Entry level Digital SLR

kingtut

The wife wanted one. Due to funds limitation, I narrowed it down to either the Nikon D40 or Canon XTI. The XTI has the auto dust cleaning for the sensor and accept more lens. The D40 only accepted certain lens for auto focus, and it's around $120 cheaper. Anyone has experience between these two SLRs?

disneyjoe7

I own a older Canon digital SLR rebel which I like and feel it's a great camera to start with or to grow from. But I'm Canon biased

Demiurge

You can't go wrong with either one. (Own both brands of Digital SLR, one is home use and the other is for work).

My advice, though...talk to Strong Bad.

disneyjoe7

Strong Bad, will stir you for Nikon D40 Or cost you more $$

shack

If you put any value on most of the camera reviews, the Canon Rebel series is THE entry level digital SLR. It can almost be a "point and shoot" and still have the ability to expand into more advanced photography if you choose to do so. Lots of lens, flashes and other acessories will work with the Canon ES series. My wife has a Rebel XT and loves it. PQ is excellent. Nikon makes a good camera as well, I'm just partial to Canon.

rskarvan

The Canon 30D is a much better camera (even though lower MB) than the XTi. And, it can be had for almost the same money. Give Roberts Camera a call (www.robertsimaging.com) and compare prices.

The 30D is a pro-sumer camera. The XTI is not nearly as durable.

dorokusai

I'm blown away by how inexpensive, high mega-pixel digital cameras have become in the last 2 years....wow.

jcaut

I shoot Canon, but that doesn't necessarily make me partial to Canon: It's simply the system I bought into when I moved into DSLR's (they were clearly the leaders at that time) and it can be expensive to switch systems. Anyway, I try to be impartial: So many of the review sites and forums which used to be such good sources of information have simply turned into places for "my camera's better than yours" or "Nikon is better than Canon (or the other way around)" arguments. You can't really go wrong with entry level models from Nikon or Canon. There are differences and they mostly come down to personal preferences. I personally think that the Nikon D40 is a better camera in most respects than the XTi. Everything except image quality- there I think the XTi has an edge.

If you're serious enough about photography to need an SLR, then you'll also probably not stop with body and lens you decide to purchase. You have to consider the whole system of lenses, flashes and accessories and upgrade path. There again, I think it's mostly a wash between Canon and Nikon. Nikon's flash system is better; Canon has more inexpensive "gems" in their lens lineup. The D40 is somewhat limited in that it won't auto focus with some older lenses, whereas the XTi is compatible with all the EF and EFS lenses.

I think the best advice is to go to a camera store, pick up both cameras, fire off a few shots and see which feels more comfortable to you; Which does more things that you like, etc. You really can't go wrong either way, IMO.

kingtut

Thank you for the info. I went to Circuit City last week to tried them out. Only the XTI had battery in it. I briefly played with it. I could not get the sales person to activate the D40, due to the Holiday rush. I'll have to come back next week to try both of them out. As for the 30D w/the 18-55mm lens, it is substantially more expensive than the XTI. It's more expensive than of our budget.

jcaut

Also, IMO, sensor dust is over-hyped: It's not that big of a deal. Also, I wouldn't count on Canon's auto dust cleaning mechanism to actually clean much dust off the sensor. I certainly wouldn't give that much weight when deciding between the two. I don't know if it's still a valid deal, but Amazon did have the D40 and a two lens kit- the 18-55 and the 55-200VR for about $540 before Christmas.

It sounds like I'm trying to talk you out of the Canon, and I'm really not- I'm just trying to present to you all the info that I have so that you can make your own decision.

Jason

fatchowmein

I've read the autofocus on the Canons are better but the Nikon's have the split prism allowing you to manually focus easier. BUT, I have a 1977 Nikon (love it) and a first generation Canon Digital Rebel (love it) so what do I know? Look beyond the body and compare both in terms of overall accessories and lenses. In the end, you will not care much about the body as you will the lenses and you will spend many times over the cost of the body on lenses.

As your hobby grows, your first digital SLR will become a backup and you'll end up with a second more professional body based on your needs (mirror lock, faster shutter speeds, more pixels, ect.) or you'll carry one with a wide angle lense and the other will have a long telephoto. Many options, many games. I don't think you can go wrong with either systems so enjoy!

shack

fatchowmein wrote:

As your hobby grows, your first digital SLR will become a backup and you'll end up with a second more professional body based on your needs (mirror lock, faster shutter speeds, more pixels, ect.) or you'll carry one with a wide angle lense and the other will have a long telephoto. Many options, many games. I don't think you can go wrong with either systems so enjoy!

I disagree to some extent. There is a sizable segment of the population that wants something more than a P & S digital, but doesn't want to carry a bag full of lenses, flashes, filters, etc. They want the improved quality a good digital SLR with a quality lens provides. They will never need a pro-sumer level camera or want to understand a great deal about f-stops, shutter speed, ISOs, the difference between a 50mm f/1.8 vs a 50mm f/1.4, etc. For them an entry level digital SLR may be the only camera they ever need. Not everyone has to "take the hobby to the next level" like most of us do here with audio. We are crazy and most of the population isn't. (or is it the other way around?). Whatever...

fatchowmein

shack wrote: »

I disagree to some extent. There is a sizable segment of the population that wants something more than a P & S digital, but doesn't want to carry a bag full of lenses, flashes, filters, etc. They want the improved quality a good digital SLR with a quality lens provides. They will never need a pro-sumer level camera or want to understand a great deal about f-stops, shutter speed, ISOs, the difference between a 50mm f/1.8 vs a 50mm f/1.4, etc. For them an entry level digital SLR may be the only camera they ever need. Not everyone has to "take the hobby to the next level" like most of us do here with audio. We are crazy and most of the population isn't. (or is it the other way around?). Whatever...

I know. It's just such a waste to see people buy a beginner SLR, keep the lens included in the kit that came with the body, and never go any further. They could save themselves some $$ with a very good point and shoot. The newer PS are superb.

shack

fatchowmein wrote:

They could save themselves some $$ with a very good point and shoot. The newer PS are superb.

I agree the P&S digitals are phenominal for what they do. But there are very few P&S cameras in the price range of an entry level SLR that are equal for just taking pictures. The new P&S digitals are focusing on things like compact size, image preview, video and so forth. I view it like the difference between a multi-format disc player vs a quality redbook/SACD only player. The former does all things pretty well while the latter does one thing very well. I know several people that like the quality of the pictures they take with their digital SLRs and NEVER change the lens from the 28-105 (or whatever) zoom they bought with the camera. The only thing they ever add is a flash...which is a big improvement over most any P&S.

Aimen RG

hold the camera, buy the one which feels right, both will produce equal images
if u wanna grow into photography, get the one whos system appeals to u most
nikon makes excellent flashes, canon has more lens support
thou on budget, 3rd party sigma tamron tokina works best

if u like photography, u will prefer entry level dslr over top level prosumer P&S

rskarvan

I too was looking at the Canon cameras right before Christmas:

The XT was less expensive than the XTi and nearly as good. ($500)
The XTi was a little more and offered more Mb. ($650)
The 30D was an industrial strength XT that (at the time) was on-sale for ($800).
The 40D was an industrial strength XTi on steroids with a sale-price of ($1199).
the 5D jumped the price up to around ($2300) and offered a "full-size" image sensor.

I placed all 5 cameras on the counter and let the wife choose. I would have been happy with any of the choices. She went for the 40D and I couldn't be happier. Had I chose, I would have probably picked the 30D because the $150 jump in price (over the XTi) really bought a much better camera.

Be careful about purchasing EF-s lenses. They are not compatible on Canon film cameras and also are not compatible with the very-expensive canon dslr bodies (5D and higher). Therefore, their versatility is somewhat limited.

Also, the only reason I excluded Nikon DSLR's from my search is I already had a few Canon EOS lenses that I wanted to keep in my camera bag. Absolutely nothing wrong with Nikon equipment.

Strong Bad

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Strong Bad, will stir you for Nikon D40 Or cost you more $$

LOL, you know me too well!

First off, I'm not the photography guru around here, but will help if I can. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Don't get caught up in the megapixel race. P&S cameras are suffering somewhat these days because people are running under the mindset of More pixels = Better image quality. Manufacturers unfortunately have sales to make and go with what consumers want, so they try to stuff as many pixels on those tiny P&S sensors as possible. One of the results, low light image quality (high ISO settings) is getting worse and worse. Lots of noise and piss poor images when you push the ISO higher.

DSLR's have a much bigger sensor and better guts inside, so they can handle more pixels. They're nearing their limits though.

With that, let's forget about the amount of pixels each of those cameras have. Most people resize their images anyway. If you crop an image to 8 1/2 x 11 and resize the final image to 773 x 1000 (like I do alot of times), it doesn't matter if you have a 4mp DSLR or a 22mp DSLR, you've resized it to 773 x 1000. My 12.3mp Nikon D300 produces an image of 4288 x 2848. I didn't buy this camera because it's image is larger than my D200 @ 10.2mp, I bought it for the pro level features. The D300 is an effing dream machine!

Now that I've babbled on for a good bit, my point is...look at all the features of the cameras, but forget about megapixels. All DSLR's these days have way more than enough.

While I do like the D40 alot, the Canon XTi has alot of nice features and functionality. Both with give outstanding image quality.

The D40 does suffer from not having focusing motors internally. This will limit, a little bit, on what lenses you can get. If you have no plans to get serious, lenses will not be an issue. The Canon is more flexible here and gets the nod.

The Canon XTi's metering does tend to suffer a little when using Auto White Balance. Some types of lighting, it has trouble reading right. The Nikon's metering tends to be a bit better.

Low light capability (high ISO above ISO 800 for low noise) goes to the Canon. The D40 is not that bad however.

Build quality and ruggedness goes to Nikon.

Again, with all my Saturday morning babbling, I've probably left you back to square one. It's an extremely tough call. When I jumped into the DSLR realm back in 2004, I chose the Nikon D70 over the original Canon Digital Rebel, mainly due to the build. The Canon felt like a cheap plastic toy and the Nikon felt like a rock solid machine. Both were capable. I haven't regretted going Nikon ever since. The Canon boys i'm sure feel the same about their choice.

Let us know what you choose.

John

disneyjoe7

Well either one would be a nice camera and good start, even you're not looking now I would look at flashes and other lens prices. You could indeed never go this path of better lens and what not, but you may. I think it's up to you and what price and value you place on it.

And then we have John Strong Bad who compared a Canon Rebel to a Nikon D70 are you kidding me that's like comparing a Caddy to a Chevette. The original Rebel which was 1k in price set the camera world on edge and that's when DSLR's changed everything the camera world for good. IMHO

B3Nut

Either camera will deliver excellent images. The one caveat with the Nikon is that it will only autofocus with lenses that have in-lens motors (AF-S Nikkors, Sigma HSM lenses, and at least one new D40-friendly Tamron that has been introduced.) Any lens depending on the usual Nikon in-body focus motor will be manual-focus-only on the D40. The Canon works with all EF and EF-S lenses. If you have large-ish hands the D40 might be more comfortable, the current Rebel XT/XTi gives me a hand cramp. YMMV.

But a D40 with the kit lens and the Nikon 55-200VR lens would make a fantastic kit, its 6MP sensor has astonishingly-low noise at high ISO settings.

Best thing to do is go to a good camera shop and hold them both, and put them through their paces. You won't really make a mistake either way.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

Aimen RG

And then we have John Strong Bad who compared a Canon Rebel to a Nikon D70 are you kidding me that's like comparing a Caddy to a Chevette. The original Rebel which was 1k in price set the camera world on edge and that's when DSLR's changed everything the camera world for good

and u r sounding like rebel was a d300 of its days.

disneyjoe7

For Canon to produce a DSLR under a grand when it first came out, they deserve an award for that feat. Just my $.02 but you can't deny the facts.

Mike682

Got an XTi for Christmas

Excellent camera

Very fast 9-point autofocus (same as 30d) and great high ISO performance

kingtut

I ended up getting the Canon XTI. While it's an entry level DSLR, it's a very good camera that satisfy our need (fast shutter release action to snap picture of my two year old son, which we kept on missing with the point-and-shoot camera).

I'd like to thank everyone who responded.

Bill Ayotte

I love my D70s, but I need to get a new lens to get me back into it...All I've got is the 18-70 that came with it....

B3Nut

A *really* nice mate to the 18-70 is the AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, it's not the cheapest but is razor sharp with vibration reduction (similar to Canon's optical IS, same concept.) I want to get one at some point, but I want a 100-105mm macro first (I do have the plastic-fantastic 55-200mm Nikkor, its optical performance is way better than it has a right to be for the price.) Nikon recently brought out a VR version of the 55-200mm, it's a sharp, light little bottle and the VR is handy.

Bill Ayotte

B3Nut wrote: »

A *really* nice mate to the 18-70 is the AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, it's not the cheapest but is razor sharp with vibration reduction (similar to Canon's optical IS, same concept.) I want to get one at some point, but I want a 100-105mm macro first (I do have the plastic-fantastic 55-200mm Nikkor, its optical performance is way better than it has a right to be for the price.) Nikon recently brought out a VR version of the 55-200mm, it's a sharp, light little bottle and the VR is handy.

Yeah, I have been looking around.....I tried out a friend's 18-200 nikkor (I think?) and I loved it, it was incredibly flexible and produced some mind blowing images. The problem came when I went to find my own, and figured out it was upwards of $800! It was a choice between this and a new set of speaks, and I am choosing the speaks this time around...:D

doggie750

These thread is really informative...........after all the sleepnights........between
Canon XTI...or 30D
Nikon D40x.....d80
Olympus.....E510...
Pentax 100d or K10D
Sony A100 or A200...........


I finally decided to go ..................:D:rolleyes::D:rolleyes:eek::rolleyes:

nspindel

I have the XTi and I think it's great as an entry level DSLR. The advice I got (from B&H) when I bought it was save your money on the camera in the short term and spend your money on good glass. I got the 70-200 L IS lens, and I've taken some crazy good pictures with it. Canon also has an f1.8 50mm primary that can be had for about $70. Not the most well made lens, but it takes awesome pictures for the money. If you want a starter package for about as little as you can spend on a DSLR, go with the XTi body and that cheap f1.8. Don't buy the kit, the lens is crap. The 50mm is fixed focal length, not a zoom, but you can learn a lot about composure by having a primary lens, and optically it's much better quality. I'm not sure if there's anything in Nikon glass in that price range. I also have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Sigma flash.

shack

The XT (350D) body can be had for around $390. If you are interested in the XTi (400D) body the prices may come down very soon from the current $520. Just yesterday Canon announced its replacement, the XSi (450D). In additon to the 50mm nspindel mentioned another nice entry level lens is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for around $175. Very sharp and much improved over the kit lenses and with Image Stablization which is almost unheard of in this price range.

kingtut

shack wrote: »

The XT (350D) body can be had for around $390. If you are interested in the XTi (400D) body the prices may come down very soon from the current $520. Just yesterday Canon announced its replacement, the XSi (450D). In additon to the 50mm nspindel mentioned another nice entry level lens is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for around $175. Very sharp and much improved over the kit lenses and with Image Stablization which is almost unheard of in this price range.

I should've waited.