Nikon/Canon/Sony: Budget Lens Pricing List (Trying to decide upon my future system.)

SimplyShane

This list was created in order that I may help myself decide between the three companies I have settled upon.
It is extremely "budget-oriented" and built upon my personal needs. Thus, it is heavy on primes and consists of no macro lenses or gigantic telephotos.

I post all of this because I strongly desire to hear the opinions and feedback from others who probably have more knowledge than I could ever hope to possess on these kind of things. Now, on to the list:

(A few side-notes: This catalogue assumes the use of an APS-C camera. Also, all prices include shipping costs and were derived from Google Product Search.)

WIDE-ANGLE
$352.53 = Nikon 24mm f/2.8 (B & H) *Requires internal focus motor for AF.*
$320.80 = Canon 24mm f/2.8 (Abe's of Maine)
$269.99 = Sony 28mm f/2.8 (Sony Store) *Konica-Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 used lens on Ebay for $195 Buy-It-Now.*

PORTRAIT
$113.87 = Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (B & H) *Requires internal focus motor for AF.*
$97.80 = Canon 50mm f/1.8 (Abe's of Maine)
$149.00 = Sony 50mm f/1.8 (Buy.com)

ZOOM
$369.00 = Nikon 55-300 mm VR f/4.5-5.6 (B & H)
$528.54 = Canon 70-300 mm IS f/4.0-5.6 (B & H)
$249.00 = Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 (Amazon.com)
----(Cheaper Zoom Options)----
$181.60 = Nikon 55-200 mm f/4.0-5.6 (Buy.com)
$210.59 = Canon 55-250 mm f/4.0-5.6 (Amazon.com)
$199.00 = Sony 55-200 mm f/4.0-5.6 (Buy.com)

NIFTY-FIFTY
$187.75 = Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (Amazon.com)
$293.00 = Canon 35mm f/2.0 (Abe's of Maine)
$199.99 = Sony 35mm f/1.8 (Sony Store)


So now I ask: What are your thoughts on all this?


(Oh, and before I forget, let me fully address the removal of Olympus and Pentax from this list.

Originally, I had purchased an Olympus DSLR but found myself dismayed at the company's expensive lens selection. The 2x crop factor and High ISO deterioration were turn-offs as well.

As for Pentax, I think their camera bodies are offered at very attractive prices, but their lens selection also left me feeling a bit cold. Odd focal lengths and increased pricing on much of their line-up didn't do much to win me over.

Just my opinion.)

Matthew Saville

In all honesty, Shane, I have to say- good luck spending so little money on such an addictive hobby! I hate to say it, but this DSLR thing is a serious black hole.

But that doesn't answer your question at all. So, my opinion is that you should definitely NOT buy your system based on any of these lenses, and definitely not based on their prices. Get the system that has the right controls and customization for you. I cannot stress highly enough how important it is to have a camera that feels intuitive in your hands. Where the buttons are, how the menus are laid out, and what customizations you are able to implement. These are the underlying design philosophies that will change the least for each company over the years. Lenses and bodies will come and go, but for example, Nikon's power button has been in the same place since, um, the days of film? (Unfortunately Canon can't say the same, and each place they HAVE tried to put their power switch has been a horrible choice IMO, but they still have their own advantages in control layouts too...)

BTW, when on a budget I *love* me some Sigma. They've got some of the best dang lenses on the market for someone looking to find high-performance at an affordable price...


=Matt=

jziegler

Just a few quick comments. Matt is right, you need to see what system fits you best. I went to the store thinking that I'd really want a Canon, based in part on all of the Canon love around here. Now, Canon makes a great DSLR, but the control layout felt completely wrong in my hands. Nikon and Olympus felt good, and Nikon is easier to get so that's what I bought.

As for your wide angle lens choices, for a crop body, you really need to consider some kind of zoom. None of those lenses (especially the Sony) are really very wide. If you're used to a cheaper P&S, the wide setting there is as wide as you'd get. Either a low cost standard zoom (18-55 for both Canon and Nikon, their newest versions are both pretty good), or upgrade to a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (under $400), Sigma 17-70 ($350-450, depending on OS or not) or Tamron 17-50 (there are multiple versions of this as well).

A lot of prime shooters would also say that 24 - 35 - 50 is placing the focal lengths too close together.

SimplyShane

Thanks for responding Matthew.

I know what you are saying is true, but as a poor kid right out of college, I can't stress enough how absolutely essential sticking to my budget is. I can't afford to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on gear and I just want to make the best choice with what little I have.

Also, I am more than willing to adapt to different bodies and all that jazz if I need to. I've done it before and that doesn't worry me a bit. Price does however. :-P

(Hmm...I really wish I could have just been happy with the Olympus, but I wasn't. I made a mistake there.)

Matthew Saville wrote: »

In all honesty, Shane, I have to say- good luck spending so little money on such an addictive hobby! I hate to say it, but this DSLR thing is a serious black hole.

But that doesn't answer your question at all. So, my opinion is that you should definitely NOT buy your system based on any of these lenses, and definitely not based on their prices. Get the system that has the right controls and customization for you. I cannot stress highly enough how important it is to have a camera that feels intuitive in your hands. Where the buttons are, how the menus are laid out, and what customizations you are able to implement. These are the underlying design philosophies that will change the least for each company over the years. Lenses and bodies will come and go, but for example, Nikon's power button has been in the same place since, um, the days of film? (Unfortunately Canon can't say the same, and each place they HAVE tried to put their power switch has been a horrible choice IMO, but they still have their own advantages in control layouts too...)

BTW, when on a budget I *love* me some Sigma. They've got some of the best dang lenses on the market for someone looking to find high-performance at an affordable price...


=Matt=

SimplyShane

Thanks for responding!

I've already responded to the "fit" question above. For me personally, I've found myself able to adapt well to pretty much anything ergonomically speaking. Maybe I'm not picky enough, but that's been my experience so far. As long as it has a grip, I can make do. :-D

As for the prime length suggestion:: What would you recommend as a good range? If I have to get a zoom for the wide-end, I will...

But I just like primes for some reason.

jziegler wrote: »

Just a few quick comments. Matt is right, you need to see what system fits you best. I went to the store thinking that I'd really want a Canon, based in part on all of the Canon love around here. Now, Canon makes a great DSLR, but the control layout felt completely wrong in my hands. Nikon and Olympus felt good, and Nikon is easier to get so that's what I bought.

As for your wide angle lens choices, for a crop body, you really need to consider some kind of zoom. None of those lenses (especially the Sony) are really very wide. If you're used to a cheaper P&S, the wide setting there is as wide as you'd get. Either a low cost standard zoom (18-55 for both Canon and Nikon, their newest versions are both pretty good), or upgrade to a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (under $400), Sigma 17-70 ($350-450, depending on OS or not) or Tamron 17-50 (there are multiple versions of this as well).

A lot of prime shooters would also say that 24 - 35 - 50 is placing the focal lengths too close together.

jziegler

SimplyShane wrote: »

Thanks for responding!

I've already responded to the "fit" question above. For me personally, I've found myself able to adapt well to pretty much anything ergonomically speaking. Maybe I'm not picky enough, but that's been my experience so far. As long as it has a grip, I can make do. :-D

As for the prime length suggestion:: What would you recommend as a good range? If I have to get a zoom for the wide-end, I will...

But I just like primes for some reason.

I like primes too (I had a manual focus prime only 35mm system for a while). There really aren't any good wide primes for most of the APS-c systems. You would be looking at a 16-20mm range to get a true wide prime for a crop sensor. At that point, you're better off just getting a zoom. For example, the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 prime is over $550 at Amazon. Sigma has a 20mm f/1.8 that is a little cheaper (and has a Canon version too) but neither will autofocus on the cheaper/smaller Nikon bodies.

I think a lot of prime shooters would do something more like 20-35-85 or 24(28) - 50 - 105(135) to space things out more. In film, I had 28 - 35 - 50 - 135 and would have been fine without the 35, it is just so close to the 28 and 50. It was useful since I had 2 bodies for a time, but far from needed. Since you have such a tight budget, the 85s are going to be a bit much money, I suspect. You might want to get 2 zooms, a normal that is an upgrade from the kit lens (like the Tamron or Sigma ones I mentioned before), a telephoto and see what you like. You could also add an affordable prime (35 or 50 but not both at first) for small depth of field and low-light shooting.

I'm just an amateur, and haven't been doing this as long as many others on here, so take that into consideration.

Matthew Saville

SimplyShane wrote: »

Thanks for responding Matthew.

I know what you are saying is true, but as a poor kid right out of college, I can't stress enough how absolutely essential sticking to my budget is. I can't afford to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on gear and I just want to make the best choice with what little I have.

Also, I am more than willing to adapt to different bodies and all that jazz if I need to. I've done it before and that doesn't worry me a bit. Price does however. :-P

(Hmm...I really wish I could have just been happy with the Olympus, but I wasn't. I made a mistake there.)

Honestly, the best advice I can give to someone on a budget is to save up a little more.

The worst thing you can do when on a budget is waste your money on something that you'll outgrow (or break) soon. It's the classic tripod purchasing debate- Do you buy the $99 Costco special that is going to fall apart in a year or two? Or do you save up for the $199 or $299 Manfrotto etc. tripod that is rugged enough to club a burglar with?

So, for starters, instead of skimping on three separate lenses, start with one GOOD lens, and slowly save for the others. Let's start by asking- what do you enjoy shooting the most? Landscapes? Wildlife? Portraits? Events / candids?

I know it may sound like nails on a chalkboard to hear what I'm saying, but just trust me on this one. I've BEEN there in your shoes, and when I was in college I thought certain lenses were my only options. Well, "certain lenses" (three in total) ended up completely falling to pieces, in all their plastic-fantastic glory. So, I saved up, bought a couple semi-expensive lenses, and they have performed flawlessly even to this day. But still, I had wasted $500-$600 on the "stepping-stone" lenses that didn't last more than a year or two.


=Matt=

Icebear

I am fed up with selling lenses that I bought based on price.

Art Scott

I would look to Sigma or Tamron or Tokina for my lenses right now and I would opt for
f2,8 lenses were I could......also give up the VR or IS...unless you go with sony then
no matter what lens you get you are stabilized.......

I like every Sigma lens I have owned....I how ever do not love the Nikon lenses AI have owned...
why?? Because I truly cannot see that they were worth the extra they cost me over the same lens
from sigma....plus..if you want a close focusing feature then with Nikon you have to buy a separate lens...
All most if not all of Sigmas upper end lenses have a close focus feature,,,somes in real handy for weddings
and even portraits.....I have never had a Sigma lens that refused to focus properly .......
I bought my Nikon lenses because I had the money and I have buyers remorse...but that is me.....

So to save on lenses and still get great quality you need to look at the after market big 3...Sigma, Tamron and Tokina,
There are pros using and swearing by them.........

As to bodies....again to save money.....look to used equipment....if you buy used then protect your self and only
pay using PayPal and NOT by gifting the money to the seller, that is against PayPal regs anyway...but you have
no recourse if the seller mis represents the item you bought.....this is from experience with a no so honest
seller from a well known and trusted Photo Forum.

Good Luck

ThatCanonGuy

Wait... you made this list to help you decide what system to buy into? Ok, you were selling your Canon stuff to buy Olympus... is your Canon stuff sold? If not, you should go back! Your 55-250 IS was a good lens, and so was the 50 1.8. If forget the other one. Just add a Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 (or something like that) and a 20D or if you don't want used, a newer Rebel. One thing I've noticed is there aren't many cheap wide-angle primes out there, esp. for APS-C. There's the Canon 20 2.8, but that would be... 32mm, not wide enuf. The 17-50 Tammy is designed for aps-c, so it's really 17-50. Then there's the wonderful 17-40LD

ThatCanonGuy

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Honestly, the best advice I can give to someone on a budget is to save up a little more.

The worst thing you can do when on a budget is waste your money on something that you'll outgrow (or break) soon. It's the classic tripod purchasing debate- Do you buy the $99 Costco special that is going to fall apart in a year or two? Or do you save up for the $199 or $299 Manfrotto etc. tripod that is rugged enough to club a burglar with?

So, for starters, instead of skimping on three separate lenses, start with one GOOD lens, and slowly save for the others. Let's start by asking- what do you enjoy shooting the most? Landscapes? Wildlife? Portraits? Events / candids?

I know it may sound like nails on a chalkboard to hear what I'm saying, but just trust me on this one. I've BEEN there in your shoes, and when I was in college I thought certain lenses were my only options. Well, "certain lenses" (three in total) ended up completely falling to pieces, in all their plastic-fantastic glory. So, I saved up, bought a couple semi-expensive lenses, and they have performed flawlessly even to this day. But still, I had wasted $500-$600 on the "stepping-stone" lenses that didn't last more than a year or two.


=Matt=

That's good advice, esp. if you've already sold your Canon stuff. Just depends on what you shoot. Landscapes, 17-40L maybe? Sports, 70-200 f/4 perhaps (that's me). I did this after selling two of my cheaper lenses. So now I only have one lens (not for long:D) but boy is it good. It enables me to get shots I never would have gotten with my other two lenses

Qarik

from nikon POV.

Get a the D7000, best ISO amogn all aps-c sensors with 16M pixels, 2nd best AF performance just short of D300 and 7D, (it has the built in motor) and start off with the 50mm 1.4. Build as you go. Next lens? From a prime POV..if you want wide go with 24mm. If you want telephoto go with 85mm or 105mm. Do not buy the 55-200mm.

Matthew Saville

Art Scott wrote: »

I would look to Sigma or Tamron or Tokina for my lenses right now and I would opt for
f2,8 lenses were I could......also give up the VR or IS...unless you go with sony then
no matter what lens you get you are stabilized.......

I like every Sigma lens I have owned....I how ever do not love the Nikon lenses AI have owned...
why?? Because I truly cannot see that they were worth the extra they cost me over the same lens
from sigma....plus..if you want a close focusing feature then with Nikon you have to buy a separate lens...
All most if not all of Sigmas upper end lenses have a close focus feature,,,somes in real handy for weddings
and even portraits.....I have never had a Sigma lens that refused to focus properly .......
I bought my Nikon lenses because I had the money and I have buyers remorse...but that is me.....

So to save on lenses and still get great quality you need to look at the after market big 3...Sigma, Tamron and Tokina,
There are pros using and swearing by them.........

As to bodies....again to save money.....look to used equipment....if you buy used then protect your self and only
pay using PayPal and NOT by gifting the money to the seller, that is against PayPal regs anyway...but you have
no recourse if the seller mis represents the item you bought.....this is from experience with a no so honest
seller from a well known and trusted Photo Forum.

Good Luck

Unfortunately it has a lot more to do with the exact lens you buy. There are indeed plenty of Sigma lenses that are complete junk compared to their Nikon equivalents, although I will say that yes, I am also very in love with the PARTICULAR Sigma lenses that I bought after much research and debate.

The bottom line is- All manufacturers make cheap lenses, and all manufacturers TRY to make pro-grade, high-end lenses. And some are lemons, and some are not. Do lots of research before buying, and only buy the lenses that truly compliment / enable your shooting style.

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote: »

from nikon POV.

Get a the D7000, best ISO amogn all aps-c sensors with 16M pixels, 2nd best AF performance just short of D300 and 7D, (it has the built in motor) and start off with the 50mm 1.4. Build as you go. Next lens? From a prime POV..if you want wide go with 24mm. If you want telephoto go with 85mm or 105mm. Do not buy the 55-200mm.

On an extreme budget, I hesitate to recommend anything brand new, let alone a body. The D7000 will be HUNDREDS cheaper in just one year's time, and in ~2 years I bet it will be available used for as much as $1000 cheaper.

From the college student standpoint, it makes more sense to get an older generation body, and focus on lenses. But that's just me, if I were a hobbyist I'd be perfectly happy with a D80 or D70 even. As long as I'm not into video or anything, I don't need any bells or whistles. (Note that I'm into outdoor photography and would not be needing higher ISO's very much...)

A Nikon D80 can be had for about $400, then (if I were a nature photographer shooting from a tripod, I'd most likely just save up and buy one semi-expensive lens, the 16-85 DX. Stopped down for landscapes, you just can't get any sharper. Then maybe throw in a 50 1.8 for low light, and I'd be good to go in almost ANY shooting condition. Add it all up, and I'm set for less than $1000!

=Matt=

Brett1000

SimplyShane wrote: »

This list was created in order that I may help myself decide between the three companies I have settled upon.
It is extremely "budget-oriented" and built upon my personal needs. Thus, it is heavy on primes and consists of no macro lenses or gigantic telephotos.

I post all of this because I strongly desire to hear the opinions and feedback from others who probably have more knowledge than I could ever hope to possess on these kind of things. Now, on to the list:

(A few side-notes: This catalogue assumes the use of an APS-C camera. Also, all prices include shipping costs and were derived from Google Product Search.)

WIDE-ANGLE
$352.53 = Nikon 24mm f/2.8 (B & H) *Requires internal focus motor for AF.*
$320.80 = Canon 24mm f/2.8 (Abe's of Maine)
$269.99 = Sony 28mm f/2.8 (Sony Store) *Konica-Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 used lens on Ebay for $195 Buy-It-Now.*

PORTRAIT
$113.87 = Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (B & H) *Requires internal focus motor for AF.*
$97.80 = Canon 50mm f/1.8 (Abe's of Maine)
$149.00 = Sony 50mm f/1.8 (Buy.com)

ZOOM
$369.00 = Nikon 55-300 mm VR f/4.5-5.6 (B & H)
$528.54 = Canon 70-300 mm IS f/4.0-5.6 (B & H)
$249.00 = Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 (Amazon.com)
----(Cheaper Zoom Options)----
$181.60 = Nikon 55-200 mm f/4.0-5.6 (Buy.com)
$210.59 = Canon 55-250 mm f/4.0-5.6 (Amazon.com)
$199.00 = Sony 55-200 mm f/4.0-5.6 (Buy.com)

NIFTY-FIFTY
$187.75 = Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (Amazon.com)
$293.00 = Canon 35mm f/2.0 (Abe's of Maine)
$199.99 = Sony 35mm f/1.8 (Sony Store)


So now I ask: What are your thoughts on all this?


(Oh, and before I forget, let me fully address the removal of Olympus and Pentax from this list.

Originally, I had purchased an Olympus DSLR but found myself dismayed at the company's expensive lens selection. The 2x crop factor and High ISO deterioration were turn-offs as well.

As for Pentax, I think their camera bodies are offered at very attractive prices, but their lens selection also left me feeling a bit cold. Odd focal lengths and increased pricing on much of their line-up didn't do much to win me over.

Just my opinion.)

If you're starting out and poor the best route may be buying refurbished,

e.g. a Canon XSi (450D) and 18-55IS for $479 and the Canon 55-250IS for $199 and they all include a one year warranty

http://www.adorama.com/ICADRXSIBKR.html
http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html

SimplyShane

Matt::

Is the D80 the cheapest Nikon body that HAS the internal focus motor? If I went with Nikon, I wouldn't want to be without the ability to Auto-Focus the older lenses.

The D90, which I *know* has this ability, also interests me. You can get the body only for about $750 new. That isn't too bad, but I worry about Black Friday. It might decrease in price even more than it already has and I'm left kicking myself afterward...

Heck, I'm seriously debating even doing -anything- until after Thanksgiving, but that means I'm camera-less for a month. (Which definitely hurts. I'm already going insane without one... :-( )

Matthew Saville wrote: »

On an extreme budget, I hesitate to recommend anything brand new, let alone a body. The D7000 will be HUNDREDS cheaper in just one year's time, and in ~2 years I bet it will be available used for as much as $1000 cheaper.

From the college student standpoint, it makes more sense to get an older generation body, and focus on lenses. But that's just me, if I were a hobbyist I'd be perfectly happy with a D80 or D70 even. As long as I'm not into video or anything, I don't need any bells or whistles. (Note that I'm into outdoor photography and would not be needing higher ISO's very much...)

A Nikon D80 can be had for about $400, then (if I were a nature photographer shooting from a tripod, I'd most likely just save up and buy one semi-expensive lens, the 16-85 DX. Stopped down for landscapes, you just can't get any sharper. Then maybe throw in a 50 1.8 for low light, and I'd be good to go in almost ANY shooting condition. Add it all up, and I'm set for less than $1000!

=Matt=

Qarik

You can get a d80 and one of each lens from the OP's initial offering for about $1400 or so. You can get the D7000 and the 50mm 1.4 for about the same price. (when the d7000 is more widely available of course). The d80 you will out "grow" in a year and you will be frustrated the whole time. My point is the d7000 is something special...it will carry you until you decide to go full frame.

catspaw

Qarik wrote: »

You can get a d80 and one of each lens from the OP's initial offering for about $1400 or so. You can get the D7000 and the 50mm 1.4 for about the same price. (when the d7000 is more widely available of course). The d80 you will out "grow" in a year and you will be frustrated the whole time. My point is the d7000 is something special...it will carry you until you decide to go full frame.

AGREED, 100%. No matter your aspirations, the D80 will be limiting you very quickly.

SimplyShane

catspaw wrote: »

AGREED, 100%. No matter your aspirations, the D80 will be limiting you very quickly.

I disagree with this.

The D7000 isn't on my radar for good reason: It's over-priced and offers nothing that I feel I NEED.
In the realm of still photography, all a newer camera body does is give you better ISO handling and more megapixels...


To me, that's not worth it. The only *major* jump in quality occurs when moving to cameras equipped with full-frame sensors, and I *know* I won't be having that kind of cash anytime soon.

Thus, I'm more than happy to consider cheaper options.

Howzit

Photography is Art

SimplyShane wrote: »

... I am more than willing to adapt to different bodies and all that jazz if I need to. I've done it before and that doesn't worry me a bit. Price does however. :-P

(Hmm...I really wish I could have just been happy with the Olympus, but I wasn't. I made a mistake there.)

You say you have made a mistake before so I'd listen to the old hands before you make another one.

Start with a great lens and it does not have to be OEM, something like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC is a great starter lens at a great price. Then add the best as you progress.

As to camera choice you really need to get in-hand and not hope to adapt. Also look to where your upgrape will be. See if the A900, D700 or 5Dii is the better fit and which feels right. If the 5Dii get's you all excited then it's not really a great idea to start with the D90, no. (and visa-versa).

Your logical approach is all very well but photography is all about feel & passion.

(BTW, I checked out your gallery - some great pics there)

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote: »

You can get a d80 and one of each lens from the OP's initial offering for about $1400 or so. You can get the D7000 and the 50mm 1.4 for about the same price. (when the d7000 is more widely available of course). The d80 you will out "grow" in a year and you will be frustrated the whole time. My point is the d7000 is something special...it will carry you until you decide to go full frame.

catspaw wrote: »

AGREED, 100%. No matter your aspirations, the D80 will be limiting you very quickly.

...You make assumptions based on the photographer's shooting style and needs. The D80's limitations might be inconsequential for certain shooters. For a still photographer, the limitations of the D80 are not that big of a deal, not for many many years to come. A good tripod and a good lens, and the D80 could last for quite a while...

Shane, the D80 is one of the best cameras (for a low budget) that still has AFD capability. The D70 also has AFD capability, and is the ONLY camera lesser than the D80 with dual command dials, but it's pretty oldschool. The D70s at least has the BGLOD issue fixed, a 2" LCD instead of 1.8", and a real USB 2.0 port, but other than that it's pretty limited. I'd rather have the D80 and it's pop-up commander capability, advanced control, and ISO 100 capability that will be useful for landscape photography, I'd buy a D70s for goof-around hobby use, especially since I'm into wireless flash and the D70s has 1/500th sec. flash sync, but I'd only "enjoy" a D70 because I already have a D300 to use when the light gets really low, or when I need serious performance in general...

=Matt=

catspaw

well, I'd hate to be the one with the D80 in a year going 'Gosh, this just isn't cutting it'.

I was (and still am, really) a hobbiest for the longest time. YES I have nice gear now, but a financial windfall allowed me those upgrades. Regardless, I'd have gone for something better than the DXX series I was in -- heavens knows I look back at those photos and go 'oh goodness, if only .....'.

Regret, SUCKS.

Qarik

hmm..I assumed still photography meant..not video. If "still photogrpahy" means..no action, no sports, no moving people, etc then I suppose a D80 can work. Another point to consider though..and I don't know the level of experince the OP has but you never know where photography will take you. I convinced myself teh d40x was all I ever was going need heh when I was starting out.

Matthew Saville

catspaw wrote: »

well, I'd hate to be the one with the D80 in a year going 'Gosh, this just isn't cutting it'.

I was (and still am, really) a hobbiest for the longest time. YES I have nice gear now, but a financial windfall allowed me those upgrades. Regardless, I'd have gone for something better than the DXX series I was in -- heavens knows I look back at those photos and go 'oh goodness, if only .....'.

Regret, SUCKS.

The question is, ...what do you shoot?

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote: »

hmm..I assumed still photography meant..not video. If "still photogrpahy" means..no action, no sports, no moving people, etc then I suppose a D80 can work. Another point to consider though..and I don't know the level of experince the OP has but you never know where photography will take you. I convinced myself teh d40x was all I ever was going need heh when I was starting out.

Yes, I should have said "still-life" photography...

And the D40X is definitely a far cry from the D80. The D40X lacks dual command dials, pop-up commander flash, AFD lens support, half-decent autofocus, Kelvin WB control, and a couple other things I'm forgetting. The D80, on the other hand, if you're photographing landscapes or other relatively still things from a tripod, lacks almost nothing.

=Matt=

jziegler

With Matt suggestion the D80, I'll also throw out the a used D200 is not that much more expensive. I ordered mine from KEH 6 months or so ago for around $500 in BGN condition, which from them means well used but in perfect working order. For the money, it is really hard to beat. The control layout with more dedicated controls and more control over the same autofocus sensor do make it a step up in functionality, even if image quality is nearly identical.

I'm sure that there are similar deals for older Canon bodies as well, I just don't follow them.

SimplyShane

catspaw wrote: »

well, I'd hate to be the one with the D80 in a year going 'Gosh, this just isn't cutting it'.

I was (and still am, really) a hobbiest for the longest time. YES I have nice gear now, but a financial windfall allowed me those upgrades. Regardless, I'd have gone for something better than the DXX series I was in -- heavens knows I look back at those photos and go 'oh goodness, if only .....'.

Regret, SUCKS.

Did your photos improve with the gear? Or did your eye improve with time?

My bet is on the latter.

Heck, I'm really starting to wonder why **I** care so much about this. Shouldn't I just get a used camera and call it good?

Yes. Yes I should.

Then I could focus my time on photography instead of equipment debates.

catspaw

SimplyShane wrote: »

Did your photos improve with the gear? Or did your eye improve with time?

My bet is on the latter.

In that you would be wrong. I could NOT get the focus points needed with the D50 for the outdoor (strong light) horse show classes that I needed. I often ended up back focused, even when I pre-focused and locked on the jump. Utter Fail. Gear made a RADICAL change.

And yes, time and experience too, but that would have happened no matter what. However, I stuck with the D50 for about ... hmmm... a year and a half before I continually ran into limitations from the gear -- not me.

catspaw

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The question is, ...what do you shoot?

primarily sports and photojournalism style. But I also do landscapes and portraits, because hey, why not? Also, night photography was impossible on the D50. Just ask Marc and the rest who were stuck with me at Delicate arch at the shootout. I HELD THE BUTTON DOWN for 30 minutes. never again.

aaaaanycase, I'm in no way suggesting the D3, D700, or D300s for the OP - sports (I needed it for INDOOR horse shows, so FAST glass + high ISO) weren't on the OP's list. However, even the D50 wasn't cutting it. I wasn't even DOING indoor sports then, simply because I could not. Was not even an option with that camera.

I'll echo the above that the D200 is a great camera for cheap. I got mine at Best Buy's $499 clearance -- but as such, there are many used and barely used ones in that range as well. Awesome.

Matthew Saville

catspaw wrote: »

primarily sports and photojournalism style. But I also do landscapes and portraits, because hey, why not? Also, night photography was impossible on the D50. Just ask Marc and the rest who were stuck with me at Delicate arch at the shootout. I HELD THE BUTTON DOWN for 30 minutes. never again.

aaaaanycase, I'm in no way suggesting the D3, D700, or D300s for the OP - sports (I needed it for INDOOR horse shows, so FAST glass + high ISO) weren't on the OP's list. However, even the D50 wasn't cutting it. I wasn't even DOING indoor sports then, simply because I could not. Was not even an option with that camera.

I'll echo the above that the D200 is a great camera for cheap. I got mine at Best Buy's $499 clearance -- but as such, there are many used and barely used ones in that range as well. Awesome.

Indeed, if action is at all of interest to the buyer, then a D200 makes a better "cheap" purchase than a D80. Then again, used D2H's are getting pretty cheap too!

Although it is worth mentioning that the D80, again, simply has more features than the beginner DSLR's. Night photography is no problem on a D80, thanks to the added ports for a cable release etc.

=Matt=