Help my girlfriend decide

BETA.

BETA.

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
2,906
Hello all,

My girlfriend wants to start getting into photography and she started to look into some cameras. Her first choice was a Nikon D40, but I knew she wouldn't be 100% on her choice so I told her maybe she'd be better off researching what camera she should get for a beginner. I threw out some other choice and my suggestion was a Rebel XTI. She looked a bit more into cameras she's narrowed it down to a Nikon D5000 or a Rebel XSI. Ultimately though we're still not sure what a beginner should start out with so I come to you guys for some direction. What would be a good/practical choice for a starter camera/kit for somebody who wants to get into photography?
 
My wife was looking into getting a DSLR to practice and mess around with. After doing a little research we narrowed it down to three. Keep in mind, budget played a big roll in this research, as-well.

Pentax K2000 - 10.2megapixel - 18-55mm kit lens - $500

Nikon D3000 - 10.2 megapixel - 18-55mm lens - $550

Canon Digital Rebel XS - 10 megapixel - 18-55mm IS Lens - $500

Those three we found performed very well.

EDIT: Also, the thing to remember is the camera, for the most part, is the CHEAPEST part of photography. Fancier lenses can be stupid expensive.
 
Last edited:
from the Nikon point of view, i tend to suggest people investing just a little bit more, and getting a camera body with the atofocus motor. there are some really nice cheap lenses that can be picked up that are not AF-S type, and won't autofocus with with d5000/d3000 bodies.

that being said, if your girlfriend's choice is between XSI and d5000, i suggest going to the store to play with both cameras, see which one feels more comfortable, which one fits better in her hands, as well as which menu screen does she like better, because having a camera that's dull and uncomfortable will drive her away from photography.
 
From the Canon side, a Rebel XSi + 35mm f/2.0 is a good start. The 35mm is a good length on a crop camera and fast enough to use indoors in lower light.
 
northrop said:
from the Nikon point of view, i tend to suggest people investing just a little bit more, and getting a camera body with the atofocus motor. there are some really nice cheap lenses that can be picked up that are not AF-S type, and won't autofocus with with d5000/d3000 bodies.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For example I have 2 lenses that will not work on the D5000 that do work on my (now sold) D70s, D80, and current D90. A 50mm 1.8 I picked up for $90. Plus a 70-210mm F4 for $150. On those 2 lens alone I more than paid for the difference in body.

But even if you dont go this rout the D5000 is a great camera, for indoor low light shooting it is amazing for something in its price range.

I cant comment on the Cannon as I am not familiar with it.
 
thanks for the advice all

This auto focus motor built in, what advantages does it offer for photography? I understand that in the long run they're cost effective because you can use cheaper lenses with them as opposed getting a bod with no auto focus motor built in and buying a certain type of lense to get the same effect, right?
 
You will not get better pictures except at the very high ISO range (IE low light). But you will get more than just an AF motor. More controls, easier to use controls, basically you are paying for a little better sensor, AF motor, more options, more control, the top LED on mine is used very few seconds when I am taking a phone and the D5000 will not have this.

But as to your question, the D5000 will take the same picture as say a D90 as long as you have a comparable lens and person behind the camera.

Basically this is a tech forum and many people here will say get the bigger and better. But the truth is get the best you can afford and GO SHOOT! Forget technical specs and learn how to make a photograph.
 
BETA. said:
thanks for the advice all

This auto focus motor built in, what advantages does it offer for photography? I understand that in the long run they're cost effective because you can use cheaper lenses with them as opposed getting a bod with no auto focus motor built in and buying a certain type of lense to get the same effect, right?
Click to expand...
pretty much. all Nikon lenses marked AF-S are equipped with their own Silent Wave Motor. when in use, the camera's atofocus motor (aka. screwdriver) is not not being used. any pro/prosumer AF-S lens will typically focus faster, but any budget lens will focus with about the same speed regardless if its AF or AF-S. AF lenses, as noted, are not equipped with SWM, and require the screwdriver (like the one found on D90) in order to focus. without it, you can still use the lens as usual, but will have to focus manually.

for what's it worth, a D90 + AF 50mm /1.8 D costs less then D5000 + AF- S 50mm /1.4 G.
 
If you want to go the used route, older-higher-end stuff like the D200 can be bought for quite cheap (I got a D200+grip for $735 over a year ago, just make sure to find one that has under 10k shutter actuations is my general cut off number. I'm sure you could could find a D200 w/o grip for like $650). Sure, the ISO performance might be a little worse than the D90, but the hefty build quality just gives the camera a whole new feel that those cheap plasticy cameras just don't have.

Plus, like the D90, the D200 has a built in AF motor, this allows AF for non AF-S lenses (so, with AF-D lenses). The D200's motor is faster than the D90's too. Higher end cameras also give you more dedicated buttons for settings vs. going through the menus on the back of the screen. Change ISO? Hold a button and move the wheel. Change the image quality? Hold a button and move the wheel. etc etc

Lenses? Might want to get a walk around zoom to take just different pictures and get a feel for the focal lengths, and how sucky a slow 3.5-5.6 lens feels. Once you know what she wants to shoots, find a fast prime or two around the focal lengths she uses the most. For me I like the portrait-ish range, so I found the Bower 85mm/1.4 Manual focus lens new for $350. Sharp when things are in focus, and beautiful bokeh, really great deal (especially nikon's AF version is over 3 times as much), great build quality too.

That's my $0.02. And even if you have to pay a couple hundred more, you're also getting quite a bit more, and won't dread not getting enough in the first place.

Other cheap things that I'd keep an eye on would be the Nikon 35-70 2.8 AF-D. Not as sharp as the 28-70/2.8 nor the 24-70/2.8, but the bokeh quality on this lens is terrific (much better than cheap sigmas/tamrons in the 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 range). AF isn't the fastest, and you'll need a camera with the built in motor for AF to work (it will be manual on cameras w/o it), and it will AF faster w/ the higher end bodies over the D80/90 ones. Front element does rotate so use of polarizers is eliminated, and it's a push/pull style of zoom which is odd for some people. But, what you get, Great 2.8 bokeh, interesting zoom range, AF, cheap! $300-450!)
 
i have a d5000 and love it. i already want to upgrade to a d700's (replacement)
 
Having used the D200 I like my D90 more. Sure I can beat the crap out of the metal bodied D200 but the D90 is so much better. I use ISO 1600 and 3200 every day and the D200 SUCKS at that. D5000 or D90 all the way. Unless you have some very specific need go with D5000 then D90 then D300s then D700.
 
I think the lack of AF motor is not such a big deal any more unless you want to buy older/cheaper lenses. I have a D40 and haven't had that much trouble with it.

- Telephoto? 70-300 VR, 55-200 VR.
- Fast primes? 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4
- Macro? 85mm 3.5, 60mm/105mm 2.8
- Wide? 10-24mm

These are all available in the AF-S variety and so work fine on the D40.

Regarding Nikon, fast primes are probably the main weak point at the moment if you don't have the AF motor, particularly in the wide/normal range. They've just released the 24mm 1.4 but at $2200 it's obviously not targeted at people like me :) Basically, I'm just saying that the lack of AF motor is not that big of a deal from my perspective unless you already have old AF (not AF-S) lenses.
 
Why not look at the Pentax Kx? Small, built in SR for all lenses, and autofocus with all but the oldest primes. Very nice old primes available, and good new DA Limited lenses as well.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top