Best low-end dslr? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/21/2007 06:39:59 PM · #1

I'm looking into buying a low-end dslr, and I've got a few cameras in mind. The D40 looks to be the best to me since I shoot alot of low-light shots and it has very little noise all the way up to ISO 1600. Plus, the kit lens doesn't suck. (I was told the Rebel XT's kit lens is garbage)

But, I've always been a Canon fan and I'm also considering the Rebel XT because of the higher pixel count and it also seems to take slightly clearer images (judging by pictures I've seen on various websites). Not sure if that's because the rebel xt picture takers spent $800 on a good lens or if it's just slightly better in that regard.

And Sony's A100, just because if it's cool gadget thingymabob 'Dynamic Range Optimization' and the ccd-shift anti-shake (really makes a difference according to the reviews I read and samples I saw). The the image quality of this one is clearly worse in low light situations and night shots than both of the other ones. A bit pricier though.

Any suggestions which one to chose?

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/21/2007 06:46:23 PM · #2

the rebel xt is a good bit better than the d40. also bear in mind that you will be limited in lens selection with the d40.

JamesA

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

06/21/2007 06:48:24 PM · #3

Im Realy happy with My 350D =]

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

06/21/2007 06:52:02 PM · #4

Thanks guys.

Anyone have any complaints about the kit lens with the rebel xt? I cannot afford to buy a good one for a while so I would be stuck with it.

JJWoolls

Pentax K100D

06/21/2007 06:53:03 PM · #5

Don't forget to check out the Pentax K100D. It too has the shake reduction. It is a good camera for low light situations and you can get a lot of good older lenses for cheap. This is my first DSLR so I do not have anything to compare it too but I love mine. I too was looking to get the D40, but after reading many reviews I chose the Pentax. Just another option that you may want to look into.

Oh, and the kit lens that comes with the Pentax is supposed to be one of the better kit lenses out there.

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 18:53:43.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

06/21/2007 06:54:56 PM · #6

Originally posted by JJWoolls:

I got a 250 dollar AF Pentax lens (its a Sigma 70-210) (can be found used these days for 100 bucks) with this Manual Focus K1000 i bought for 90 bucks. If you look around for any brand you can find people selling lenses for cheap or with something and they know nothing about it.

And you can always pick up a brand new Canon 50mm 1.8 II for 80 bucks new, just as a basic fast prime.

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 18:55:29.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

06/21/2007 08:30:24 PM · #7

Originally posted by Atropos:

Thanks guys.

Anyone have any complaints about the kit lens with the rebel xt? I cannot afford to buy a good one for a while so I would be stuck with it.

You'll eventually buy a better lens, but in the meantime, the kit lens is so much better than what you have, you won't notice that it's bad. But yes, the kit lens on the D40 is better.

A couple of comments, though....

I'm not sure I'd take the statement that the Rebel is better than the D40 from a Canon owner's mouth without doing my own research first. I wouldn't take the same statement about a D40 from a Nikon owner, either. Or the same statement about a Pentax camera from a Pentax owner.

Second, you can't tell anything about lens sharpness from an image on the web, unless it's a 100% crop. Sharpness of a web sized image has more to do with the skill of the person doing the resizing than the abilities of camera or lens.

Also, you won't notice the difference between 6 and 10 megapixels. At that resolution, the quality of the lens is much more of a factor than the pixel count.

Anyway, whatever you get, use it and enjoy it. The cameras you're talking about are all good.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

06/21/2007 08:32:52 PM · #8

Originally posted by annpatt:

I wouldn't take the same statement about a D40 from a Nikon owner, either. Or the same statement about a Pentax camera from a Pentax owner.

Also, you won't notice the difference between 6 and 10 megapixels.

The second is definitely the statement from a person with a 6 megapixel camera. Kidding sorta However most people wont need more then 6 and for a point and shoot you don't want more then 6, quality issue go astronomically higher. With the dSLR, go with what you can afford if you can afford the latter then go for it if not don't let it be the decision maker.

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 20:33:47.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

06/21/2007 08:41:57 PM · #9

Read the reviews here:

DPReview

then go out and touch them. Then make up your own mind. Comments like "this one is better" offer no substantial information on the why it is better. Brand loyalty is the bain of asking for camera suggestions so be careful.

BTW - I had a 6MP Nikon D70 and a 10MP Nikon D200. You can tell the difference between 6MP and 10MP in resolution and especially when cropping. From what I read not as likley between 6MP and 8MP. There is no comparison between a 6MP P&S and a 6MP DSLR, the same with any direct P&S and DSLR comparison.

Good luck in your search.

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 20:45:57.

06/21/2007 08:43:30 PM · #10

My Resolution Chart

3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 all compared at size dSLR's in 3:2.

My dSLR 3:2 and P&S 4:3 8 and 10 MP chart

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 20:44:42.

06/21/2007 11:24:57 PM · #11

Thanks everyone. Was hoping someone had some negative things to say about some of the cameras. A nagging issue or something.

For me, the d40 wins out in quality (though only by a very small amount compared to the canon) according to all the 100% crop sample images I looked at. The 350d wins in convinience since the d40 kit can't even autofocus out of the box. And also more future proof.

But, has anyone ever used the sony dslr? the a100? That dynamic range optimization actually looks really good to me but the reviews don't help me on how well it actually works for a typical consumer.

06/21/2007 11:27:42 PM · #12

Originally posted by Atropos:

Whoah Whoah hold youre freaking horses. The D40 kit comes with an AF-S lens it can autofocus out of the box.

The 350D is also 2 years old, Its is the predecessor not the competitor to the 400D. I dont think it makes it future proof at all. Its a fine camera and all and I place a 4 year span on dSLR's in my mind. But the 400D has many upsides different autofocus sensor, single instead of dual lcd's on the back, it turns the lcds off when u put it to your face.

The 350D makes a new folder every 100 files, the 400D every 99,999 files. The 350D also requires u to press a set button twice every time u want to change a setting.

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 23:33:34.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

06/21/2007 11:39:40 PM · #13

Sorry. I was under the impression the kit lens that comes with the d40 was an AF lens. Don't need to hang me by my feet and beat me with a stick for it.

And I never mentioned the 400D. I just can't afford it, or it would be competing with a d80 for my wallet's contents.

surfdabbler

Canon EOS-5D

06/21/2007 11:43:45 PM · #14

Woah, yes, the D40 CAN autofocus with the kit lens. Most new lenses will autofocus fine on the D40, and all 3rd party lenses will also be fine. It's only older lenses that might have a problem, and maybe some really lightweight current models. It means you'll have to check what lenses you do buy, particularly if you go for older 2nd hand models, but I don't think it's going to seriously restrict what's available in new lenses.

I recently got a 400D, and I've been pretty happy with the kit lens. I've been used to a megazoom P&S (panasonic FZ5), and the 400D kit lens is really nice. After 3 months and at least 1000 photos, I actually haven't missed the long end of lens at all, and I'm loving the wide end. I will be adding a tele lens, and eventually, it would be nice to upgrade from the kit lens (2.8 IS would be nice), but I'm really happy with the kit so far. Actually, the biggest drawback for me is the rotating focus, because I want to use my PL filter. :(

Edit for the intermediate post - The 350D kit lens is the same as the 400D kit lens. Oh, and can we do the feet hanging and stick thing anyway, just for fun? :)

Message edited by author 2007-06-21 23:45:02.

ladyhawk22

Sony DSLR-A700

Sony SAL-50F14 Normal 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens for the Sony

06/21/2007 11:48:49 PM · #15

I haven't used the A100, but I do have the camera it was based off of :-) I'm really digging a lot of the features of the Alpha--the only thing that doesn't make me jump up and down is the poorer performance of the long exposure shots in terms of noise. But, then again, I don't really do much night photography or long exposures. If you don't either, it might not be a problem for you! From what I've read, the Alpha also begins to Auto Focus the moment you bring your eye up to the viewfinder....saving you some time for those situations when you need a quick snap. To me, that's more valuable than low noise results.

But, the best advice I was given when I began my dSLR search was to go out to a store and hold each one you're considering in your hands. There's a surprising difference in the feel of these cameras....and for something I spend so much time with, it's nice to know that it "fits" my hands well :-) Good luck!

06/21/2007 11:50:20 PM · #16

Go ahead. My wife has a spare stick for instances like this.

06/21/2007 11:54:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by ladyhawk22:

Thanks. I do like alot of the features of the a100, but I also like taking alot of low light shots and long exposures. I'd rather be unrestricted when it comes to shooting than to have restrictions but numerous convinient features. This stems from owning an old point and shoot which is horrible at anything above 200 ISO and not even acceptable by my standards at 200. I can't do night shots at all and low light is a pain, only one out of maybe 20 low light shots turn out how I want them. (and I had to lower my standards for that to be acceptable)

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

06/21/2007 11:59:45 PM · #18

Originally posted by Atropos:

This stems from owning an old point and shoot which is horrible at anything above 200 ISO and not even acceptable by my standards at 200. I can't do night shots at all and low light is a pain, only one out of maybe 20 low light shots turn out how I want them.

I hope were not talking about your S1... heres a night shot

surfdabbler

Canon EOS-5D

06/22/2007 12:11:58 AM · #19

Nice night shot, especially for a P&S. Yes, ISO 50 probably helped to get the noise right down. Noise was one of my main reasons for upgrading to an SLR. Coming from a Panasonic, noise was it's worst feature, noticeable on a sharpened but uncropped 6x4 print with ISO100 in good outdoor lighting! By comparison, in the right conditions, and at ISO400, I can get an image that's razor sharp at full-crop, with no visible noise!

So the Canon was my choice - and also for the small size. The D40 wasn't out when I made my decision, although it was released before I actually got my camera. If I had to choose again now? Who knows, maybe I'd just as likely choose a Nikon. One thing going for Canons - there's more out there, so if you want 2nd hand lenses, then perhaps they are easier to come by. :)

Message edited by author 2007-06-22 00:14:14.

06/22/2007 12:12:25 AM · #20

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by Atropos:
This stems from owning an old point and shoot which is horrible at anything above 200 ISO and not even acceptable by my standards at 200. I can't do night shots at all and low light is a pain, only one out of maybe 20 low light shots turn out how I want them.

I hope were not talking about your S1... heres a night shot

I don't really do cityscapes, but trust me, when there isn't a thousand sources of light it does a terrible job. FYI that was a 2 second exposure--I mean dark scenes. The kind that require a 5, 10, 30 second exposure, whether night or a dimly lit room. I thought the reason for my horrible shots was my own fault, after seeing a night shot on the DCRP review that was beautifully exposed. I tampered with different setings and tried a million combinations, alas I discovered theres no escaping the massive amount of noise in most situations.

It is capable of nice bright light shots though.

06/22/2007 12:16:06 AM · #21

Your also ready for sensor cleaning no?