My First DSLR (Those Ones Again..)

[buildabrig]

I've used DSLRs before...but I'm trying to weigh up pros and cons.

I'm wondering whether I should get a Canon 450D, 500D or 40D. Which means, I don't know whether to get a new or old model, an amateur or slightly advanced model.

Also, I'm planning to get a 17-85mm lens with the body, it seems like a pretty all-round lens to start off with. A good choice?

I've heard that the body doesn't make so much of a difference, rather than the lens. So I'm still stuck.

Help? (:

[stic]

I have a 40D, and brought it with the 17-85 as a bundle.

It's a good fit, although i will need a 10-22 wide soon.

Have used it for a year and a half and find it a good combination. However, i do have a 100-400 which i use a lot too.

What's a good (low shutter count) 40D worth?
Heard a lot about the 40D being better than the replacement 50D...so that says quite a bit about the 40D...

[Redal]

If you dont need the video of the 500d , the 40d is a great camera.

[buildabrig]

Thanks so far guys, but is there a large difference between the 450D and 40D apart from the quality of build?

[robo git]

Ruling out Nikons? Why is that?


Anyway...

According to this (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos40d%2Ccanon_eos450d&show=all)...

The 40D is only 10 MP, vs 12 for the 450D. This is only really relevant if you're doing printing larger than A1, or you expect CSI: Miami levels of detail to be captured (Zoom in! Enhance!), but if that was the case I'd recommend getting Phase One (http://www.phaseone.com/) medium format kit with their P 65+ digital back :p

Lower pixel-density for the 40D (good for low-light shooting - as is reflected in the available ISO ratings, going to 3200 vs 1600), and 40D is well known for being good at low-light shots. Note: The 500D & 50D can both go to ISO 12800, but the 40D has a reputation for superior quality at the same sensitivity (eg 3200 on the 40D looks better than 3200 on the 500D)

The 40D can actuate the shutter twice as fast as the 450D (1/8000s vs 1/4000s), so better for freezing motion (kids / pets / contact-sports), or for wide aperture photography in bright conditions.

40D has a larger buffer so can do larger bursts, although that's mostly of-interest when doing JPEGs... Which is fairly common when you're doing sport photography to catch the exact moment. Also the 40D can to 6.5 shots-per-second (assuming you've got the shutter-speed fast enough) vs 3.5 in the 450D.

40D is heavier - 822g vs 524g. How weak are you? :p But seriously, the 40D is better balanced for use with L-series lenses, and is a stronger body, as well as physically larger.

450D offers live-view. Live view can be useful for composing your shot in low-light situations or when it's not easy/convenient to get your eye to the viewfinder.

40D has a larger viewfinder = easier to see focus & easier to compose shots.

40D uses Compact Flash, 450D uses SD and SDHC cards - SDHC is a little cheaper to buy than CF, but more DSLRs use CF.

Summary
To me it's a case of "Will I be doing low-light photography or photography with high-speed?" if it's yes to either of those I'd seriously consider the 40D over the 450D. That being said, wander into a camera shop and get a little hands-on time with either those or their more recent equivalents (50D / 500D) to see if you'd be comfortable using them, as the control-layouts are different between the two.

[buildabrig]

Thanks!
I think that I'm just about decided. Now, I can't seem to find the 40D anywhere apart from a few parallel imported shops. Can I get it new anywhere, or will I have to buy second hand?

[possum]

Sorry I don't have anything to add to the discussion, just want to ask a question, lol, sorry!

Ruling out Nikons? Why is that?

I'd love to know more about Nikons, I've never owned one, but am looking at upgrading in that direction. I really want the D3s but it's a little out of my price range once you chuck in lenses etc.

I shoot quite a lot of low light, landscapes, portraits etc. Would like to add in a 50m prime lens, and just a decent allrounder lens.

Any ideas what I should be looking at?

I'm currently shooting with an Olympus e-520.

xxx Lou

[robo git]

Nah I think you should go for that Phase One kit I linked to above :p

[Redal]

Sorry I don't have anything to add to the discussion, just want to ask a question, lol, sorry!



I'd love to know more about Nikons, I've never owned one, but am looking at upgrading in that direction. I really want the D3s but it's a little out of my price range once you chuck in lenses etc.

I shoot quite a lot of low light, landscapes, portraits etc. Would like to add in a 50m prime lens, and just a decent allrounder lens.

Any ideas what I should be looking at?

I'm currently shooting with an Olympus e-520.

xxx Lou

Lou,

Im a canon shooter, but if i was starting out or looking at changing to nikon, the camera at the top of my list would be the d300, a super camera for the dollars.
Saying that the Canon 1d3 is dropping in price , and is also a super camera, both cameras are more than enough for 95% of all photographers.

[possum]

Nah I think you should go for that Phase One kit I linked to above :p

:cool: lol, you may have missed the bit about my budget, haha... Though that is very good advice. :P

Lou,

Im a canon shooter, but if i was starting out or looking at changing to nikon, the camera at the top of my list would be the d300, a super camera for the dollars.
Saying that the Canon 1d3 is dropping in price , and is also a super camera, both cameras are more than enough for 95% of all photographers.

Very cool, thank you. I was looking at the d300, I get very confused with the numbers, lol, (I'm very simple, hah)... I wish they gave them names. Is the 's' on the end worth the extra $500? (Going off the top of my head, it might not be an 's', lol, or $500...)

I'd like to move up, rather than across. My wee Olympus has done me really well, but I'd like to step up a bit, as I feel I am pushing my camera a little too far out of its comfort zone in low light situations, and I'm paying for it in quality and editing time..

xxx Lou

[Redal]

:cool: lol, you may have missed the bit about my budget, haha... Though that is very good advice. :P



Very cool, thank you. I was looking at the d300, I get very confused with the numbers, lol, (I'm very simple, hah)... I wish they gave them names. Is the 's' on the end worth the extra $500? (Going off the top of my head, it might not be an 's', lol, or $500...)

I'd like to move up, rather than across. My wee Olympus has done me really well, but I'd like to step up a bit, as I feel I am pushing my camera a little too far out of its comfort zone in low light situations, and I'm paying for it in quality and editing time..

xxx Lou


The difference between the d300 and the d300s is the "s" has HD video , one extra frame per second now 7fps, dual memory cards.

If they are worth the extra money get the "s" , having a quick look on trademe, the difference between a new d300s and a used d300 is about $700
Or you could look at the Olympus e-620, the reviews make it sound better than the 520, and you have lenses that fit the body.

[tomberkley]

yea the 40d has been discontinued now so finding one will be harder.
i got it just before canon stoped making it i think last year. its a really good camera good because i still havent out grown it.

I would say that investing in a really pricy body is only really good if you are going to be using it all the time and can warrant the price. the camera bodys depreciate fast as. so going for a cheaper body is a good idea, that said the 40d does have anoying things.

Main one for me is the screen, I have found it to be a bit of a lottery when using it in bright light, you can hardly see it. making it really hard to see if you have the correct exposure, WB, focus. etc. I have got home a few times and been a bit disappointed with the final image when looking at it on my comp.

For me this is the biggest downside which they have fixed in the 50d.
From what i have heard the canon didnt really change that much from the 40d to the 50d expect the price hike around $2k for a 50d. I paid $1500 for my 40d about a year ago.

This said as I said the 40d is a pretty safe buy, good balance between first DSLr and the intemediate user.

I dont know of anyone who has been disappointed with buying one.
If you cant find anyone who is selling it for the price you want to pay, might be worth biting the bullet and saving for the 50d.

Cheers
Hope this helps
tom

[buildabrig]

Thanks for the advice. I'm probably going to go down to a store this weekend to have a feel of the 450D and the 50D and decide from there depending on which feels best.

[talan]

Thanks for the advice. I'm probably going to go down to a store this weekend to have a feel of the 450D and the 50D and decide from there depending on which feels best.
I suggest a 50D if you're going to take photography seriously :)

[robo git]

I suggest a 50D if you're richer than Robo Git :)Oi! :p But seriously, he's right - the 40D is semi-pro while the 450D is "My first DSLR" aka semi-hemi-pro. That being said I'm working with a pair of 350Ds (two gen older than a 450D) and I'm getting very satisfactory images.

[buildabrig]

Ahhh... yeah, I do want to get the 50D to last me for a while. But what if the 50D is too big for my hands? (the small chance of that happening.. :P)

[smurff]

the 50D is nice, ive been using mine for a few months now, and am very happy with it and if you get a battary grip you feel pro :D hehehe

-smurff