SLR Suggestions Reqd

Status
Not open for further replies.
SoulFire

SoulFire

Forerunner
Looking to get my first slr , most probably planning on buying one from UK durnig the shopping season coming up so hoping to get a good deal , looking at my choices on getting one of these

Looking for the cheapest DSLR with 18-55mm lens , may get a 55-200mm lens if i get a good price on it

i have someone worknig in canon UK so id like suggestions in Nikon and canon preferably , SONY mem sticks are too expensive so doesent make sense , any other good suggestions are welcome
was looknig at the D40 from nikon which is a nice entry level SLR , any suggestions for canon?

Budget is not too much so jus looking to spend the least possible ,el tthe suggestions flow in:cool2:
 
sony alpha a300? it uses cf cards which are cheap, has in cam IS, live view, 10mp and iirc comes with a default 18-70m lens.
anywho wait for dpayne and the other pros to reply :D
 
Sony DSLRs don't use memory sticks. They use the standard CF. However considering the availability of lenses in India, I'd stay away from sony. In contrast Canon/Nikon are available in plenty.

Avoid the D40 though. Its okay only if you use the kit lens and nothing more. It can't even auto focus a 50mm prime. So its a write off in my book. If you want a Nikon, look for the D80 which should be available for cheap considering that D90 has already been launched. As far as canon is concerned, even the most basic 1000D can autofocus all canon EF/EF-S lenses. So you choose whatever you want.
 
There are real good deals going around on the Nikon D80 and Canon 40D.

Stay away from the Nikon D40, get the D60 if you must buy Nikon.

Else give the Canon 450D/1000D a look.
 
^^Anish even the D60 does not autofocus non digital format lenses so one is stuck :P. The only diff between the D40 and D60 is the megapixel resolution. The D60 has a messed up flash too... its lowest flash sync speed is just 1/100th of a sec unlike 1/200th of competition and even D40. Our 40D has a 1/500th of a sec flash sync. So you can imagine how bad it is.
 
so far contenders are Canon 450D/1000D & Nikon D80 , any indicative grey prices of these here ? ill keep me eyes open for a deal on tehse in UK

any links to good deals in UK are also welcome :)
 
even i had asked the same question few weeks back.
finally ended up buying 1000d for 26500 grey with 18-55 IS, from BLR
 
Chaos said:
^^Anish even the D60 does not autofocus non digital format lenses so one is stuck :P. The only diff between the D40 and D60 is the megapixel resolution. The D60 has a messed up flash too...
Click to expand...
LOL okay didn't know about that. But honestly speaking, a n00b wouldn't exactly use a non-digital lens thanks to all the vignetting issues so that's why it doesn't impact their sales I guess.
 
Anish said:
LOL okay didn't know about that. But honestly speaking, a n00b wouldn't exactly use a non-digital lens thanks to all the vignetting issues so that's why it doesn't impact their sales I guess.
Click to expand...

A noob wouldn't use a 50mm prime? Thats full frame not APS-C and won't AF on a D60.
 
well u can get the EOS 450d it has live view which the nikon D80 lacks,and i guess it still cheaper then D80,also the image quality is still better in the 450d ,if u are on a budget get the EOS1000d which costs 29k with warranty or the sony A200 which costs 23500 with 3 year sony warranty.
no point getting the D40,D60 as chaos rightly pointed out the drawbacks.
 
Chaos said:
A noob wouldn't use a 50mm prime? Thats full frame not APS-C and won't AF on a D60.
Click to expand...

Rofl yeah, forgot about the full frame lenses. Okay the D40/60 officially suck then.
 
Even EOS 1000D has live view. No need to get the 450D for that. The only real addition on the 450D is better autofocus, a larger LCD and a brighter viewfinder.
 
Hello,
I am not an expert , but can suggest something. you must chose between Canon or Nikon. See some points to remember.

Canon: very good image quality(Canon 5D image is sharper than of Nikon D3).
Full frame camera (that must be your second camera) is much cheaper than Nikon.
Long range lenses (as well as mid ranges) are much cheaper than of Nikon. So economically Canon is your choice.
BUT.... Nikon build quality is better. And camera interface, menus and finishing are much better in Nikon. Nikkor lenses are sharper and expensive.
If you have a lot of cash (may be in future, move to Nikon)

Practically Canon. But practical with extra money is Nikon.

If you are buying entry level Nikon, than D40 is more than enough. Always remember , more than the camera, the lens and offcourse the man behind the camera plays in making great photos.

regds,
Anand
 
anandkrishnantc said:
Hello,

BUT.... Nikon build quality is better. And camera interface, menus and finishing are much better in Nikon. Nikkor lenses are sharper and expensive.
If you have a lot of cash (may be in future, move to Nikon)

Practically Canon. But practical with extra money is Nikon.
Click to expand...

All these are debatable points. Yes the entry level canons have worse build than entry level nikons. However once you move to semi pro/pro levels, there's not much to choose from between them. Nikkor lenses being sharper and expensive is also a lame statement. If it were so, why do you find so many white lenses sticking out at every single sports event?

The fact is Nikon has an edge in the wide angle lenses where canon has perennially sucked. However in standard and telephoto lenses, nikon can't hold a candle to canon. The nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a blurry mess compared to the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the same continues across all the other telephotos.
 
SoulFire hasn't mentioned a budget. BUT my suggestion remains almost the same as the rest:

1st priority would be the Canon 1000D if acquiring locally, only negatives being the pathetic burst-rate and the presence of Liveview only as a tick-away on the feature list.

2nd (and if you're ready to go away from the crowd) would be the Sony A300. Which pretty much trumps every entry-level DSLR in terms of feature set (excellent LV, great tilting screen, no feature-cutting) but gives you slightly worse quality at high ISO (800 and 1600). Since you're thinking only kitlens anyway, the Sony gives you slightly higher reach as well 70mm vs 55mm for the rest.

The Nikons in the entry-level aren't worth it IMHO, the game really starts at the D80 with the D90/300/700/3 being something to aspire for. :)

Cheers!
Payne

PS: The Sony A200 is the cheapest of the lot and is basically the A300 minus Liveview with a better viewfinder. At 23.5k it's one helluva package. (The sensor in the A200 is the same as the D40x/D60 only without Nikon's processing. :) )
 
thanks for the suggestions by far , my budgets is about 20kish +/- which should be achievable given that ill be gettin it from the UK

will be on the lookout for a deal as the shopping season approches , gettin a good mindset of the cams i should be looking for and for how much

so far canon 1000D/Sony A300 is what i would go for incase i dont get a good offer

else the EOS 400D/450D is probably what i should be getting is what my mind is set to right now , lots of terminologies n suggestions , checked out few reviews of the a300 and it seems the bundled lens r pretty crappy and that the body is good and would do better with a better set of lens
 
SoulFire said:
thanks for the suggestions by far , my budgets is about 20kish +/- which should be achievable given that ill be gettin it from the UK
Click to expand...
hmmm i'll be looking at this thread too :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom