View Full Version : First DSLR - Which one?
Going to buy my first Digital SLR this week once I've been paid. Have around £500. I'm going to go with a Canon but not sure which one. Got it down to the two below (prices from Jessops (http://www.thedvdforums.com/jump2.php?url=http://clkuk.tradedoubler.com/click?p(17211)a(60823)g(106115)) website).
I've used a point and shoot camera but never had much luck with diving into the manual mode but would really like to learn. Would one of these two be suitable for someone to learn with? (Both include a kit lens).
Canon EOS 400D - £499.99
Canon EOS 350D - £399.99
Also can anyone recomend any books or tutorials to help me get started. I'm heading to New York in June and would like to get reasonably decent at using it before then.
Professor Abronsius
26-02-2007, 11:39
There is a great DVD you can get on Amazon.com for the 350D (Rebel XT).
It is like a one on one tutorial. By a company called Blue Crane.
Edit : Introduction to the Digital Rebel XT (http://www.thedvdforums.com/jump2.php?url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009W0VKI/thedvdforums-20)
Lots of folk on here have either got it or had it, including myself.
There is also a great Thread started by rst in this Forum.
Edit : http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432799
Also, the Photography folk on the Forums here are absolutley fantastic. :thumbs:
Cheers. :)
Thanks for the links. Have bookmarked the thread about the 350D. I badly want a hobby and something new I can learn but its very intimidating reading about everything.
I know people can't say you need to do this when in this situation but I don't even know where to start :lol:
Had a look at the DVD and I think I'll have a look at this when I get the camera (I presume Amazon would ship it the UK?)
Anyone any thoughts on the camera? It would make sense to buy the 350D if that is what the guides are using. Although then there is the school of thought that you should always buy the best kit you can afford.
Professor Abronsius
26-02-2007, 12:34
Yeah i got my DVD from Amazon.com and it took about 10 days to arrive to the UK.
You could always buy the 350 and use the spare cash left over for another lens or some accessories.
When i first got mine, i did not have a clue, as you will probably see on the Thread, and rarely came off the fully auto mode.
Lots of receommendations on the Thread for books and guides, etc.
It is a really great hobby once you get going.
Cheers. :)
I'd thoroughly recommend going over this (http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/enjoydslr/p_1_001.html) tutorial, which gives a great grounding on the basics.
Either the 350D or 400D would a good beginner's choice, I use the older 300D and am loving it.
Be aware that although you've budgeted £500, if you really get into photography, it'll cost you a lot more as you'll be wanting more lenses and accessories. It can get quite expensive!
superleeds123
26-02-2007, 18:47
Have a look at the entry level Nikons as well - D50, D40 & D70 are all up their with the 2 Canons you mention.
Tastydirt
26-02-2007, 20:24
The D50 kit is a superb buy at the moment, I've seen it for £350 recently (but it's gone up there), so if you look around you might get a bargain :).
RobDickinson
26-02-2007, 20:34
Nikons have been known to cause warts & impotency tho.
queeg500
26-02-2007, 20:41
Anyone any thoughts on the camera? It would make sense to buy the 350D if that is what the guides are using. Although then there is the school of thought that you should always buy the best kit you can afford.
Don't let the DVD decide on the camera for you - I think the only reason to buy the 350D should be because it's cheaper, that is it doesn't have anything that the 400D doesn't (as far as I know!)
I have recently bought a 400D and am very pleased with it. I have also seen the Blue Crane DVD mentioned and although it deals with the 350D the two cameras are so similar that you won't have any trouble at all applying the lessons and techniques to a 400D.
Canon users all have small willies. :razz:
queeg500
26-02-2007, 20:44
Weren't you a Canon user once, Boink?
RobDickinson
26-02-2007, 20:53
because it's cheaper, that is it doesn't have anything that the 400D doesn't (as far as I know!)
Technicaly it has a separate mono LCD showing the settings the 400D doesnt have.
That the 400d is a better all round camera isnt in doubt tho, shame the self cleaning doesnt seem to work very well. IMo theres not a lto in it but I'd have the 400 over the 350.
queeg500
26-02-2007, 20:57
Technicaly it has a separate mono LCD showing the settings the 400D doesnt have.
Fair point - though I think all the info displayed on the 350's mono LCD can be found on the main LCD of the 400, can it not?
Weren't you a Canon user once, Boink?
Was tempted with the 20D, but have always been a strapping Nikon user. Always.
Radiohead
26-02-2007, 21:28
Canon users all have small willies. :razz:
He's right.
Assuming you consider 200mm small.
Yes ladies, form a queue. Feel the width, admire the quality and sample my reach.
queeg500
26-02-2007, 21:42
Was tempted with the 20D, but have always been a strapping Nikon user. Always.
Fair enough. Though I'm sure I read somewhere that you swapped over at some point :suspect:
RobDickinson
26-02-2007, 21:47
Assuming you consider 200mm small.
Yes ladies, form a queue. Feel the width, admire the quality and sample my reach.
Is that with our superior crop factor...?
Radiohead
26-02-2007, 21:49
Naturally Mr D, naturally.
Also could consider the Pentax K100D. Make sure you don't lock yourself into one camera brand so soon! Have a read around, go handle a few cameras, see what you like the feel of.
I've been looking at the Canon because I have an IXOS (can't remember the number - 500 maybe?) which I've been using as a point and shoot for the last few years. Its great but I'd like something which I could grow into as I learn more about photography etc and something with variable shutter speeds and less lag.
I've been quite impressed with the build quality of the Canon and our photographer at our football club who does our match photos etc says he has always gone with Canon. Here what your saying though about having a look at the options available.
Going to go to Jessops on Saturday or Sunday and have a look at what they've got.
Like the OP, I too am just about to step into the Digi SLR world.
Was looking at the entry level Nikons and Canons. Really edging toward Nikon, as the mate whos got me interested in it is a Nikon user so might be able to share lenses/accessories.
He has the D80, which seems great but maybe a bit out of my price range, would the D40 be suitable as a first step??
Cheers :thumbs:
Kev
(also, aside from res, what are the main differences between the D80 and D40??)
RobDickinson
27-02-2007, 18:15
Nooo dont get the D40!
D40 = dSLR equivelant of polariod...
Tastydirt
27-02-2007, 18:43
The D40 doesn't have an internal auto focus motor, which means it'll only focus with new (and mainly expensive) AF-S type lenses, while there are a lot of old AF-D type lenses which are cheaper and may offer similar optical performance for much less money.
However if you're only going to use the kit lens and feel that you would never buy any other lenses, the D40 is a pretty good buy considering its price. You should also consider the D50 which was "succeded" by the D40, but the differences are mainly cosmetic and it has an internal AF motor :).
RobDickinson
27-02-2007, 19:04
If your only ever going to use the kit lens dont even buy a dSLR...
Inability to use primes = chocolate teapot.
Tastydirt
27-02-2007, 19:27
Hah you have a point, D50 it is then ;). You can get the kit for £370 or even less if you can find one.
superleeds123
28-02-2007, 20:21
Like the OP, I too am just about to step into the Digi SLR world.
Was looking at the entry level Nikons and Canons. Really edging toward Nikon, as the mate whos got me interested in it is a Nikon user so might be able to share lenses/accessories.
He has the D80, which seems great but maybe a bit out of my price range, would the D40 be suitable as a first step??
Cheers :thumbs:
Kev
(also, aside from res, what are the main differences between the D80 and D40??)
Don't believe everything you read on here and go read some camera mags - The D40 is winning awards left, right and centre. I've just ordered one and purchased the excellent Nikon 50mm F1.8 prime.
If you already have a collection of lenses then the D40 probably doesn't make sense but if you are just starting out then it's a great choice.
Bottom line is the D40 is giving the best results straight out of the camera amongst all the entry level DSLR's....that might not be an issue for you but image quality plays a pretty big part in my camera buying decision :thumbs: i'll happily trade that for a few bells & whistles
The D50 is a great camera but technology has moved on in the last 2 years.
The kit lens is the best kit lens in the entry level cams as well
Don't take my word for it listen to the professionals....
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/
Who knows those clever people at Nikon may even consider bringing out some nice new lenses for us unloved D40 owners in the next few months.... ;)
RobDickinson
28-02-2007, 20:35
So your going to manualy focus that 50mm prime then? nice. Welcome to the dark ages - shame you dont have the advantage of a split focus screen.
Who knows those clever people at Nikon may even consider bringing out some nice new lenses for us unloved D40 owners in the next few months.... ;)
..and you'll pay way more for the AF-S versions, I'll warrant.
The D40 is great if;
a) You like it more than anything else you try (in terms of ergonomics and IQ)
b) You intend to stick with the kit lens
c) You intend to only buy AF-S lenses and don't mind the price premium
d) You don't mind focussing manually on non AF-S lenses (it's not such a hassle for some subjects, but it can be frustratingly slow, I say this as someone who uses pre-af nikon lenses on my D70).
The excellent Nikkor 50mm, Tamron 90mm and Tokina 12-24 (to name some forums favourites) are all manual focus lenses on the D40 - not a problem if you don't mind manual focus, or if you intend to upgrade the body at the time you look at expanding your lens line up, but it should give you pause for thought, at the least.
Radiohead
28-02-2007, 20:38
Bottom line is the D40 is giving the best results straight out of the camera amongst all the entry level DSLR's....that might not be an issue for you but image quality plays a pretty big part in my camera buying decision :thumbs: i'll happily trade that for a few bells & whistles
So you'll be shooting RAW and post-processing anyway then, what with image quality being the big factor.
And in what way has the D40 moved the D50 in two years, being that it's the same sensor and with less desirable features?
Also could consider the Pentax K100D. Make sure you don't lock yourself into one camera brand so soon! Have a read around, go handle a few cameras, see what you like the feel of.
Ap's "Novice Digital Camera of the Year", for those who are interested in such things.
Radiohead
28-02-2007, 20:40
Don't believe everything you read on here and go read some camera mags
That's right - ignore the combined years of real-world experience of people here, some of whom earn money from photography and some of whom are extremely good photographers, and look for reviews by people who need to sell magazines.
And you're surely not the same person who's saying what an amazing camera the D40 is over the AV Forums despite not yet actually owning one are you?
RobDickinson
28-02-2007, 20:44
"I bought a dSLR for out of camera jpg quality"....
So you'll be shooting RAW and post-processing anyway then, what with image quality being the big factor.
Pah, lightweight!
Velvia 50 on 10x8 sheet film or nothing!
(and a small team of sherpas to carry the camera and tripod, natch).
Radiohead
28-02-2007, 20:47
Pah, lightweight!
Velvia 50 on 10x8 sheet film or nothing!
(and a small team of sherpas to carry the camera and tripod, natch).
What do I know anyway! I'm only shooting 12 weddings professionally this year!
Professor Abronsius
28-02-2007, 21:01
I've been asked to do some Weddings over the Summer... :help:
I might email you for some advice. ;)
Radiohead
28-02-2007, 21:03
Run for your life!
:D
Feel free mate.
What do I know anyway! I'm only shooting 12 weddings professionally this year!
Ah, but what magazines do you write for eh?
;)
Radiohead
28-02-2007, 21:25
Ah, but what magazines do you write for eh?
;)
How VERY dare you!
superleeds123
28-02-2007, 21:51
That's right - ignore the combined years of real-world experience of people here, some of whom earn money from photography and some of whom are extremely good photographers, and look for reviews by people who need to sell magazines.
And you're surely not the same person who's saying what an amazing camera the D40 is over the AV Forums despite not yet actually owning one are you?
So these reviewers are just newbie photographers I take it - coincidence they all have similar opinion as well,albeit different to your own.
I'll happily manually focus the f1.8 lens on the superb bright viewfinder on the D40 - any doubts about sharpness will be easy to detect on the excellent 2.5" LCD display. Haven taken manual focus pics on a Canon 300D prime i think i'll cope on the D40
Incidently why does saying the D40 picture quality slightly edges the 400D in a magazine review sell copies ?
Ah well the proof of the pudding etc so i'll pop up some blurred noisy images on the forum for you all to pic fault with :suspect:
I thought you top end guys would be picking up a D40 as a convient 2nd take anywhere cam to supplement your main kit :shrug:
Radiohead
28-02-2007, 22:16
If I still shot Nikon (which I don't) I wouldn't - it'd be a D50 or more likely a D80. If Canon released a similar body it would be less of an issue because of their massive amount of USM lenses, but I still doubt I'd buy one. Too much missing to make it appealing.
All we're saying is that there are a lot of people here giving advice which you pretty much dismiss out of hand because it doesn't match what you've read. Yes the JPG engine in the D40 is better than the 400D's. The 400D's is pretty average, so that's no surprise. What is a surprise is to list IQ as the primary driver and then talk about out-of-camera JPG results.
And it's hardly my soto voce opinion is it - look at the underwhelming response to the D40 at places like Nikonians and NikonCafe. Experienced shooters all. Coming out with lines like "Don't believe everything you read on here and go read some camera mags" doesn't really endear. Most people will normally say the opposite - stop reading camera mags and ask some photographers who buy the kit with their own money is much wiser and objective advice.
Bottom line - I see nothing in a D40 that makes it a better idea than a D50.
RobDickinson
28-02-2007, 22:22
Unfortunatly phasing out the D50 and making the D40 (almost) as expensive is bad.
superleeds123
28-02-2007, 22:35
If I still shot Nikon (which I don't) I wouldn't - it'd be a D50 or more likely a D80. If Canon released a similar body it would be less of an issue because of their massive amount of USM lenses, but I still doubt I'd buy one. Too much missing to make it appealing.
All we're saying is that there are a lot of people here giving advice which you pretty much dismiss out of hand because it doesn't match what you've read. Yes the JPG engine in the D40 is better than the 400D's. The 400D's is pretty average, so that's no surprise. What is a surprise is to list IQ as the primary driver and then talk about out-of-camera JPG results.
And it's hardly my soto voce opinion is it - look at the underwhelming response to the D40 at places like Nikonians and NikonCafe. Experienced shooters all. Coming out with lines like "Don't believe everything you read on here and go read some camera mags" doesn't really endear. Most people will normally say the opposite - stop reading camera mags and ask some photographers who buy the kit with their own money is much wiser and objective advice.
Bottom line - I see nothing in a D40 that makes it a better idea than a D50.
Fair enough - I reckon this guy is a well respected Nikonian
http://www.bythom.com/d40review.htm
For the record I really like the 400D but it's weaker kit lens and higher price tag swayed me towards to D40. If I was adding a lot of lenses then the 400D would have been my choice. Who knows maybe I will find a limitation somewhere with the D40 - i'll be the 1st to let you know if I do.
In the meantime i look forward to seeing what lenses Nikon release for the D40
RobDickinson
28-02-2007, 22:39
I still dont see the point in buying a dSLR for the kit lens (when not intending to get others) and for out of the camera JPG?
I thought you top end guys would be picking up a D40 as a convient 2nd take anywhere cam to supplement your main kit :shrug:
Speaking as a low mid end guy, if I were to have a second digital body, it wouldn't be the D40 - body motor thing again being the reason why (for me). Too much good glass needs that body motor to AF, and all but one of my AF lenses do (18-70DX).
There's other ergonomic stuff too, like no top lcd etc, but the body motor is the show stopper. As I don't shoot jpeg, the processing engine isn't such a big deal for me either.
I don't really see SLRs as convenient take anywhere cameras in any case - the smallest dSLR is way too big to not need a conscious decision to take it along. Even Olympus' E-400 is a ways away from the body in one pocket, prime in the other portability of the OM1 and Zuiko 50mm, or the Nikon FG and a 50mm E lens.
Didn't know you had a low mid end, John. Hope you're feeling better soon mate. ;)
The D40 for me is a no-no as well, amongst other reasons mentioned above not having the choice of using older AF lenses is just damn foolish.
Bought the Canon EOS 400D today. Had a feel of some of the other cameras in the store at the same sort of price and the 400D felt most comfortable in my hands. I don't have massive hands either so some of the comments about the functions being on the small side don't really apply in this case. Just waiting for the battery pack to charge up and then I can give it a whirl. Cheers for the advice guys, will also be buying the DVD in a few days as well.
RobDickinson
04-03-2007, 18:43
Nice, gratz! Get the kit lens?
Yeah got the kit lens with it. Will have a play with that and learn a few things before I get something new. Going to order that DVD that people have mentioned.
mekondelta
05-03-2007, 09:05
Always read Thom Hogan's reviews for any Nikon-related gear
D40 review (http://bythom.com/d40review.htm)
D50 review (http://bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm)
Couple of quick questions guys. Tried to take a few quick shots this morning as I get used to setting etc. Obviously using the kit lens at the moment. I set the shutter speed to the fastest setting but when I took the picture all I got was a black picture - I presume in this case the lens is not quick enough. If so how do I find out what sort of shutter speeds the lens is capable of doing.
Kocked it back up to some like 1/100 and found I could compensate for the dullness it produced by notching up the ISO. Presume this is normal. Also I notched the apperture of the lens is not that great (f/5 or something). Would I be able to get decent landscape shots with this lens (with a bit of depth) or should I be looking for a new lens for my holiday when it rolls around in June.
Tastydirt
06-03-2007, 11:18
Couple of quick questions guys. Tried to take a few quick shots this morning as I get used to setting etc. Obviously using the kit lens at the moment. I set the shutter speed to the fastest setting but when I took the picture all I got was a black picture - I presume in this case the lens is not quick enough. If so how do I find out what sort of shutter speeds the lens is capable of doing.
A faster shutter speed will give you a darker image, as less light is allowed onto the sensor. If you're just starting out you probably want to use it mainly in Aperture-priority (A) or Program mode (P) until you get a hang of things, I'm sure the DVD will explain shutter, apertures and exposures to you throughly. But basically, if you use too fast a shutter speed and the lens isn't letting enough light in, you will get an underexposed image, and too slow would give you an over exposed image (all depending on your aperture and ISO too).
The shutter speed is nothing to do with the lens either, it's part of the camera body.
Kocked it back up to some like 1/100 and found I could compensate for the dullness it produced by notching up the ISO. Presume this is normal. Also I notched the apperture of the lens is not that great (f/5 or something). Would I be able to get decent landscape shots with this lens (with a bit of depth) or should I be looking for a new lens for my holiday when it rolls around in June.
If you want depth of field you need a smaller aperture, to less light is let in. It's the same effect as if you squint with your eyes, more of what you see comes into focus but the image becomes darker. For landscapes I usually use around f/8 to f/11 depending on the light avaliable, you'll find if the shutter speed is too long you'll get camera shake without a tripod.
Couple of quick questions guys. Tried to take a few quick shots this morning as I get used to setting etc. Obviously using the kit lens at the moment. I set the shutter speed to the fastest setting but when I took the picture all I got was a black picture - I presume in this case the lens is not quick enough. If so how do I find out what sort of shutter speeds the lens is capable of doing.
It sounds like you are using the camera in manual mode. I would suggest using Program mode (automatic). This would mean that at least you are getting a starting point for the exposure which the camera thinks is correct - and then use the exposure compensation to overide the camera and give more or less exposure.
In fact what I do is take a picture - check image (lost highlights etc) - adjust exposure e.g. - 1/3 stop. Take a picture - check image etc.
Cheers everyone. Will let the camera do some of the work to start with. Ordered the Bluecrane DVD yesterday but Amazon estimate is between the 22nd and the 5th of April. Given that Tastydirt mentioned using apperatures between f/8 and f/11 for landscapes can anyone recomend a suitable lens. Its for my holiday in NYC so want to come back with some good city pictures.
Cheers everyone. Will let the camera do some of the work to start with. Ordered the Bluecrane DVD yesterday but Amazon estimate is between the 22nd and the 5th of April. Given that Tastydirt mentioned using apperatures between f/8 and f/11 for landscapes can anyone recomend a suitable lens. Its for my holiday in NYC so want to come back with some good city pictures.
Architecture you want to look at wide angles. Theres a thread floating around on super wide angle lenses for the 350D.
Tastydirt
06-03-2007, 12:38
The kit should be fine as a starter lens for general landscapes and travelling. You may want something that goes a bit wider in the city, in which case I'd get the Tokina 12-24mm or Canon 10-22mm for a little more if you can afford it. But don't rush into any purchases yet until you know you really need it!
Matholwch
06-03-2007, 14:24
Big thumbs up for the Canon 10-22 EFS took these with it
http://www.rhif12.co.uk/NY2006/slides/IMG_3650.jpg
http://www.rhif12.co.uk/NY2006/slides/IMG_4220.jpg
http://www.rhif12.co.uk/NY2006/slides/IMG_4239.jpg
and
http://www.rhif12.co.uk/NY/slides/IMG_9074056_filteredwtmk.jpg
Sprout Crumble
06-03-2007, 17:54
Agreed. Super lens and one I'd keep my 20D for just to use.
Bought the Canon EOS 400D today. Had a feel of some of the other cameras in the store at the same sort of price and the 400D felt most comfortable in my hands. I don't have massive hands either so some of the comments about the functions being on the small side don't really apply in this case. Just waiting for the battery pack to charge up and then I can give it a whirl. Cheers for the advice guys, will also be buying the DVD in a few days as well.
Nice one m8 :)
Where did you buy from in the end and how much as i would love one but just need to find the best deal and then decide on extras which is where the real money comes in :)
Shane
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.