are starting to market AF-S type lenses for Nikon so you won't be locked into Nikon only brands.
I smiled when I read ANDS comment how manual focus is a pain the the keister. Many of us only had MF for the first decades of our photographic experience. I still use a lot of MF lenses even today.
One big advantage to Nikon, you can still use manual focus lenses on current bodies. Nikon has not changed it's mount since 1959. virtually any lens Nikon made after 1977, and most before will work on the D40. These lenses can be had very cheaply if you shop around. There are over 40 Million of them out there. Canon and Minolta/Sony changed there mount between there MF and AF lens lines. Pentax used a screw mount for some years and then changed to what they call a K mount. The K mount was retained when Pentax moved to AF lenses also.
So, for a shooter moving from P&S to digital and wanting to learn, I see nothing wrong with the D40. If you plan on using it at an advanced level I think you will find it wanting. Just remember, whatever system you buy into and start investing in lenses, you will feel locked into. The cost of changing systems later will be prohibitive.

MRivera · Dec 12, 2007

Step, Thanks for your your advice. I thought that TPF file format was different from raw. I still got a lot to learn about photography.

cindyg2024 · Dec 12, 2007

Thank you very much for all the input and the information on the D40 and the lack of the internal focus ring. I appreciate it. I guess it really does just come down to feel, look, and possibly best deal right now.

DylanHoliday · Dec 12, 2007

This answers many of my questions too. I am gettin ready to buy a digital SLR and im not sure if i should get a Canon XT or a Nikon D40. I like the feel of the D40 better than the XT because Nikon makes their parts out of metal where Canon uses plastic. I am still learning a lot about photography but I like the Nikon D40 better.

GwagDesigns · Dec 12, 2007

Read this first, just a tad bit mroe info on why the D40 is not a good choice.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99621

DSLR noob · Dec 13, 2007

MRivera said:
Step, Thanks for your your advice. I thought that TPF file format was different from raw. I still got a lot to learn about photography.

TPF isn't a file format, it's the forum you're on (The Photo Forurm)

MRivera · Dec 14, 2007

ups!!! Thanks.

laurah · Dec 14, 2007

I was in a similar situation as you a few years back. I had a Canon Powershot S40 P&S and it worked quite well for snapshots, but really didn't give me much control or enough zoom to take photos of birds in the woods around my house (which came to be one of my primary photography goals). At the time the DSLRs just seemed too expensive for the body & lens(es) and I also wasn't convinced I would use it enough to go for the DSLR.

So, I got a Canon Powershot S2 IS (DSLR like camera) which had either 5 or 6 mp, 12x zoom, plus you could get teleconverter and wide angle converters to add to the lens. It also had most of the manual controls of a DSLR. I used that camera happily for the last 3 years or so and have just recently gotten a Canon Rebel XTi (only had it for a couple of weeks, but I love it so far).

Even though I got the XTi, I still plan to keep the S2 for times when I don't want to carry the heavier camera and lenses or when I'm concerned about damage to the camera (beach, etc.). So, I definitely feel like it was a good purchase.

My point is... the DSLR and lenses can still be quite expensive and for the budget you mentioned, you can probably only afford the lowest end model and kit lens. At this point, you may actually be better off with the DSLR-like camera. Keep in mind too that many DSLR-like cameras sell very well on Ebay and you can recoup quite a bit of your money if you decide to sell it to go to a DSLR when you have more funds.