I am currently using a Canon S2 IS which has served me well except having to get the 'live view' repaired by Canon.
I mostly enjoy Landscape photography but would like the capability of shooting my dog and kids doing a variety of things.
I have considered the following for starting from scratch:
Canon XTi, XS, XSi
Nikon D40, D60, D80
Pentex K10d, K20d
I would prefer to stay below $800 with an all purpose lense, until I can afford more.
I also hope to have this camera for many years adding lenses as I see fit. Im more interested in quality than convience or luxury features.
Or I think.
Any ideas or recommendations would be greatly appriciated.
Kevin.
Kevin, any of the sensors in those models will produce excellent image quality. Some will prefer one or the other for the differences in bells and whistles, but at core (sensor and IQ) they're all great.
I'd pick up any of the Canon or Nikon bodies that feel best in your hands and whose controls work for you (assuming you can get to a store and try them out). I have nothing at all against Pentax, which makes great cameras. My reasons for Canon/Nikon are that, if you find your interest expanding, those brands have more lenses to choose from.
For starters, I'd recommend something in the 25-135 zoom range for the lens. That will give you some width for landscape work but also a bit of zoom when you want that while shooting family and pet action.
I would have to second the a Nikon or Canon recommendation. The Pentax cameras are a good system, but there is a lot more available for Canon and Nikon, both through their line and with third party options. Also, if you have brand specific questions, you'll find it a lot easier to get answers on forums such as this one.
If you go Canon, their 28-135 IS is probably one of their best consumer lens choices.
For third party lenses, I think Sigma has probably the broadest and most consistent lineup and I believe they support all three manufacturers.
Realistically, you won't go wrong with any of the three.
Kevin - Just to play devil's advocate here, I bought my first SLR last year after a couple of years with an S2 IS. I ended up getting the Olympus E-520. Here's a little of MY thought process (which may or may not have anything to do with yours).
The big drawback of Olympus, is, of course the small lens collection available. However, I knew how I shot and dealt with equipment well enough to know that I wanted a system that let me get by with only a couple of lenses, and that meant zooms. And Olympus has quite a few VERY good zooms. They also had very nice handling bodies, in my opinion, with features I wanted - particularly flip-and-twist screens and easy Live View. I suppose the S2 IS spoiled me there a little - lots of focal length, full time live view, flippy screen, tiny package. (No, the 520 doesn't have a flip-and-twist screen, but I think it's becoming standard on their line, so my next body likely will have it.)
In any case, I now have the E-520 with 12-60 lens, and I'd like to get a long lens. After that I think maybe I'm done buying lenses (for the forseeable future at least). So I'm not particularly suggesting Olympus - Pentax's selection of lenses is not bad and their bodies are very nice for the price. I'm just saying that the advantages of Canon and Nikon, while real, weren't compelling to me.
But these days, capability and image quality-wise, you really can't go wrong.
David - You make an excellent point about the flip/twist screen and easy live view which I use all the time. I suppose those in the biz might view those features for lazy photography.
Im at a point where I'd rather give myself the best/ affordable image quality over the convienace of easy features like the S2 IS has. I think.
I am also at a point where I don't exactly know where I want to 'take' my photography.
David; you also being a S2 IS user, I highly appriciate your comments and will keep them in consideration. THANKS!
Before I read David's comment, I was thinking about this set up.
Nikon D40 (cheaper body) with a Nikon 18-135 3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S DX
I'd like to start with a good lens rather than new bell and whistle from a D80 or would I be missing a must have feature? Im still learning about the SLRs so please forgive the lame questions.
Or Similiarly done with a XTi or XS body and comparible Lens.
Thanks, I actually found what you might be refering to...
"...lack of a focus motor in the body, meaning that many non-AF-S/AF-I lenses will not auto focus (including some Nikon's best prime lenses)." -dpreview.com
I'd suggest you go to the store and spend some time with each model and lens you're considering. When you've got the camera and lens in hand and up to your eye you may find that one system feels better to you than another. Trying out the placement, size and shape of the buttons and other controls will tell you how each one will work in your hands. Ultimately that's going to matter most IMO because you're buying tools to work with. You can probably find the operator's manuals online too so you can do a little background reading before you pick up the cameras.
I think you're on the right track when it comes to going for the best lens(es) you can afford. In terms of the images you produce I don't think anyone can tell from looking at a photo what brand of camera was used. But folks can tell if your lens quality is poor. If it comes to the point of getting to choose between similar lenses generally the ones made for the professional market are sharper and freer from various kinds of problems. There are lots of reviews available online that range from the very technical to the totally subjective and there are lots of specialized lenses to daydream about too.
One thing you could consider is to look at the used market. There is lots of good equipment out there and you can often find a higher end camera or lens that has barely been used at a substantial savings. Lots of folks buy new gear and then decide to replace it when something newer comes out. With a bit of careful research you can take advantage of that.
Kevin: I have a Canon S2 as well and did enjoy it and still use it occasionally. One thing the Canon/Nikon folks neglect to mention is that Pentax and Sony have image stabilization in the camera body. I am biased toward Sony since I trasnsitioned into their system from Minolta several years ago. I am encouraged by Sony's commitment to the DSLR market and think they are broadening their line nicely. The advantage of Nikon and Canon in their lens line is real but I do believe Sony is catching up and their Carl Zeiss models on the top end are comparable to anything on the planet. I know I sound like a cheerleader but IS in the camera is a major big deal IMO. I don't personally have any use for live view but you can get it with the Sony A300/350 models. No matter which way you go you're going to end up with a competent camera and system. Good luck. >=))>
Posted by Hans Breuer on March 5, 2009 at 12:46 AM
would like the capability of shooting my dog and kids
I believe a cheap .38 Saturday Night Special would serve you better than a camera in that department
Ed Dubois suggestion is right on; go to a good camera shop and try out every model you think you can afford. See how they feel in your hand, how they balance, and whether the controls feel natural. After you zero in on one or two, try a few other lenses on that body to make sure the changed balance point doesn't interfere with the feel.
When you do that, be sure to give Olympus a try. The Oly 520 is a very nice camera. And I agree with David Bostedo that Olympus zooms are exceptionally good, especially the 50-200mm.
Wow. Hans, that was genius Too funny man. That got me laughin pretty good.
Posted by Basil Greber on March 5, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Somebody called for a Nikon guy. Alright, here I am.
As mentioned above the Nikon D40, D40x and D60 don't have a focus motor in the body, so they can't autofocus any lens that doesn't have its own motor (in the lens). Sounds worse than it is though, as Nikon has recently released the 50/1.4 AF-S G and 35/1.8 AF-S G DX, plugging the "no affodable prime that focuses on the entry level bodies"-hole. So, Kevin, if you buy one of those cameras, you're restricted to AF-S lenses (Sigma calls them HSM, and some other brands also make lenses with built-in motor). No biggie, IMO - the new lenses (which all have AF-S) are rather nice in most cases.
If you consider the D80, you should also consider the D90. Most people that used both seem to prefer the latter. It also has live-view and video recording, if that matters to you.
As for lenses - if you want to photograph moving subjects indoors, you'll need a fast lens (both focus and light gathering capability). So, instead of a slow zoom, you may want to go with a fast prime (the above mentioned 50/1.4 AF-S G or 35/1.8 DX AF-S G, depending on your focal length preference, with the latter being an apparent bargain). The D90's kit lens (18-105 DX AF-S VR) is very affordable and has a good reputation, too (I only used its predecessor, the 18-135 DX AF-S - a very sharp lens). So, it may be a good starting point if you want to start with not so expensive lenses (but it's slow, and it's going to be much too short for wildlife, or even zoo-life, though - be aware of that).
I've been using the Nikon D40 for about a year now, and for the price, it is hard to beat. It can packaged with an 18-55 mm lens, which I use 90% of the time. Also got a 55-200 mm lens. I use the D40 primarily for landscape photography, and it does have a couple of minor short comings, which I'm sure all cameras do. First, I would like to have an ISO of 100. For water fall scenes typically have to use a ND filter. Second, there is no auto bracketing, so I have to manually adjust the EC. Finally, I had to add a plug-in (free down load) to Elements 5 to be able to open the NEF files. Can crop down to 50% with the 6 mp and still get a quality print.Would definately go with this camera again. Used the extra money to get a heavy duty tripod, which is the most important accessory you can buy.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on March 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Kevin....for what it's worth, the Pentax K20D has in-camera stabilization and live view, and Sigma makes a good number of lenses for Pentax cameras.
These are good points about in-camera stabilization. It's particularly effective at wide to mid focal length lens ranges, which is what it looks like you'll be shooting, Kevin.
This has been a wealth of information which I thank you ALL.
Before I continue with questions I will commit to handling more cameras.
So far I have only handled the Nikon D60 and Canon XSi, which I found the Nikon to be more comfortable and potentially more convienent with a second control panel ontop. Of course one is significantly cheaper than the other.... to be continued.
Thanks again.
Kevin.
"I believe a cheap .38 Saturday Night Special would serve you better than a camera in that department" - fantastic advice, very funny.
I have the Nikon D80 and love it. I have shot with a D60 (I think - it was a friend's) and it felt cheap to me. The sound of the shutter just was not as smooth.
One thing that I like a lot about the Nikon DSLRs is the Multiple Exposure feature.
Hey Kevin, the camera you buy today may be fine for now, but in a year or two you may want to upgrade, and sell this camera. The resale price if you sell a Nikon or Canon may be better than the resale of the other brands. Something to consider for the future.
A lot of people seem to hate this guy, but for thorough equipment reviews and no-nonsense opinions, try kenrockwell.com. You'll find that he recommends the Nikon D40 for a good, versatile rig (that's what I've been using for the past year and I LOVE it, by the way. I'ts weightless and fits just right in the hand; you can shoot all day with it.) Unfortunately, Canon is recommended for landscape, while Nikons are recommended for "dog and kids" photos: yikes! However, those conclusions are really only when you get really nit-picky, and the next-generation bodies to come out might change every evaluation.
I really don't have more than a rookie's opinion to offer, but for what it's worth:
If you want to keep costs down, don't sweat the specs on your camera body. Just buy the most affordable one you can find, once you figure out which set of lenses you would like to end up with. Any body that you choose will be "obsolete" (at least according to manufacturers, salesmen, etc) in 6 months anyway, no matter how much moolah you dish out. Look at the lenses, the ergonomics, the "intuitiveness" of the menus. I don't think that you'll find much difference in quality among bodies at the same price point. The fiercely competitive arms race among camera manufacturers is really working out well for us budget-type people. It's really amazing how much technology you can buy for a few hundred dollars! Of course, ultimately, the most important thing is being there in the right light, at the right moment, when you're feeling inspired. If you find a camera that allows you to envision getting "the shot", because you don't have to worry about it, then buy it. And don't forget to post your pics!
I really like my Pentax K10D, but that's neither here nor there ;-)
All of the above are good suggestions, I would just strongly strongly recommend the hands on test. I was going back and forth between Canon and Pentax until I picked them both up at a camera store... the Canon felt small and fragile in my hands, the Pentax felt big a comfortable and all the controls seemed to be where *I* wanted them.
Also think of where you'll be shooting and how important weather resistant sealing is, that was another thing that steered me towards the Pentax, nicely sealed up for the price range (and yes I knew I was taking a chance with a smaller available lens set, hard to find rental lenses etc.)
You'll certainly have different opinions from me, just make sure you pick them up so you know how they'll feel when you're shooting.
I am easily swayed by reviews like this, primarily based on my budget. Although his detail reviews seem to lack specifics and just reiterates to buy the D40 (perhaps his advertisments give him an incentive to unload D40s).
I am however seeing many sites selling the Body Only for $270 - $350 and do think they are more comfortable. Any Canon people care to offer a Canon that is superior in price/value?
Ken Rockwells Recap review of the D60:
The Nikon D60 is a "sucker" camera sold mostly to people who are not professional photographers, but who are impressed by meaningless megapixels. Megapixels have nothing to do with picture quality. The less expensive D40 is the same thing as the D60, but better. The D40 is the professional's vacation camera. It's what I take when I'm on vacation or with family, too.
The D60 exists to allow Nikon to sell a camera in the $750 price range to less experienced people who feel better spending $750 on a camera than spending $470 on the superior D40. If you're smart enough to be researching cameras from people like me who are here to help you instead of trying to sell you an expensive camera, just get the D40.
If you want to spend $750, get a D40 and more lenses or flash. For instance, for sports, get a D40 and the excellent 70-300mm VR, or get the less expensive, and also excellent, 55-200mm VR for general telephoto use.
I wouldn't buy a D60 or a D40x. I would buy, and actually did buy, the superior and least expensive D40, which today sells for only about $470 complete with an absolutely excellent non-VR lens. The least expensive D40 has twice the sensitivity to light (ISO 200 base vs. ISO 100 base) and over twice the flash sync speed (1/500 vs. 1/200). The other features, like pixels and dust reduction, are just fluff. I've never had a dirt problem with my D40, and I change lenses a lot and have made 25,000 shots on my D40.
Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually shoot it set down to 6 MP, not its native 12 MP?
If you have $5,000, get the $5,000 D3.
If you have $4,000 or less, get an $1,800 D300.
If you have less than $1,800, skip the D80, D60 and D40x and head straight for the superior D40 for only about $470, with lens.
If you have $1,000 you may want to look at the D80 if it's going to be your only camera, but honestly, I use cameras all day, every day, and when I go on vacation, I prefer my D40, not the D80.
PS: Canon was six years ahead of Nikon: Canon made the original D60 from 2002 - 2003. It had 6MP, ran at 3FPS, had a 1.8" LCD, can't use any of the modern Canon EF-S lenses, and people lined up for months to pay $2,300 for it back in 2002! It was ground-breaking because it had 6MP, up from 3MP of the Canon's first DSLR, the Canon D30. Today the Canon D60 sells used for about $300 - 400 - see why it's better to buy lenses than cameras.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM
One more thing I meant to mention, Kevin....before buying photo stuff online, ALWAYS check out any unfamiliar site on Reseller Ratings. Camera sales are one of the biggest arenas for online scams....many times you'll get a low price for a grey market import that is unwarrantied, or the camera won't come with a battery which they then try to charge you extra for, etc. So just be a bit careful. (Personally, my fav sites for photo stuff are B&H and Buydig. I've never found a better price at any other reputable site.)
Another place to check out for equipment is Midwest Photo (www.mpex.com). They are better known in the large format world but they do carry the usual assortment of 35 mm based equipment, both digital and even film(!), and used gear. They get most of my money (although it does help that they about 4 miles from where I live).
For used gear, KEH.com is well respected. They seem to have a reputation for undergrading their offerings which, as a buyer, is a good thing.
And then B&H is also a good place, as you already know.
Jamie's refurb suggestion is a good one. Check Adorama as well as B&H. If you decide to go Nikon, you can get a refurb D40 with 18-55mm kit lens, plus a 55-200 lens, with enough left over for some filters for your target budget. I'm sure Canon offers something similar. Happy shooting!
$800 is a pretty tight budget.
IMHO, the lenses are more important than the camera.
When I first started out, I had inherited an SLR with a standard lens. The first lens I bought was an el-cheapo telephoto zoom. I was mostly interested in shooting birds. Now I have a good super-telephoto lens, but my interest has shifted more towards landscapes. My most recent lens buy was an ultra-wide. You should invest in the most lens you can aford for the kind of shopoting you expect to do. If you're into wildlife, or birds, $800 isn't enough.
If I were you, I'd scrimp on the camera and get the best lens I could afford.
Posted by Basil Greber on March 6, 2009 at 7:19 PM
I hate to play the Ken Rockwell basher here. In fact, I'm not. I like reading his opinions, as they're always thought provoking, and he often has a point.
BUT - don't buy your camera based on his reviews. Just don't do that. Ken is a very opinionated person, and not afraid to tell everybody about them, even if they are sometimes a bit, well, uncoventional. Heather (above) states that Ken recommends Canon over Nikon for landscapes, but "only if you're nit picky". Well, if you're nit picky, then you should shoot in RAW format, which Ken never does, as it's a waste of time, as he puts it. And of course, his tests in which the Canons are better for landscapes are also based on JPEG - I'm not saying that Canon isn't better, or that Nikon is better, or whatever, I'm merely pointing out a flaw in the test procedure. It's just these little inconsistencies that you need to be aware of to make the correct judgment regarding his statements, but a beginner may not notice this.
So, have a look at dpreview.com instead. They'll give you the facts, on which you can base your opinion, and ultimately your decision. With Ken, Ken does the thinking and opinion making for you, which may not be the best thing.
About the obsolescence of camera bodies. There is some truth in there. It's heart breaking when you purchase a new body and see its value plummet to half of what you paid within a few years (and well beyond that in another few years). However, the more expensive bodies offer more features. Features that you may not need at the beginning, but that you may appreciate after spending some time with your camera. So, in a way, yes, an expensive body is technically obsolete as quickly as a cheap one. But the more expensive body may not be functionally obsolete for you as quickly. That's the reason why I still shot a D100 when it had long been superceded by the newer D50, D70, and even the higher resolution D80 in terms of sensor quality and other specifications. It just was still a very good camera with features unavailable on some lower-end bodies.
Discussion
33 repliesI am currently using a Canon S2 IS which has served me well except having to get the 'live view' repaired by Canon.
I mostly enjoy Landscape photography but would like the capability of shooting my dog and kids doing a variety of things.
I have considered the following for starting from scratch:
Canon XTi, XS, XSi
Nikon D40, D60, D80
Pentex K10d, K20d
I would prefer to stay below $800 with an all purpose lense, until I can afford more.
I also hope to have this camera for many years adding lenses as I see fit. Im more interested in quality than convience or luxury features.
Or I think.
Any ideas or recommendations would be greatly appriciated.
Kevin.
I'd pick up any of the Canon or Nikon bodies that feel best in your hands and whose controls work for you (assuming you can get to a store and try them out). I have nothing at all against Pentax, which makes great cameras. My reasons for Canon/Nikon are that, if you find your interest expanding, those brands have more lenses to choose from.
For starters, I'd recommend something in the 25-135 zoom range for the lens. That will give you some width for landscape work but also a bit of zoom when you want that while shooting family and pet action.
If you go Canon, their 28-135 IS is probably one of their best consumer lens choices.
For third party lenses, I think Sigma has probably the broadest and most consistent lineup and I believe they support all three manufacturers.
Realistically, you won't go wrong with any of the three.
Hanik - No I do not have any SLR lenses.
Steve - You make a good point about future capabilites with Canon and Nikon.
Thanks for the lens suggestion.
Hanik - No I do not have any SLR lenses.
Steve - You make a good point about future capabilites with Canon and Nikon.
Thanks for the lens suggestion.
The big drawback of Olympus, is, of course the small lens collection available. However, I knew how I shot and dealt with equipment well enough to know that I wanted a system that let me get by with only a couple of lenses, and that meant zooms. And Olympus has quite a few VERY good zooms. They also had very nice handling bodies, in my opinion, with features I wanted - particularly flip-and-twist screens and easy Live View. I suppose the S2 IS spoiled me there a little - lots of focal length, full time live view, flippy screen, tiny package. (No, the 520 doesn't have a flip-and-twist screen, but I think it's becoming standard on their line, so my next body likely will have it.)
In any case, I now have the E-520 with 12-60 lens, and I'd like to get a long lens. After that I think maybe I'm done buying lenses (for the forseeable future at least). So I'm not particularly suggesting Olympus - Pentax's selection of lenses is not bad and their bodies are very nice for the price. I'm just saying that the advantages of Canon and Nikon, while real, weren't compelling to me.
But these days, capability and image quality-wise, you really can't go wrong.
Im at a point where I'd rather give myself the best/ affordable image quality over the convienace of easy features like the S2 IS has. I think.
I am also at a point where I don't exactly know where I want to 'take' my photography.
David; you also being a S2 IS user, I highly appriciate your comments and will keep them in consideration. THANKS!
Before I read David's comment, I was thinking about this set up.
Nikon D40 (cheaper body) with a Nikon 18-135 3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S DX
I'd like to start with a good lens rather than new bell and whistle from a D80 or would I be missing a must have feature? Im still learning about the SLRs so please forgive the lame questions.
Or Similiarly done with a XTi or XS body and comparible Lens.
"...lack of a focus motor in the body, meaning that many non-AF-S/AF-I lenses will not auto focus (including some Nikon's best prime lenses)." -dpreview.com
A focus motor isn't added until the D80.
I think you're on the right track when it comes to going for the best lens(es) you can afford. In terms of the images you produce I don't think anyone can tell from looking at a photo what brand of camera was used. But folks can tell if your lens quality is poor. If it comes to the point of getting to choose between similar lenses generally the ones made for the professional market are sharper and freer from various kinds of problems. There are lots of reviews available online that range from the very technical to the totally subjective and there are lots of specialized lenses to daydream about too.
One thing you could consider is to look at the used market. There is lots of good equipment out there and you can often find a higher end camera or lens that has barely been used at a substantial savings. Lots of folks buy new gear and then decide to replace it when something newer comes out. With a bit of careful research you can take advantage of that.
Have fun finding your new gear.
I believe a cheap .38 Saturday Night Special would serve you better than a camera in that department
When you do that, be sure to give Olympus a try. The Oly 520 is a very nice camera. And I agree with David Bostedo that Olympus zooms are exceptionally good, especially the 50-200mm.
As mentioned above the Nikon D40, D40x and D60 don't have a focus motor in the body, so they can't autofocus any lens that doesn't have its own motor (in the lens). Sounds worse than it is though, as Nikon has recently released the 50/1.4 AF-S G and 35/1.8 AF-S G DX, plugging the "no affodable prime that focuses on the entry level bodies"-hole. So, Kevin, if you buy one of those cameras, you're restricted to AF-S lenses (Sigma calls them HSM, and some other brands also make lenses with built-in motor). No biggie, IMO - the new lenses (which all have AF-S) are rather nice in most cases.
If you consider the D80, you should also consider the D90. Most people that used both seem to prefer the latter. It also has live-view and video recording, if that matters to you.
As for lenses - if you want to photograph moving subjects indoors, you'll need a fast lens (both focus and light gathering capability). So, instead of a slow zoom, you may want to go with a fast prime (the above mentioned 50/1.4 AF-S G or 35/1.8 DX AF-S G, depending on your focal length preference, with the latter being an apparent bargain). The D90's kit lens (18-105 DX AF-S VR) is very affordable and has a good reputation, too (I only used its predecessor, the 18-135 DX AF-S - a very sharp lens). So, it may be a good starting point if you want to start with not so expensive lenses (but it's slow, and it's going to be much too short for wildlife, or even zoo-life, though - be aware of that).
Feel free to ask if there are more questions.
Basil
Before I continue with questions I will commit to handling more cameras.
So far I have only handled the Nikon D60 and Canon XSi, which I found the Nikon to be more comfortable and potentially more convienent with a second control panel ontop. Of course one is significantly cheaper than the other.... to be continued.
Thanks again.
Kevin.
"I believe a cheap .38 Saturday Night Special would serve you better than a camera in that department" - fantastic advice, very funny.
One thing that I like a lot about the Nikon DSLRs is the Multiple Exposure feature.
Nathan
I really don't have more than a rookie's opinion to offer, but for what it's worth:
If you want to keep costs down, don't sweat the specs on your camera body. Just buy the most affordable one you can find, once you figure out which set of lenses you would like to end up with. Any body that you choose will be "obsolete" (at least according to manufacturers, salesmen, etc) in 6 months anyway, no matter how much moolah you dish out. Look at the lenses, the ergonomics, the "intuitiveness" of the menus. I don't think that you'll find much difference in quality among bodies at the same price point. The fiercely competitive arms race among camera manufacturers is really working out well for us budget-type people. It's really amazing how much technology you can buy for a few hundred dollars! Of course, ultimately, the most important thing is being there in the right light, at the right moment, when you're feeling inspired. If you find a camera that allows you to envision getting "the shot", because you don't have to worry about it, then buy it. And don't forget to post your pics!
You can pick up a refurbished Canon 40D with a 28-135 IS lens within your budget. Might be something to consider.
All of the above are good suggestions, I would just strongly strongly recommend the hands on test. I was going back and forth between Canon and Pentax until I picked them both up at a camera store... the Canon felt small and fragile in my hands, the Pentax felt big a comfortable and all the controls seemed to be where *I* wanted them.
Also think of where you'll be shooting and how important weather resistant sealing is, that was another thing that steered me towards the Pentax, nicely sealed up for the price range (and yes I knew I was taking a chance with a smaller available lens set, hard to find rental lenses etc.)
You'll certainly have different opinions from me, just make sure you pick them up so you know how they'll feel when you're shooting.
-- Bass
I am easily swayed by reviews like this, primarily based on my budget. Although his detail reviews seem to lack specifics and just reiterates to buy the D40 (perhaps his advertisments give him an incentive to unload D40s).
I am however seeing many sites selling the Body Only for $270 - $350 and do think they are more comfortable. Any Canon people care to offer a Canon that is superior in price/value?
Ken Rockwells Recap review of the D60:
The Nikon D60 is a "sucker" camera sold mostly to people who are not professional photographers, but who are impressed by meaningless megapixels. Megapixels have nothing to do with picture quality. The less expensive D40 is the same thing as the D60, but better. The D40 is the professional's vacation camera. It's what I take when I'm on vacation or with family, too.
The D60 exists to allow Nikon to sell a camera in the $750 price range to less experienced people who feel better spending $750 on a camera than spending $470 on the superior D40. If you're smart enough to be researching cameras from people like me who are here to help you instead of trying to sell you an expensive camera, just get the D40.
If you want to spend $750, get a D40 and more lenses or flash. For instance, for sports, get a D40 and the excellent 70-300mm VR, or get the less expensive, and also excellent, 55-200mm VR for general telephoto use.
I wouldn't buy a D60 or a D40x. I would buy, and actually did buy, the superior and least expensive D40, which today sells for only about $470 complete with an absolutely excellent non-VR lens. The least expensive D40 has twice the sensitivity to light (ISO 200 base vs. ISO 100 base) and over twice the flash sync speed (1/500 vs. 1/200). The other features, like pixels and dust reduction, are just fluff. I've never had a dirt problem with my D40, and I change lenses a lot and have made 25,000 shots on my D40.
Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually shoot it set down to 6 MP, not its native 12 MP?
If you have $5,000, get the $5,000 D3.
If you have $4,000 or less, get an $1,800 D300.
If you have less than $1,800, skip the D80, D60 and D40x and head straight for the superior D40 for only about $470, with lens.
If you have $1,000 you may want to look at the D80 if it's going to be your only camera, but honestly, I use cameras all day, every day, and when I go on vacation, I prefer my D40, not the D80.
PS: Canon was six years ahead of Nikon: Canon made the original D60 from 2002 - 2003. It had 6MP, ran at 3FPS, had a 1.8" LCD, can't use any of the modern Canon EF-S lenses, and people lined up for months to pay $2,300 for it back in 2002! It was ground-breaking because it had 6MP, up from 3MP of the Canon's first DSLR, the Canon D30. Today the Canon D60 sells used for about $300 - 400 - see why it's better to buy lenses than cameras.
I just started investigating these suspicious sites.
I've havd success with B&H in the past, I'll probably stick with them.
..when the time comes....
Thanks again ALL
For used gear, KEH.com is well respected. They seem to have a reputation for undergrading their offerings which, as a buyer, is a good thing.
And then B&H is also a good place, as you already know.
IMHO, the lenses are more important than the camera.
When I first started out, I had inherited an SLR with a standard lens. The first lens I bought was an el-cheapo telephoto zoom. I was mostly interested in shooting birds. Now I have a good super-telephoto lens, but my interest has shifted more towards landscapes. My most recent lens buy was an ultra-wide. You should invest in the most lens you can aford for the kind of shopoting you expect to do. If you're into wildlife, or birds, $800 isn't enough.
If I were you, I'd scrimp on the camera and get the best lens I could afford.
BUT - don't buy your camera based on his reviews. Just don't do that. Ken is a very opinionated person, and not afraid to tell everybody about them, even if they are sometimes a bit, well, uncoventional. Heather (above) states that Ken recommends Canon over Nikon for landscapes, but "only if you're nit picky". Well, if you're nit picky, then you should shoot in RAW format, which Ken never does, as it's a waste of time, as he puts it. And of course, his tests in which the Canons are better for landscapes are also based on JPEG - I'm not saying that Canon isn't better, or that Nikon is better, or whatever, I'm merely pointing out a flaw in the test procedure. It's just these little inconsistencies that you need to be aware of to make the correct judgment regarding his statements, but a beginner may not notice this.
So, have a look at dpreview.com instead. They'll give you the facts, on which you can base your opinion, and ultimately your decision. With Ken, Ken does the thinking and opinion making for you, which may not be the best thing.
About the obsolescence of camera bodies. There is some truth in there. It's heart breaking when you purchase a new body and see its value plummet to half of what you paid within a few years (and well beyond that in another few years). However, the more expensive bodies offer more features. Features that you may not need at the beginning, but that you may appreciate after spending some time with your camera. So, in a way, yes, an expensive body is technically obsolete as quickly as a cheap one. But the more expensive body may not be functionally obsolete for you as quickly. That's the reason why I still shot a D100 when it had long been superceded by the newer D50, D70, and even the higher resolution D80 in terms of sensor quality and other specifications. It just was still a very good camera with features unavailable on some lower-end bodies.
Basil
I wouldn't be without it.