Choosing my first DSLR

[Darran]

I have long wanted to purchase a DSLR and that time has come now. I am starting to save up to get an entry level one. But I am unsure which to choose. Right now I am stuck between two choices:

Nikon D60 and the Canon 450D.

And I just read that the Nikon D80 body prices are dropping, so that could actually be an option too. Which would you recommend?

My primary use of a DSLR would be for shots of the following nature:


Night/Low Light
Spontaneous
Landscapes


I do not want something too expensive. Just something decent to introduce me into the world of DSLRs with reasonable quality.

[thomahawk]

nikon D40 is for beginners and its a pretty damn good camera i love it.

however nikon D60 is a good camera as well the controls are pretty good and when you want to change a setting for a specific shot you can do it easier than a D40.

I recommend Nikons

however it really is a matter of preferance. since you have no problem getting either one of them i suggest going to the store and tesing out both cameras. see which one is to your liking (the feel, shape, wiehgt, response, etc) and decide from there

Nikon and Canon are both good camera makers but what it comes down to is preferance. specs are good but not always the best choice. preferance is the keypoint in choosing a new DSLR for yourslef

oh yea and since your using it for landscapes i recommend getting a fish eye lenses. you get a wider range of the shot and more nice picture that comes out.

but really get a Nikon D40 is great for begginners and those are getting into the DLSR scene

[Darran]

nikon D40 is for beginners and its a pretty damn good camera i love it.

however nikon D60 is a good camera as well the controls are pretty good and when you want to change a setting for a specific shot you can do it easier than a D40.

I recommend Nikons

however it really is a matter of preferance. since you have no problem getting either one of them i suggest going to the store and tesing out both cameras. see which one is to your liking (the feel, shape, wiehgt, response, etc) and decide from there

Nikon and Canon are both good camera makers but what it comes down to is preferance. specs are good but not always the best choice. preferance is the keypoint in choosing a new DSLR for yourslef

oh yea and since your using it for landscapes i recommend getting a fish eye lenses. you get a wider range of the shot and more nice picture that comes out.

but really get a Nikon D40 is great for begginners and those are getting into the DLSR scene

You have mentioned so much about the D60 and D40. But with the D80 price dropping and possibly becoming as cheap as the D60, would you reckon I get the D80 instead? With regards to lenses, I will think about that later. Because I will want to have more than one lens.

[CrackedButter]

When people mention price I have to let beginners know about Olympus cameras as they are priced lower than other brands. For what are your suggested uses as well, it will work quite nicely.

The Olympus also has a 30 minute bulb option for night shooting as well.

[mlemonds]

canon v. nikon = pepsi v. coke

i personally have had better luck with the on camera noise reduction and control with Canon.

if you know someone that has a nikon or a canon i would go with the same brand as them (especially if you are good friends) that way you can borrow and try out different lenses.

overall i would get the cheapest body that you can find *Nikon or Canon* and put your money into the glass (lenses). when you become more proficient, you can go to a higher level body and the lenses will still work.

[mrgreen4242]

I went through this decision process over the last few weeks and settled on the D40, and didn't hesitate when the D80 got a big price drop (I'm still putting the cash together for the camera - almost there... this week :P). Here's the reasons I did so:

1) Why Nikon: Nikon has a large line of cameras at nearly every level. Meaning my lenses will always be useful to me if I stay with Nikon, which is highly likely. Getting non-Nikon or non-Canon SLRs means a decent chance of having to start over again with lenses as outside of these two manufacturers the lines are more limited.

2) Why Nikon pt 2: I liked the menus better, and the Nikon seemed to have more "advanced auto" features. Seems a little counter intuitive to want better auto features, but I mean things like the auto ISO settings worked better (from the reviews I read).

3) Why the D40: the D40 is small and light. I like that. If I don't bring the camera I can't take photos and if it's too big I won't bring it. That's just me. The D60 is often referred to as a bad buy because they didn't add many features and significantly upped the price. The D40x has the same sensor, if you just have to have 10MP (which I don't think anyone does, unless you make billboards for a living) and is priced between the 40 and 60.

4) Why the D40 pt 2: The D80, even with price drop is still A LOT more than the D40 and loses all of the advantage of size. The extra money is better spent on lenses, from what I gather reading around here.

I recommend www.kenrockwell.com for more info... Good luck!

[WinterMute]

I'm a complete n00b photographer, I bought a D40x kit at the beginning of the year and added a Nikkor 70-200 zoom a bit later.

It's a cracking camera to get to grips with taking better pictures, its light and easy to use from the hand, the lenses are cheap(ish) and to my eyes very good, and the camera affords a good balance between functionality and automation.

It's cheap too!

Thoroughly recommended, although the D60/D90 argument is persuasive, but only from the perspective of a D40x owner I suspect.

If you bought one you wouldn't be worried, you be out taking pictures!

[ftaok]

I had narrowed the choices down to the D40 and the XTi when I was looking to switch to a dSLR. In the end, I chose the XTi for two reasons.

1. To me, the Nikon and the Canon both felt fine in my hands. My wife prefered the feel of the Canon.

2. One of the lenses that I want (which I still haven't bought) is a 50mm f1.8 lens. I want to be able to take nice shots indoor where lighting is not readily available or adjustable (like shooting the kids at an indoor playground or at a birthday party, etc). Both Nikon and Canon offer this lens rather inexpensively, but the D40 (and the D60) will not auto-focus. That was the prime deal killer for me.

These same issues are in play between the D60 and the XSi ... but they may not be significant for you.

ft

XTi = 400D
XSi = 450D

[Darran]

From what I have seen, I would be better off investing in the D40, and getting a kick ass lens. At SGD $999, I can get a D40 with a starter kit as well as a tripod and a 4GB memory card, that sounds like a neat deal for a beginner into DSLRs. Perhaps over time, I could decide which lens I would buy to add on.

Just a question, am I able to print the pictures from a D40 in an A0 size photo paper?

I had narrowed the choices down to the D40 and the XTi when I was looking to switch to a dSLR. In the end, I chose the XTi for two reasons.

1. To me, the Nikon and the Canon both felt fine in my hands. My wife prefered the feel of the Canon.

2. One of the lenses that I want (which I still haven't bought) is a 50mm f1.8 lens. I want to be able to take nice shots indoor where lighting is not readily available or adjustable (like shooting the kids at an indoor playground or at a birthday party, etc). Both Nikon and Canon offer this lens rather inexpensively, but the D40 (and the D60) will not auto-focus. That was the prime deal killer for me.

These same issues are in play between the D60 and the XSi ... but they may not be significant for you.

ft

XTi = 400D
XSi = 450D

To get around that problem, couldn't we use a an auto focus Nikon lens?

[ftaok]

From what I have seen, I would be better off investing in the D40, and getting a kick ass lens. At SGD $999, I can get a D40 with a starter kit as well as a tripod and a 4GB memory card, that sounds like a neat deal for a beginner into DSLRs. Perhaps over time, I could decide which lens I would buy to add on.

Just a question, am I able to print the pictures from a D40 in an A0 size photo paper?



To get around that problem, couldn't we use a an auto focus Nikon lens?
I can't answer your other questions, but regarding the AF Nikon lens ... Nikon does not currently make a 50mm lens that can AF with the D40/40x/60. That's not to say that they won't, but when I was buying, none was on the horizon.

3rd party manufacturers are making normal prime lenses for the D40 that can AF, but they cost more. The Nikon 50mm costs around $100 and the Canon 50mm costs $80. They are considered very good buys. If I have to pay $300 for the 30mm Sigma, that kind of defeats the purpose.

ft

[Darran]

I can't answer your other questions, but regarding the AF Nikon lens ... Nikon does not currently make a 50mm lens that can AF with the D40/40x/60. That's not to say that they won't, but when I was buying, none was on the horizon.

3rd party manufacturers are making normal prime lenses for the D40 that can AF, but they cost more. The Nikon 50mm costs around $100 and the Canon 50mm costs $80. They are considered very good buys. If I have to pay $300 for the 30mm Sigma, that kind of defeats the purpose.

ft

From kenrockwell.com

The D40 only autofocuses with the latest AF-S (and old professional AF-I) lenses. So I have to keep a look out for these AF-S and AF-I lens if I am to get one.

[mrgreen4242]

I'm no pro. I'm not even an amatuer... but, my inderstanding is that people like primes because they are fast and cheap, right? With some of the newer zoom lenses getting to be nearly as fast as the primes, and smaller, lighter, and relatively affordable I can see why Nikon might not feel getting AF-S primes out the door is a priority.

Maybe I am missing something important, though, so someone please correct me!

Just as an aside, I'm planning on a D40 w/ the kit lens that I will likely replace with a Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR lens in a year or 18 months (it's about $650 new and is supposed to be a fantastic single lens solution for 90% of the things people will shoot).

[ftaok]

I'm no pro. I'm not even an amatuer... but, my inderstanding is that people like primes because they are fast and cheap, right? With some of the newer zoom lenses getting to be nearly as fast as the primes, and smaller, lighter, and relatively affordable I can see why Nikon might not feel getting AF-S primes out the door is a priority.


Maybe I am missing something important, though, so someone please correct me! Consumer zoom lenses are not going to be anywhere as fast a prime lens. The fast pro (or mid-level) zoom lenses are typically around f2.8 and they are pricey. You can get some really inexpensive prime lenses at f1.8 and they'll be much much faster and they'll probably have less distortion.

The typical consumer zoom are around f3.5 to f5.6. That's much slower than f1.8.

For me, I anticipate using a 50mm f1.8 lens for most (if not all) of my indoor shots. I really hate using the flash since it gives a sort of unnatural look and tends to flatten faces and such. I suppose that I could get a Speedlite or something, but a nice prime lens is cheaper.

I'm not saying that the Nikon's lack of AF motor is a deal killer for everyone, it was just a deal killer for me.

Just as an aside, I'm planning on a D40 w/ the kit lens that I will likely replace with a Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR lens in a year or 18 months (it's about $650 new and is supposed to be a fantastic single lens solution for 90% of the things people will shoot).
I personally know two Nikon shooters that have the 18-200 lens and they love it. It's practically on their lens all the time. I've played with it for a little, and it's really a desirable lens.

[Westside guy]

The problem is that on a crop sensor digital SLR (which is what we're talking about here) 50mm acts like a 75mm telephoto lens. Shooting indoors, you don't always have the luxury of "zooming with your feet" out far enough for that lens. If you're only going to have one prime, IMHO a better fit for that sensor is the 35mm f/2 - but that costs $300 rather than $100. I bought one for my D70 and put it to good use (mostly for portraits).

The 18-200 is a very nice lens for walking around and being ready for whatever you see. It's not perfect; but I really enjoyed shooting with it.

[ChrisA]

The D80 is now selling at the D60 price. Get that.

When you buy that first SLR you are deciding on a brand. You next SLR, lenses and so on for many years will have to be from the same brand. Choose Nikon or Canon bases on what you want to buy in the future. The cost of the SLR body is nothing compared the the price of the system you will buy over the next 10 or so years. Plan ahead.

The D80 has an in-body focus motor which greatly expands the number oflenses that will work with the camera. The D80 can in the long run actually save you some money. For example it can work well with a pervious generation 80-200 lens that is available used for $1,000 less then the current generation. The D80 can also work with all of Nikons "Primes". Just think ahead a few years but when you buy go slow. get just the body and a low priced "kit" lens and shoot 1,000 or two frames before you buy the next part of the system.

[ftaok]

The problem is that on a crop sensor digital SLR (which is what we're talking about here) 50mm acts like a 75mm telephoto lens. Shooting indoors, you don't always have the luxury of "zooming with your feet" out far enough for that lens. If you're only going to have one prime, IMHO a better fit for that sensor is the 35mm f/2 - but that costs $300 rather than $100. I bought one for my D70 and put it to good use (mostly for portraits).
Agreed. I worried about this a lot, but what I did was set my zoom to 50 and see if I would have enough room to foot-zoom in my house. For the most part, the 50mm range was more usable than at 35mm for me. YMMV.

Even so, the D40/40x/60 the Nikon 35mm f/2 doesn't do AF. You'd have to get the Sigma 30mm f/2 at about $350 or so.

Personally, the Canon was a better fit for me with the lenses that I want.

[Westside guy]

Agreed. I worried about this a lot, but what I did was set my zoom to 50 and see if I would have enough room to foot-zoom in my house. For the most part, the 50mm range was more usable than at 35mm for me. YMMV.

That's kind of funny because it's exactly what I did ~ 4 years ago - but I came to the conclusion that, for me, the 35mm was the way to go. :p

I'm thinking about picking up the 50mm now that I'm shooting full frame. Thing is, though, the D700 has such great low-light performance that I haven't (yet) run into any shooting situations where f/4 - where my current lens falls at 50mm - doesn't do the job. But I still may get the 50mm, since it's inexpensive and would let me shoot in ridiculously low light. I've even debated spending $450 on the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which is getting darn good reviews.

[cube]

D80 is $700 from Adorama with the 18-55 VR. Check for price drops in your country.

[Darran]

I am just waiting for the D80 price to drop. On the whole, with that price drop, it may actually be more worth it to get it instead of a D40, which has that restriction on what kind of lenses I need to get just to have it auto focus.

[luminosity]

The $D80 was briefly less than $600. It's now back up to $700.

[cube]

It was $570 BODY-ONLY. Now it's $700 with the 18-55 VR. It's $650 body-only.

[nutmac]

For low light photography, I would go with either Nikon D80 or D90 (which is probably out of your price range) or Canon XSi (450D) or XS (1000D).

D40 and D60 can't auto focus against most of Nikon's prime lenses (fixed focal length). Yes, there's newly minted (pricey and only f/2.8 max) 60mm lens, but you are generally limited to extremely limited selection of prime lenses. Prime lenses have generally much wider maximum aperture, a critical component of low light photography.

If you go with Canon, you can choose from huge selection of high performance and affordable prime lenses, such as $75 50mm f/1.8II.

If prime lenses are not your thing, and you have a budget for fast zoom lenses, then I suppose D40/D60 are fine. But I simply love prime lenses.

[Darran]

For low light photography, I would go with either Nikon D80 or D90 (which is probably out of your price range) or Canon XSi (450D) or XS (1000D).

D40 and D60 can't auto focus against most of Nikon's prime lenses (fixed focal length). Yes, there's newly minted (pricey and only f/2.8 max) 60mm lens, but you are generally limited to extremely limited selection of prime lenses. Prime lenses have generally much wider maximum aperture, a critical component of low light photography.

If you go with Canon, you can choose from huge selection of high performance and affordable prime lenses, such as $75 50mm f/1.8II.

If prime lenses are not your thing, and you have a budget for fast zoom lenses, then I suppose D40/D60 are fine. But I simply love prime lenses.

The D90 is definitely out of my budget range, I am most probably dead set on the Nikon D80 now. $700 doesn't sound all that unreasonable, provided of course that the price actually drops in my country. Right now it is priced at SGD $1888 which is $1300.

[taylorwilsdon]

Should have gotten the D80 when it was at $550 new... now I'd wait for it to drop somewhere else. That's the best out of the bunch - has AF with non AF-s lenses, better build (kinda), just an overall better camera.

[ftaok]

Should have gotten the D80 when it was at $550 new... now I'd wait for it to drop somewhere else. That's the best out of the bunch - has AF with non AF-s lenses, better build (kinda), just an overall better camera.

I'm not trying to poo-poo the D80, because it's a great unit. But many amateur shutterbugs may be a bit put off at the D80's size. I think one of the reasons that the Rebels and D40/40x/60 sells so well is that they are much more compact. Many entry-level buyers are coming up from small P&S cameras and a jump right to the D80 is a huge thing.

Darran hasn't mentioned whether he/she prefers the smaller dSLRs are not, but it's something to consider.

[amin]

I have long wanted to purchase a DSLR and that time has come now. I am starting to save up to get an entry level one. But I am unsure which to choose. Right now I am stuck between two choices:

Nikon D60 and the Canon 450D.

I would personally go for the Canon 450D. The main reason is that the D60 will not work with some of the good value Nikon prime lenses. With the Canon, if you want a cheap, sharp portrait/low light lens, you can get the 50/1.8. The Nikon equivalent won't work on the D60.

For this reason, I've been recommending the entry level Canons over the entry level Nikons for my multiple friends who are getting DSLRs to photograph their newborn babies (50/1.8 is great for this).

[Darran]

I would like to take my DSLR out for my travels so I would not want an extremely bulky or heavy one. A D40 is perfect, but a D80 is only slightly bigger, not one which I would have problems carrying around.

After reading about how a D60 can only auto focus on certain lenses, I am deciding on the D80.

[mac 2005]

From what I have seen, I would be better off investing in the D40, and getting a kick ass lens.

An excellent point. The lens is the most important part of the camera, but the one most overlooked by beginning photographers. Invest in the lens because a good-quality lens will last you many, many years -- if not a lifetime; whereas the camera will be replaced or complemented many times over.

Accordingly, you'll want to buy a camera that will allow you to interchange lenses over time and safeguard your investment.

Happy shooting!

[nutmac]

I would like to take my DSLR out for my travels so I would not want an extremely bulky or heavy one. A D40 is perfect, but a D80 is only slightly bigger, not one which I would have problems carrying around.

After reading about how a D60 can only auto focus on certain lenses, I am deciding on the D80.
Have you decided on the set of starter lens(es) and are they factored into your budget?

As for the size, D80 is 30% larger than D40 -- 5.2" by 4.1" by 3.0" vs. 5.0" by 3.7" by 2.5". Although many people prefer larger D80 ergonomically, I wouldn't call 30% slight.

[dave-k]

I hesitate to contribute to this thread. A recent similar question regarding the relative merits of Canon and Sony DSLRs led to some of the most vitriolic (and unhelpful) comments I've read on this site for a while.

I don't know enough about either of the specific models you mention to make a personal recommendation. And even if I did, my recommendation would be precisely that - a personal recommendation. My guess is that either of the cameras you mention will do a good job (as will several others), and it's for you to try them and to see which you prefer.

The bulk of my experience has been with Canons and I've been very happy with them. However, it's worth commenting that, in my opinion, the best photographs I've ever taken were those I took with an old, second-hand Practica. It was manual in every way - no exposure measurement, no autofocus, no shutter priority/aperture priority/programmed mode. Relatively speaking, it took an age to measure lighting with a separate light meter, set the camera and take the picture. And therein lies the lesson - the pictures were better regardless of technology because I actually had to think about them before pressing the shutter release.

Perhaps that's not a particularly useful observation in the context of the original question. :D

[SLC Flyfishing]

1) Why Nikon: Nikon has a large line of cameras at nearly every level. Meaning my lenses will always be useful to me if I stay with Nikon, which is highly likely. Getting non-Nikon or non-Canon SLRs means a decent chance of having to start over again with lenses as outside of these two manufacturers the lines are more limited.

Folks probably said the same thing 50 years ago, but Olympus and Pentax have been making cameras the entire time. Just because one company makes more bodies than another, doesn't necessarily mean that they will automatically be in the game longer than anyone else. People have probably been giving the same advice you've given here for 50+ years, but still the only camera company to go under was Minolta, and even they didn't technically go under, but were rather purchased by Sony and had their name changed. The lenses people had with the Minolta name on them still work for Sony cameras.

Canon has forced their users into adopting an entirely new system before, when they switched to the EOS system, none of the old lenses worked with new bodies or were further supported. But people forget these kinds of things I suppose. If you were a Canon user in the early 80's you had the exact thing you're warning against happen to you.

Open your mind man!

SLC

[compuwar]

People have probably been giving the same advice you've given here for 50+ years, but still the only camera company to go under was Minolta, and even they didn't technically go under, but were rather purchased by Sony and had their name changed.


Only? In 2005, Kyocera halted production on all Contax, Yashica, and other Kyocera branded film and digital cameras- I think that's a pretty big chunk of 50 years or so. I'm sure I can come up with a few other "also rans" who are out of the camera business- like Zeiss Ikon...

No, Sony got the camera manufacturing assets transferred, Minolta ditched the camera business- that was pretty clear in the press releases of the time. If Sony hadn't picked it up probably it'd be another dead brand. I'm not sure how much the Cosmos takeover of Mamiya's Optical Division paralleled the K-M/Sony relationship, but the news there isn't all rosy either- it's a tough time to be a digital camera manufacturer if you're not on the top of the wave. While this is a high-demand period, it's also a high-competition period- HP's exit from the P&S market shows that even the bigger players aren't necessarily going to hold on over anything.

[cube]

Canon has forced their users into adopting an entirely new system before, when they switched to the EOS system, none of the old lenses worked with new bodies or were further supported. But people forget these kinds of things I suppose. If you were a Canon user in the early 80's you had the exact thing you're warning against happen to you.


Canon forced a new system. Nikon does not have a new system. Just don't buy D40/D40x/D60.

[Westside guy]

I think both Nikon's F mount and Pentax' K mount have remained unchanged for the past half-century or so - perhaps a Pentax user could correct me if I'm wrong.

[theblueone]

I think both Nikon's F mount and Pentax' K mount have remained unchanged for the past half-century or so - perhaps a Pentax user could correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct about Pentax K-mount.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think both Nikon's F mount and Pentax' K mount have remained unchanged for the past half-century or so - perhaps a Pentax user could correct me if I'm wrong.

Taken from a Wikipedia page about Nikon lenses: "The Nikon F-mount is one of only two photographic lens mounts (the other being the Pentax K mount) which were not abandoned by their associated manufacturer upon the introduction of autofocus, but rather extended to meet new requirements related to metering, autofocus, and aperture control."

You're correct on both. I've got lenses for both systems that are at least 30 years old.

Well to be technical, I don't think the Pentax K-mount is 50 years old yet. I think Pentax held onto the M42 Screwmount until the early 70's or so. Any and all K mount lenses will attach and function to some extent with any Pentax or Samsung DSLR.

Bwoods

[Westside guy]

Well to be technical, I don't think the Pentax K-mount is 50 years old yet. I think Pentax held onto the M42 Screwmount until the early 70's or so. Any and all K mount lenses will attach and function to some extent with any Pentax or Samsung DSLR.

Thanks for the correction. It appears (according to Wikipedia) that the K mount was introduced in 1975. I bought a Pentax K1000 back in the mid-1980s, and knew it had already been around a while.

I really liked the simplicity of the K1000. I wonder if there'd ever be a market for a low end, bare-bones digital camera of that sort? Probably not... but it really was a good way to learn the fundamentals.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Thanks for the correction. It appears (according to Wikipedia) that the K mount was introduced in 1975. I bought a Pentax K1000 back in the mid-1980s, and knew it had already been around a while.

I really liked the simplicity of the K1000. I wonder if there'd ever be a market for a low end, bare-bones digital camera of that sort? Probably not... but it really was a good way to learn the fundamentals.

Most people in the pentax crowd seem to think that we'll have a K2000D coming out at Photokina. Speculation is that it will be as much a throwback t the K1000 as a Digital can be.

SLC