upgrading from sony h2 to dslr

spanners

Have had a Sony H2 (6MP, huge zoom) for eighteen months or so. Have really enjoyed it, got some great shots. And I now want to shift up a gear into the dslr market and start playing around.

I'm looking mainly at Nikons (more comfortable than Canon), and mainly at the D40(and x) new, or a refurbed D50 or a secondhand D70. All of them (except the D40x) are also 6MP. So I'm not sure if I'll really be gaining an enormous amount photo-wise by moving up to a 6MP DSLR. Fr'instance, compare:
D40 - http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/Samples/Compared/Studio/d40_iso0200.JPG
H2 - http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyH2/Samples/Comparedto/Sony_H2_ISO80.JPG

I realise I get far more flexibility and power with a dslr, more potential lenses, etc. But for day to day use, should I just go for a 8-10MP DSLR...?

ziggy53

For simple subjects, you can easily pull an 8" x 10" out of 3 MPix. More complicated subjects may require more resolution. If you need to crop, you need more starting resolution.

More resolution can equate to more noise, as the photosites get smaller, but modern 8-10 MPix dSLR cameras are still pretty usable up to ISO 1600 from almost any manufacturer.

Responsiveness is my key determinant in choosing, or recommending, a camera.

In Nikon, I no longer recommend the D70 as a primary camera, just because it really is getting on in the years. The D70s is probably going to give more service life.

I don't recommend the D40/D40x because they have no autofocus for prime lenses or many other lenses.

While the D50 is a pretty good value, I think the D80 and D200 are where it really gets interesting, and what I would generally recommend for a primary camera in Nikon brand. Of these, the D200 is very responsive and I think I would be very comfortable using it in almost any situation.

Please remember that of all the things that the photographer can control, Lighting, Lenses and then the camera, in that order, are the most important. Everyone, including myself most of the time, underestimates the value of proper lighting and lighting control, so remember to reserve a considerable budget for lights and modifiers.

Then your lens selection and use makes much more difference than the particular camera used behind it (with a few exceptions).

Best,

i_worship_the_King

I did not know that Ziggy! No clue the D40 series was lens deficient. Should have been skeptical based on it's menu driven system, but now I know!

I'm a current D70 user, and I love it to death - but I would definitely recommend the new-gen D80 over it. The new sensors are leaps and bounds superior.

I think the real deal is what exactly you're looking at doing with this camera. If you're never going to invest in nice lights, nice LENSES, or if you're loading up another browser to google what a 'prime' is, you're probably never going to miss those features that the D40 lacks. The D40 is the best 'crossover' camera I've seen and used. It's a SLR, but it's setup like a P&S - menu's galore with very few things have to change directly on the body with a button. VERY user friendly.

So... if you're just going to stick with the kit lens snapping great shots of your family and friends you'll save yourself money and headache with something like the D40. If you're thinking about getting serious about your addiction within the next couple of years you'll definitely want to step up to the D80 or D200 (perhaps D300 if money permits). If you're even CONSIDERING the D40x and have the funding, go for a D80/200/300. That will permit you to buy basically any lens in the Nikon arsenal, and when you're ready to step up to the next level (D80->D300 or ?) all your lenses still work.

Welp, there's my 2 cents.

Martyn

I was in a similar situation. I have been using a Fuji s9500 for over a year and have just upgraded to the Canon 40D.

I would recommend getting a camera at the upper level of your budget. I bought a second hand 350d a short while ago and realised that it was not enough of an upgrade from the Fuji to satisfy me and so I sold it after a couple of weeks. This gave me the incentive to spend more than I orginally intended.

I have been planing this purchase for quiet a while and originally wanted the Nikon D200 but changed my mind when I saw the new Canon.

I now have a camera and lenses I really like.

Canon 40D
Canon 70-200L f4 IS USM
Tamron SP AF28-75 f/2.8 XR Di
Tokina 12-24 F4 AT-X124 PRO DX

ziggy53

i_worship_the_King wrote:

I did not know that Ziggy! No clue the D40 series was lens deficient. ...

The body lacks an autofocus mechanism, so the lens must have a builtin autofocus motor, as in the AF-S series lenses or similar.

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=592863&postcount=31

i_worship_the_King

well that's not as bleak as I anticipated. There is quite a selection for AF-S, particularly for the candid shooter. They just cost more. I guess save on the body, make it back on the lenses. Very tricky

You knowledge never ceases to amaze.

Is this where Nikon is going in the forseeable future with all their bodies or just the entry grade gear? And I wonder which one is more efficient... See what you did, I'll be occupied all day now...