advertisement


Entry-Level digital SLR

Alex S said:
... and finally, how competitive is something like this in today's world:
Click to expand...

That is a 9 year old model, as reviewed here, so I would say it's not going to be competitive with anything much these days. If you want a 9 year old digital SLR I have a Fuji S1 Pro sitting in a bag somewhere, which I don't use any more and which will almost certainly do a better job than the Olympus, although you would have to stick a lens on it. One of the problems with kit from those days is that they use up batteries pretty quickly, but at least the Fuji uses either normal or rechargeable AA batteries for most of its operation and only uses the expensive lithium batteries for a few things, so it's better than most from that era.
 
cliffpatte said:
That is a 9 year old model, as reviewed here, so I would say it's not going to be competitive with anything much these days.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree with Cliff. It only has a 2/3" sensor, and in that timeframe even at APS-C sizes Canon were really the only game in town.

I came across this today. If it's the resolution of the D40 that is holding you back then it might be worth a look:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKON-D40x-10...hZ023QQcategoryZ31388QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

It has the same ubiquitous 10MP Sony CCD as the Nikon D60, D80, Pentax K10D, K200D, K-m, Sony Alpha 200 etc. I can vouch that it's a decent sensor.


To be honest, unless I planned to move to the A900 (or similar) in future, I'd probably buy that D40x myself. But then I'd be buying more lenses. As I said before, the Sony does have a more useful 1-lens range.


Finally, there's nothing wrong with your Oly, and obviously it will sometimes be preferable, but a(ny) DSLR really is just on a completely different level to compacts (with the possible exception of the Sigma DP1). You'll be pinching it, I guarantee :)
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Well, thanks to all, and that ebay offer may indeed be the best so far. Thanks also to Cliff and others with possible s/h options but I can't pretend that a semi-obsolete professional DSLR is the best way to nurture a twelve yr old. Lastly, a more general question: is now a good time to buy a DSLR, in terms of technological development and price?
 
Alex S said:
Lastly, a more general question: is now a good time to buy a DSLR, in terms of technological development and price?
Click to expand...

I'm probably the worst person to answer this question as I have more than one DSLR. However, I have to say that the latest models are really amazingly good for the money. At the extreme price end, the D3X and Canon EOS 1DS mark III are stunningly good but mega priced, which makes the Sony alpha 900 a real bargain, but what does it do that the alpha 200 doesn't - really it is no better at higher ISOs and being full frame means it is limited to the lenses that expect to see a full frame sensor, so unless you need full frame then you may as well stop at the alpha 200 - 350 end of the scale

On the Nikon front, you can get almost as good a photo in daylight with a D40 as you can with a D300, but if you need the higher ISO low noise capability there is an offering there to upgrade to which will retain investment in the lenses.

I suppose I have always worked on the principle that buying the bottom of the range of anything just means you end up buying another better one later on, so why not save the loss on the cheap one. However, in the case of DSLRs the increasing return as you go up the scale is disproportionate to the expenditure in the same way as buying audio gear. If you can afford a top of the range Naim active system, then why not, but a entry level one will still sound OK.

I think if you only intend to have one camera initially you need to choose the one with the most compatibility possibilities, and retained investment and for me that would be the Sony, as it will use any old Minolta AF lenses and all the new Sony/Zeiss ones. The D40 from Nikon is limited to a subset of Nikon lenses - but if you can get what you want from that range it isn't all that limiting. As a useful alternatibe to the entry level Nikons you could also consider a second hand Fuji S5 Pro or Nikon D200 as these are both capable of using any Nikon glass from AI onwards, and both give better results than the D40 at similar money 2nd hand.

Finally, I think someone else mentioned this earlier, but ergonomics for the end user are important, and if your daughter is like my daughter then she will immediately have a preference for one model over another based on size, feel, useability and weight, not to mention how cool it looks

Incidentally all that will happen in terms of technology and price if you wait a bit longer is that some of the functionality in high end cameras will start to cascade into smaller/cheaper models - eg low noise at high ISOs may get cheaper to acquire.

cheers
Cliff
 
I think you are right. The Nikon with a wide cheap consumer zoom and then maybe a fast 50 or 35 prime for low light is plenty of camera and will produce gorgeous results.

I'd say go for it!

Cesare
 
Excellent, I'm hovering over the D40x and Alpha 200 buttons but will give in and take Katya to a shop. In Nikon's favour is 'Nikon', I suppose but she might warm to the Sony brand since she's heard of it; for the Sony, the anti-dust and camera shake features I would expect to be useful for her. The high ISO noise of entry-level cameras I don't see as a major issue at this time. I may be wrong but I can't see any major price-drops in cheap DSLRs without a collapse in build quality.
 
Alex,

If you're set on a D40x and can stretch your budget a bit, have a look at the 18-70mm AF-S DX over the 18-55mm kit lens that's typically bundled with the camera. The 18-55 is surprisingly good optically for the money, but it's quality of construction is two notches below meh, firmly in ugh territory.

Joe
 
I popped into Comet on my way to ASDA (such is the rarified atmosphere of the Old Kent Rd) and had a feel of the Alpha 200 and D40. Both quite nice, plastic cameras. How much/which brand for something that feels a bit like my old Nikon or Contax 35mm SLRs? (Even my Olympus bridge thing has a magnesium alloy body).
 
Alex S said:
I popped into Comet on my way to ASDA (such is the rarified atmosphere of the Old Kent Rd) and had a feel of the Alpha 200 and D40. Both quite nice, plastic cameras. How much/which brand for something that feels a bit like my old Nikon or Contax 35mm SLRs? (Even my Olympus bridge thing has a magnesium alloy body).
Click to expand...

Cheapest option for the next step up in build is probably the K200D, which costs around the same as the K-m. It's not going to feel like your old Nikon or Contax though.
Generally all manufacturers' cameras improve in build, feel and ergonomics on the next step up i.e. D90/50D/Alpha 700/K20D level. So an option would be to look at that level, but perhaps a generation back and used.
While I agree that most entry-level cameras feel plasticy my experience has been that in practice they are plenty durable enough. Blacktape the sucker and it will immediately feel better anyway :)
 
Alex S said:
I popped into Comet on my way to ASDA (such is the rarified atmosphere of the Old Kent Rd) and had a feel of the Alpha 200 and D40. Both quite nice, plastic cameras. How much/which brand for something that feels a bit like my old Nikon or Contax 35mm SLRs? (Even my Olympus bridge thing has a magnesium alloy body).
Click to expand...

A second hand D200 or S5Pro would do the job. If you want a feel of my S5, let me know.
 
The K200D has a pentamirror whereas the K20D has a pentaprism. How big a deal that is, probably depends on how much manual focusing you'll do.

You could also look at the Samsung GX-20 which is the K20D's twin.
 
I was going to tell you that. For some odd reason the Samsung GX-20 seems more expensive than the Pentax although there might be possibilities with the GX-10.
 
I was just curious why nobody had mentioned it. I'm due some vouchers from work and one of the things I'd thought about was a decent camera (even though I've never owned one I quite fancy learning). The two I'd looked at were the d40x and the eos400d. Would it be worth going for the Canon even though it'll cost a bit more? Also proably going to look at the sony too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top