Which Nikon DSLR will I be the most pleased with?

[rick_m.]

<p>For $779.00 Cameta has a nikon factory demo D-80 with a one year warranty. The kit includes the 18-55 vr and the 55-200 vr lenses and some other goodies. That leaves you about $200.00 left over for the one accessory that will make you a FAR better photographer and that is often overlooked. I will join Ken in asking you to PLEASE buy a SB-600 flash for $239.00.. If you cant swing the extra 40 bucks get an SB400 flash but the 600 is much better. </p>

<p>Photography is the mastering of light. No single skill so defines the professional as the ability to use artificial as well as natural light. The on-camera flash is fine for the occasional fill shot outdoors or to blast the four grinning party goers in your living room but a good flash will allow you to take your photography to a whole new level. And really learn how to use it. Read ALL the books. Ask your professional friends. Learn to use commander mode and experiment with remote flash. It is great fun and will really open up new possibilities for you. </p>

<p>While it is true that the D80 will work with old nikkors you don't have any so that is of little consequence. Those of us who have a stable full of the excellent old Nikon glass appreciate that feature but it would not be very smart to start buying obsolete glass at this point. However. Some excellent third party lenses require the motor so it is best to have it. </p>

<p>The 10 MP of the D80 is for all intent and purpose indistinguishable from the 12 on the D90/300. The difference you will see is negligable. As for the low light capability of the newer cameras that is an issue. It is not so big an issue as many would like you to believe. You will not find yourself shooting at 3200 ISO all that often. </p>

<p>The main thing is for you to pull the trigger and get going on this. With this rig there is virtually nothing you can't shoot. Have fun and enjoy the trip. </p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I'd say Raymond's generous offer is your best bet by a mile. Get a couple of decent lenses, a flash, and upgrade the body when you feel ready for it.</p>

 

[glockman99]

<p>I have a Nikon D70 that I'm pretty happy with, as MY first DSLR.</p>

[deb_z]

<p>Thank you to everyone for all your posts, I appreciate everyone taking the time and energy to reply. <br>

Raymond, that is very generous, I sent you an email.<br>

I'm so excited and can't wait to get started. I go to work every day (in an office) and photography is all I can think about and I will finally be able to get started on this journey and I am so excited.</p>

 

[mmene]

<p>Too many very good and almost excellent photographers use old models like D70, D70s and D100 shooting little masterpieces. So get a low budget camera/lens and many books about photography and digital photos. Then go on shooting as most as possible.<br /> <br /> THE EYE BEHIND THE CAMERA IS THE SOLUTION, NOT THE CAM IT SELF.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Raymond. Your offer is very kind and generous. I hope she takes you up on it. I had a D100 until recently which is now being used by a new photographer to take wonderful pictures. I published thousands of photos from the camera and many remain some of my favorites. She is fortunate to have a mentor like you. You are a good man.</p>

<p>There is an old Irish saying...May God plant a flower on your head. </p>

[ron_scubadiver1]

<p>D90+35mm f/1.8. Eat hot dogs to save the extra $200.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Some very good advice here. I'd like to remind you that the money you save on the camera should be spent on making prints. There is no online substitute for holding your own photograph in your hands, and tacking it on the wall. Too many photographers start out today getting a high end camera, and then never learn what it takes to make a good print you can share with other people. You don't need an expensive printer. Find a good lab and do uploads or take the photos in on a flash drive. Print your favourites at least 8.5 X11. Put them up someplace you can see them, and you'll begin to figure out what works for you in a photograph.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>Dpreview.com has a buyers guide. it is very helpful.</p>

[eyad_mansour1]

<p>Agree with Ron; D90 + 35mm f1.8 would be my personal best bet. Reasoning:<br />1- You will save on a flash due to the fast f1.8 + excellent ISO performance.<br />2- SIZE; a most important aspect is being able to take the camera everywhere. D90 is reasonably small.<br />3- Kit lenses end up being shelveware, and with virtually no resale value. The 35 mm will probably be on your camera most of the time, even after you get more lenses.<br />Please remember, a D90 is really a D300 in a lighter, more feature rich body; without all the weather proofing.<br />Get a nice small carry bag to keep it with you all the time; take lots of pics, share them with us, and be prepared to hear a lot of advice!<br />In my case, I have the D300 + 24-70 f2.8 + 70-200 f2.8 + 24 f2.8 + 50 f1.4 + 85 f1.8 + SB-900 main flash and SB-600 as Back-up Flash. <br />Believe it or not, when I am out and about with my kids on our pass time, the 24 is mounted on the D300, and the 50 f1.4 is always in the bag. The rest of my expensive glass gets deployed only in professional gigs!<br>

In retrospect, I wish I had recieved such sound advice and generous offers like Raymond's; it took me quite a wile and lots of $$$ until I got to know what I really wanted. So, take Raymond up on his offer, I am sure 6 months down the road, you will probably re-donate the same kit to a new comer, when you have had your experience and decided what you really wanted.<br>

Good Luck </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Unfotunately, one of the most misleading comments in forums such as this one is "cameras don't matter" and that is repeated over and over.</p>

<p>First of all, certainly no camera is going to automatically make you a great photographer. Regardless of which camera you get, you'll still have to learn all the basics and get critique on your images; that is all good advice. However, digital technology is changing rapidly and each new generation is providing new capabilities that make new frontiers possible. For example, live view is now an integral part for me shooting landscape and macro; it lets you magnify each section of the frame to fine tune the depth of field in a way we could never do as recently as 2 years ago. That feature requires a large, high-quality LCD on the back of the camera, and that is common nowadays.</p>

<p>The D100 happens to be a camera that I am very familiar with. Before I bought mine 7 years ago, I was already very aware of its various limitations. I bought it mainly for learning digital photography and at that time it was the only option that was within $2000. For the 3 years I used the D100, all of its limitations were quite annoying and I switched back to film whenever I had something serious to shoot.</p>

<p>Today, I wouldn't pay money for a D100 any more. However, as a beginner, if someone generously offers one for free, I would certainly take that up and use it to learn the basics. Hopefully in a few months you'll make enough progress and will be back to the market for a better camera again, and perhaps your budget will be a bit higher by then. The good news about digital is that they get cheaper all the time. Even the same budget will go a longer way 6 months to a year from now.</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Hi Deb,</p>

<p>Congratulations on this huge step! A DSLR will change how you view the whole world. :) I admit, I skimmed the posted responses, so forgive any repetition.</p>

<p>My two cents: A D80 and the 50mm 1.4 prime lens. From what I understand, you can get the D80 pretty cheap these days, and I say in additon to the 50mm prime lens, go with the 18-135mm zoom kit lens as well.</p>

<p>It seems the D80 is overlooked a lot, because it doesn't perform as well as the D90 in low light <em>if </em>you use high ISO. If you keep the ISO lower, and use a tripod, you can get great low light shots. I have taken some really fab night shots with my D80. I set the ISO to 100 or 200 and keep it there. I consistently have crisp, clear shots. So, really, the noise issue isn't an issue, at first anyways. Maybe if you were shooting concerts or weddings where you couldn't use flash you'd have to get a camera with better noise control at high ISOs, and while I'm at it, may I recommend you get an external flash too? Onboard flashes are good for emergencies, but you will want an external one for sure. Maybe get that later though...</p>

<p>The D80 does have noise at <i>high</i> ISO's - BUT you can use practically any nikon lens with it (I got a 1989 produced 75-300mm zoom that works beautifully with my D80) - and lenses are intregal to the good photography and there are SO many functions your head will spin. (I just discovered that you can hook it up to your TV and it will play an HD slideshow of your photos on the memory card to music - you can do all this in camera!)</p>

<p>Plus it has an auto setting, so you can use it right out of the box, and it is not too heavy or clunky. It is fast - the only time I miss shots is when I am too slow. I love this camera, and I am learning more and more and more with it every day. Especially with 50mm lens attached.</p>

<p>I really really really think you would be very pleased with a D80. I really do; I love mine, and highly recommend it.</p>

<p>Having said that, go to a store and handle all the cameras you are interested in, and that will help too. One camera will definitely "fit".</p>

<p>Good luck, and congrats again - DSLR's rock! Especially Nikons!</p>

[Two23]

<p>The other two things I like about the D80 is it has the built in electronice viewfinder grid lines. This is a great help in getting shots level. The second thing is it has off camera flash capability built in. Combined with an SB-600 you tremendously expand your ability to control light. Flash isn't something many beginners think about, but once you get rolling you come to understand just how useful it is. Off-camera flash will give an ordinary photo the "pro" look.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[rustys pics]

<blockquote>

<p>For example, live view is now an integral part for me shooting landscape and macro; it lets you magnify each section of the frame to fine tune the depth of field in a way we could never do as recently as 2 years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh! You mean like I can do with the big, bright viewfinder on my 35mm Nikon FM2? About the only thing I see that is better on current DSLRs than my Nikon D70 is better noise reduction at higher ISO. That's it! I'm not a pro shooter by any means but I just can't justify why I would spend $2000 to upgrade. It's the lens, it's the technique, it's the idea behind the camera. Best advice is to get the best one you can afford and <em>Use It!</em><br>

Ken Rockwell is often hated on this forum, and I'll admit sometimes he has a real screw loose. But his advice on cameras is pretty sound. Few who have spent a small fortune on gear will care to agree. But his point is worth considering.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well, the Ken Rockwell site isn't exactly full of information that's going to help experts or pro photographers and fortunately those people usually already know not to follow that advice (because, let's face it, a pro photographer who goes to a job with a D40 kit, SB400 and maybe an Olympus 35RC is going to run into some limitations).</p>

<p>But on the other hand, every day there's a beginner who wants a small camera for taking shots of family and is on a budget, asking which camera to buy on this forum, who ends up with a bunch of people talking about how great a D200 is, though they might be talked down to debating the finer points of a D90 versus a D300. Sure, a D200 is great, if that's what you're looking for. So is a D300 and I've got a D90 and it's damn near perfect, but the beginners who want to take pictures of their family and do some casual hobby shooting don't need all that, and that's what the consumer level cameras are for. The feature set is different because if it weren't people would have to pay too much for heavy cameras they don't need.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>Hi Deb<br>

I bought my first DSLR last year. It was a difficult decision. I came from 30 years experience with film, though; when you say you are a beginner, I assume you are not coming with film SLR experience?<br>

Most DSLR's are very good, and each has different strengths. You can only pick based on specific goals. I had a very strong interest in macro photography in tropical, field situations, and choosing to buy a specific lens (Nikkor 105/2.8 VR) brought me to Nikon and then to a specific camera (D300).<br>

DSLR's are changing very quickly, and each year's models are soon 'out-dated'. I would not buy the same camera now that I bought last year. This is less true of lenses and other equipment, which change less rapidly.<br>

All this change means you can get deals on older cameras, eg D200. Be aware, though, that there is a reason for these lower prices. Since introducing the D3, Nikon has transitioned to a new sensor technology (in D3, D3x, D300, D90, D5000) which has transformed Nikon's standing among serious photographers. I would not now buy a D200 myself.<br>

If you know enough about what you want from lenses, flashes etc, or whether you want to take any particularly challenging photos (eg fast moving sports, indoor subjects without flash, etc) then you should be asking which camera will best suit this specific goal and the equipment you will need. The main reason to use an SLR is to access the interchangeable lenses and other ancillary equipment, not just for the camera itself. If you are just interested in photography generally, and want to get experience with a DSLR, I think you should buy a D40 and get on with it. If you can justify spending more, look at D90/D5000, not one of the older cameras.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i can generally agree with many points made here. i'll summarize: the d80 is a great camera. so is the d90. so is the d200. so is the d300. so is the d5000. etc.</p>

<p>for a beginner, though, i'm not sure there's a better entry-level nikon out there than the d40. there's a reason why entry-level cameras are entry-level. they are aimed at the casual photographer who is just learning dslrs, usually coming from a point and shoot, who wants to be able to take better-quality pictures than what they were getting. if you look at the original post, that describes the OP to a T.</p>

<p>while photo.net is generally a place where there is a lot of helpful advice from experienced photographers who can help folks with complicated technical questions, sometimes i think people get caught up in their own preferences rather than putting themselves in the shoes of someone whose needs are simpler and more basic.</p>

<p>ask yourself: for someone who is planning to shoot in Auto mode for a while, who's not yet familiar with even the P/A/S/M modes, let alone a second control wheel, who would probably be happy with using kit lenses to begin with, do features like depth-of-field preview and compatibility with older lenses even matter at this time?</p>

<p>the OP clearly states the d90 is out of their reach, budget-wise. so why even mention a d300? similarly, the OP mentions she doesnt want a heavy camera. so why bring up a d200 at all? i can see weighing the relative merits of a d40 vs. a d60 vs. a d80 vs. a d5000, but c'mon folks. for an entry-level user, an entry-level camera offers the most bang for the buck.</p>

<p>a budget of $1000 isn't a lot when you consider the price of professional-quality gear. but it's enough to get a complete entry-level kit--a body, 2 zooms, a fast prime, basic flash and basic tripod--which can take that user from beginning stage to "i'm ready to upgrade." that might be 6 months down the line, a year, or two years.</p>

<p>in the meantime, meeting the original criteria--something easy to use, not too bulky, which allows for a variety of basic photographic situations--is really the only thing relevant to this discussion. that's why i honestly dont think the OP can find a better deal out there than a d40+2lens kit for $550, with the exception of a free d100 and a zoom, perhaps.</p>

<p> </p>

[luisarguelles]

<p>Only experience will tell you.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, to learn photography, you need a camera with manual aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control. In that sense it is just as easy to learn with a D40, D80, D300 or D3X. However, I would control the camera manually and understand the effects of those controls. Setting the camera to auto and just shoot is not going to help you learn. In particular, the Depth of Field Preview button is critical for showing the effects of different apertures and so is the spot meter for learning exposure.</p>

<p>The D40 and D60 are fine camera for casual photographers who just want to take pictures. There are too many missing features that any serious beginner is going to outgrow them in a matter of months (hopefully). In no time you'll need to upgrade and of course you'll end up spending more money.</p>

[JeffBryce]

<p>Hi Deb,<br>

My wife uses the D60 & 16-85. She's tiny and she likes the size of the camera in her hands and the range of this lens, which covers 98% of what she likes to shoot. She's great at composition and prefers to hand-hold-- she has a tripod but likes the freedom to move about without it. I bought her various "P" solid & grad NDs but she usually sticks with the Circ Pol & UV because she doesn't want to fuss about with more "distractions". She gets great pictures. Her success, I believe, is because she continues to experiment with what she feels she can control. Perhaps she will want to upgrade someday, but perhaps not. Regardless, her photos can sell.<br>

I recommend going to your local camera shop and finding what feels good in your hands. As you learn you will know what your "ultimate" camera should be-- and you'll likely never buy it! I'd love the D3x but it weighs too much for me. Besides, I'd need to replace the half dozen DX lenses that my wife & I can share. So, I'll stick with my D300 & D70s (for IR).<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

Jeff</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>"to learn photography, you need a camera with manual aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control. In that sense it is just as easy to learn with a D40, D80, D300 or D3X."</p>

<p>i agree with this line of reasoning, but i think a D3X would be serious overkill for anyone upgrading from a P&S who has no familiarity with the nikon system. in fact, i would venture to say a d40 has a much gentler learning curve than a D3x.</p>

<p>" Setting the camera to auto and just shoot is not going to help you learn. In particular, the Depth of Field Preview button is critical for showing the effects of different apertures and so is the spot meter for learning exposure."</p>

<p>well, i've never used the DoF button on either my d80 or d300, so it's perhaps not as critical as you think. IMO there are really two complimentary aspects to learning photography: technique and composition. the first deals with technical knowledge, the second with aesthetic knowledge. you can have all the technical know-how in the world, but if you don't have an eye for a good shot, it doesnt matter much, does it? OTOH, if you have an understanding of what makes a good composition, you can make a good shot with any piece of equipment. of course it helps to know what you're doing. but both technique and composition are essential to anyone's photographic learning curve, and are probably equally important.</p>

<p>i've taken shots with an auto-everything P&S film camera which ended up on the front page of a newspaper's travel section. at that time, i had very little understanding of photographic technique and had never used an SLR. but i knew how to frame a shot correctly and get good results, despite being equipment-limited.</p>

<p>"The D40 and D60 are fine camera for casual photographers who just want to take pictures. There are too many missing features that any serious beginner is going to outgrow them in a matter of months (hopefully). In no time you'll need to upgrade and of course you'll end up spending more money."</p>

<p>the reality is the need to upgrade is going to happen with any sub-professional camera eventually for anyone who becomes "serious." and with the depreciation of digital bodies being what they are today, i'm not sure it makes sense for an absolute beginner who may one day become a serious enthusiast or even pro to get anything over an entry-level body when they're just starting out and don't know exactly what they want to do, except take pictures better than a P&S.</p>

<p>as a music journalist by profession, i was getting photo pit and backstage access back when i had an old Fuji superzoom P&S. so i basically started at a semi-pro level. my learning curve might have been accelerated by the opportunities i was getting, which the average person probably wouldnt have. still, it didnt take long for me to see that, while the fuji was okay for casual use and travel shots, for the concert and event photography i wanted to do, it was inadequate.</p>

<p>in my own experience with DSLRs, i started out with a d80 three years ago. at the time that camera was the top prosumer model, occupying the place a d90 does today. back then, there were a lot fewer AF-S, HSM, and BiM lenses, so lens compatibility was a bigger issue. back then, the d200 was $1600 and there was no d90, d300, or d5000.in retrospect, i'm glad i got the d80 and not a d40 or d200. it was the perfect camera for me at that time. nowadays, my thinking might be a bit different, especially if i was looking at it from an entry-level perspective.</p>

<p>the d80 was a great learning camera for me. i started on auto mode, quickly graduated to "P", then read Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" to learn about aperture and shutter speed in a practical, field-worthy sense. Peterson emphasized using aperture-priority and shutter modes, and using full manual. just looking at the examples in Peterson's book--and lurking on Nikonians and PN--helped me to understand the difference between different aperture settings. so i never had any need to use the DoF preview, though it was available. it took about a year to fully master the d80's learning curve--YMMV--and by then the d300 was out. i found myself wanting to do things which were equipment-limited with the d80, i.e. high-ISO, no-flash shots, so i upgraded.</p>

<p>my point is, had i spent an extra $600 on the d200, i still would have had to upgrade to the d300 eventually. instead of spending that money on a pro body initially, i bought an ultrawide lens, and added several other non-kit 2.8 and prime lenses before upgrading my body. having that year of experience under my belt really made a difference--i might have been overwhelmed at first by a d200. good thing, since there was another learning curve waiting for me when i upgraded.</p>

<p>make no mistake--the d90 is a bit more future-proof at this point than a d40, d60, or d80. but it's also out of the OP's budget, which is actually the biggest concern here. $1000 doesnt buy a lot in DSLR-land these days, but the good news is for that amount, it's possible to get a complete beginner's kit.</p>

<p>sure, a d80 is still a more full-featured camera than a d40, and less limiting in many ways for intermediate/advanced users. but everyone's learning curve is different. essentially, you're assuming deb's learning curve with a d40 will be very short and that she'll soon grown tired of the body, thus necessitating an upgrade. what i'm saying is this could happen even if she goes for a higher-priced camera from jump, in which case she will be starting out with less equipment on which to learn, such as a second zoom lens, a prime, or a flash.</p>

<p>checking prices online, a used d80 with no warranty is $500 at B&H; a refurbed d80 with 90-day warranty is $600 at adorama. (i would personally feel much more confident with a body with full manufacturer's warranty). both of those options are body-only, meaning you'd still have to buy lenses, not to mention memory cards, flash, etc. this is where it gets expensive and budgetary contraints come into play.</p>

<p>getting a d80 for $500 is certainly better than spending $1000 on the same body. but, as i mentioned earlier, in two years time, a d90 will likely be $500--a refurb is currently $800. if that's the camera she'll eventually want--assuming she doesnt decide she does want a pro body like the d300--she can get it in two years for a song while developing technique and compositional skills. in the meantime, i'm not sure she'd be more limited by the d40's lack of a DoF preview and 3-pt AF than by only being able to afford one or two lenses.</p>

<p>when you think about it, getting 2 lenses and a body for $550--leaving $450 in her budget, enough for a 35/1.8 and sb-400+filters, or sb-600--is a pretty darn good deal.</p>

<p>the bottom line is that photography is an expensive hobby no matter what level you start at. anyone getting into it will end up spending more money eventually--that's just the way it goes.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I tried to read this entire thread but my brain began to glaze over from the rambling. But forging on ahead this is what I learned:</p>

<ul>

<li>Deb is a beginner and needs a dSLR.</li>

<li>Raymond Liguori offered a free dSLR and lens, an excellent starter kit for learning.</li>

<li>Deb accepted.</li>

</ul>

<p>I've already forgotten what the other 4,000+ words written since that point in the conversation were about, but they appeared to have been cut and pasted from dozens of other generic camera forum threads.</p>

<p>Deb, best of luck to you and above all, have fun.</p>

<p>Raymond, through the absolute lack of authority not vested in me, you are now semi-officially a photo.net hero, tho' we no longer have those Atlas-holding-globe hero icons.</p>

[terrypittman]

<p>Great post Lex!</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Used D200, cant go wrong.</p>

[cardens]

<p>d40 or d60 both have auto modes and other modes you can play with as a beginner. <br>

No to the d200, its not a starter camera and is heavy to carry around for fun. </p>

<p>My suggestion: d40 or d60 with the 18-55 and 55-200vr. This is a great "starter" system and you will get very nice pictures and learn more about photography without breaking the bank</p>