Which Nikon DSLR will I be the most pleased with?

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I'm looking at buying my first DSLR camera and I'm hoping you can help me decide on which one to get.<br>

I'm a beginner and my goal is to teach myself all about photography while using the camera I will buy.<br>

I have saved around $1000 for my camera/lens and will need to buy the camera bag and maybe a tripod and some filters and maybe a polarizer.<br>

I've been reading many different forums and websites and looking at many different online stores to price them.<br>

No matter what I do, I keep coming back to wanting a Nikon.<br>

At least I narrowed it down that far. Which is a big step for me.<br>

Now I can't decide on which Nikon to buy.<br>

I almost purchased a D40 just on price alone but for some reason couldn't force myself to click submit on the order page. I dont know why, think I was getting hung up on it only have 6 megapixels. I had read Ken Rockwells website and it convinced me that it didn't matter that it only has 6 megapixels.<br>

But who knows, if I am really good I may want to enlarge my photos for my walls in my apartment. <br>

Plus I am not the type of person that likes to spend money on myself, I've been wanting to buy a DSLR for a while and finally decided that I was going to buy one in December 2008 and have been wanting and longing for one all this time. So for me, I better get a good one, and be happy with it, because who knows how long it will be before I save up enough money to buy another one.<br>

Originally I had my heart set on the D90, but didn't have the $1500 to buy the camera/warranty/bag/tripod and extra lens for it.</p>

<p>So then I found the D200 on best buy, the body only is $600.00 and then I started considering that one. Except from what I have read this one doesn't have an automatic mode? I dont' know if that is a good thing or not, since I am a beginner and would like to be able to use the camera right out of the box. I did take 1 photography class and learned about shutter speeds and f stops, but that was 4 years ago, so I have alot to refresh myself on. <br>

Then the D5000 came out. So now I'm just all confused on what one to buy.<br>

So really I'm not sure if I should be looking at the following:<br>

D60, D80, D5000 and D200.<br>

I have to accept the fact that I just cannot afford the D90.<br>

Here are my photography goals other then learning all there is about photography:<br>

Landscapes<br>

Low Light scenes (like city skylines)<br>

portraits<br>

still life<br>

and of course taking pictures of my niece when I visit.<br>

And HDR is fascinating to me as well...<br>

I almost feel like I want it all in for around $1000, is that possible?<br>

I do like the idea of a video mode, because right now I have a point and shoot digital Samsung and it has a video mode, and I use it ALL the time with my niece.<br>

At the same time I do not want too heavy of a camera as I want to want to carry it around. If a camera is too clunky and heavy then I may not want to bring it.<br>

I hope I explained enough of my situation to you all. <br>

Thanks so much in advance. :O) This is a big leap for me and I just want to make the best possible choice for my goals. </p>

 

<p>If you don't own lenses, I'd get the D5000 from what you list.</p>

<p>The others are older cameras with much worse low-light (high ISO) capabilities than the D5000. However, I think you should really try and stretch for the D90. There are too many things that are so much cooler on the D90: CLS control for remote flashes, old AF lens compatibility, two control dials, better display.</p>

<p>A d40 is a very capable camera. The main problem with D40/60/5000 series is they will not meter with nonchipped lenses and they will not autofocus with anything but the lastest line of expensive AFS auto focus lenses. This cuts you out from a whole host of really nice older Nikon glass that will mount and operate, but perform no auto functions. It becomes a meterless manual focus camera. I work mine this way without a hitch, but I don`t recommend for beginners. </p>

<p>For the price of one new AFS lens you could have had a D90. So pay more now, save later big time if you buy more lenses.</p>

<p>A D200 takes credable pics up to 400/800 ISO. That is as fast as film ever was. It is made twice as well as a D40/60. It is close to a pro grade body and all weather sealed.</p>

<p>A fast 35mm lens will make up for any loss of ISO speed. They can be had cheaply. Or you can buy a consumer grade plastic 18/55 zoom that is remarkable optically for the price , but not well made.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I love my D200 but for a beginner an automatic mode would be nice until you get then hang of it. Really though with some basic knowledge you can use the D200 in aperture mode or shutter priority mode and it is pretty easy. The D90 would probably be better as a begginner camera not to mention newer features. The advantage to the D200 would be the weather sealed metal body and you could spend the additional money on a better lens. Good glass has a much larger impact on image quality than the body, IMO.</p>

<p>hi deb,<br /> actually, the d40 is an excellent beginner's camera and it's small and light = easy to carry. you can always upgrade the body down the line.</p>

<p>i dont think the megapixels are that big of a deal, actually. and video on a DSLR is a bit overrated IMO, at least the current generation. the d200 is a good deal right now, but if you dont want a heavy camera that's not the one.</p>

<p>and at the price the d40 is currently going for ($550 at ritz with 18-55/55-200) you would be able to get a tripod, flash, camera bag-- and a nikon 35/1.8 --and still be under $1000.</p>

<p>fyi, low-light skylines are usually shot on a tripod at base ISO with long exposure times, so high-ISO capabilities doesnt matter that much for this type of shooting. a fast prime is a good idea for handheld low-light stuff, since the kit lenses have slowish variable apertures. everything else you should be able to do with kit lenses, at least on a basic level--high-performance/specialty lenses cost a lot, but why worry about that now when you're just starting out?</p>

<p>if you look at the nikon WeDnEsDaY pic thread, you will see fantastic shots with all kinds of nikon cameras. my favorite from last week was taken with a d40, so that should tell you something. at this stage it's more important to learn technique and composition than to have the absolute best equipment possible.</p>

<p>good luck!</p>

<p>Deb, for your $1000 you can have this...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/INKD90KR.html">http://www.adorama.com/INKD90KR.html</a></p>

<p>I think that would be a great starting point for you and would give you a lot of room for growth with your camera. Other lenses will follow as you find out what you really enjoy shooting.<br>

Good luck!<br>

Dick</p>

<p>Deb -<br>

You'll get all sorts of response from folks with opinions, myself included. One thing I would encourage is to go to a store where you can hold and fuss with each model. You would be amazed how different each one fits and feels. Don't get too intimidated with models, just try a couple at your price point and see which works best for ya.<br>

1. Slight bias here; the D200 is my main camera. It of course won't do video, but it is a rugged beast. With a 50mm AFD, F1.8 lens for $110 it can't be beat as a very capable, super-image-quality camera with which to start. It has all the bells and whistles you would grow into. Including the CLS flash stuff which works great for me with my grand daughter. (But, that's more $$$ too)<br>

2. Brian, the P mode is 'automatic', per se ... basically it's point and shoot in that mode.<br>

3. You will find that it has more than enough Mpxls to do decent 16 x20's in my opinion. I use a tripod a lot, as I'm an old, shaky geezer.<br>

4. If I'm not mistaken, the video mode on these new Nikons is manual focus only, not auto focus. I'd bet you would come to hate that and find it less than a desirable advantage. Anyone chime in if I'm incorrect on this.<br>

5. The only great advances in the new bodies that would appeal to me would be the better noise performance under low light and the live view.<br>

I think, you will find whatever you get will work fantastically. And, as with all things, you will eventually want to upgrade, upgrade upgrade ... just don't be a 'guy' about it. It's you taking the photo, the right tool just makes it easier. Good luck!<br>

Your mileage may vary,<br>

Jim M</p>

<p>D90 - it's a great camera, with good low-light performance, enough resolution hat you'll not need to think about it, and Video to play with. Plus, while it can be used as a point and shoot, it has a lot more options for learning than a D40, 50, 5000, etc.<br>

I have a D80, and as much as I want a D200 at the current prices, the D90 has a better sensor.</p>

<p>jim, you make a compelling argument for the d200+50/1.8.</p>

<p>however, i don't think you read the OP's post closely, particularly this part: "At the same time I do not want too heavy of a camera as I want to want to carry it around. If a camera is too clunky and heavy then I may not want to bring it."</p>

<p>the d200 is a LOT heavier than a d40.</p>

<p>sounds like deb is an absolute beginner, and if i were in her shoes, a d40+2-lens kit+35/1.8 would have a gentle learning curve, and bring satisfaction for years to come. plus she'd be able to afford a tripod and flash from the jump. not everone who is just starting out needs a 'rugged beast'; and just having one fixed-focal length lens on that beast might be quite limiting in practice.</p>

<p>for instance with a 75mm equiv. focal length, family group shots would be challenging to say the least, which wouldnt be the case with the 18-55. also IMO 75mm is just a bit short for portraits, whereas the 55-200 covers the entire portrait range and gives you a bit of reach for far-away shots. and, were deb to get the 35/1.8, she'd also have a sharp lens for low-light at a much more usable focal length on DX. honestly, i think those three lenses and a d40 would be enough for the type of photography deb says she wants to do, at least until she decides she also needs a more specialized lens or two.</p>

<p>Deb.... My suggestion is a used D40 and 18-55mm lens kit from a <em>reputable</em> eBay Seller or locally via Craig$li$t. Should easily find camera and lens for $350. Adorama has Nikon-refurbished kits for $375 with free shipping (my friend just ordered one yesterday). Down the road it will be a great second body. But for now you will be able to learn learn learn with the D40/18-55 kit. Then with some experience under your belt, you will have a better idea of what YOU need moving forward. Absolutely no need to spend your whole bankroll now.</p>

<p>Look for a used Bogen 3001 tripod to get started. You'll probably upgrade it later, but it will be a nice second/travel tripod then. Should find one with a basic head for $60 or $70, and it will be just fine for your D40 and 18-55. As well as the next lens you should get, the back-ordered 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX lens. If you want some more reach, add the 55-200mm lens.</p>

<p>Starting out you'll also need a 4GB card ($15-20 from Adorama with the camera/lens), and Photoshop Elements. Download the free Nikon ViewNX from Nikon. And start learning! Keep it basic until you start to discover what you like and need.</p>

<p>Hi Deb,<br>

I agree with Jim on going to a store and holing the camera in your hands. It doesn't even have to be a camera store, most electronics stores sell SLRs.<br>

As confused as you are about choosing the camera and reading everyone's advice, another <strong>great source</strong> would be calling stores like Adorama, BH, FocusCamera and speaking with their camera salesmen. I've done that in the past with previous purchases, my students have done that and it makes no difference on the brand that you prefer, the staff is knowledgeable and will answer your questions.<br>

Good Luck and welcome to wonderful world of SLRs :)<br>

Adam</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The D40 is a fine camera, I am still using my D70 and I got a 2nd one late last year second hand. I do low light work so high ISO and action has never been an issue. </p>

<p>I think a D40 and a kit lens is a good way to go. With what you wanna do later on .. a tripod, a macro lens - Tamron 90mm is v good by the way and cheaper than the Nikon, a 85mm f/1.8 can be v good for portraiture too, or likewise the macro lens too I heard. External flash or even studio lights, they are not that expensive either, if you are in the USA you may have Alien Bees which are affordable, we from outside, will have to shell more for others. </p>

<p>A ultra wide angle may be useful, but I think the kit lens may be wide enof to begin. I say D40 + kit lens + in future tripod like a Manfrotto / Bogen and maybe a real macro lens which can be used for portraiture, was told that they are v v sharp. Add a flash or a studio light setup.</p>

<p>Try not to get carried away with equipment. Where I am, we get bi monthly newsletters (free) and there was this person who was self taught who belong to a camera club and now some professional work for weddings. She shoots with a N/F80, Fuji Reala neg film and Velvia slide film, her lenses are a 24-120VR, 50mm and a 70-300, which I can say if that question was raised in this forum the 2 zooms would immediately get trashed. Many would think weddings and pro work may require professional f/2.8 lenses which each goes for ~$1,500US. Doing cityscapes and landscapes myself more than most, I find myself taking the 18-70 than the 18-200 jsut because it is long enof and the quality I think is fantastic. I have a international trip coming up I think I will do with it. I have also seen pictures put to exhbition via our camera club and towards competitions against other clubs and they are really a cheaper dSLR with a kit lens. In our country we only have one distributor of Gitzo tripods which some people can crave about, I enquired about it and they said they don't have that model in, if I order it may take 6 months to get because the distributors needs to import them and in our country they are just not enough demand to keep a supply. I have seen more Manfrotto / Bogen tripods more than even in the professional fields. I think in my 5years as a hobbyist here, I have seen no more than 3 Gitzo's.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

D200 does have "auto mode" P mode it's almost like auto green but it will let you choose ISO and WB I suppose. and it is a very good camera for what your going to be doing. You might also want to consider a D80 I had it for almost a year and it was a wonderful camera took great photos.<br>

Note that D5000 and D40 as well as D40x will not autofocus older lenses without the build in motor.<br>

as to what lens you may want to go with standard kit 18-55 but if you have enough money look at Tamron 17-50 f2.8 it's my walk around lens and I use it for casual shooting as well as landscape.<br>

but whatever you do don't forget about a good tripod it will help you with those night cityscapes.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>If you are serious about photography, I would avoid the cheapest Nikon DSLRs intended for consumers, i.e. D40, D40x and D60. The D5000 is kind of borderline. I would rather opt for something older but has more advanced features such as the D80 or D200, which are excellent deals now.</p>

<p>I'd say spend 50% of your budget on the camera and the rest on lenses. You can gradually accumulate more lenses over time. I am strongly against getting a 50mm/f1.8 to start with. That is a short tele on DX DSLRs and can be a good portrait lens. Otherwise, having one short tele is extremely limiting. Start with a decdent mid range zoom from 18mm to 70/80/100mm and then add more lenses as you see fit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The main problem with D40/60/5000 series is they will not meter with nonchipped lenses and they will not autofocus with anything but the lastest line of expensive AFS auto focus lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The above comment of quite off the mark. Today, there are plenty of affordable and down right cheap AF-S lenses from Nikon and other parties.</p>

<p>Bottomline: only you can tell which camera you will be most please with. Anybody else, including me, can only give you some general guidelines and suggestions. DSLRs are not long-term investments. Most likely, in 2, 3 years you'll upgrade anyway. What you probably don't want is to get something and then you need to upgrade in 3 months.</p>

<p>A D200 for a beginner who doesn't want a heavy camera? You guys aren't exactly in touch with the consumer market here - a Dx00 is great for an advanced user but totally wrong in a case like this.</p>

<p>What you want is one of the smaller Nikons - I used to own a D60 and it's excellent for what you're talking about. The image quality is slightly better than a D80 but the build quality isn't as good - the upside being that it's smaller and lighter. When we refer to the build quality, understand that all of these Nikons are built more robustly than other electronics you own, and if you're reasonably careful with your stuff build quality is not an issue. The only consumer electronics more robust than Nikon DSLRs are the remote controls for car door locks, Kitchen Aid mixers and video game controllers.</p>

<p>A D40 is also great. Ken Rockwell is right about some things, and one of them is that you don't need a heck of a lot of megapixels unless you want really, really big prints. A 10x15 from a D40 is 200DPI which is plenty. It's very light and small and the interface is simple and quick for a beginner to get used to.</p>

<p>I've tried a D5000 in a store and not been impressed. For the money, it just doesn't seem like enough - if that's what you've got your eye one, save a while longer and go to the D90. The D5000 seems like a slightly less robust build than a D60 - they had to make compromises the get the flippy screen, which is a bit too gimmicky for my taste. Meanwhile it's not that much less money than a D90, but it's a lot more money than a D40/D60 while doing a somewhat, but not spectacularly, better job at the core function of a camera, which is to help you take photos. It also has the same lens compatibility profile as the D40/60 and ships with the same kit lens. My feeling about it is: feature bloated like they got help from Microsoft. So they'll sell a ton of them.</p>

<p>For the video, keep the Samsung camera. The issue is that DSLRs that shoot video can't use autofocus while in video mode, so you have to manually focus the lens constantly as you shoot. I've tried shooting video of kids with a D90 and ended up pulling out my Canon SD500 pocket camera for it.</p>

<p>For what you want to do, and $1000, here's what I'd recommend:<br>

D60 kit Adorama combo with 18-55VR, 4GB card, extra battery, case, $600<br>

OR the same thing with a D40, $500<br>

(Note than a kit like this with a D5000 is $910 - not worth it when your budget is $1000. Note also that the $600 for the D60 option would buy you a D200 body only, and it wouldn't take better pictures.)<br>

Some respectable but not pro level tripod with head, $150-200<br>

Keep the extra $200-350 and decide what the next thing to buy is after having the camera for a month. One possibility would be a flash (so you can use bounced or diffused flash to shoot the family indoors). Between the flash and the tripod you'd do fine in low light. Another possibility would be a 35mm f/1.8 lens (wait for them to go back in stock at $200, don't pay scarcity pricing).</p>

<p>Don't buy a Mack extended warranty - more often than not they tell you that whatever's wrong with your camera is damage that's not covered, and normal use wear-and-tear is not covered, so basically the only things covered are things that were wrong with the camera when you bought it but you didn't notice until after the 1 year warranty ran out.</p>

<p>"If you are serious about photography, I would avoid the cheapest Nikon DSLRs intended for consumers, i.e. D40, D40x and D60. The D5000 is kind of borderline."</p>

<p>shun, why is a d5000 borderline in your opinion? it shares the same liability as the d40/60/d40x--no internal motor. i'd venture to say that 1/500th flash sync speed is a more "pro" feature than live view or a tilting LCD. although the d5000 does have 11-pt AF, it's clearly a consumer camera.</p>

<p>but for a beginner who's just starting out, why wouldn't a d40 be something deb will be able to use for many years? as i noted earlier, the WeNeSdAy thread indicate fine art-worthy prints can be made from just about ANY nikon camera,including the d40.</p>

<p>since budget is definitely a factor, IMO the "bang for the buck" route is the way to go. a pro body and a short tele prime = less bang for the buck than a d40, two zooms, a fast normal prime, flash and tripod.</p>

<p>two years ago i would have agreed with a d80 over a d40, but there are more AF-S and BiM lenses these days, plus the d80 has been obsoleted as well. it's really only a better choice if you plan on using older lenses, which would be quite premature at this stage of the learning curve for someone just jumping into the DSLR world. the d40 is also smaller than both the d80 and d90, and you can't improve your photography if you're not carrying your camera because it's too bulky.</p>

<p>"A D200 for a beginner who doesn't want a heavy camera? You guys aren't exactly in touch with the consumer market here - a Dx00 is great for an advanced user but totally wrong in a case like this."</p>

<p>yeah, i had to roll my eyes at this suggestion too. "forget what you want. i'll recommend what i use."</p>

<p>"D60 kit Adorama combo with 18-55VR, 4GB card, extra battery, case, $600"</p>

<p>the d40 with 2 lense deal for $550 is a better one IMO. 55mm just touches the short end of the portrait range. 55-200 covers that and then some. 4gb cards are so cheap nowadays online, why get a prepackaged one (which might be slower and more expensive than one purchased separately)? similarly, why get a kit with a camera bag which might be different from one you'd pick for yourself? but most importantly, a d60 isnt significantly "better" than a d40--it has more mp and active d-lighting but slower sync speed and worse high-ISO noise. the d5000 is better spec-wise than a d40 but i'd still rather have two lenses covering 18-200 (and a 35 prime and a tripod and a flash) vs. one body with a tilt-screen lcd and video with one zoom covering 18-55.</p>

<p>BestBuy is offering the excellent D-200 for US$599:<br>

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=L5NDQECIQG1WTKC4D3FVAHA?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=d200+body&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960<br>

B&H for used glass:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=3018&shs=&at=Mount+Type_Nikon+Autofocus&basicSubmit=Submit+Query</p>

 

<p>The 1/500 sec sync speed is a huge negative because that is achieved with an electronic shutter, which leads to blooming issues. That is why none of the higher-end DSLRs uses an electronic shutter and therefore none of them has flash sync faster than 1/320 sec (unless you get into FP sync).</p>

<p>I wouldn't get a D40/D60 because of the poor viewfinder, no on-demand gridline in the viewfinder, no depth of field preview, no live view, and no commander mode on the flash. In these days you can get a D80/D200 for $500 to $600, it doesn't make sense to compromise on so many of those features any more unless you are a very casual photographer and have no plan to move up. The D5000 has the swivel LCD with live view that solves some of those issues but still shares some of the low-end limitations.</p>

<p>Eric- You're right, the D40 2 lens kit at that price makes a compelling argument for itself. I didn't see that deal. My only concern would be, is it a non-VR 55-200? That's pretty slow for a non-VR tele.</p>

<p>I think the D200 is a great buy currently. I own one and can promise you it is a heavy camera. It really comes down to the D60 or D5000 if you want a current Nikon camera at that price, and is not real heavy. The D60 does not have vidio. I wonder about the vidio thing anyway since it is a manual focus feature. A friend of mine has a Sony A350 DSLR (14mp) and it is real nice. It has no problems about what lens it will take. Basically it will accept any Minolta or Sony auto focus lens ever made (A mount). I think at BHPhoto you can get one for $699.00 with a kit lens and that would leave you money for a tripod, camera bag and a memory card. A good kit capable of quality photos. It will have program mode and all the other modes as well. No vidio.<br>

I would avoid the refurbished D90. It is a used camera with a 90 day warranty. New camera's have a 1 year warranty.</p>

<p>andrew, that's the 55-200 non VR. 5.6 certainly isnt fast at the long end by any stretch. but for low-light landscapes and portraits on a tripod, VR wouldn't matter anyway. and in bright lighting, 5.6 isnt really an issue. i could certainly live with that for $550.</p>

<p>the main thing is that the IQ of the 55-200 is pretty good stopped down and you could do portraits with it. since you're talking about a slow lens no matter what, if i was considering that and on a budget, i'd probably rather spend that extra $100 the VR version would cost on an Sb-400, which wouldnt add much bulk and would allow me to do bounce flash. it would also allow the option of adding a sync cord and moving off-camera, which the built-in flash can't do. VR isnt going to help with moving subjects, and for sharp landscapes, you want to be on a tripod anyway. plus the 55-200 is pretty compact, so you can probably get away with 1/200 handheld at 200mm in good light.</p>

<p>shun makes some excellent points, however, i dont think he is quite looking at this from a beginner's perspective. a d80 for $500 is certainly a better deal than when they cost $1000 body only, and the two control wheels, better AF and wider lens compatibility are certainly desirable features for intermediate photographers, and lessen the time before one would conceivably outgrow that camera.</p>

<p>still, when you're on a budget and looking at $500 for just a body vs. $550 for a 2-lens kit, the bang for the buck options might make more sense now, rather than planning for a couple years down the line. in two years, you'll be able to get a d90 for $500, so i dont know if planning to nurture a d80 for that amount of time makes sense.</p>

<p>i think it comes down to two schools of thought:</p>

<p>1) buying an incomplete kit with an intermediate-to-advanced body (d80, d200) with a steeper initial learning curve. plus you still have to buy lenses and accessories for it.</p>

<p>vs.</p>

<p>2) getting a complete beginners kit (d40/18-55/55-200/35/sb-400) with a gentle learning curve.</p>

<p>since there will be newer bodies and better prices on old bodies by the time one is ready to move up, i don't think the low-end limitations will be as limiting, at least not initially. even if one moves up to pro-caliber, exotics and specialty lenses, the kit lenses are nice when you want to go light and compact. if that's a factor in even getting out there and taking pics in the first place, that has to be weighed accordingly. and if a casual photographer wants to turn serious, they may want to upgrade to a prosumer body like the d90/d300 anyway when that time comes. i dont see anything wrong with recommending a d40 to a beginner who's used to a P&S. in many ways, it's the perfect camera for the OP's stated criteria at this time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I went from film to a D300. In retrospect I should have got a D90 because most of the variables are covered in the scene settings. Now that these are in a cheaper body with the same sensor as the D90....ie the D5000, get that. Once you find the presets are insufficient and you have grasped enough digital expertise, then maybe buy a nice used D300.</p>

<p>The camera is the least important thing. The lenses are the most important. The Nikons 18-55mm VR & 55--200mm VR are decent for the money. I bought the 18-55mm VR for $113 and the 55-200mm VR for $150 on E Bay recently, by being patient. That would leave you $$ to buy a polarizer, decent tripod, camera bag, and a decent flash (such as SB-600.) I do agree with Shun about buying a used D80 though. I have one, and its viewfinder is very good, and much easier to use than the one on the D40. It's easier to photo something when you can actually see it. D80 will also give you more lens options. I'm not sure the D40 has a DOF preview button which the D80 does. That too is a big help. So, another vote with Shun for the D80. A used one will maintain your budget.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>This question was always bound to ignite some controversy!</p>

<p>So Deb, first thing to say is that there isn't a bad choice - each person has their own preference and each model is good within the feature and price point that it is designed for.</p>

<p>My only input is as follows - there is a point in the model line-up where 2 important features arise (which incidentally have nothing to do with fine details about image /sensor quality etc).</p>

<p>The first of these features is that the camera body you buy has an AF motor in it, which means you are not limited to what lenses you can use on it. More specifically, this means that the body will allow you to learn with many prime lenses (including the cheap but excellent 50/1.8) rather than just the couple that have been recently released as AF-S (which means they have their own focus motor in the lens).</p>

<p>The second of these features is even simpler again which is the existence of 2 control wheels on the camera rather than one - which means that IF your intention is to learn photography properly, and to potentially move on to more advanced models, you will have an initial camera that gives you the same style of manual control over aperture and shutter speed. I'm not saying the 'lower' models don't give you this control, its just that they are set up more to preference the auto modes of shooting so the control isn't as immediate and is more buried in menus etc rather than right at your fingertips.</p>

<p>So I guess while I respect what people like Eric says, I don't totally agree. But bottom line is your own reason for buying the camera. If you want just good images, but to operate it primarily automatically with perhaps a little ability to do manual stuff then the D40, D60 or D5000 would be excellent. However if you want a camera that will start you thinking and learning on the track towards more advanced photographic techniques and tools, then D80 or D90 should be your starting point.</p>

<p>Oh and one final totally subjective thing - I started with D80 and it was not too much of a jump nor a steep learning curve. Nor is it a massive camera.</p>

<p>Deb: <br>

Here's an old photographer's story:<br>

A photographer attended a dinner party where he presented his portfolio. After reviewing his work the hostess remarked, "These are wonderful pictures, you must have an expensive camera." The photographer just smiled. <br>

After dinner, the photographer remarked, "That was a delicious meal. You must have expensive pots."<br>

Too many of us (myself included) get hooked on the latest technology. There are thousands of terrific images taken with simple point and shoot cameras. There are even more really poor images taken with top end Nikons and Canons. At the end of the day, the best camera in the world is the one that you have with you.<br>

I have an old Nikon D100 that you can have for free. The LCD has a small crack, but it displays the pictures just fine. The D100 was a cutting edge prosumer body in its day, but now it is probably on par with the D40! I'll also throw in a cheapo Nikkor 70mm - 200mm zoom. Learn on that. Stay away from the equipment forums for a bit and study the pictures from the top rated photogrpahers on this site. Develop your eye and technique first. Post your pictures and ask for critiques.<br>

If you really get into it, there will be lots of time to spends thousands of dollars in the future. <br>

Shoot me an email if you are interested. Good luck.</p>