Need a digicam for low light and manual control
- Thread starter verma
- Start date
chiron
Skilled
One of my friends got a nikon d40 for 19k grey (incl. lens) from national market blore couple of weeks back. Definitely go for DSLR's as even the lowest end one will give better results than the best slr-like camera in low light conditions.
I've not used it but from the flickr usage characteristics the canon eos350d is probably a better one though.
All the more reason to hate my s3is
I've not used it but from the flickr usage characteristics the canon eos350d is probably a better one though.
All the more reason to hate my s3is
^^^ hmmm.. what's the price of EOS350D?
Actually I also was looking at Nikon D40, But I heard that the stock lenses are no good. And investing in another lenses will make the combo way costly, and beyond his budget. Though what I'm thinking may be wrong. So actually needs expert opinion on this.
Any other options worth considering.
Actually I also was looking at Nikon D40, But I heard that the stock lenses are no good. And investing in another lenses will make the combo way costly, and beyond his budget. Though what I'm thinking may be wrong. So actually needs expert opinion on this.
Any other options worth considering.
Yogesh Sarkar
Disciple
Any DSLR + kit lens combination is way better than any point and shoot digital camera you can buy today!
350D is no long in production, though you might be able to find a 400D or the 1000D but they will be above your budget for sure.
350D is no long in production, though you might be able to find a 400D or the 1000D but they will be above your budget for sure.
Yogesh Sarkar
Disciple
Boss these days one can buy 400D with the 18-55IS lens, which is any day better than the 18-55 D40 comes with. Even the older non IS Canon 18-55 is comparable to the Nikkor 18-55.BF1983 said:
400D also has more features and better processor than the D40, not to mention more AF points.
Yogesh Sarkar
Disciple
If your budget is <20k then the only option is D40, if you can stretch to ~25k then you should be able to get 1000D with 18-55 image stabilization lens, which is kind of like 400D.
Yogesh Sarkar
Disciple
Cause its out of production and no longer available through most retailers, though you might be able to find the left over copies which I wouldn't really recomend because you will able to get the 1000D for same if not better price.
I just picked up a D40 with an 18-55VR lens (not the kit lens).
All told it cost me 22K, with a few extras like a 2GB card, screen protector, and a soft carry-case. I was on a very tight budget, and this was a little more than 2x of what I had initially budgeted on spending, so couldn't (didn;t want to) stretch to the D60 or the 1000D, both of which were 2-4K higher than this. The kit was 19K, but the kit lens on the D40 is a non-VR model and I ponied up the extra money to ensure as little blur as possible.
When I shot a few pics with the 400D, I had a really tough time getting good results out of it due to inexperience, so I thought the move to VR would help with blur. I had a useless argument with someone on these forums about shake, but I realise now what that discussion was really about.
AFAIK the 450D is the successor to the 400D and the 1000D is a slightly cut-down model of the same.
All told it cost me 22K, with a few extras like a 2GB card, screen protector, and a soft carry-case. I was on a very tight budget, and this was a little more than 2x of what I had initially budgeted on spending, so couldn't (didn;t want to) stretch to the D60 or the 1000D, both of which were 2-4K higher than this. The kit was 19K, but the kit lens on the D40 is a non-VR model and I ponied up the extra money to ensure as little blur as possible.
When I shot a few pics with the 400D, I had a really tough time getting good results out of it due to inexperience, so I thought the move to VR would help with blur. I had a useless argument with someone on these forums about shake, but I realise now what that discussion was really about.
AFAIK the 450D is the successor to the 400D and the 1000D is a slightly cut-down model of the same.
^^ that is quite confusing for me what you've explained there, specially this one -
I've few doubts for you:
1. where did you buy it from? price is official or Grey?
2. If the kit is 19k with stock lense, how did you get the 18-55VR lense plus extra guddies for 22k?
3. Given a budget of 25k what would have been your choice?
and of all I thought you already had a 400D, then why did you buy D40 now? :S
and I don't see any blur in pictures taken in ASUS 780G mobo review thread.
sangram said:
I've few doubts for you:
1. where did you buy it from? price is official or Grey?
2. If the kit is 19k with stock lense, how did you get the 18-55VR lense plus extra guddies for 22k?
3. Given a budget of 25k what would have been your choice?
and of all I thought you already had a 400D, then why did you buy D40 now? :S
and I don't see any blur in pictures taken in ASUS 780G mobo review thread.
Your answers
1. Price is grey. Bought from local grey market. It's been around for donkey's years and it was the only market to buy photo equipment from, till the big 'uns entered and created the 'channel'.
2. Kit lens was given back, so the price difference was about 3K. I negotiated really hard, so got everything for 22K.
3. I guess I would have stayed with the D40 only. I didn't need the extra pixels of the D60 sensor, and the only advantages I would have enjoyed are the additional AF points and the ability to control some cheaper lenses. I may have stepped up to the 18-200VR for a bit more cash (I guess it would've come to 28K if I had opted for that lens instead of kit lens).
I never had a 400D. It belonged to a friend of mine from who I had borrowed it. I'm slowly learning how to use this new D40 in manual mode, taking shots in auto then trying to mix things up a bit to see what I get.
The reason you didn't see any blur in the review pics is because I worked really hard on getting decent pics. I wasn't totally happy with the results. I haven't yet used a DSLR in broad daylight, so will work on my basic skills a bit. Everything seems to go off-kilter under florescent light, plus I now need to readjust my monitor to work well with pictures.
I took some today for my sale thread, and had do do a bit of Photoshop to get them under control. The shots with flash were very patchy and a bit overexposed, and the ones without had amazing colour but were blur farms. They'll work for the sale fine, but it'll be while before my flickr profile gets new pics.
1. Price is grey. Bought from local grey market. It's been around for donkey's years and it was the only market to buy photo equipment from, till the big 'uns entered and created the 'channel'.
2. Kit lens was given back, so the price difference was about 3K. I negotiated really hard, so got everything for 22K.
3. I guess I would have stayed with the D40 only. I didn't need the extra pixels of the D60 sensor, and the only advantages I would have enjoyed are the additional AF points and the ability to control some cheaper lenses. I may have stepped up to the 18-200VR for a bit more cash (I guess it would've come to 28K if I had opted for that lens instead of kit lens).
I never had a 400D. It belonged to a friend of mine from who I had borrowed it. I'm slowly learning how to use this new D40 in manual mode, taking shots in auto then trying to mix things up a bit to see what I get.
The reason you didn't see any blur in the review pics is because I worked really hard on getting decent pics. I wasn't totally happy with the results. I haven't yet used a DSLR in broad daylight, so will work on my basic skills a bit. Everything seems to go off-kilter under florescent light, plus I now need to readjust my monitor to work well with pictures.
I took some today for my sale thread, and had do do a bit of Photoshop to get them under control. The shots with flash were very patchy and a bit overexposed, and the ones without had amazing colour but were blur farms. They'll work for the sale fine, but it'll be while before my flickr profile gets new pics.
verma said:^^ that is quite confusing for me what you've explained there, specially this one -
I've few doubts for you:
1. where did you buy it from? price is official or Grey?
2. If the kit is 19k with stock lense, how did you get the 18-55VR lense plus extra guddies for 22k?
3. Given a budget of 25k what would have been your choice?
and of all I thought you already had a 400D, then why did you buy D40 now? :S
and I don't see any blur in pictures taken in ASUS 780G mobo review thread.
well u can also go for the sony DSLR A200 costs MRP 24990 should be cheaper in the grey ,the sony has inbody image stabilization ,so evry lens gets free image stabilized image and better it has a 10mp sensor compared to 6 mp for nikon D40,most of nikon dslr use sony sensors including d40,d40x,d60,d80.
the canon EOS1000D is also a great camera IMO the best of the above mentioned except D80,eos450d,has live view just like EOS 450d and can be had for around 25k in the grey market.it also accepts SD cards unlike canon EOS400D which used to accept compact flash.
@sangram= thanks, repped. I think I also should opt for what you have purchased.
BTW what shall I ask for getting those 18-55VR lenses?
and ya I'll surely get in touch with chaos dada before maiking the final decision and buying.
@adder = thanks, repped. so you mean A200 will be better than D40? How does A200 compare to 1000D?
BTW what shall I ask for getting those 18-55VR lenses?
and ya I'll surely get in touch with chaos dada before maiking the final decision and buying.
@adder = thanks, repped. so you mean A200 will be better than D40? How does A200 compare to 1000D?
I strongly considered a Sony but the memory stick format bogged me down. Don't want to be stuck with an expensive proprietary format, but it's your choice. It's probably a stupid reason to avoid a camera, but the D40 had some excellent recommendations. I'm dying to try it out in sunlight. Here are a couple of links:
Nikon D40 Recommendations
Nikon D40 Review - PhotographyBLOG
The second link has a treasure trove of camera reviews, and covers all the cameras mentioned here and maybe even more.
As for megapixels, I learnt a long time ago that it didn't matter to me. I was looking at pure IQ results and figured that the P&S features, very good kit and stock lenses and brilliant sensor quality would be fine. It was also really, really inexpensive and I have got as good (or bad, as you wish) results on this camera as I did with the 400D. The extra pixels on the 400D don't help, not even on my 3008WFP. 6MP is more than enough for me - but if you're looking at pro/print usage it definitely won't be enough, you need a minimum of 10MP to get good high resolution results.
The 1000D should be a little cheaper than 25K - couple of hundred here and there. It's a great camera by all accounts, so do look at that if you can stretch to it. The D80 is at about 30K grey. I was really tight-fisted, and wouldn't even pony up the 500 bucks more for the D40x, let alone that one.
Nikon D40 Recommendations
Nikon D40 Review - PhotographyBLOG
The second link has a treasure trove of camera reviews, and covers all the cameras mentioned here and maybe even more.
As for megapixels, I learnt a long time ago that it didn't matter to me. I was looking at pure IQ results and figured that the P&S features, very good kit and stock lenses and brilliant sensor quality would be fine. It was also really, really inexpensive and I have got as good (or bad, as you wish) results on this camera as I did with the 400D. The extra pixels on the 400D don't help, not even on my 3008WFP. 6MP is more than enough for me - but if you're looking at pro/print usage it definitely won't be enough, you need a minimum of 10MP to get good high resolution results.
The 1000D should be a little cheaper than 25K - couple of hundred here and there. It's a great camera by all accounts, so do look at that if you can stretch to it. The D80 is at about 30K grey. I was really tight-fisted, and wouldn't even pony up the 500 bucks more for the D40x, let alone that one.