A choice of three DSLR's

fWord wrote in post #4208852
That's one good way to look at it and I agree with this way of thinking. Even if you're using a DSLR with a single lens most of the time and also leave it in Auto mode, you will still reap the benefits of improved dynamic range (ie. less clipping of the highlights and shadows), more detailed images, greater quality at higher ISOs and very quick response with low shutter lag.

For this reason, I'd rather have a 400D and a Sigma 18-200mm OS for example, instead of an S5 IS (given money is no issue) even if the former setup will be heavier and larger.

And as time goes by and you get more 'stuck into' photography, read more about it and get more involved, the DSLR system will give you more opportunities for expansion.

Good advise, here.

Nikon and canon are only worth it if you're buying very expensive lenses and cameras.

I have experience with pentax and I would buy pentax digital if I didn't have a dslr from canon. The K mount lenses are cheap too and you can use old glass and stop down too.

Sony's new SLR might be very good too, but you'll have trouble finding lenses for it.

I will be purchasing a 400D shortly... but I was basically in the same boat- on a budget but wanted the best for the money.

Sony- I was very interested in the A100, it's a nice heavy machine with lots of Sony's "bells and whistles" however the low picture quality from numberous samples (especially high noise in low light) quickly put that one out of the picture.

Pentax K100D- seemed VERY appealing from a price standpoint. As mentioned out can use old non-AF lenses which would be great. What's wrong with this camera? It uses 4xAA batteries, and no optional battery grip!! Sorry, not for me.

Canon vs. Nikon- it just seems that Canon is the more popular brand to me. The D40x seems like a really nice body but after that the D80, 200D etc. seem overpriced compared to say a Canon 40D. I do plan on upgrading in the future so Canon it is!

As far as IS/antishake my Sony H5 superzoom has it, and it doesn't do much. In the camera store I played with a XTi with a 24-105? 2.8 IS USM lens attached, and i was litterally shaking the camera and still getting shots in focus! Now I haven't actually played with the IS in the Sony or other brands too much, but I really doubt they are as effective as build into the lens.

Hope that helps from an un-biased oppinion.

tobywuk wrote in post #4208769
are the standard lense's that come with these two nikon and canon camera's any good for what i want to do? I have read that the nikon one is better?

nikon: 18-55mm Lens

Canon: 18-55mm Lens Kit

Hi tobywuk,

I've read repeated claims that the Nikon kit lense is of better quality. Most people switch to something better than the kit lens, although I have heard plenty of people who are quite happy with their Canon kit lens. I myself got a body only when I got my first DSLR and chose a combination of lenses that met my needs (including a better-quality walk-around lens rather than the kit lens).

When you get your first DSLR, you're not just getting a camera, you're starting into a system, provided by Canon/Nikon/etc and third-party vendors. You will spend much more over the years on that system than the price of your first DSLR! In this forum, people have bought into Canon's whole system of bodies and lenses, and probably won't tell you that the Nikon system is "better". If you go to a Nikon forum, it'll be the same story on opposite sides!

Read multiple forums and reviews, then take the plunge. You will be happy (if at times frustrated) whichever way (think Canon) you go!

The compact cameras use this to describe the range of their lens focal length. For instance, if you had a "superzoom" camera with a range of 7mm to 70mm, that camera would have a 10x zoom.

With SLRs, you have multiple lenses each with a different range of focal lengths, so you may have, say, a 100-400mm telephoto zoom lens, which gives great telephoto, but only has a 4x magnification. There are super zoom lenses out there, but most of us don't think "magnification" as in the compact camera thinking.

It's all in the first generation for Canon, long-term reports aren't in. I would suggest, though, that anyone with a DSLR be either comfortable with cleaning their sensor or be close to a service shop that will do it. The anti-dust mechanism will do some good, but I'm dubious that it will remove all particles from your sensor, but, like I said, the long-term reports aren't due yet!

Hope this helps,

Tony

DStanic wrote in post #4209101
Pentax K100D- seemed VERY appealing from a price standpoint. As mentioned out can use old non-AF lenses which would be great. What's wrong with this camera? It uses 4xAA batteries, and no optional battery grip!! Sorry, not for me.

Actually there are battery grips made for it by third parties.

And their construction is better than the one I have for my rebel.

When I bought my first serious DSLR and looked at all the options, the reason I chose Canon was:
1. Seemed to have the biggest range of lenses at all quality levels so I was confident I could 'grow' with the system.
2. I liked the 'look' of the photos coming from the Canon system - colour in particular, detail, noise combinations - but it turns out you can adjust a lot of this using software - with good pics to start with it's much easier to adjust.
3. There seemed to be more quality mid-range and long lenses for the Canon system for birds, sports and wildlife - top quality at a more reasonable price.

Now that was just my opinion after reading reviews and I'm sure Sony and Nikon owners probably went through a similar decision process

My first dslr was a 10D and I just recently added a 40D.

So, if you think there's a chance you might really 'get into' photography, I'd look at all the brands with this in mind and choose what you think will fit best in the longer term.

If you are fairly sure you just want something to give you great pictures over many years without needing to expand much, almost any model or brand will be excellent. Also, if you don't believe you'll ever want to print large pictures (A3 or larger), then what I just said applies even more. Most of the detailed comparisons show up mainly in large prints rather than up to, say, 8x10 size where almost any current DSLR will give very pleasing results.

As most people will tell you, the lens is more important than the body, but a good lens on a lower quality body will limit you as well.

so a 18-55mm Lens will have zoom magnification of X3.7 starting off at X1.8 and finishing at X5.5 is this correct?

What sort of lens and price am i looking at for a nice all round purpose lens?

Is it easy to clean a lens, can it be successfully done at home, how often do you generaly need to do it and what tools are needed?

Thanks for all the help guys, im guessing its going to come down to how it feels in my hand but I like the idea of the canon being more open to a wider range of lenses.

Am i correct in saying that with both these camera's i will need a lens with anti-shake or anti-focus built in to the lens? I hear the Kodak's kit lens has this but the canon's does not

tobywuk wrote in post #4210647
so a 18-55mm Lens will have zoom magnification of X3.7 starting off at X1.8 and finishing at X5.5 is this correct?

Wrong. The X you're used to seeing, doesn't say anything about the focal length (unless you know the max or min obviously). To find the 'X', you have to take the maximum focal length and divide it by the minimum:
55mm/18mm = 3.05

However, you can't say the at 18mm you'll have a certain magnification. Distance to the subject plays a role in this.

are you sure you don't mean auto-focus? I can't see the purpose of a lens which can't or won't focus. Both canon, nikon, pentax, sony and other kit lenses have AF. This is basically the standard these days.

Get the D40, not X so you don't waste a couple hundred on mega pixels and then get Noink's 18-200. Let me see...

For someone like you, $1200 and your set for life if that's all you want. Unfortunately the Noink does have that stupid AF out of body so you have to get the expensive lens, but still, you'll be set. Go Canon if you ever want to expand, but Noink if you want the benefits of an SLR but nothing more. I sold tons of these to Soccer Moms because of price and simplicity.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …0_SLR_Digital_C​amera.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_3_5_5_6G_ED_IF​_AF_S.html

I read a recent back-to-back review of all these cameras. The Nikon got the points over the 400D as it has spot metering (sadly missing on the Canon) though the PentaxK100D scored well too and it has IS built in - handy if you don't use long lenses. If you do pump for the 400D I would highly recommend the EF-S 17-55 IS USM lens. It's image quality is superb but it will cost you 1.5 x the price of the camera body ! All the entry level DSLRs are good - it's a highly competitive market, but in my opinion what makes a good photo (in order of importance) is

i) the subject (a photo of your child is better than someone else's)
ii) the photographer
iii) the lens
iv) the camera
v) the post processing

I went in to a shop and had a little play with both these camera's. For some reason i am leaning towards the Nikon 40x as it felt nicer in my hand and lighter. This probably was because the canon 400D in the shop had a bigger lens attached to it though

40x is a joke and just a idea Noink had to make more money quickly. I know people that brought in their D40's for the D40x. It has 10mp!!! *gasp*

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/nikon/d40x.htm

Something we agree on.

There is some information on D40 vs 400D on this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=394245

Please follow the advice given earlier and look into some of the larger compact point and shoot cameras, for what you want to do they will be much better than the cameras you have mentioned and at a fraction of the price/hassle/size.

I have a friend with a g7 and it really is quite a nice camera, well built and good image quality/features.

tobywuk wrote in post #4212812
I went in to a shop and had a little play with both these camera's. For some reason i am leaning towards the Nikon 40x as it felt nicer in my hand and lighter. This probably was because the canon 400D in the shop had a bigger lens attached to it though

NO, NO, NO. Light is not good. Light is bad. Big is good. Heavy is good. You won't impress anyone here with light.

Sell your car/house/children/dog​/yacht etc, buy a bloody great big white lens (just ask the salesman for "the biggest please") and bolt it onto a 1Ds Mk3. What you save on gym fees alone will (eventually) pay for it.