Is this better than the Nikkon D50? This will be my first SLR, but I'm interested in semi-serious photography. Which camera, this or Nikon D50 would be more suitable? My a priori believe is that 16MP is equivalent to 35mm film, should I wait til then or is 8MP good enough? Is this better than the Nikkon D50? This will be my first SLR, but I'm interested in semi-serious photography. Which camera, this or Nikon D50 would be more suitable? My... » Read More Is this better than the Nikkon D50? This will be my first SLR, but I'm interested in semi-serious photography. Which camera, this or Nikon D50 would be more suitable? My a priori believe is that 16MP is equivalent to 35mm film, should I wait til then or is 8MP good enough? « Show Less
392881
Hi there,I just purchased the DR XT/Black. Not recieved it yet. I'm wondering how well the indoor & night pictures turn out?
392882
I think you should be comparing this camera to Nikon's D70s, not the D50. I just bought the D70s after much comparison shopping with the Canon XT. I don't think you can go wrong either way. The deciding factor for me was the superior lens in the Nikon kit vs. the Canon which everyone agrees is practically a throw-away. So if you do decide on the Canon, at least buy the body only and upgrade your lens.
392883
Hi, Douglas! I saw what you discussed about the lances and the whole camera and I want to ask you if you have any experiance with Nikon Coolpix 5700 (I have that one) and how is it against Canon DigitalRebel XT? Is it much more I'll "earn" if I switch to Canon? Thank you in advance!Ivan Hristov, Houston, TX
392884
OK, well here are my thoughts on the kit lens. It is lighter, so for backpacking orhiking it could be a really good thing. As you say, it is only an extra $75 or so,so there isn't much wrong with having it along with a truly fine lens, unless $75makes or breaks your budget. Get the kit lens AND as many other lenses asyou can justify.
1848271
I think I was misunderstood? When I bought my 50D, it was a toss up between the 5D and the new (at that time) 50D with a couple of kit lenses. I chose the 50D (newer tech wise and more stuff) and I'm satisfied for now. If and when I upgrade, it would be the latest (tech wise) full frame Canon like the 5DMkII. I was just thanking John M. and ED F for validating my non-researched decision to go 50D instead of older 5D at the time.Bob
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.
990749
I have a D5000 with the standard kit lens (18-55mm) and also the 55-200mm that you are considering. I do not use my 55-200 much for day to day shots. Unless you will be doing a lot of travel or outdoor shots where you need to zoom a lot, I would definitely go for the 35mm f/1.8g. I plan to buy one myself in the next few weeks and think it would be much more versatile for day to day shooting. I, too, have heard rave reviews about it, and speaking from experience, neither the 18-55 mm lens included in the kit nor the 55-200 are particularly good in low lighting situations. Go for the 35 mm, and let me know how you like it! I expect to order mine soon! I have a D5000 with the standard kit lens (18-55mm) and also the 55-200mm that you are considering. I do not use my 55-200 much for day to day shots. Unless you will be doing a lot of travel or outdoor shots where you need to zoom a lot, I would definitely go for the 35mm f/1.8g. I plan to buy one myself in the next few weeks and think it would be much more versatile for day to day shooting. I, too, have heard rave reviews about it, and speaking from experience, neither the 18-55 mm lens included in the kit nor the 55-200 are particularly good in low lighting situations. Go for the 35 mm,... » Read More I have a D5000 with the standard kit lens (18-55mm) and also the 55-200mm that you are considering. I do not use my 55-200 much for day to day shots. Unless you will be doing a lot of travel or outdoor shots where you need to zoom a lot, I would definitely go for the 35mm f/1.8g. I plan to buy one myself in the next few weeks and think it would be much more versatile for day to day shooting. I, too, have heard rave reviews about it, and speaking from experience, neither the 18-55 mm lens included in the kit nor the 55-200 are particularly good in low lighting situations. Go for the 35 mm, and let me know how you like it! I expect to order mine soon! « Show Less
1324961
The D50 was a wonderful camera in its day, and will still give beautiful photos. I still own mine as a backup camera. However, I would consider something with 12MP. The main problem I have with 6.1MP is cropping... the detail isn't there on a small-window crop. In my opinion the D50 gives a more vibrant image. So follow your budget. The D50 has an internal focus motor so it accepts older and third-party lenses. The view screen is a little smaller and the menu options aren't as great as newer cameras. By today's standards the D50 is obsolete so don't pay too much.
2102118
At the end of the day... its about image quality and flexibility vs. convenience. The G9 is one of the best P&S cameras out there and allows full manual control if you are so inclined. At 12MP it will have a higher on subject pixel density which will allow for cropping. On the other hand a 6mp cropped image (down from the full 12) will not look as good as a full size optically zoomed image (6mp full on the D40) The D40 also gives you 2.5 fps vs the ~1.5 of the G9. The D40 will have better low light (high iso) performance in comparison to the G9 due to its larger photosites. I personally have 4 cameras: Canon SD800IS for when it MUST to fit in my pocket. Canon G9 when weight and size is a factor but I want better image quality and faster response than the SD800 (or external flash). The D40 when I want good low light and the ability to mount a fast lens. I use the 18-200 VR as leave on lens, the 18-55 when I want to travel light and the 24-70 f/2.8 for high image quality (the lens is 3x price of the camera). I usually only take the one lens I intend to use with the D40. I have ordered the Nikon D3 for when there is no alternative than having the best, but at 4+lbs its a massive beast and certainly beyond the scope if this discussion. The G9 is with me at almost all times just in case I come across some shot I just have to take. If it is a really compelling image and I have the opportunity to go back and shoot it again I do so with the D40 and much better glass.
1365221
Nikon vs. Canon is a preference thing mostly. I was raised on Nikon (and Leica) so have lenses, and it just feels right. You may have a different background, or opinion, so get to a camera store and play with some. Also, Canon is better at video. I do stills mostly so do not care as much and prefer the way Nikon shoots stills, but that is important.
1275273
Let me start with a few obligatory questions: how much experience do you have with photography, what do you want to photograph, and how much are you willing to spend?? The Rebel XT is a great camera. You can start learning on it, and continue with it for a long time. I currently use one. The biggest limitations this camera has are: Slow fps (3) Extremely small buffer if one shoots RAW (I shoot RAW exclusively, and the buffer only holds 4 shots) Small(ish) screen - the 2.5 on the 30d makes me drool... Rear wheel on higher canon models seems more efficient than four buttons Smallish, and plastic construction. Don't let these turn you away - I am a sports shooter, and that is very demanding on the equipment. You said you want to do a little semi-pro; for that reason, I would reccommend the canon 30d for you if you can afford it. The higher fps, bigger screen, larger buffer, better build quality, and rear wheel would all be of benefit. But if you don't want to splurge on the 30d, the rebel makes a fine choice. Don't forget that the newer 400d has come out - it is an upgraded version of this camera. And most of all, remember that the camera can only capture what a lens sees. Invest in some good glass.
1254696
The shutter speed of this camera (look for ISO number) is very good for a point & click...one of the best. The 16 mp has a much slower shutter speed (lower ISO) and from what I read, takes horrible pictures.SIZE ISN'T EVERYTHING! (megapixels, that is)
660621
The D4 is a very good camera. The D4s is slightly better at high ISOs. Its seem to track focus on moving subjects a bit faster. Go to DXO website and they do a great comparison on cameras and you can compare the two cameras. The picture quality is the same I think over all again with some improvement at high ISOs. I do not know what you shoot or how you photograph so it is very hard to give advice on upgrading. If I had to do it again, I think I would stay with the D4 and which I still use right along with the D4s and wait for the next big change in camera bodies.
342941
I came to this camera from a D90. Ive only had a few moments to work with it, but the pictures I have so far blow the D90 away in terms of overall IQ.This camera will also expose flaws in your shooting technique which is a possible explanation for many of the complaints.Now, as far as the "comparison" to the D700 goes, you just simply can not compare the two as they are two entirely different imaging systems.
1198691
As someone who spent months in research (and finally decided on the NIKON) allow me to offer my advice: The NIKON P80 has a new sensor with 10.1MP (size 1/2.33" and a pixel density of 36MP/cm2). On its plus side, the small size (although it turns long when zoomed all in), the comprehensive menu and the overall built. On the minus side, the NIKON, although perfectly capable, will not take the best photo if left on Auto. The PANASONIC FZ18 has an older 8.1MP sensor (size 1/2.5" and a pixel density of 32MP/cm2). On its plus size, the impeccable LEICA lens system (and quite short even at maximum zoom), the handy joystick, the great image quality and the mechanical stabilization (the only one of these three that comes with it). On the minus side, the FZ18 is a bit larger that the P80 - and is bound to be replaced by Christmas. The FUJI S8100FD was never a contender for me. With a 10MP sensor (size 1/2.3" and a pixel density of 35MP/cm2) it is not too shabby. Yet, its overall design was not to my liking at all (of course that is a personal preference). The best advice a professional photographer gave me was this: choose the best lens and then the best sensor. Then make sure it is a camera for your level. The PANASONIC has the best lens whereas the NIKON has the best sensor (these cameras are still Point&Shoot, nowhere near the sensor sizes of a DSLR). Bottom line: if new to digital photography or do not care to be concerned with all the tweaking, go with the PANASONIC - it has a much better intelligent Auto (iA) function. If more experienced or would like to be more involved in taking a photo, go with the NIKON. Happy shooting!
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1441507
i have the d80 with the 18-70 dx, the 70-300 ed, and the 50 1.8 d nikkors, plus the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8. what glass you put on your d80 to start with should depend on intended uses and experience level. if all you want is an all-in-one lens, go for the 18-135 kit, unless you can afford the 18-200 vr. the 24-120 VR is another sweet after-market option if you go body-only and just want one lens, but you'd probably be better off, however, with either the 18-55 or the 18-70, plus the 55-200 vr. for the size, weight, and cost, they're very good for plastic consumer lenses. the downside is they're fairly slow for (D)SLR lenses, due to narrow apertures at the long end. if low-light photography or action sports is your bag, skip the nikkors altogether unless you can afford the 17-55 2.8 and/or the 70-200 VR. get the d80 body and grab a sigma or tamron 2.8. if w/a is your thing, i'd get one of the 18s (-55, -70, -135, -200) and pair it with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20. if you're more of a telephoto person, get the 18-55 or -70 and pair it with the inexpensive 70-300 non-vr g lens. the money you save over the ed or vr versions can go toward a good tripod -- unless you really think you're gonna be doing a lot of handheld shooting at 300mm. for macro and portrait work, consider again going body-only with the d80, getting the $100 50 1.8 prime, and maybe the sigma 30, the nikkor 60, and the tamron 90 to round out your selection, which would give you a nice, sharp range. if all of this seems too complicated, look at a fixed-zoom P&S or the d40/18-55 combo.
8518
I now have the MarkIV and love it. There's nothing to compare to it to anywhere. I was goofing off with it today at ISO 10,000. Yes, the only drawback is not using the 10-22 wide angle and a few efs lenses.Wouldn't mind having the FF 5DMKII also! I was just looking at some ISO comparisons. Almost as good as the MKIV. DPreview has some comparisons. If you want full frame go with the 5D, if you want fast FPS and more length to your lenses go with the MKIV. They are both excellent. The MKIV is a heavier camera.
1003732
My first DSLR was a D3000. It actually was the perfect starter. I find the D7100 to be a little more intricate in its functions. If I were you, I would start with the 5200/5300, it will get your feet wet without overwelming you.
185426
i have the d3100 and i love it. since you're a beginner on a budget save the $ and get the cheaper d3100, and stay with the kit lens it comes with. the d3100 can take wonderful photos, and handles very well. the kit lens is a good lens, great for beginners. once you're more advanced with your skills, and you've learned some of the manual modes on the camera, then i'd recommend either the nikon 50mm 1.8g or 35mm 1.8g. one thing you might want to consider adding when you get the camera, is a telephoto lens for reach/zoom. the nikon 55-200mm af-s or 55-300mm af-s are great lenses and will give you more reach, so you can be farther away and get in close to your subjects. just something to think about. oh, another reason i like the d3100 over the d5100 for beginners, it's got a guide mode to teach you how to use the camera. very useful! good luck, let us know what you end up getting.