# camera people! HELP!



## katt (Jun 20, 2009)

so i have been oggling a new camera for a while now, months actually. i told myself by july i would pick one out.

i love my point-and-shoot, but i really want something that takes higher quality photos, and i love photography so getting into a new hobby like a d-slr camera sounds like something i would really be into.

but which one? i first thought i wanted to spend no more then $650 for a kit. i was looking at some of the lower nikons (d40 ect)

but then i fell in love with a nikon d 5000. a $850 camera.

what i need to hear, from someone NOT trying to sell me something is what ya'lls opinion on D-SLR cameras (think ive decided on a nikon, although i would look at any other brand). whats good for a starter. whats to much

oh, and here is the link to the Nikon D-5000 for amazon

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00267S7TQ


----------



## JadeIcing (Jun 20, 2009)

LOL! I just posted it too! We got it in at work and I played with it!:inlove:


----------



## undergunfire (Jun 20, 2009)

Ryan got me a Canon Rebel XSi for Christmas this past year and it is amazing. I had a crappy Sony Cybershot beforehand. I could NEVER take good pictures of the animals, rats especially. Forget taking good pictures in general, haha.

Now my Rebel takes just awesome pictures and these are pictures....pictures good enough for me to get enlarged, framed, and hung on my walls. I got the kit for $700 (err...$750, can't remember). I later bought a zoom lens from Target from the leftover wedding gift cards.

The lady who shot our wedding uses Nikons and I think that the photo quality of her shots compared to what I've shot with my Canon was just....not even compareable. I would have much rather handed her my Rebel.


----------



## aurora369 (Jun 20, 2009)

My boyfriend and I got a Nikon D-90. It is awesome.

The biggest reason that we went for a 90 and not a 40, was the fact that it has a much better auto-focus system. Most new lenses have the motor in the lens, but the old ones don't. So if you want to buy a used, older but still really good quality lens, then you need to manual focus all the time the the 40. With the 90, it has an auto-focus motor in the mount, so you can use all the old lenses and have the auto focus work.

I am not familiar with the 5000, because it wasn't out when we bought our camera, but I think it is pretty similar to the 90.

We felt that the D-90 body would last us the longest as we got more into photography. We felt we would out-grow the D40 too quickly. 

--Dawn


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Jun 20, 2009)

Grr.. I lost my post. Will have to retype.


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't have any time to comment right now, but here are some more links...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000/users-guide/index.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/


----------



## okiron (Jun 20, 2009)

I'd start with a d40 or rebel and then work from there if you're a beginner.


----------



## katt (Jun 20, 2009)

thanks for all the help guys!

im still unsure. i want a camera that i wont be like "well this is cool, but i'm ready for an upgrade" in a years time. the D40 just seems like i would

but i am giving consideration to both sides of it. i like the D5000, but would it be better to keep saving up and get the D90? or should i start smaller and go for the D60?

your links helped a lot stan. i only gave them a quick going over right now, later tonight i will dive wicked deep into them. can i ask what camera you are currently using?

i still have 3 more camera shops in my town that i want to go to an talk with the people there. i don't want to rush into buying something untill i know for sure what i want


----------



## MikeScone (Jun 20, 2009)

You can't go wrong with one of the Nikon DSLRs. 

The D40 is very small and light, but as noted you are limited to the internal motor lenses. That's not really much of a problem if you're just starting out, since you won't have any of the other sort and you'll just have to make sure you buy the right sort when you add lenses to your kit. 

You might want to look for a used D50, too. That was Nikon's earlier "starter" DSLR, before they introduced the D40. It's similar in function to the D40, but will use the no-motor lenses. If you think you might be looking at picking up some more lenses, either older Nikon lenses or lenses from their professional (i.e. expensive) series, or lenses from second tier suppliers, then being able to use any Nikon-mount lens (at least, any lens with a CPU) would be a plus. 

I'm not familiar with the D5000, as it's very new. The real expert on Nikon cameras is Ken Rockwell. His website is located at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm I would take a good look at his reviews of all of the cameras you're interested in. He likes the D40 and the D90, for what it's worth. 

His conclusion on the D5000? "The D5000 doesn't offer anything much more than the D40, but costs twice as much. I'd get the D40, or go the short rest of the way to the far superior D90. "

The D90 adds a lot of features which you might, or might not, use. You might want those someday, but probably not as a beginner. It depends on whether you think you're likely to get seriously into photography down the road or if you're just looking for higher quality snapshots. If it's snapshots, then the D40 will be more than adequate. Save the money now, and later on, you can upgrade to whatever Nikon's offering then. 

If you do get serious, you'll very quickly have more money in lenses than in the body. The good thing about the Nikon line is that any lenses you buy for the D40 will work perfectly well on any Nikon DSLR all the way up through the $4,000 D3, so you won't lose your investment if you later decide to upgrade to a better body. 

For what it's worth, I have a Nikon D300, which I love - but as a "pro-sumer" camera, it's much more than you need at this point. Also, you'll discover that the D40 will have more "point-and-shoot" like modes of operation which are good for a newbie, but which are omitted from the more expensive DSLRs. (The flip side is that the D90/D300 will allow many more manual adjustments that would just confuse you as you get started). 

The difference between the Nikon and Canon products are really more of preference than quality. They're both exceptional. You wind up using the brand you get used to (or which you friends have, so you can borrow lenses, which is how I started with Nikons thirty-plus years ago).


----------



## okiron (Jun 20, 2009)

*katt wrote: *


> thanks for all the help guys!
> 
> *im still unsure. i want a camera that i wont be like "well this is cool, but i'm ready for an upgrade" in a years time.* the D40 just seems like i would
> 
> ...


Story of my life lol. Though personally, I rather say that than "oh darn, all this money wasted and I'm really not that into doing this anymore"


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Jun 24, 2009)

*katt wrote: *


> can i ask what camera you are currently using?



I grew up with Nikons. I have a Nikon FE, a Nikon F2S, a Nikon D200, and a Nikon D300. The first two are film cameras and hadthe Nikon F2S for 35+ years and it still works.

I spent most of my money on quality lenses now, as camera bodies keep changing, and over time the prices willdrop on the cameras. You don't lose your investment on the lenses though.



*Amy* - Could we see some of the pictures from the photographer at the wedding?


----------



## undergunfire (Jun 24, 2009)

*Pet_Bunny wrote: *


> *Amy* - Could we see some of the pictures from the photographer at the wedding?



They are embarrassing :nerves1. She totally ruined our wedding pictures. I think she either didn't know how to use her camera, didn't care, or just totally sucked all around. It's pretty sad when her pictures look just like all the pictures that my family shot. She put no artistic element into them. I haven't looked at them since we got them. One of these days I will have to go through them and do whatever editing I need to do to them to make them look somewhat okay.

Of course, I was going to bring my Rebel to the wedding so I could shoot my own pictures....and I left it at home and realized it when I got to my wedding.

It's really terrible. I cried for weeks. I guess that is what we get for hiring someone who seemed good. I've seen some of her work and it is really great....but she just "ditched out" on our wedding shots.


----------



## Pet_Bunny (Jun 24, 2009)

That is terrible when a hired photographer spoils an event of a lifetime.If she was really a professional, she should of known her camera inside and out. I just hope no one else has problems like that.


----------

