# Which digital SLR?



## Maz (Feb 25, 2007)

Read the reviews,done the research, but still can't make up my mind 
present choices are Nikon D40X, Canon 400D or Nikon D80.
Upgrading from an Olympus muji 410 which is a great little compact,
but want to spend more time on photography and hopefully move on 
to bigger and better things.
Would also like some advice on Adobe photoshop Elements 5.0 please. 
Thanks

Maz x


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

There'll no doubt be some good photographers here however why not pop over to www.dpreview.com which is dedicated to digital photography, the formums are excellent and you'll get in depth reviews and answers there.

To be honest I don't think you can go wrong with any of them, if you aren't a "canon man" or "nikon man" then I can't imagine you'll find massive differences as someone new to digital SLR photography.

In terms of photoshop elements 5 what did you want to know advice-wise?


----------



## Maz (Feb 25, 2007)

Thanks for the link silver bmw

Oops ...I just wanted to know if it's not too hard to use or is there another product more suitable I've done lots of photo editing using Microsoft digital image 2006 but want something more advanced with more features.

Maz x


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

It depends if you are going to shoot in "RAW" mode. If so I'd recommend something like Adobe Lightroom which is great for 'developing' your RAW files and can do cropping and lens correction which earlier raw tools weren't very good at.....but then if you want editing you can use elements 5 to do the editing, depends on how much you'll do.... I'd start with the camera and the tools that come with it and then get some trials going of other tools and see if you think you'd use them.


----------



## batwad (Dec 28, 2006)

Have you considered the D40? Identical to the D40x, except it's got a few more megapixels you probably won't need. You can pick them up from Jessops for £280 with the kit lens at the moment as Nikon are doing a £60 cashback promotion. Are the 400D and D40x really worth an extra £200? I think not.

I was having exactly the same dilemma as you recently Maz and ended up going for the D40. I've now got £150 more to put towards a decent zoom lens (looking at the 55-200 VR) than I'd have otherwise had and have loved the D40 so far.

As for the D80, you're getting pretty serious there! Again, is it really worth the extra from your point of view? It's not going to instantly make you start taking awesome photos; the camera doesn't help with that.

The best tip I got was to spend a little on a decent camera body and concentrate my spending on decent lenses. In a few years the bodies will all be 30 megapixels or something stupid and I'll be in a much better situation if I've got a decent range of lenses to stick on one.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

I would take everything you read on dpreview with a pinch of salt to be honest. 

It's a no brainer really. Either the 400d or the D80. They are equally as good. I prefer the Canon range (I have a 30d) but the Nikons can give a warmer colour range. You tend to find wedding photographers use the Nikons, and the press people use the Canons. Lenses are really what you need to be looking at if you want really really good images too. The kit lenses are OK, but not fab. 

Ignore megapixel ratings - they mean pretty much nothing when you get into the realms of quality canon and nikons. Put it this way - a pic taken from my 30d (which is 8mp) is on a billboard in the states - it's certainly not pixelated!

Feel free to PM me if you want any specific advice. I'm a photographer when I'm not cleaning cars or fixing computers!


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

Maz - I use a Nikon D80 but its all a personal choice really, best bit of advice I have is go get one in your hands and see how it works and feels for you, the reviews cant tell you if it just isn't intuitive enough for you (I was like that so went for the Nikon)

I also find the fleshy bit behind the cam (Me!!) neede a bit of work so ephotozine.com has a great taking pictures forum and the gallery on there is fantastic, very inspirational with loads of pics every day, all better than my portfolio!!!

Try the cams in your hands and see how you go!!

Best of luck

Graeme


----------



## giarc (Feb 8, 2006)

I've got a 400D - it's the business


----------



## navylynx (Jan 12, 2007)

Maz - I'm a complete chimpos with photography but went out and got a Canon 400D......it's awesome, easy to use and I've even managed some 'arty' shots!:thumb:


----------



## deej (Jun 18, 2006)

Ive got a Nikon D70, great camera.


----------



## Mark M (Nov 29, 2006)

Iv gone from 400d to D80...Nikon is a different ball game, althought the 400d is still a great camera!


----------



## Deep-Dweller (Mar 21, 2007)

I've got a 400D, which is my first digital SLR. It's easy to use and gives me good results.


----------



## brympton (Oct 23, 2006)

Get yourself down to a decent camera shop, have the assistant lay out a selection of SLRs and buy the one you feel most "comfortable" with. There all good and all have areas in which they excel. Don't overlook Sony's Alpha, Pentax and even the Olympus E system. The latter cameras are available as a kit with lenses at reasonable prices to cover 90% of the focal range you need and this is the important bit - unless you want to be forever saving up for the right lens! As for Adobe Photoshop Elements, great stuff and a fine piece of software, it will give you access to digital negatives (DNGs) which you can read about and download this free and compatible converter: http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/ The only other thing you should be aware of is imaging sensors, frame size and its affect on lens focal ranges. The cameras you are thinking of are not full-frame so the lens focal length will need to multiplied by 1.6x to give you the 35mm equivalent


----------



## Maz (Feb 25, 2007)

I had already checked them out etc in Jessops just could not 
make a final decision, but now i have. Ordered the following 
off various sites earlier 
Canon 400D with EF-S 18-35mm lens
Canon EF50mm F1.8 MK11 lens with hood
Canon EF17-40 f/4l USM lens
Lowpro SLR bag
Two scandisk 2/4 GB compact flash cards
Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0
All being delivered tomorrow...will be an interesting day  

Just like to thank you guys for your advice, much appreciated

Maz x


----------



## Maz (Feb 25, 2007)

Thanks took a while to decide! 
Other half makes decisions immediately
reckons women just dither... maybe... but 
then we make the right choice:lol: :lol: 

Maz x


----------



## batwad (Dec 28, 2006)

Maz said:


> Canon 400D with EF-S 18-35mm lens
> Canon EF17-40 f/4l USM lens


Why get two lenses that cover pretty much identical focal ranges? If the 17-40 is a better lens than the 18-35, why not just get the 400D body without the kit lens?


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

drpellypo said:


> I would take everything you read on dpreview with a pinch of salt to be honest.


Without qualification that's a very broad, and a little bit arrogant statement to make about such a very useful and informative site.

I suspect what you meant was that the people posting on there can be fanatical about certain cameras and get into the minutiae of megapixels etc. and suddenly an incredibly good camera can sound like it is flawed. And perhaps in the end it doesn't matter half as much as perhaps they give the impression it does. I agree with that.

I'm no expert and I don't have photographs on any billboards but I still stand by the suggestion that dpreview would be helpful to get feedback on various cameras (I was actually thinking the reviews section which tends to be quite good and informative when evaluating a particular camera).

"The kit lenses are OK, but not fab."

Is the kind of statement you'll see on there that pushes those new to SLRs to splash out on L glass they don't need when really they would do better to get started with the kit lens and move on from there.


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

batwad said:


> Why get two lenses that cover pretty much identical focal ranges? If the 17-40 is a better lens than the 18-35, why not just get the 400D body without the kit lens?


I don't believe there is an EF-S 18-35 so I suspect Maz meant 18-55 i.e. the kit lens. Buying the kit lens with the camera is a good bet IMHO as it is cheap as chips and you can then flog it with the camera as a kit. I would've been tempted to get familiar with the SLR with the kit then move on to the 17-40 but that is Maz's choice and as it is such an excellent lens she won't be dissapointed.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

The 400D is a great camera. I had the 300D, 20D and now the 5D.

I think there is a great deal of difference in the L lenses compared to the standard EF range, but agree that for an inexperienced user there is no need to be pushed into spending such huge amounts of money early on. So much depends on the final outputs - large ie >A4 printed images may benefit from the best glass available but low res web images etc will show no difference. Biggest differences IMHO are build quality, focus speed, noise etc so are much more important to hard use or pro use.

I have a large bag with loads of lenses incl the 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 200 f2.8L and several non-L primes and other zooms, and while they are sooo nice to use, they weigh more, are typically bigger and often you are hard pushed to see a difference in IQ in many applications. In reality most of the images i get could have been taken just as easily with much cheaper lenses - but then, the cheap waxes also give us a nice shine 

Make sure you invest in your learning - £ for £ the best thing you can do. there are several very good online photo schools around incl www.betterphoto.com and www.ppsop.com and I've done excellent courses from both. This will really help you make the most of the move from a compact to a dSLR.

Have fun and good luck - show us some examples of your work.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

silver bmw z3 said:


> Without qualification that's a very broad, and a little bit arrogant statement to make about such a very useful and informative site.
> 
> I suspect what you meant was that the people posting on there can be fanatical about certain cameras and get into the minutiae of megapixels etc. and suddenly an incredibly good camera can sound like it is flawed. And perhaps in the end it doesn't matter half as much as perhaps they give the impression it does. I agree with that.
> 
> ...


Well, it is qualified - because I'm in the trade! I've had opportunities to try hundreds of different digital cameras, and I also have worked with some of the top photographers in the country. I also do believe that DPreview is funded by manufacturers so they opinions on there are more likely to be biased. I didn't say to Maz discount it - I said take it with a pinch of salt. I'd say that about anything on the internet though. Everyone has their opinion - it's up to you to choose ultimately.

As for the Kit Lens, I didn't say they were rubbish - but why buy a sports car and not put decent fuel in it? If you can afford it - then you're going to put optimax in - in order to get the best out of the car. Maz had a healthy budget for lenses, so I recommended the L glass - as they are the best you can get! Although, in fact, in contrast, I did recommend she get the 50mm prime which is one of the cheapest lenses out there! (incidently, Maz - why did you get the kit lens, you dafty!) Although, the kit lens is not a bad purchase because if/when you come to sell the camera, you'll be able to stick it back on but keep the rest of your lenses.

I'm not disagreeing with you though - perhaps I did come across as arrogant - for that I apologise! It certainly wasn't intentional. I just get a lot of people come to me having read dpreview reviews saying 'oh - that one's no good - the more expensive one is better' etc, when simply put, it's not true!


----------



## Maz (Feb 25, 2007)

Hi all
I bought the 400d with the 18 -55 kit as it did'nt cost much less without,
I'm not a complete newbie to photography and have used my bro's nikon D80 SLR few times, got a brain, can read a manual and learn something new fairly quickly...just love a challenge, always appreciative of advice and you've all been very helpful. I'm very pleased with my purchases (all arrived before 10am so been like a kid at Xmas!!!)
Bigpikle will check out the links.. thanks
Oh and drpellypo I use shell v power in my car (the new optimax)
always get the best you can hey including the EF17-40 

Maz x


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

drpellypo said:


> Well, it is qualified - because I'm in the trade! I've had opportunities to try hundreds of different digital cameras, and I also have worked with some of the top photographers in the country. I also do believe that DPreview is funded by manufacturers so they opinions on there are more likely to be biased. I didn't say to Maz discount it - I said take it with a pinch of salt. I'd say that about anything on the internet though. Everyone has their opinion - it's up to you to choose ultimately.
> 
> As for the Kit Lens, I didn't say they were rubbish - but why buy a sports car and not put decent fuel in it? If you can afford it - then you're going to put optimax in - in order to get the best out of the car. Maz had a healthy budget for lenses, so I recommended the L glass - as they are the best you can get! Although, in fact, in contrast, I did recommend she get the 50mm prime which is one of the cheapest lenses out there! (incidently, Maz - why did you get the kit lens, you dafty!) Although, the kit lens is not a bad purchase because if/when you come to sell the camera, you'll be able to stick it back on but keep the rest of your lenses.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you though - perhaps I did come across as arrogant - for that I apologise! It certainly wasn't intentional. I just get a lot of people come to me having read dpreview reviews saying 'oh - that one's no good - the more expensive one is better' etc, when simply put, it's not true!


There's a difference between "you didn't qualify it" and "you're not qualified" but you've taken my point as being "you're not qualified". You made a short, sweeping statement about a very useful digital photography resource with an awesome number and range of ability and quality of members. Of course you should carefully consider and weigh any source before you make a purchase, but that isn't what you said.

I didn't say you said the kit lens was rubbish.... but you again made a sweeping statement. Maz has made clear that she's new to Digital SLRs and the point of the kit lens is as a starting point to that. The sports car analogy doesn't quite work because perhaps if you have a ferrari (30D / 5D / 1D) then yes you put the best fuel (L lenses) in. But if you have an entry level sports car - Mazda MX5 ? (i.e. 400D) then maybe you don't - you get used to driving a sports car and put 'normal' fuel in because in reality in an MX5 (no offence to MX5s) as a new sports car driver you perhaps don't get the difference out of the fuel (L glass).

That is my point, the kit lens does what it says on the tin, and cheaply. If budget is no issue then get a 30D with L glass... but if you are new to Digital SLRs the 400d and Kit lens is a great match to get started with.

That said, I think we are agreeing I just took exception to some sweeping unqualified (i.e. you didn't qualify them - by expanding, not me saying you are not qualified to give them!) statements and thought they should be expanded.

Agree to agree/disagree ?  :thumb:


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

I agree that DPreview are a bit biased you look at the sample images and it is obvious that they have been taken to show the camera in its best light, steve's digicams is a very, very good site with honest reviews and conclusions. But that said there really is no such thing as a bad digital camera these days, just some that are a bit better than others.


----------



## silver bmw z3 (Apr 30, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> I agree that DPreview are a bit biased you look at the sample images and it is obvious that they have been taken to show the camera in its best light, steve's digicams is a very, very good site with honest reviews and conclusions. But that said there really is no such thing as a bad digital camera these days, just some that are a bit better than others.


What a strange thing to say.... who is going to want to take a sample picture to show the worst features? Surely if you look for a camera and see some stunning sample images you get an idea of what that camera is capable of?

Now... if the review didn't discuss any negative aspects which could impact images (e.g. purple fringing etc.) then that would be biased perhaps but trying to get the best out of the cam for the sample images makes total sense to me. In fact your last sentence explains perhaps some of why this may be what you've seen - it is actually difficult, particularly as the guys doing the reviews are good photographers, to take a particularly bad pic in good conditions with most cameras these days.

A couple of people have now alleged bias or even that dpreview is in the pay of camera manufacturers - I hope there's evidence to substantiate that and that dpreview don't take objection to those remarks being posted in public!

I don't work for/have any connection with dpreview other than an occasional user of it for research (it has also been a while since I used it) but from my experience of it I'm not sure where these comments are coming from and they don't seem to be backed up by any evidence.


----------



## Jakedoodles (Jan 16, 2006)

Silver - I take your point - pretty much agree, and arguing on the net is pointless! So yes, here's a pint!!


----------



## Jackster1 (Jun 18, 2007)

Hi Maz,

Next on your list will be the Canon 10-22mm lens and the macro 60mm lens.....your lens collection is just starting!!!

I have the Canon 1.8 50mm prime lens, 70-200mm f/4 L lens, 17-85mm IS lens and yet, I still want more!


----------



## Maz (Feb 25, 2007)

HI Jackster 1

Just getting over the shock of spending a lot of money in a short time
but now I've started finding it difficult to stop!!!
Called at my local newsagents yesterday to buy a magazine came out 
with a load of various digital camera mags instead, so will have a good 
read before making any more purchases... hopefully 
One of the best small buys is a fitted canon lcd cover, bought from Hong kong
for £9.99 if only all were that cheap....(I wish) 

Maz x


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Canon will always have the edge in 35mm-type DSLR world
until Nikon stop p!ssing about and develop a full-frame body. 
Their lenses deserve it, MF primes especially. The view through a D2Xs depresses me, whereas the cheaper Canon 5D has a viewfinder from heaven in comparison. Full-frame Canon SLRs are worth every penny.

But then i'm rather lucky as my 'daily driver' is Swedish, with a Danish back.  CaptureOne Pro rules.


----------

