Whats Best: Nikon D50 or Canon EOS-D350

[Kardashian]

I'm looking to pick up a DSLR within the next week or so, I can't really stretch over £450.

The best I've seen, for the price, are the Nikon D50, and Canon EOSD350.

Whats your opinions? Ease of use? Value for money?

D50 is just under £400, and D350 is just under £430.

Thanks :)

[annk]

I'm looking to pick up a DSLR within the next week or so, I can't really stretch over £450.

The best I've seen, for the price, are the Nikon D50, and Canon EOSD350.

Whats your opinions? Ease of use? Value for money?

D50 is just under £400, and D350 is just under £430.

Thanks :)

This sort of question has been asked so many times, that I think I can answer it, even though I'm no expert.

In the long run, it depends which company's lenses you want to go with. Think about your needs, what sort of photography you want to do, and look at the lens line-up for Canon and Nikon. The glass is more important than the body.

You can also go into a store and take a look at both bodies. See how they feel in your hands. If you don't have much to compare it to, I don't think you'll be able to form an opinion about how the controls sit and function, but you can at least get an idea of how it will be to hold and use the body.

But at the end of the day, I would guess you'll be pleased with either. :) They're both entry-level dSLRs, designed for the same consumer group.

[Kardashian]

I felt more comfortable with the Canon, its layout and menu system - and I was really happy with the photographs it took, as well.

I'm 99% sure I want the EOS, unless someone on here has something that warns me off it [lets hope not!]

Thanks!

[drlunanerd]

As you probably know the 350D has been superceded by the 400D. If you want to go with Canon I'd plump for the newer model. The price difference isn't that great for a lot more features.

IMO I'd go with the Nikon though, as it's a great camera for less cash (currently under £375 with lens). If you can wait a couple of weeks it's likely the D50 is going to be replaced soon, possibly by the D60.

It's best to spend any extra money you have on better lenses than more expensive DSLR bodies. Also the standard Canon kit lens isn't too good and Nikon trumps it in this regard having a nice 18-55mm kit lens with the D50.

Top tip: find the cheapest price in the UK on the Net, then take it to Jessops who do a 110% price match. If you have any problems it's a lot easier to go back to a Jessops shop. They also do 28 day no quibble returns.

Check http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk for the best prices.

[Kardashian]

Top tip: find the cheapest price in the UK on the Net, then take it to Jessops who do a 110% price match. If you have any problems it's a lot easier to go back to a Jessops shop. They also do 28 day no quibble returns.

Check http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk for the best prices.

To be honest, I've used a friends Canon, and I do preffer it overall - but if the D50 is better, I guess I'll go with that.

The lens didn't bother me so much, as I was going to get one for Christmas. Its my first DSLR, so I'm not going to be producing masterpieces, mainly fashion portraits of people, to edit in Photoshop.

Would the Canon not suffice these needs?

[Sorry, its just I really like how it feels to hold, and the layout of everything, over the D50]

As for that Jessops idea, thats brilliant! We have a Jessops store in town, so I'll find the cheapest prices as you say, then go in and enquire about the price-match guarantee. :)

As you probably know the 350D has been superceded by the 400D. If you want to go with Canon I'd plump for the newer model. The price difference isn't that great for a lot more features.

Its way out of my price range. £450 is the max.


Also the standard Canon kit lens isn't too good and Nikon trumps it in this regard having a nice 18-55mm kit lens with the D50.
The Canon is 18-55mm, also (according to Amazon)

[Zeke]

Its way out of my price range. £450 is the max.



The Canon is 18-55mm, also (according to Amazon)

It wasn't the range that is better, but the optical quality of the Nikon 18-55. In any case, go with the one you like. All the lenses are basically the same for lots of money later. The 350d is a great camera. You won't be sorry.

[drlunanerd]

Its way out of my price range. £450 is the max.

Shame. If cash is tight it's another vote for the D50 then.

The Canon is 18-55mm, also (according to Amazon)

Yes I know, the difference is that it's (relatively) crap. It'll still be better than what you're used to if you're coming from a point-and-shoot camera though.

I'd wait and see what Nikon brings out early next month.

[extraextra]

Cash is tight - D50 + kit lens, and maybe you can throw in a 50mm f/1.8 (about $100).

[compuwar]

To be honest, I've used a friends Canon, and I do preffer it overall - but if the D50 is better, I guess I'll go with that.

The lens didn't bother me so much, as I was going to get one for Christmas. Its my first DSLR, so I'm not going to be producing masterpieces, mainly fashion portraits of people, to edit in Photoshop.

Would the Canon not suffice these needs?

[Sorry, its just I really like how it feels to hold, and the layout of everything, over the D50]

As for that Jessops idea, thats brilliant! We have a Jessops store in town, so I'll find the cheapest prices as you say, then go in and enquire about the price-match guarantee. :)

Go with the one that feels the best. The difference between the two is incremental, not worth worrying over- especially if you already have a clear preference.

Spend the least you can on a body and the most you can on lenses.

[peterparker]

Go with the one that feels the best. The difference between the two is incremental, not worth worrying over- especially if you already have a clear preference.

Spend the least you can on a body and the most you can on lenses.

Ditto

[ChrisA]

The Canon is 18-55mm, also (according to Amazon)

There is more to a lens than just its range of focal lenths. For example
1) How does it render out of focuas background objects. It s soft or harsh.
2) Does it add color to hightlioghts?
3) does the filter ring rotate when the lens focuses?
4) It there an instant manual focus over ride?
5) Is there any noticable pin cushion or barrel distortion in the wide or tele settings
6) how fast does it focus and does the motor make much noise
7) Overall build quality
8) does the lens even have a usable manual focus ring?
9) how close doe the lens focus
10-) what is the maximum aperture -- this is the #2 most importent featue
11) And most importantly - Is the lens "sharp"? How does it resolve details in the center and at the edges?

You need to ask these questions about all of the Canon and Nikon lenses you might own over the life of the system. After all if you buy the Canon EOS system every lens you buy later, for years or decades will be Canon EOS lenses. Seems ood to make such a long lasting decision based on button placement on one camera body. That said both campanies make good stuff. But different stuff.

Ok hard to think decades ahead. What will be your next lens? If you want the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lens then you need the Nikon body. Same if you really like one of the Canon lenses. Think at least two lenses ahead and maybe a body upgrade ahead too. Going either way is reasonable but deciding based on a triveal difference is not.

[Kardashian]

OK - I'm more confused now than when I started out.

I am a total noob to SLR photography, incase that wasn't obvious, and I intend to learn what all your points mean, along the way - at the moment I'm at a loss as I haven't had experience with anything other than Point and Shoots.

All I want to know is, whats the best set up:

1. D50 and included lense - then another lense (up to around £150) at Xmas.
2. D350 and included lense - then another lense (up to around £150) at Xmas.
3. D50 body only and a seperate, 'custom' lense now (total can't reach more than £470) - and another lense at Xmas.
4. D350 body only and a seperate, 'custom' lense now (total can't reach more than £470) - and another lense at Xmas.

90% of pictures are going to be ''modelling'' shots for my art project - so people, mainly. I want a camera that will function well in low lighting - as some of the pictures I intend to take are at night on a beach.

Most shots will be taken close to the model, others will be at a distance to include some surrounding landscape.

Overall, for my budget whats best - one of the D50 or D350 kits, with the included lense and upgrading to a 2nd one later - or - buying a body only, and choosing a decent ''all rounder'' lense now. :confused:


I'm a complete noob into this sort of Photography - but I intend to become experienced. Its obvious the difference in quality when using an SLR - I'm just tired of the crappy pictures and slowness associated with P&S's.

[Abstract]

Lets pretend that the lenses offered by both companies is of equal quality (although the lineup isn't the same).

If the lenses were equal and I was picking a camera, I'd pick the Nikon D50.

And like drlunanerd said, the D50 may be upgraded very soon.



For low light, a 50 mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, although you could only afford the 50 mm f/1.8. If you want to take photos at a distance in order to get the surrounding landscape, a zoom lens isn't going to help you do that. :confused:

The 50 mm f/1.8 will do this, and under low light. If you're really concerned about shooting in low light, I'd get the 50 mm f/1.4, but that's just me.

[Kardashian]

For low light, a 50 mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, although you could only afford the 50 mm f/1.8. If you want to take photos at a distance in order to get the surrounding landscape, a zoom lens isn't going to help you do that. :confused:

The 50 mm f/1.8 will do this, and under low light. If you're really concerned about shooting in low light, I'd get the 50 mm f/1.4, but that's just me.

Thanks very much.

So would the included D50 lense be good enough for shooting in normal lighting conditions, and have a zoom, like a normal P&S - only better focused and better quality?

Then, for the night time shots I need a '50 mm f/1.8' lense?

B.T.W: What does 50 mm f/1.8 mean? :o

Thanks in advance :)

[annk]

.... I want a camera that will function well in low lighting ...

...I'm a complete noob into this sort of Photography - but I intend to become experienced. Its obvious the difference in quality when using an SLR - I'm just tired of the crappy pictures and slowness associated with P&S's.

1) I'm pretty sure that the quality of images taken in low lighting depend on the lens, not the camera body. A lens with at least 2.8, I would imagine.

2) Since you don't have a lot of experience, it's hard to know what you might eventually want. IMO it's practically impossible to know what sorts of lenses you want until you've actually spent some time shooting and evaluating your results. So I would suggest you get the Canon S3 IS. It's a high-end P and S, I think you will be surprised at the results you get. You have quite a bit of manual control with that camera. It's well within your budget, and will no doubt have a decent resale value when you do make the jump to a dSLR.

I started with the S2 IS, and am really glad I did. It took me quite a while before I felt I had a handle on everything I could do with it, and I felt it made my choice of dSLR a more intelligent one.

[drlunanerd]

1) I'm pretty sure that the quality of images taken in low lighting depend on the lens, not the camera body. A lens with at least 2.8, I would imagine.

2) Since you don't have a lot of experience, it's hard to know what you might eventually want. IMO it's practically impossible to know what sorts of lenses you want until you've actually spent some time shooting and evaluating your results. So I would suggest you get the Canon S3 IS. It's a high-end P and S, I think you will be surprised at the results you get. You have quite a bit of manual control with that camera. It's well within your budget, and will no doubt have a decent resale value when you do make the jump to a dSLR.

I started with the S2 IS, and am really glad I did. It took me quite a while before I felt I had a handle on everything I could do with it, and I felt it made my choice of dSLR a more intelligent one.

With respect, I disagree with this advice. I think it's a waste of time and money to buy a bridge camera like an S3. The OP is ready to buy a DSLR as he's already been using a P&S, and it makes more financial sense too.

Bottom line: buy either the D50 or 350D with their cheapest kit lenses. My advice would be to go for the D50. Then get a 50mm lens for portraits in low light if you find you need it, and you're set.

Other advice: wait until early November to see if Nikon replaces the D50.

[Kardashian]

Bottom line: buy either the D50 or 350D with their cheapest kit lenses. My advice would be to go for the D50. Then get a 50mm lens for portraits in low light if you find you need it, and you're set.

Other advice: wait until early November to see if Nikon replaces the D50.

Thanks very much. I'm going to wait another fortnight, see if anything gets released, if not, I'll get the D50 or 350D based on how confident I feel holding them and using them - as the lenses are pretty much the same.

If I get a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 lense that will enable me to take portrait pictures in lowlight, or at night, correct? :)

Thanks for all your help, Drlunanerd.

[annk]

With respect, I disagree with this advice. I think it's a waste of time and money to buy a bridge camera like an S3. The OP is ready to buy a DSLR as he's already been using a P&S, and it makes more financial sense too.

Bottom line: buy either the D50 or 350D with their cheapest kit lenses. My advice would be to go for the D50. Then get a 50mm lens for portraits in low light if you find you need it, and you're set.

Other advice: wait until early November to see if Nikon replaces the D50.

I know, in a way I agree, but the OP seems to have very, very little experience, based on the questions he's asking. It doesn't seem he has any basis on which to know what his future needs and wishes will be.

I just meant to convey that my own experience with going over from a basic P and S to a dSLR was made much more intelligent by having a bridge camera. I learned a lot more about the sorts of images I was interested in taking, and what sort of functions were important to me. It gave me enough experience to go into a camera store and ask intelligent questions, which in turn gave me even more info.

And I don't think going with the Canon kit lens is good. People claim the Nikon kit lens is of better quality, so that in itself might be a reason to go with the Nikon. But I would strongly suggest the Canon 50 mm 1.8 II as a reasonably-priced replacement for the kit 18-55mm.

But I do agree that regardless of whether the OP goes with the entry-level Canon or Nikon, he'll most likely be happy. :)

[Kardashian]

And I don't think going with the Canon kit lens is good. People claim the Nikon kit lens is of better quality, so that in itself might be a reason to go with the Nikon. But I would strongly suggest the Canon 50 mm 1.8 II as a reasonably-priced replacement for the kit 18-55mm.

But I do agree that regardless of whether the OP goes with the entry-level Canon or Nikon, he'll most likely be happy. :)

Thanks a lot, AnnK, for showing a lot of interest - and I do appreciate your help.

True, I know hardly anything about DSLR's - but I do a lot of photography and editing for Art - its what my art is based around. I may not know the basics of a good DSLR, but I understand and know what direction I'm going in with my photography, I just don't know what the best-suited equipment for me is :p .

I suppose like everything else, I'll learn along the way - I pick things up pretty easy ''hands on'' - so we'll see how it goes. Even if I don't get straight into understanding lenses etc, one things for sure - I'll be producing better pictures right out the box, moving up from a 5MP P&S - and a lot quicker.

People here will probably laugh at me, your all so experienced.. but if the Nikon/Canon comes with a 18-55mm lense, why do I need do buy a 50mm one for night shots? [Sorry in advance for being stupid!]

[drlunanerd]

I know, in a way I agree, but the OP seems to have very, very little experience, based on the questions he's asking. It doesn't seem he has any basis on which to know what his future needs and wishes will be.

I just meant to convey that my own experience with going over from a basic P and S to a dSLR was made much more intelligent by having a bridge camera. I learned a lot more about the sorts of images I was interested in taking, and what sort of functions were important to me. It gave me enough experience to go into a camera store and ask intelligent questions, which in turn gave me even more info.

And I don't think going with the Canon kit lens is good. People claim the Nikon kit lens is of better quality, so that in itself might be a reason to go with the Nikon. But I would strongly suggest the Canon 50 mm 1.8 II as a reasonably-priced replacement for the kit 18-55mm.

But I do agree that regardless of whether the OP goes with the entry-level Canon or Nikon, he'll most likely be happy. :)

I understand what you're saying. I think it's best to keep things as simple as possible in terms of advice, whilst not doing him a disservice in the long run, so I think it's better just to recommend a DSLR in his price range. Like you say, any of the entry level DSLRs, especially from Nikon and Canon, will give great results, even with the basic kit lenses in good light. Then the cheap 50mm lenses are perfect for the portraits he wants to do, but with the kit zoom lenses he'll have had chance to play around and gauge the results you can get. He might find that's all he needs, especially if he doesn't mind using flash.

[drlunanerd]

but if the Nikon/Canon comes with a 18-55mm lense, why do I need do buy a 50mm one for night shots? [Sorry in advance for being stupid!]

Basically the 50mm lenses let more light into the camera (that's what the f/1.8 means - the smaller the number the more light it can gather). This means you can get a sharp photo in less light. However if it's literally at night, you'll still need flash or other lighting on your subject, so you might not need a 50mm. Best just to get the basic kit lens and try it out in the conditions you find yourself in.

PS everyone's talking about the 50mm lenses as they're relatively cheap. Normally to get a "fast" lens you have to spend hundreds of pounds.

[Kardashian]

Basically the 50mm lenses let more light into the camera (that's what the f/1.8 means - the smaller the number the more light it can gather). This means you can get a sharp photo in less light. However if it's literally at night, you'll still need flash or other lighting on your subject, so you might not need a 50mm. Best just to get the basic kit lens and try it out in the conditions you find yourself in.

Thanks for clearing that up - we're getting there, slowly!:)

[annk]

I understand what you're saying. I think it's best to keep things as simple as possible in terms of advice, whilst not doing him a disservice in the long run, so I think it's better just to recommend a DSLR in his price range. Like you say, any of the entry level DSLRs, especially from Nikon and Canon, will give great results, even with the basic kit lenses in good light. Then the cheap 50mm lenses are perfect for the portraits he wants to do, but with the kit zoom lenses he'll have had chance to play around and gauge the results you can get. He might find that's all he needs, especially if he doesn't mind using flash.

True. :)

True, I know hardly anything about DSLR's - but I do a lot of photography and editing for Art - its what my art is based around. I may not know the basics of a good DSLR, but I understand and know what direction I'm going in with my photography, I just don't know what the best-suited equipment for me is .

I suppose like everything else, I'll learn along the way - I pick things up pretty easy ''hands on'' - so we'll see how it goes. Even if I don't get straight into understanding lenses etc, one things for sure - I'll be producing better pictures right out the box, moving up from a 5MP P&S - and a lot quicker.

People here will probably laugh at me, your all so experienced.. but if the Nikon/Canon comes with a 18-55mm lense, why do I need do buy a 50mm one for night shots? [Sorry in advance for being stupid!]

Your questions aren't stupid, I was asking a lot of them myself not long ago, and I still have a looong way to go in understanding. That was my point, I guess, that having that bridge camera helped me to know more about what sort of equipment was best suited for me. But I do think that drlunanerd's points are all valid and make good sense.

As to your question about the focal length (XXmm) - the 50mm 1.8 II I mentioned lets in more light, and is therefore better for work in low light. the 1.8 number is what's called an f stop (http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Aperture_and_F-Stops).

[Kardashian]

True. :)



Your questions aren't stupid, I was asking a lot of them myself not long ago, and I still have a looong way to go in understanding. That was my point, I guess, that having that bridge camera helped me to know more about what sort of equipment was best suited for me. But I do think that drlunanerd's points are all valid and make good sense.

As to your question about the focal length (XXmm) - the 50mm 1.8 II I mentioned lets in more light, and is therefore better for work in low light. the 1.8 number is what's called an f stop (http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Aperture_and_F-Stops).

Thanks for the Wiki - very informative.

Gonna scoot around on there now, read up on all the different terms etc. [Couldn't find geeky glasses - so i'll go with these] =:cool:

[dogbone]

I felt more comfortable with the Canon, its layout and menu system ...

That's interesting because I always thought that the clunky menu system was one of the annoying things about the canon. Instead of hotkeys on the camera taking you directly to the control, they take you to a menu.

[annk]

That's interesting because I always thought that the clunky menu system was one of the annoying things about the canon. Instead of hotkeys on the camera taking you directly to the control, they take you to a menu.

I don't have any experience with Nikon layouts, but I've heard the same - that people who've used both, like the Nikon layout better. My 350D does have a few hotkeys that take you right to the function, though.

Coming from the S2 IS, I liked the fact that I knew and recognized the menu layout on my 350D. One guy I spoke with about this in a good camera store said that if I were to go over to Nikon, I'd be just as happy with the menu system there in a short period of time. He said I shouldn't make it a big issue in my choice.

In the end, I guess it often boils down to what one is used to.

[oldpismo]

I have the Canon 350D, and I have been perfectly happy with it. I also use the stock lens that it comes with and if you are just starting out with an SLR then it is fine, and you don't need to pay loads for a 50mm lens. Maybe do that later on if you feel you need to.

I don't know much about the Nikon, but I'm sure that you won't be disappointed either way.

The canon is easy to use (even in the dark - alot of my photos are astronomy ones) and the battery life is very good.

Peter

[annk]

...and you don't need to pay loads for a 50mm lens. Maybe do that later on if you feel you need to...

The Canon 50 mm 1.8 II is very inexpensive, but lots of people are very enthusiastic about it. I have it and am amazed at the great images it can produce. It's definitely in a different class from the Canon kit lens. But for all I know, Nikon may also have one at the same price and of the same quality.

[compuwar]

The Canon 50 mm 1.8 II is very inexpensive, but lots of people are very enthusiastic about it. I have it and am amazed at the great images it can produce. It's definitely in a different class from the Canon kit lens. But for all I know, Nikon may also have one at the same price and of the same quality.

$114.95 at B&H for the Nikkor. It's very well regarded. 50mm is about the only place fast and great and inexpensive all intersect.

[oldpismo]

The Canon 50 mm 1.8 II is very inexpensive, but lots of people are very enthusiastic about it. I have it and am amazed at the great images it can produce. It's definitely in a different class from the Canon kit lens. But for all I know, Nikon may also have one at the same price and of the same quality.

I'm not doubting that it is a good lens. What I was saying is that if you are getting an SLR for the first time, the kit lens is so much better than the compact digital lens that you have been using in the past that it is fine.

Then, after you have used that for a bit you will have a better understanding of what lens you really want and need. The 50mm is a good lens, but if you only have one and are just starting the stock zoom lens is perfectly adequate.

Peter

[compuwar]

Seems ood to make such a long lasting decision based on button placement on one camera body.

For lots of people, the ergonomics of a body make the choice between systems a no-brainer. I know folks who can't shoot the whole day with a Canon body, who can with a Nikon one. I know folks who can't shoot all day with a Nikon body too. The major controls and layouts from both companies don't change all that much inside of a line of bodies, though they change between lines. For instance, the D1's ergonomics weren't materially changed when the D2 series came out. The layout of my old 8008s, which I got around 1990 isn't all that different from my D2x today.

If you're going to spend serious time with a camera, then ergonomics matter, and it's more important to folks who's hands aren't "average" size.

[Abstract]

Then, for the night time shots I need a '50 mm f/1.8' lense?

B.T.W: What does 50 mm f/1.8 mean? :o

Thanks in advance :)


That "f" value refers to the size of the aperture (ie: "hole" in the lens) that lets in the light. It's a ratio between the focal length (eg: 50 mm) and the diameter of the hole. Lower numbers are better, so an f/1.4 lets in more light than an f/1.8.

And just for your information, an f/1.4 lens will let in 2x more light than an f/2 lens.
An f/2 lens will let in 2x more light than an f/2.8 lens; and an f/1.4 lens will let in 4x more than an f/2.8 lens.
An f/2.8 lens will let in 2x more light than an f/4 lens; an f/1.8 lens will let in 4x more light than an f/4 lens; and an f/1.4 lens will let in 8x more light than an f/4 lens.

Here's an easier way to explain it. :p In order: f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, etc. Each lens after f/1 will let in half the amount of light as the previous aperture on the list. So I suggest a 50 mm f/1.4 lens if you want to shoot a lot of photos at night, although a 50 mm f/1.8 is ok as well. Just remember that if you need to take a photo at 1/4th seconds using the 50 mm f/1.8, you'd only need 1/10th seconds with the 50 mm f/1.4 lens, which could be the difference between a blurry shot and one that's sharp enough to use.

(these aperture sizes are adjustable, so you can make the aperture smaller if you wish (ie: you can make that f-number larger). The number on the lens is just the maximum aperture size)

I'm not doubting that it is a good lens. What I was saying is that if you are getting an SLR for the first time, the kit lens is so much better than the compact digital lens that you have been using in the past that it is fine.

Actually, that's not entirely true. ;) Some of these fancy point and shoot cameras have excellent lenses that are likely better than the Canon kit lens, and sometimes the Nikon D50 kit lens.

You're really going to get decent shots using the kit lens in most lighting. The differences between a good lens and a bad lens isn't that high if you're not completely anal about details and are just starting out. So if anything, get the kit lens and a 50 mm f/1.4.

Good luck, man. Ask more questions if you need to. :)

[beavo451]

Here's an easier way to explain it. :p In order: f/1, f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, etc. Each lens after f/1 will let in half the amount of light as the previous aperture on the list.

This is wrong. In steps of 1 stop, this is the correct numbering:

f/1.0, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11

Only in full stops does the amount of light gets halved.

f/1.0 -> f/1.2 is 2/3rd of a stop
f/1.4 -> f/1.8 is 2/3rd of a stop
f/1.8 -> f/2.8 is 4/3rd of a stop

Edit for tehcnical detail:

F/stop actually refers to the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. So the diameter of the aperture on a 50mm lens is different from the aperture of a 200mm lens when both are at F/4.

To get even more technical, the aperture diameter is a measurement that takes place right behind the front element of the lens. Example: A 400mm lens at f/2.8 should have a diameter of ~143mm. The lens mount is (very) roughly 50mm. Since the aperture blades are placed at the rear of the lens, the aperture hole can be made smaller. But the front element has to be at least the 143mm. This is why the fast super telephotos are so humongous.

[Abstract]

This is wrong. In steps of 1 stop, this is the correct numbering:

f/1.0, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11

Only in full stops does the amount of light gets halved.

f/1.0 -> f/1.2 is 2/3rd of a stop
f/1.4 -> f/1.8 is 2/3rd of a stop
f/1.8 -> f/2.8 is 4/3rd of a stop


Yeah, last night I was thinking about that post for some reason and I knew I butchered it, especially the f/1.4 to f/1.8 part being 1 stop. :o I practically woke up in my sleep thinking, "Wait a sec.....that's not right. f/2 is a stop, not f/1.8. My apologies. :o

Yes, f/1, f/1.4, f/2.

[greenmac]

I think if you like the canon shop around and see if you can find a deal on the 400D. Here in Adelaide I can get the 400D cheaper than the superceded 350D. (department store sale) I havent seen the 350D But I have seen the 400D, and I own a D50. I like the focus points on the 400D (9 points vs 5 on the D50) But I also like the LED screen on the D50 vs the settings being showed on the LCD on the 400D. It's these sorts of things that you need to decide what u feel more comfortable using.
My only other suggestion is if you bought the D50, maybe consider the AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G lens over the standard 18-55 kit lens.

[wisredz]

I say go with the D50 coupled with the kit lens. Nikon produces really good bodies and even better glasses. Have had no experience with canon but those are great cameras as well. Get the one that feels natural to you and consider the lens selection of each brand before buying. They both have great lenses actually :D

Anyway, if you can get the 50mm 1.8, that is a great lens for the money. But other that that, I don't think it is advisable to spend small amounts of money in glass. If you invest money in a lens, than get the best lens suited to your needs. £150 lens won't do you much good over the 18-55 kit lens. Put aside some cash in time and than get a really good lens.