Recomendation to anybody hunting a low budget DSLR

[carlos_rodriguez3]

<p>I purchased a Nikon D50 for 216 dollars in Adorama two months ago. Since then, just two SLR below 220 dollars have appeared in KEH or Adorama, a D50 for 220 and last week a D70 for 210 in KEH. In this statitistic I am not conidering the D1, because is just too old for anybody<br>

I have monitored both sites for a year and just three cameras of this kind for this price.<br>

Do you want to know whats the average inventory time (from arrival to selling) for this cameras? Less than a week. I check this sites almost every day and this cameras are flying!!<br>

For anybody hunting for rebates like this: visit this sites and purchase fast because many people is acquiring this things</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>A D50 is still a sweet camera for most people who haven't bought the "megapixel lie". If you don't print above 8 x 10, you simply don't need more. Today, though, a D40 is a great budget DSLR at less than 450 brand new with a very decent 18-55 lens. For people moving from Point-and-shoot cameras, it's just awesome.</p>

<p>That said, I have two screwdrive-focus AF lenses, so I'm glad my "low budget" DSLR is a D50, since the D40 can't drive them.</p>

[bokeh man1]

<p>I worked for a magazine for years reviewing cameras. Out of all the cameras I reviewed the D50 is my all time favorite. I owned one myself for a while after doing the review but sold it to get something "better". Now I've just bought another one from ebay for £100 in immaculate condition.</p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>D50 sure is a great camera, had it once, sold it to get D80, couple of years later I bought the D50 back (not the same one). IMO nothing beats it combined with a light prime as always-carry-around-use. Great little beast! I'd recommend it to anyone over the D40's and D60 anytime (having used all of those).</p>

[cano_maga_a]

<p> I have that little marvel and love it !!! <br>

I know it's only 6 MP but I don't need more, even to go beyond 8x10". I've printed 20x24" with no trouble and the little camera is just doing fine. I love how small and light it is compared to some other monsters. I've used it with big, fast glass and I can't get a better value for the money. It does great in low light, and performs well with all my nikon glass without the usual issues with the D40/D60...<br>

I even heard nikon discontinued it when they realised it was a mistake to have such a nice and cheap thing that performs so well with even older lenses, so they kicked more megapixels in the D40 and made the D40x., then the D60, then the D5000. Not bad cameras, but since the old optics don't fit, their user is forced to buy the newer motorized glass at a newer price too... a good marketing trick !<br>

Well, what to say ? Great camera, great price and an entry level thing that can deliver awesome pics in the right hands.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have a D50 and a D60. I think that the D40, while a good camera, is a step down from the D50. The D40's IQ is no better than the D50's and it doesn't AF with all the lenses that the D50 does. The D60 is a different story. It needs motorized lenses, but the Active D-Lighting, auto sensor cleaning, and EXPEED processor are big advances. Most of my JPEG's come out of the camera needing little or no postprocessing. It also has better noise control and a usable ISO 3200. To me, between my D50 and my D60, the D60 wins hands down.<br>

Needing motorized lenses is not entirely a negative. Nikon's AF-S and Sigma's HSM lenses focus noticeably faster than nonmotorized lenses.</p>

[bokeh man1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Needing motorized lenses is not entirely a negative."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it is a big negative. I have a collection of non AFS lenses that cost thousands. They all work fine and take great images so who is Nikon to decide it's about time they are consigned to the scrap heap. I think they probably did this to stop professionals buying the D40 as a backup body. Also it stops any long time Nikon fan from getting on the digital bandwagon with this camera. From AI up to the release of the F80/N80 Nikon was prided for its lens/body compatibility. It's a pity they discarded that philosophy so easily with the D40.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Bokeh Man I agree with you. I even said that the D40 was a step down from the D50 because of the lens issue. I think that Nikon's thinking was that by eliminating the screw drive they could lower the cost of the D40 and make it more appealing to the first time SLR buyer. They figured that current Nikon 35mm SLR users would go for the D80 which took their lenses. From a sales viewpoint, it seems to have been successful.<br />I was, and still am, unhappy with Nikon because there was and still is too big of a price gap between their lower priced DSLR's and those that can AF with nonmotorized lenses. The D60 costs about $475 while the D90 costs about $500 more.<br>

All I meant by not completely a negative is that the lenses with a motor focus faster and to some people, like me, that's a big advantage. One thing Canon users bragged about was that their lenses focused faster because the motor was in the lens instead of in the body like Nikon. It also helped sell a lot of Canons.</p>

<p> </p>