Which Nikon am I looking for?

<p>Hello all! I am trying to help a friend with a Christmas purchase for his wife, an aspiring photographer. He is bent on Nikon and wants to know my opinion of which one to get. I have sold him on the idea that lenses are the more important piece of gear than the camera body itself, etc. SO, I was recommending to him the Canon 30D or 40D, giving plenty of capability and room to grow. Thing is, I shoot Canon and Hasselblad and know nothing about Nikon Bodies. Which Nikon is equivalent to the 30D or 40D? One of the cameras he was looking at was the D40x. I dont know about that model, as the ISO STARTS at 200, which I think is complete garbage. That and I vaguely recall hearing that this model was not all it was supposed to be as the quality of the Megapixels was not that great...<br>

Any recommendations are absolutely welcome! Which camera should he pick up? I do not think that the Nikon equivalent of the Canon Rebel is up to par... Also, budget is $1200 or so. I told him originally to pick up the Canon 30D used from KEH, and pick up one or two good lenses... But he is insistent on Nikon due to the fact that certain accessories are available on the cheap from a friend...<br>

Thanks,<br>

Patrick</p>

 

<p>The D40X is not a bad camera to start with. It is no worse than a Canon Rebel XT. For that matter I like the entry level Nikon better than the Canon Rebel. Yes I have both the Canon 300D and 350D. <br>

If you want high quality consumer level setup the Nikon D90 is good. Since the D90 came out the D80 is really inexpensive brand new. <br>

Sounds like you have a brand loyalty yourself.;-) <br>

The problem with the D40, D40X and D60 Nikon is that some of the Nikon lenses won't work very well on those bodies. From D80 and up you should have no problem.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The D90 is pitched slightly below the 40D/50D, and the D300 is pitched slightly above it---in terms of both features and price. Nikon vs. Canon is a staggered thing, the various models don't really compete directly.</p>

<p>"I do not think that the Nikon equivalent of the Canon Rebel is up to par..."<br>

Please read that as: "I want to stay away from the entry level cameras equilivent to the Canon Rebel, etc". IMHO they are not worth the cost of the plastic they are made from and are for people moving up from point and shoots and "happy snappers". (absolutely NOT hating on "happy snappers"! God bless you all as that is what made photography fun to me 12 years ago...)</p>

<p> You may want to look at the Nikon D200 or D300. I went on the web, and found that in some cases the Nikon D80 was compared to the 30D and the 40D.</p>

<p>If you can find one new, the D80 is a super bargain right now. The D90 has improvements but overall resolution isn't increased despite the increase in megapixels. I'd lean toward the D90 if I had to choose. The D300 is amazing but bigger and heavier, which some may not like.</p>

<p>If it's a Christmas present for a wife (and weight isn't a problem), I highly recommend D300. With that at least you know that it's all the camera you need for a long time (unless you are just tempted by all the newest and greatest).</p>

<p>D90 is perfectly fine too and build quality is not as toyish as Rebels. But if I were serious about photography I'd get D300.</p>

<p>The "quality of the megapixels" is not great? I'd take four good megapixels (D2H) over 15 poor ones any day. The D80 new, or the D200 used, are a great value right now. They are excellent cameras (so good, you might see the light).</p>

<p>Since the D300 is beyond your budget, that really leaves only the D80 or D90. The D90 is two years newer, has better low light performance and and video capability. Just enought money left to pick up a kit lens and a couple accessories. If her photo interest grows, she can pcik up the rest when the need arises. Nice starter kit.</p>

 

<p>Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies roughly around $1000 do not exactly line up against one another. As it has already been pointed out, Canon's 40D and 50D are kind of in between the D80/D90 and D200/D300 and priced accordingly. Therefore, if a 40D would fit your friend, but they want a Nikon, they can go a bit higher or lower.<br>

Either a D80, D90 or D200 would fit a beginner who is serious about getting into photography.</p>

<p>"I vaguely recall hearing that this model was not all it was supposed to be as the quality of the Megapixels was not that great..."<br>

where did you hear that? quality of the megapixels? complete rubbish. d40x has good IQ; even the d40 has some pretty high-quality megapixels. there are other differences, though.<br>

the best deal going right now in nikonia is the d80: (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-10-2MP-Digital-Camera-Body/dp/B000HGMX5M/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1229198620&sr=8-2">http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-10-2MP-Digital-Camera-Body/dp/B000HGMX5M/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1229198620&sr=8-2</a> )<br>

$550 for the body or $715 with 18-135 lens. not bad considering the body only was $1000 just two years ago. here's why the d80 is a good deal: it has much of the features of the d200, such as two command wheels. it has the same 10mp sensor as the d40x, but the d40x has no internal motor, which means some legacy lenses won't AF on it. d80 also has 11-point autoficus, while the d40x only has 3pt. also, you will have to go into menus more frequently with the d40x.<br>

if you have a $1k budget, you could get the d80 body only and still have $450 for the rest of the kit, say 50/1.8 prime, sb-600 flash, extra battery, memory cards, tripod, etc. you might even be able to afford another lens, although this would depend on what your friend is getting from his friend.<br>

another option is the d200, at about $800. which gives you a pro body and slightly better metering. but if i was going to spend that much on an older camera, i might as well go for a d90, which has, among other things, a better LCD than either d80 or d200. however, $1k will only get you the d90 body.</p>

<p>

<p >>> "One of the cameras he was looking at was the D40x. I dont know about that model, as the ISO STARTS at 200, which I think is complete garbage."</p>

<p >the D40x actually starts at ISO100, while the original D40 starts at ISO200. The D40x is more or less a counterpart to Canon's Rebel XTi. The Canon features a CMOS sensor instead of the D40x's CCD unit, it has anti-dust, and has a bunch buttons to directly access controls that the Nikon lack. But the Nikon has a better screen, better structured menus, better ergonomics (it has a better shaped grip, but of course this is controversial), and its image output (especially JPEGs) are preferred by some over the Canon. I don't think neither one of the two is meaningfully better than the other.</p>

<p >>> "Which Nikon is equivalent to the 30D or 40D?" "Also, budget is $1200 or so. I told him originally to pick up the Canon 30D used from KEH" "Christmas purchase for his wife, an aspiring photographer."</p>

<p >We have to think about what she (the wife of your friend) really wants and needs in a new camera. Some people have suggested the D300, which's a fantastic camera. But it's not exactly light, cheap, or simple; and it can be a overkill that's just too overwhelming to use as it is almost on par with some of the flagship models. The Canon XXD series is essentially slotted between the Nikon D300 and D90, though the 40D now sells cheaper than the D90 at the price of $837 at B&H. The D90 is newer and by the standard of some better than the 40D, since it does to an extent inherit some of the D300's characteristics. But it is not meaningfully "better", as the 40D is superior in many ways. The 40D is capable of 6.5 fps, which is very fast for its low price; it also features some weather sealing and a metal body. Whether or not a certain characteristic of a camera matters largely depends on what you do with it.</p>

<p >As far as suggestions goes, I think first of all the Canon 40D is a fine choice (although it could even be a bit of an overkill). If your friend wants to get Nikon, then the D90 should be on top of his list as it is a good camera. I think some of the D300's features could be relatively "unnecessary" for her, while a D300 purchase would also largely eliminate the funding for a good lens to back it up. An alternative choice you should consider would be the original D40, which sells for $410 with a kit lens. The D40 is a minimalist DSLR that's not "bad" in any meaningful way. Buying a D40 would allow you to have plenty of funding to purchase a few very nice lenses.</p>

</p>