Philip Greenspun's Canon recommendation?

<blockquote>

<p>Pop photo did a review on the D3000 this month and while they certainly didn't NOT like it, they seemed to lean toward the latest Canon Rebel instead.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For what it's worth, Ken Rockwell also called D3000 Nikon's worst ever and said that the D40 is better for less money (and I know that he says a lot of things). This was back when D3000 was new and cost more. The "worst ever" should be qualified as being in reference to the Nikon line, which means that it's still a very good camera.</p>

<p>Hmm, I'm not sure what the make of Ken Rockwell these days. I read his stuff, but I've heard that maybe he generates controversy for the sake of more controversy (and more site traffic). There's a discussion here http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=624 about his testing methodology of the D3000.<br /> <br /> That said, <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3000/D3000A.HTM">Imaging Review also remarked</a> that the D60's noise performance is better than the D3000's and preserves more detail. So it maybe a choice between better noise performance or a better AF system. I've also been looking at the Pentax Kx. I hear Pentax kit lenses are very good, though I'm not sure if they are better than Nikon's or about the same. The Kx looks excellent for it's class in most respects... aside from the tragic lack of AF point markings in the viewfinder. One of my biggest gripes with my current compact is that I have a hard time telling what's in focus.<br /> <br /> The only reason I can think for leaving out AF points is to push customers in between the two models towards the K7. By the way, are Nikon and Pentax the only DSLR makers who still produce lenses with aperture rings? This would be a nice feature actually since it would be nice to use a sharp 50mm lens as a 100mm the 4/3rds camera I also hope to buy eventually.</p>

<p>Fewer and fewer of Pentax's and Nikons lenses feature aperture rings--the newest designs usually don't have them anymore...and their body support for aperture rings is somewhat crippled. Usually now the aperture ring is set on 'automatic' and the body is used to control the aperture. There are of course tons of used lenses in either mount with aperture rings though.</p>

<p>The Pentax K-x is a very good entry-level choice right now. Not much to complain about from an imaging perspective--it has a very good implementation of the 12mp Sony sensor with state-of-the-art high ISO performance. The skimping on superimposing AF points in the viewfinder is unfortunate but shouldn't necessarily be a showstopper. You will likely find that using center-point only and focus & re-compose is simpler and works well most of the time. Also, you can usually tell in the optical viewfinder visually which area is in focus. The Pentax kit lenses are pretty good, though the more recent DA-L versions, while optically fine have economized a bit compared to better, earlier versions--they often no longer include the lens hood/distance markings on the focusing ring/and the 'quick shift' manual focus touchup (full-time manual focus).</p>

<p>If you're open to trying something a little older, the K10D is a great value these days; weather-sealed, pentaprism viewfinder, great ergonomics. These are much more solid than any of these entry-level cameras; full-featured and built more like a Nikon Dx00 or Canon x0D series body. Main drawback compared to the latest would be ISO only up to 1600 (though pretty good at that), three frames/second continous shooting, and doesn't have the latest bells and whistles like live view or video. I'd expect to pay about $350 for a body in great shape.</p>

<p>As far as professional aspirations, Pentax is perfectly fine for weddings, etc. It would probably not be the first choice for sports where long lens availability and rental might be more more important. I don't think a first camera needs to be a lifetime commitment though. After using the heck out of your first one (and a used one is a fine idea) you'll have a much better idea of what you want in a camera and can make a much better decision on which one suits you best.</p>

<p>I have a D60. For me personally, autofocus points are rarely a dealbreaker. The D60 has 3 AF points but I always use center-focus, and use the half-press/re-frame thing. I suppose I'd pick between the D3000 and the D60 just based on cost.<br>

The D5000 has live view and auto-bracketing, which can be rather useful. It's more comparable to the K-x, since the D3000 is meant to be kind a light, small, starter camera.</p>

<p>This is making my head hurt. You said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have some ambitions of doing professional photography (eventually), so I'm wondering if choosing to learn Nikon or Canon's system at this point makes much difference. Maybe getting a job as a photo assistant is easier if you can pick up a Canon and already know how to use it compared to Nikon? Also after researching rental options, it seems like Canon has a slightly better lens and rental options in my area, but it's hard to say for sure.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ok. This means that you have to go with Nikon or Canon. Forget the other ones. Why? Though you can swim against the stream for example and choose Sony for the lenses if you are made of money; for the beginner who wants to be a pro the choices are Canon and Nikon. Nothing else. Three reasons. They are used by the VAST majority of professional shooters. If you apprentice or second shoot for one of them you can share lenses. They are readily available as rentals which, with your budget, is key. (Try to rent a pentax DSLR accessory or more importantly backup body.) And finally, sad as it may seem, some customers expect you to use one of the two. I will add that none of the also-rans have bodies to compete with the top of the line Nikons or Canons not to mention lens systems. You do not need those bodies now but you may in the future. </p>

<p>Now. You need a consumer mid-zoom. You are far to inexperienced to get into some nonsense about the quality of primes versus telephotos and your budget doesn't support a large lens selection. The 35 or 50 1.8 would be nice but you need more reach so get perhaps an 18-200 or something like it. Remember you said you want to be a professional? Take this to the bank. The most important thing you can do now to prepare to be a professional is practice with your flash lighting. So a minimum of $300.00 of your money is going to go to a good flash. You can't do ANY professional work with the on-camera flash and you must MASTER flash to do ANY professional work. Buy photoshop if you don't have it. Learn to use it really well.</p>

<p>Get a good Nikon or Canon body and the lenses above. Continue to read and go to seminars. Join a camera club if you have one nearby. Find a retired photographer and ask him/her to mentor you. Don't talk gear with them. Talk lighting and composition. A good pro can shoot a fabulous wedding with a Rebel or D40. Or a Speed Graphic as some used to. (Remember to wet the flash bulb base. Just keep the next one in your mouth.) </p>

<p>Good professional photography is 70% skill and training, 10% equipment and another 70%:) business skills. Assuming that you are not ready to market your skills yet, call that 20% business acumen.</p>

<p>So to summarize. You can't go wrong with a used 40D or D90, a wide range consumer zoom, a 50 f1.8 (or 35 f1.8 in the Nikon line if you want) and a good Canon or Nikon flash. You can rent or add lenses as you can afford them. Forget about MTF data (I don't know any pros who pay any attention to that) forget resale value (you will not be reselling your camera for a long time because if you go pro you absolutely need a backup body) and forget the wow factor. Get this basic kit and start taking pictures. Give yourself assignments, attend seminars and read books. Perhaps the most important thing you can learn to do is learn to see light and look at every one of your pictures when it comes out of the camera. Study the results. Ask yourself how it could have been better on EVERY shot. It is easy to get careless with digital. It is easy to go looking for the one good shot out of the hundreds you take. This is not a luxury a professional can rely upon. When you know how and why you took every shot in your camera from the technical aspects of the shot to the artistic ones then you can be a professional. And then we will discuss how to get gigs. </p>

<p>My niece is starting out in 'serious' photography only this year (she's a part time National Park Ranger and almost a college grad.). I sold her very cheaply my 10D I bought almost 7 years ago. However, I would not recommend anyone with a decent budget that is looking at a Canon DSLR to go below their 40D. 40D and newer are WAY SO MUCH NICER bodies than their predecessors.</p>

<p>A very well taken care of 40D can be had for under $700 leaving you cash for some nice glass.</p>

<p>In any case, from my POV, Canon or Nikon is all good. Were I you I would choose what my possible mentors or photo friends shoot -- that brand.</p>

<p>Lee Richards: Thank you for your excellent post that addressed my original question so well. I appreciate the candid view of photography world you've provided. I think I'm quite a ways off from being able to market my skills, but I wanted to take a moment to get a good look of road ahead before laying out a considerable (for me) amount of money.</p>

<p>I'd been trying to find the best deal to optimize my available dollars. While it is an interesting subject, I've had my fill of comparing lens sharpness and distortion numbers at this point. I had not paid much attention to flash photography up til now, so your advice is quite timely. Would a Nikon SB-600 or Canon 430EX II be sufficient to start with, or would it be worth the extra money to buy a used version of a more expensive model?</p>

<p>By the way, I'm curious about this point you mentioned, why would you wet the base of a flash bulb?</p>

<p>Lee's post certainly addresses a few vital points. But in the selection Nikon<->Canon, I feel one major piece of advice is getting overlooked a bit in the discussion on what make nice offers:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You should choose your system (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, whatever) based on what feels best in your hands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very first reply. Did you go to a store and hold bodies, tried them a bit and checked how they feel in your hand? Seriously, the noise figures of a D60 versus D3000 or 2nd hand value of a EOS 30D are really not important, but a camera that feels right and logical is.<br>

If a camera does not fit your hand properly and does not make sense in the way it's operated, it will just never work for you the way a good camera can. This is a personal thing, and no test report or internet forum can tell you which camera is right for you in this respect.</p>