NationStates Jolt Archive

To begin: I got a digital compact camera a couple of years ago for Christmas. It's a Kodak Easyshare C430 or other. And, to be honest, I wasn't very happy with it much. It just didn't seem all that great. I just felt I didn't have enough control over my pictures.

So, I got money for my birthday (yesterday) and I've decided to buy a Digital SLR. So, my dad and I (he knows a bit about photography himself) went to a local camera store after I studied some models that might be interesting to a new guy to SLRs like myself. I found a Nikon model, the D40, that sounded pretty cool - plus my dad had Nikon lenses from a non-digital SLR.

At the store, the saleswoman presented us with a couple of beginner, cheap (it needed to be around $450) SLRs, and the first one I got was the D40. I loved it.

So, now I plan to buy it from Newegg or the store, I don't know which.

What do you guys think?

A link to the camera specs would be cool.

I have a Nikon D-40 and a Nikon D-60, I prefer the D-40 but I can't explain why.

what lens does it come with? how many mega pixels does it shoot? what cool settings does it have?

If you're interested in photography and have money to spend, there are lots of ways to spend it. But! a common mistake is thinking that spending more money improves picture quality. You can take great pictures with a disposable camera just as you can take awful pictures with a professional grade one.

The most important thing I have about cameras is you need something you're comfortable with. I have a thing for Canons (I currently use a Canon EOS Rebel XSi, and I absolutely love it), but they have models that are more within your price range as well. Another thing I would suggest: never buy a camera or camera accessories over the internet. You should go to that store and ask for comparably priced models from other brand names, hold them in your hand, take a few test shots, see how easy it is to change something simple about the picture you're taking (say, make it monochromatic, or change your shutter speed/exposure manually), and make your decision off of that.

Another sound investment you might want to make is a book (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Photography-Simplified-Rob-Sheppard/dp/047038025X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231644764&sr=8-1) on the basics of digital photography. I know before I read up on it, I had no idea what the alphabet soup all meant (my camera dial has on it A-DEP, M, Av, Tv, and P) or how to do basic photographic necessities.

If you're willing to make further investment, different kinds of lenses are invaluable in taking varied types of pictures. What's the primary type of picture you're planning on taking?

what lens does it come with? how many mega pixels does it shoot? what cool settings does it have?

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=25420

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=25420
oh that seems over priced for the features.

not that i see any reason to have interchangable lenses in a digital camera anyway. all you need is a reasonable level of zoom.

not that i see any reason to have interchangable lenses in a digital camera anyway. all you need is a reasonable level of zoom.

Shun.

There are a multitude of reasons for different lenses! Except the fisheye lense or a fixed zoom one. Those I definitely don't understand.

Shun.

There are a multitude of reasons for different lenses! Except the fisheye lense or a fixed zoom one. Those I definitely don't understand.
in a digital?

nah.

in a film camera, certainly.

what ones do you think are essential?

The standard lense is good for normal shots. Telephoto are wonderful for portraits and obviously things that are far away. Wide angle is great for landscapes, but I also enjoy using them to add foreground to a picture that would otherwise be background.

Every lense has its uses, but can also be used creatively by an enterprising photographer to change photos for the better. And just for the record, I use the normal lense on my camera for the majority of my shots, but without the extra lenses I would be severely limited in my ability to take some of the better shots I take.

Why do film cameras need different lenses but digital cameras don't?

The standard lense is good for normal shots. Telephoto are wonderful for portraits and obviously things that are far away. Wide angle is great for landscapes, but I also enjoy using them to add foreground to a picture that would otherwise be background.

Every lense has its uses, but can also be used creatively by an enterprising photographer to change photos for the better. And just for the record, I use the normal lense on my camera for the majority of my shots, but without the extra lenses I would be severely limited in my ability to take some of the better shots I take.

Why do film cameras need different lenses but digital cameras don't?
i dont see that any of that needs extra lenses in a digital.

maybe if you get them published...i dont know anything about that business.

i like being able to take the pictures that i see in my mind when i look at a scene. any fancy stuff i do in photoshop.

Boo you! Photoshop is for the weak!

Ok, you're right. No extra lenses are essential to any sort of photography. They simply expand greatly what you are able to do with your camera. If you're just taking family pictures and boring landscape shots, by all means, stick to default. :mad:

My dad has the D40x from Nikon. It was released just before the D60 as an in-between model. I'm not a camera expert but from what my dad has said the D40 and D60 from Nikon are entry level DSLRs are fairly good value for the money.

I'm also looking at upgrading to a slightly more professional camera. Currently have a Canon Powershot SD110 but as kenavt stated, more or less a point and shoot. Not a whole lot of experimentation can be done when taking photos, which is something I'd like to work on a bit. Been oohing and ahhing over the Canon Powershot G10. Anybody here have an opinion the 'prosumer' class of cameras?

How much money are you looking to spend Saige?

How much money are you looking to spend Saige?

Well I know the G10 goes for about $500 here in Canada so it's right on that line between low end SLR and the rest of the masses. I'd consider ponying up the rest of the dough to get a nice entry level SLR and lens but I'm not really at the point where I want/need/would use/feel like backpacking around/having stolen/breaking an SLR. So I guess no more than $500 (CDN) or so. I've taken a look at a couple other online, namely the LX3 from Panasonic but cameras without optical viewfinders tend to get blacklisted in my books.

I have never trusted cameras without optical viewfinders, but the LCD is a genius invention.

If that's your limit on spending then I think you've made a great choice. But the same thing I said for the OP holds true - do your research online but always go to a camera/electronics store and hold the camera in your hands first. I would never buy a camera or lense that I hadn't actually tried out beforehand.

oh that seems over priced for the features.

not that i see any reason to have interchangable lenses in a digital camera anyway. all you need is a reasonable level of zoom.

Part of the reason I bought it was the fast-ness, when you are taking pictures of kids the ability to take 2-3 pictures a second is a must! (my old point and shoot had a 10 second delay which is YEARS when your kids are being cute, also my 35mm SLR took longer!) the other reason being I already have a bunch of lenses that fit the digital SLR that I used to use on my 35mm. Also it was new and shiny and techy and pretty and stuff. *nod*

I love my 35mm SLR, but digital is easier to share pics.....so a digital SLR is the best of both worlds.

Part of the reason I bought it was the fast-ness, when you are taking pictures of kids the ability to take 2-3 pictures a second is a must! (my old point and shoot had a 10 second delay which is YEARS when your kids are being cute, also my 35mm SLR took longer!) the other reason being I already have a bunch of lenses that fit the digital SLR that I used to use on my 35mm. Also it was new and shiny and techy and pretty and stuff. *nod*

I love my 35mm SLR, but digital is easier to share pics.....so a digital SLR is the best of both worlds.
i never thought i would prefer a digital camera to a film camera but the digital is so much more versitile. and the ability to know right at the time whether or not you got the shot you wanted is invaluable.

6.2 megapixels is way under what a new camera should shoot though. it should be at least 2x that.

i never thought i would prefer a digital camera to a film camera but the digital is so much more versitile. and the ability to know right at the time whether or not you got the shot you wanted is invaluable.

6.2 megapixels is way under what a new camera should shoot though. it should be at least 2x that.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=339

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=339
i must do more outdoor zoomed shots than you do.

Ok - I've owned a D70 and now a D90 Nikon and have worked with a number of other dSLR rigs. I am a Nikon fan myself, but the first piece of advice I'll give you is the best one I know. Get yourself into a real camera store and actually hold the cameras you're looking at in your hands and see if they feel comfortable and "right" for you - a pricy "good" camera is no good if you don't feel you can use it properly.

Now, to the specific cameras (I'm only going to talk about Nikon - I'll leave a Canon user to go into those):

The D40x is a very good light walkaround camera with 10 megapixels - it can be had for about $450-500 with a kit lens. With a short lens, this is only slightly heavier than a point and shoot camera, but gives excellent quality for the money. There is one problem though. If you already have a stable of Nikon lenses and those lenses are not AF-S or AF-I lenses (don't have a focus motor built into the lens) this camera will not autofocus with those lenses. This leaves a lot of older lenses out in the cold, and while it is possible to manually focus with a D40/D40x, that's a big problem. On the other hand, if your lenses are AF-S/I lenses, you're golden and the camera should be fine with it.

The D60 is an incremental update which I guess is supposed to take the place of the D40 line - the D60 kit with a lens runs around $600 or a little less. I haven't handled it much, but think of it as a more robust D40x with some additional speed and bells and whistles. However, the same problem that the D40x has with older lenses applies to this camera as well - if you have non-AF-S/I lenses, this camera is probably not the way to go.

I own the new D90 and this is one of the sweetest cameras I've played with - and it is fine with older lenses, but it comes at a premium. If you have the cash, this is the camera to get unless you want to go with one of the really expensive "full frame" cameras. This camera does have a built-in focus motor and should be fine with most lenses, including those that do not have AF-S/I. The controls are better and easier to use - 2 control dials, where the D40x and D60 only have one. This is a 12 megapixel camera as well, so you get a touch of extra resolution. On the other hand, this camera is pricy - expect the kit with a lens to cost around $1250 - the camera body itself is just under $1000.

Your best compramise may be to get a D80 - the D90 is the upgrade, but the D80 is still around and is a very capable camera. The D80 kit has a focus motor built in so it will work with older autofocus lenses. This is another 10 megapixel camera but has the upgraded controls and can be had for a very reasonable price - figure about $750-800 for the camera with a kit lens, probably just over $500 for the camera body itself.

In your shoes with a very limited budget, I'd take a hard look at the older lenses that I have and ask myself if keeping those lenses with autofocus is worth the additional cost. If no, then a D40x kit is probably the way to go from a cost point of view, as you can get that with a kit lens for under $500 and probably can find a 2 lens kit (with a longer add-on lens) for about $550-600 - maybe less. On the other hand, if you have some really nice or useful lenses and can get away with buying a camera body only, the D80 may be the way to go with your current older lenses - you can probably find the body for under $550.

i must do more outdoor zoomed shots than you do.

I basically take pictures of the kids and their exploits and then when I get time (hardly ever) I fuck around with the camera and try to be artistic, although lately I've been trying to be artistic with older film cameras.

I do have a friend who does sports photography for the local paper and he has a D-40x and it does fine for his purposes, which is taking pictures of high school/college kids running around and then getting them printed in the newspaper.

Why haven't we seen any of your photography? :(

This is a good comparison site with lots of detailed info and explanations:

http://www.dpreview.com/

To begin: I got a digital compact camera a couple of years ago for Christmas. It's a Kodak Easyshare C430 or other. And, to be honest, I wasn't very happy with it much. It just didn't seem all that great. I just felt I didn't have enough control over my pictures.

So, I got money for my birthday (yesterday) and I've decided to buy a Digital SLR. So, my dad and I (he knows a bit about photography himself) went to a local camera store after I studied some models that might be interesting to a new guy to SLRs like myself. I found a Nikon model, the D40, that sounded pretty cool - plus my dad had Nikon lenses from a non-digital SLR.

At the store, the saleswoman presented us with a couple of beginner, cheap (it needed to be around $450) SLRs, and the first one I got was the D40. I loved it.

So, now I plan to buy it from Newegg or the store, I don't know which.

What do you guys think?
Consumer Reports is recommending the Canon EOS Rebel XSi ($595) from DigiCombos and the Pentax K200D ($554) from Amazon.com. Last year, they recommended the Nikon D40 ($395) from DigiCombos. A friend bought one for his wife, who is a seriously good amateur photographer and she loved it. Personally, I'd go for the Canon, but I have the money. Buy the D40.

i dont see that any of that needs extra lenses in a digital.

maybe if you get them published...i dont know anything about that business.

i like being able to take the pictures that i see in my mind when i look at a scene. any fancy stuff i do in photoshop.
Digital processing only modifies the image you have. Better optics can improve the image. A large telephoto is going to give you a better quality image to start processing -- fewer gaps to fill in digitally when you zoom.

On the other hand, if you don't want that 8x10 picture of a Great Blue Heron at 500 ft, I guess it doesn't matter.

Digital processing only modifies the image you have. Better optics can improve the image. A large telephoto is going to give you a better quality image to start processing -- fewer gaps to fill in digitally when you zoom.

On the other hand, if you don't want that 8x10 picture of a Great Blue Heron at 500 ft, I guess it doesn't matter.
i have many pictures of animals taken at distance. i have a camera with a .....28 to 300 zoom. (thats actually the range of the 2 lenses of my 35mm camera but the digital is similar and i cant be bothered to go check).

unless i wanted a superzoom lens or a supermacro lens, which i dont, i dont see any use for any other lens in a digital camera. i know there arent any i need for my own purposes.

I basically take pictures of the kids and their exploits and then when I get time (hardly ever) I fuck around with the camera and try to be artistic, although lately I've been trying to be artistic with older film cameras.

I do have a friend who does sports photography for the local paper and he has a D-40x and it does fine for his purposes, which is taking pictures of high school/college kids running around and then getting them printed in the newspaper.

Why haven't we seen any of your photography? :(
i was looking through the pics i have on this computer for the neighborhood thread...

i posted 3 or 4

i love my pictures because they are the exact shot that i wanted to take when i took it. i take more of a documentary approach than an artistic one.

you can look at my photobucket account... (ignore the hitler boy, thats a photoshop for a thread here) .... http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk287/ashmoria/ ...if that works..there are only a few pics there, they arent all good but...its representative...