Digital SLR buying help

[Jeremy]

Hey so I'm planning on buying a digital SLR sometime in the near future. I've basically narrowed my choice down to 3 options, but if you have something completely different, please suggest that as well. Price is important, but as you see from the options, I'm prepared to spend a fair bit if it's worth it.

Here are the 3 choices I'm looking at. Also I want a camera with a lens to begin with. I plan on getting more, including some macro lenses in the future - but as long as I can just take normal pics to begin with that's ok. I'm not going to just buy a body (probably).


In no particular order;

Option 1.
Canon EOS 40D
10.1 MP

The best thing about this one is the price - I can find places online selling the body for $1239 AUD (and probably lower) for the body. Looking at maybe $1800 to $2000 with a good lens.


Option 2.
Canon EOS 50D
15.1 MP


Better camera in a lot of other details as well apparently - better images (not just size, but better quality), faster auto focus. Obviously the downside is that it costs considerably more - although there is a website apparently selling pre-orders at $2400 AUD with a Canon EFS17-85mm IS USM. I'm slightly sceptical of this, since the cheapest I've seen just the body selling for is the exact same price (it's a reliable big chain website, I just think they've made a mistake). If it is a mistake then I'm probably looking at about $3000 - to $3200 AUD for the camera with the lens. Also this camera only gets released next month, so it'll be brand new. Might be smart to wait 6 months for the price to come down.

Option 3.
Nikon D300
12.3 MP

Coolest looking of the three. Moderate price range - about $2900 AUD with a good lens. Better quality than the 40D, but not really by a great deal. The best thing about this camera is that it can take continuous photos at a faster rate and store more, and has a better auto focus than the 40D (but I'm not sure about the 50D). It can take up to 8FPS while the 40D can take 6.5 and the 50D slightly less than that - 6.3. Those are still high numbers though, and I'm not sure the benefit is worth the price. The same thing goes with the max mega pixels of all three cameras. 10 MP is still 3888 pixels wide by 2592 pixels high. That's probably heaps. Of course one of the things I want to be doing with my camera is taking macros of insects and high MP is useful because then I have much more room to work with in cropping etc. but is the benefit worth so much money?

This is of course the main issue, are the improved features of the more expensive cameras worth paying an extra $1000+ for, or will I barely notice the difference? If the difference in image quality and ability to take pictures is marginal I'd go with the cheapest. If it really is significant, I'm prepared to go with something better.

That said, as it stands I'm leaning strongly towards the Canon 50D from the super cheap place I mentioned. (Here).

Despite the details of this post, I really know hardly anything about SLRs, and everything I do know, I've learnt from researching the topic in the last 2 or 3 days, so any advice would be invaluable!

Thanks for help in advance

Cheers,

[dannytheko]

Hmm, how about Nikon D90? Just came out and can record HD720p videos. It would be fun using different lenses for video recording
But yeah, i dont know that much about cameras but a fair few of my friends do. (They all have canon so i may be biased ) And you may want to wait because the prices may drop once the 50d is out. You can also consider the 450D, its a great starter camera for those who are new.
And you probably wont really notice the difference say between D300 and 40D if your just starting. (i think)

Also, if you cant get much help here, try other forums such as ocau where they have a very active photography subforums where im sure alot of people would help you out.

[Jeremy]

Thanks for the help

I'm not interested in video functions of cameras. That said, the D90 sounds pretty good, and cheap. I got some advice from Allan Haggett a while ago, which included his view that Nikon's are more comfortable to Canons as well, so that's something to keep in mind. The continuous shooting for the D90 is only up to 4.5 frames per second, and I'm also a little worried that I'd be paying money for the video function that I probably wouldn't use.

Still the price is good, and I think you're probably right that it might be better not to splash out too much when I'm a novice. That said, I have a few friends who are really into their photography and I was talking to one last night who suggested that if I was going to spend 2 to 3k on a camera, I should consider saving up for a little longer and getting a Canon 1D. I told him that I thought spending 8k on a camera was excessive .

So yeah, re; your last comment, I'm asking for advice from a lot of different sources

[Tsiangkun]

I'd wait a few months and invest in a 4/3 system. Smaller, lighter, and no mirror vibration.

[Dat]

I prefer Nikons because of the cameras I've tried, they tend to have more intuitive controls compared to Canons. Find a camera store and play with different cameras and try changing simple things like aperture, shutter, iso speed, and see how well you like the controls. Pay attention to how quickly and easily you can do those. If it's annoying you're sure going to notice it when you're constantly making adjustments. Also you tend to get more bang for your buck when it comes to Nikon vs Canon brand lenses.

Since you're starting out, I also really doubt you will be able to tell the difference between quality of those 3 cameras. I have a couple friends who still get a lot of use out of their Canon 20Ds, which are rather old compared to the cameras you're looking at. I think they'd enjoy the new features of the 40D, but they still can get work done fine with what they have now. If you never go pro I think a 1D would probably be a waste of money. You can get a lot of great lenses for that much money.

For megapixels, even with macrophotography, I don't think you're going to notice the difference between 10 and 12 MP. I have a 6 MP SLR and I've never felt like I needed more. You'll notice a bigger difference in your photos from the types of lenses you use and how well the camera handles higher iso speeds. I think you would have more fun with a cheaper camera and a couple lenses than with a more expensive camera with 1 lens. I suggest putting as much research into lenses as you are with bodies.

You might consider getting a camera that lets you compose your shot swith the LCD screen, instead of only being able to use the viewfinder as you would normally with SLRs. I think Nikon's implementation is called LiveView. Would probably make shooting insects easier/more versatile if you don't have to have your face up against the camera.

This website has really well written introductory information for digital SLRs:
http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras ... spx?i=2838

This article will explain things like sensor sizes, APS-C vs full-frame, and how those work different with the same lenses etc.

You probably found this review site already, but in case you didn't: http://www.dpreview.com/

[Jeremy]

Hey thanks for the help. I'm pretty much decided on the Canon 50D

Re; Megapixels. The advantage of more with macro photography (of insects) is that you can take the photo from further away and then crop it down a lot and still have a high quality image. The 50D is 15 megapixel, so this is pretty good

It has live view as well, and a continuous shooting mode - which are all good features for macro photography. Now I just need to start saving for some good macro lenses

[Jeremy]

So just an update. Have now paid for the camera - Canon EOS 50D along with a 17 - 85 mm IS lens, an 8gb flash card and a spare battery. Total cost $2670 including postage. Exciting. Still like 2 weeks before it arrives though (since the 50D hasn't been released yet).

[quadgun]

yay. im excited to see your pictures.
cheers