# SLR Help



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

Hello All, 

I fancy a SLR but am unsure which is better out of 

Nikon D40 
Nikon D40x 
Sony A200

Im unsure on what all the specs mean

im used to my Samsung NV10 point and shoot! :lol: 

thanks 

ben


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

I'd get a Canon instead, much easier menu systems.


----------



## V8burble (Jul 3, 2007)

Unless you are a Nikon user like me and find Canon's menu system difficult.

Menus are menus, once you are used to how they are laid out then it's not something to worry about. More important to consider how the body best fits what you are interested in shooting and what lenses you are thinking of using to go with it. For example, the Nikon D40 body does not have a built in AF motor so you are limited to AF-S lenses if you want AF (which most of us do). Canon are known for their great lenses (although the gap is very much closer now) and Nikon rule with their better high ISO performance of their newer bodies. From your list I'd be tempted more by the Sony, or if you can then a S/H D80 or D200 if you like the idea of a Nikon. The 350D or 400D or 450D are also a great choice from Canon.

Any idea on budget?


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

You're looking at the budget end of the market there so it narrows down the models, if i could afford an SLR right now, i'd be looking in the same segment.

Check this out, read all of them as it covers the best of the budget dSLR market and compares them all directly with each other, including the ones you mention.

http://www.cameralabs.com/buyers_guide/budget_DSLRs/best_budget_DSLR.shtml


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

cheers for the info sofar :thumb:

those 3 are within the budget I want to spend unless there are any others less than £300 that you would recommend?

thanks for the link :thumb:

what do they mean by live view? is that when you can actually see what you are/have taken on the screen at the back?


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't think you'll get a camera kit for under £300 tbh 

If you don't have anything for an SLR right now, you will need a kit rather than the body only option, which will obviously show cheaper.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

MaDMaXX said:


> I don't think you'll get a camera kit for under £300 tbh
> 
> If you don't have anything for an SLR right now, you will need a kit rather than the body only option, which will obviously show cheaper.


http://www.jessops.com/online.store/Products/Search.html?categoryId=481

:thumb:


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

Ahh, i stand corrected 

I'd still look at the much newer and more capable 1000D though, if you can afford the extra cash for it, they're available for around £350 to £400.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

MaDMaXX said:


> Ahh, i stand corrected
> 
> I'd still look at the much newer and more capable 1000D though, if you can afford the extra cash for it, they're available for around £350 to £400.




I already have toooooo many expensive hobbies so didn't want to go mad with this :lol: i.e Focus RS, mini, go kart, 1/5th Petrol RC, detailing and saving for a daily driver to get the RS off the road etc hence why I have set a budget of no more than £300  going to be sensbile for a change


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

haha, nice, i know what you mean though 

oh well, coming from a point and shoot, you're just going to miss live view etc, but the picture quality will be very good, especially in low light.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

MaDMaXX said:


> haha, nice, i know what you mean though
> 
> oh well, coming from a point and shoot, you're just going to miss live view etc, but the picture quality will be very good, especially in low light.


is live view what I said above?


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

minimadgriff said:


> is live view what I said above?


Yup, the screen on the back of the camera shows a live image of what the camera is seeing, the same as on compacts. I've never used it hand held on my 450D, always use the viewfinder as it just seems more natural to me, but the live view also means it can be used tethered to the laptop, which I do use  If you never use it tethered, it's debateable as to how useful live view is, but I don't suppose it will be long before all DSLRs have it anyway.


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

Yeah, live view is how you're used to taking pictures. Only seems to be seasoned old school photographers/pro's tend to use the viewfinder theses days.
The other useful thing is composing in strong sunlight were most LCD's struggle.

When i was looking at SLR's i was surprised to find that they didn't have live view (though i had to find out what it was and why it wasn't present)

As much as i'm in to taking quality photo's, 99% of them are taken with live view so it would be annoying to not have it anymore if i upgraded to a camera without.



**Edit - sorry i missed your edit about live view earlier. As i just said though, it's what you expect on a camera as you're coming from point and shoots, the screen on the back of all but the newest dSLR's is only used for camera settings and reviewing pictures you've already taken. It cannot be used to line up your shot.


----------



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

An article in Digital Photographer rated the Sony A200 as the best out of that, Nikon D40 and Canon 1000D? overall

I've got an A300 and its brilliant, easy to navigate menu's - just dont know how to use it properly yet. The Live View is brilliant due to it having a flip out screen


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

Flip out screens are one of those things where you think, meh, might be nice.
Then when you use it, it's all you use, it's just so convenient.


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

I had a nikok crossover type camera broke it and replaced it with a canon s5-i5 and never really liked the Canon.

Just got a Nikon D40 and must say its uber easy to use....brilliant on screen help of all features (if you get stuck)

The D40x is a bit of a funny one difficult to get hold of because it was sort of a weird one to the market.

I would not buy a sony camera...a pro photographer once said to me alwasy buy a camera from a company thats core business is cameras.....i have stood by this advice and its never seen me wrong!


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

I do like the thought of having live view but I guess its just because I used to it because of my Samsung. 

The sony appeals to me because a friend has one and the pics are very very good but then he has a £800 lense on it! 

nick, a friend said the same to me about buying a camera from a company thats core business is camera's.

thanks for all your help sofar chaps


----------



## Needs a clean (May 24, 2008)

I got a Sony A200 from SWMBO for Christmas, and i think its a cracking camera. Being a DSLR virgin, i cannot comment on the other you have mentioned, but i love my A200. I find it easy to use and the menu's are pretty easy to navigate through.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

whats all this noise reduction melarky the reviews speak off?

I need the camera to be good in low/artificial light too so to take better pics of cars in our dyno room.


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

If you need that in the camera, you need to look at the ISO comparison's for the cameras as that's how well they handle low light.

Any large sensor dSLR will have great low light performance, but it's a case of comparing them against each other in the ISO tests.

Very expensive optics can make a huge difference so if you want to compare, you'll have to look at the kit lenses which aren't as good.

So far as looking at companies that only do cameras, don't be blinkered by that as much, fairly enough with some brands, but with the likes of Canon, they kind of know what they're doing.
That also have very good kit optics.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

its all too confusing  :lol:

whats a better ISO to have?


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

Ahh, sorry i should of explained.

OK, most cameras have a set selection of ISO sensitivities. The ISO is a rating of how sensitive to light the film is, so in the digital age, it's how sensitive the sensor is to light.

So, with this comes a sacrifice, make it too sensitive and you get bleed between the photo sites on the sensor and it creates noise. Look at the ISO tests to see how the higher ISO's show blocky noise in the picture.

The advantage and use of a higher light sensitivity is obviously more detail in dark scenes.

As a rule of thumb, the larger the sensor, the better it will handle higher ISO's and not show as much noise.

If you have the light levels then use the lowest ISO setting for the best picture, higher ISO should only really be used when the light conditions are not ideal to show the details when you have to use a longer shutter speed and/or a slower lens.


In short, you can select what ISO level to use on all the cameras, i wouldn't honestly worry too much about it on an SLR, especially your first, but when you look at the ISO comparison tests, look at the noise in the shots, the lowest noise is obviously the best picture to have.


----------



## byngmeister (Apr 7, 2009)

MaDMaXX said:


> So, with this comes a sacrifice, make it too sensitive and you get bleed between the photo sites on the sensor and it creates noise. Look at the ISO tests to see how the higher ISO's show blocky noise in the picture.
> 
> The advantage and use of a higher light sensitivity is obviously more detail in dark scenes.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, the larger the sensor, the better it will handle higher ISO's and not show as much noise.


For reference I took this photo last night at Egg nightclub with my "full-frame", "large sensor" Canon 5D MkII at ISO 800, It looks pretty good for a high ISO setting.


----------



## NeilG40 (Jan 1, 2009)

byngmeister said:


> my "full-frame", "large sensor" Canon 5D MkII at ISO 800, It looks pretty good for a high ISO setting.


now your just making me jealous


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

byngmeister said:


> For reference I took this photo last night at Egg nightclub with my "full-frame", "large sensor" Canon 5D MkII at ISO 800, It looks pretty good for a high ISO setting.


Nice shot mate! great performance at 800 too, wide lens too eh? I like the effect it give, I have a sigma 10-20 and on a FX sensor like yours it would look waaaay wider than I get at the mo!!


----------



## byngmeister (Apr 7, 2009)

dubnut71 said:


> Nice shot mate! great performance at 800 too, wide lens too eh? I like the effect it give, I have a sigma 10-20 and on a FX sensor like yours it would look waaaay wider than I get at the mo!!


Yeah that was with my Sigma EX DG 8mm circular fisheye lens


----------



## MaDMaXX (Jun 18, 2008)

Ack, stop with the uber nice camera's already 

But yes, as you can see minimad, with a very good camera the sensor is able to perform very admirably at higher ISO's, whereas lesser (the kind of camera us normal people get) it won't perform quite as well.


----------



## byngmeister (Apr 7, 2009)

MaDMaXX said:


> Ack, stop with the uber nice camera's already
> 
> But yes, as you can see minimad, with a very good camera the sensor is able to perform very admirably at higher ISO's, whereas lesser (the kind of camera us normal people get) it won't perform quite as well.


Sorry, just trying to visualise the valid point you're making


----------



## chrisibiza (Aug 6, 2008)

Ive got a D40. I find it a great camera for what I want it for and its easy enough to use.


----------



## agentf1 (Oct 5, 2007)

I just picked up the Nikon D90 and while it was a bit expensive I have to say that I love the camera. It takes great pics even in the Auto or Programmed auto mode. I can't wait until I get good with it.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

is this good for ISO



> 100 - 3200


thats on the sony A300.


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

thanks to everyone who replied on the thread. I "think" im going to go for a Sony A300 or A350 as they seem a good spec and have live view which I feel I would miss if I didnt have it. 

Ben


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

minimadgriff said:


> thanks to everyone who replied on the thread. I "think" im going to go for a Sony A300 or A350 as they seem a good spec and have live view which I feel I would miss if I didnt have it.
> 
> Ben


I'll bring my D80 in the morning and that will change yer mind!!!!! are you there early doors Ben? 08.30?


----------



## minimadgriff (Jul 8, 2007)

dubnut71 said:


> I'll bring my D80 in the morning and that will change yer mind!!!!! are you there early doors Ben? 08.30?


:lol: i don't want to spend that much!

we open at 8.30 mate.


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

minimadgriff said:


> :lol: i don't want to spend that much!
> 
> we open at 8.30 mate.


Ha! see ya at 0830!!


----------



## drive 'n' shine (Apr 22, 2006)

dubnut71 said:


> Ha! see ya at 0830!!


Coilovers???????


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

drive 'n' shine said:


> Coilovers???????


Nah - secret Mods!!! I have laid a "cover" story but safe to say it'll be faster on the way home! (again!)


----------

