nikon d50, first camera?

dontfollowrulezevar · Oct 12, 2009

I have decided to get a nikon d50 for my first camera due to it's low price and overall good reviews. (if you think I am making a mistake, please realize I have a low price range, and if you still think I could make a better buy, do tell.)

I know nothing about lenses and don't know if the one the d50 comes with is any good. I could use some advice on that. Realize I would just like to do simple photography on the creative side and I am a beginner so I don't need a super fancy lens at the moment, let alone I can't afford one.

SO, if you think I should rather a) look into a different camera. or b) buy a separate body and lens for a better deal. Voice your opinion.

If anyone selling a cheap d50 tell me about it.

Thanks fellas, hope to get a lot of feedback.

IgsEMT · Oct 12, 2009

D50, is and was a GREAT camera. The only limitations I found it to have is shooting above ISO400 was a bit noisy and lack of CLS compatibility. Otherwise, it worked great, never failed and was a pleasure to work with.

ScottWy · Oct 12, 2009

I still use the same D50 I got new in 2005. The standard kit lens will work well for what you want if you have good light. It is a good outfit to start with. Read, experiment, repeat, until you know exactly what you want to accomplish. Then you can start thinking about upgrades in a year or three.

I used it for about a year, then got the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens. This allowed me better use in low light, without a flash, at a new price under $400. I would imagine you could get one at or under $300 on the used market now.

I have printed some very nice 8x10's with it. I am wanting better ISO performance, so I'm considering a D90, or possibly a D300. I do believe I will hold onto the D50, however. It is a good learner camera, and there are features (such as bracketing) that I still have not used much.

epp_b · Oct 12, 2009

If I knew what I know now when I bought my D40, I'd have bought a D50 instead. The choice of lenses is far greater simply because it has the in-body AF motor.

Hobbes · Oct 13, 2009

epp_b said:
If I knew what I know now when I bought my D40, I'd have bought a D50 instead. The choice of lenses is far greater simply because it has the in-body AF motor.

why don't you just sell your d40 and buy a used d50? I know someone who actually bought his d50 plus a lens for 50 bucks at a garage sale lol Even if you won't get that lucky I wouldn't be surprised that the resale value on d40 is higher than d50

epp_b · Oct 13, 2009

why don't you just sell your d40 and buy a used d50?

I've been thinking about it, but it some ways, it is a downgrade (screen size, weight, etc). On the other hand, I'm just aching for some AF-D lenses! I might consider it once the warranty is up, but I also might be looking at a D90 before that point.

NateS · Oct 13, 2009

I'd take a D50 over a D40 anyday. Plus, it's high ISO performance was really ahead of it's time for the price point (even not based on price point really). I have seen some surprisingly low noise ISO1600 shots from the D50.

Derrel · Oct 13, 2009

The D50 has a very poor viewfinder image--it's really "squinty". The D40 has a significantly clearer, easier to see viewfinder image. D50's are available pretty cheaply on the used market. If you're new to photography, I think the better viewfinder image in the D40 or D60 or better yet, the D3000, will make your photos turn out better.