Just when I thought I'd made up my mind...
Discussion
After much head-scratching and perusing the forum, I decided that my next camera would have to be a Nikon D80. Simple, really - all that left to do was to have a think about lenses.
But then I made the mistake of popping into Jessops and my local independent camera outfit. Now I am all of a quandry again!
Normally, these 'what camera' threads look at immediately comparable cameras, but I am now stuck trying to decide what level I want to get in at.
There is the Nikon D80, which is a step up from my current Canon 300D, it's nice and compact, fits my hand well and has a good range of features.
Then I started looking at a Canon 40D and, although it is a bit more expensive, it comes with a great lens (EFS 17-85), it seemed really adaptable, simple to understand and well made.
It only got worse when I had a play with a Sony Alpha A700, which is more again, but really nice to use and had a great feel about it. However, with a good lens, it was a bucket load of cash.
I can just about afford the Sony, but I can't help thinking that spending that much on a camera is not worth it, particularly bearing in mind that I am still a rank amateur at all this. It was jolly nice, though.
Then there is the question of the 40D. That would be a step up the range, rather than replacing the 300D with a similarly adaptable modern version (the D80).
All very confusing. I can't help thinking, though, that I am not going to be the first one to have had this dilemma. I would be so very grateful for any advice you guys have. Thanks for reading.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that I want the camera to be ideal for any particular discipline - the photos I take (albeit not very well) are of just about everything except macro and studio work.
But then I made the mistake of popping into Jessops and my local independent camera outfit. Now I am all of a quandry again!
Normally, these 'what camera' threads look at immediately comparable cameras, but I am now stuck trying to decide what level I want to get in at.
There is the Nikon D80, which is a step up from my current Canon 300D, it's nice and compact, fits my hand well and has a good range of features.
Then I started looking at a Canon 40D and, although it is a bit more expensive, it comes with a great lens (EFS 17-85), it seemed really adaptable, simple to understand and well made.
It only got worse when I had a play with a Sony Alpha A700, which is more again, but really nice to use and had a great feel about it. However, with a good lens, it was a bucket load of cash.
I can just about afford the Sony, but I can't help thinking that spending that much on a camera is not worth it, particularly bearing in mind that I am still a rank amateur at all this. It was jolly nice, though.
Then there is the question of the 40D. That would be a step up the range, rather than replacing the 300D with a similarly adaptable modern version (the D80).
All very confusing. I can't help thinking, though, that I am not going to be the first one to have had this dilemma. I would be so very grateful for any advice you guys have. Thanks for reading.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that I want the camera to be ideal for any particular discipline - the photos I take (albeit not very well) are of just about everything except macro and studio work.
I'm afraid that I can't help a great deal with the choice (I'm looking at getting the 40D if that helps at all), but what is it that you find lacking in the 300D? Knowing that should help those with a greater understanding of all the cameras than I suggest some options.
You must already have at least one Canon lens for the 300D so the Canon upgrade route would seem sensble as you could still use the old lens(es). If there is nothing too serious missing from the 300D that would be fixed by upgrading then why not get additional lenses/flash/other kit for the 300D to give your existing kit more flexibility. Obviously if it is the body that is holding you back in some way then upgrading that makes lots of sense.
Good luck
Alex
You must already have at least one Canon lens for the 300D so the Canon upgrade route would seem sensble as you could still use the old lens(es). If there is nothing too serious missing from the 300D that would be fixed by upgrading then why not get additional lenses/flash/other kit for the 300D to give your existing kit more flexibility. Obviously if it is the body that is holding you back in some way then upgrading that makes lots of sense.
Good luck
Alex
AlexB said:
I'm afraid that I can't help a great deal with the choice (I'm looking at getting the 40D if that helps at all), but what is it that you find lacking in the 300D? Knowing that should help those with a greater understanding of all the cameras than I suggest some options.
You must already have at least one Canon lens for the 300D so the Canon upgrade route would seem sensble as you could still use the old lens(es). If there is nothing too serious missing from the 300D that would be fixed by upgrading then why not get additional lenses/flash/other kit for the 300D to give your existing kit more flexibility. Obviously if it is the body that is holding you back in some way then upgrading that makes lots of sense.
Good luck
Alex
Good question. I am starting to find the 300D a little frustrating - it is ever so slow to start up/wake up. The autofocus is dumber than I am and I would like some more pixels (I like being able to crop details from pictures and still have enough resolution to be happty with the result). It also seems to underexpose anything shot using the point and shoot settings (I don't always have time to set everything up manually and, even then, that sometimes doesn;t work),You must already have at least one Canon lens for the 300D so the Canon upgrade route would seem sensble as you could still use the old lens(es). If there is nothing too serious missing from the 300D that would be fixed by upgrading then why not get additional lenses/flash/other kit for the 300D to give your existing kit more flexibility. Obviously if it is the body that is holding you back in some way then upgrading that makes lots of sense.
Good luck
Alex
I am not too fussed about being able to use the existing lenses (the kit lens is ok, but no award winner and the 70-200 lens I have had since I first bought a wet-film EOS years ago is now making a very alarming squeaking noise.
Apart from that, being a bloke, I fancy trying out a new bit of kit!
Cheers for the reply - enjoy the 40D.
I bought my D80 just over a year ago, and have been extremely pleased with it.
I based my choice on several reviews and also after speaking with Canon & Nikon owners (I was moving over from film). I don't have any experience of other DSLR models.
I bought the 18-135mm 'kit' lens with it which is a fine lens IMO, and have also added a Sigma 10-20 (a stonking lens!) and the Sigma 70-300mm APO to my gadget bag.
I based my choice on several reviews and also after speaking with Canon & Nikon owners (I was moving over from film). I don't have any experience of other DSLR models.
I bought the 18-135mm 'kit' lens with it which is a fine lens IMO, and have also added a Sigma 10-20 (a stonking lens!) and the Sigma 70-300mm APO to my gadget bag.
chim666 said:
I bought my D80 just over a year ago, and have been extremely pleased with it.
I based my choice on several reviews and also after speaking with Canon & Nikon owners (I was moving over from film). I don't have any experience of other DSLR models.
I bought the 18-135mm 'kit' lens with it which is a fine lens IMO, and have also added a Sigma 10-20 (a stonking lens!) and the Sigma 70-300mm APO to my gadget bag.
I guess that's a fair analogy of where I am at the moment - I am happy to switch from Canon to Nikon or whoever. Good to hear that the kit lens is good - that could save a few quid later on.I based my choice on several reviews and also after speaking with Canon & Nikon owners (I was moving over from film). I don't have any experience of other DSLR models.
I bought the 18-135mm 'kit' lens with it which is a fine lens IMO, and have also added a Sigma 10-20 (a stonking lens!) and the Sigma 70-300mm APO to my gadget bag.
Andy M said:
The good news is, you can't make a bad choice.
They're all great cameras so just choose whichever 'felt' the best.
The best 'feel' of the 3 was the Sony (the most expensive, though, by several tanks of unleaded), but that was based on handling them in a shop, rather than getting to know them. The Nikon and Canon seem to have a large following, often polarised in support of one or another, which is always useful when it comes to problem solving or ideas for ways to use the camera.They're all great cameras so just choose whichever 'felt' the best.
I'd love to hear from anybody who has used the Sony in anger. With all the cashbacks etc, it's about £400 more than the Canon (both with decent lenses).
Thanks again.
:NG, Sony make televisions not cameras 
Remember that the body is only part of the system. Yes, you have to be happy with it and it needs the functions you want, but costwise it's a surprisingly small part of a DSLR system. I've done a quick sum and reckon that my lenses are worth 3x the body. Point is, save some budget for, er 'expansion'
Remember that the body is only part of the system. Yes, you have to be happy with it and it needs the functions you want, but costwise it's a surprisingly small part of a DSLR system. I've done a quick sum and reckon that my lenses are worth 3x the body. Point is, save some budget for, er 'expansion'
I recently went through the exact same situation. I killed my old dslr by driving a 4x4 over it and it wasn't in some weird top geare esque stunt.
I wanted something a step up from the beginner end of the market. I ended up with a shortlist of 40d, a700 and d300. I liked the idea of the Sony beacause I had come from a Konica Minolta but everyone I spoke to had a very similar opinion as Simpo, they make good tv's, lol. In fairness the Sony gets very good reviews but the lack of lenses compared to canon,nikon was a deciding factor and the fact that it is still fairly early in the development of the Sony dslr products.
There always seemed to be a camera that was just a little bit more expensive than the current model i was considering at the time. The D300 fitted in at this point. I could have stretched my budget and gone for the Nikon but for the same reason I could have stretched a bit more and got a 5d. So I decided on finding something for about £800 with a decent lens.
The more I read about the 40d made it more of a contender. Most of the example shots that I looked at resulted in the Canon giving a better picture (imo) It just seemed like a relatively straight forward piece of kit that was set out to take a top pic. I tried all of the above in stores and to be honest they all felt fine but the Canon just seemed to tick more boxes for me.
Once I had decided on it, it was a case of finding the best deal I could. Dixons price match anywhere, so after finding a company that sell 'grey' import versions, Dixons price matched (getting the wife to order and play the ditzy card worked a treat). After the cash back offer the 40d plus 17-85 lens will cost about £700. Kepp an eye on the 40d price as it has dropped about £80 in the last week. If I hadn't fleeced Dixons I would be a bit pissed off
Any of the cameras will do a top job, you just have to decide which is best suited to your needs.
I wanted something a step up from the beginner end of the market. I ended up with a shortlist of 40d, a700 and d300. I liked the idea of the Sony beacause I had come from a Konica Minolta but everyone I spoke to had a very similar opinion as Simpo, they make good tv's, lol. In fairness the Sony gets very good reviews but the lack of lenses compared to canon,nikon was a deciding factor and the fact that it is still fairly early in the development of the Sony dslr products.
There always seemed to be a camera that was just a little bit more expensive than the current model i was considering at the time. The D300 fitted in at this point. I could have stretched my budget and gone for the Nikon but for the same reason I could have stretched a bit more and got a 5d. So I decided on finding something for about £800 with a decent lens.
The more I read about the 40d made it more of a contender. Most of the example shots that I looked at resulted in the Canon giving a better picture (imo) It just seemed like a relatively straight forward piece of kit that was set out to take a top pic. I tried all of the above in stores and to be honest they all felt fine but the Canon just seemed to tick more boxes for me.
Once I had decided on it, it was a case of finding the best deal I could. Dixons price match anywhere, so after finding a company that sell 'grey' import versions, Dixons price matched (getting the wife to order and play the ditzy card worked a treat). After the cash back offer the 40d plus 17-85 lens will cost about £700. Kepp an eye on the 40d price as it has dropped about £80 in the last week. If I hadn't fleeced Dixons I would be a bit pissed off
Any of the cameras will do a top job, you just have to decide which is best suited to your needs.
NoisyGriff said:
After much head-scratching and perusing the forum, I decided that my next camera would have to be a Nikon D80. Simple, really - all that left to do was to have a think about lenses.
But then I made the mistake of popping into Jessops and my local independent camera outfit. Now I am all of a quandry again!
Normally, these 'what camera' threads look at immediately comparable cameras, but I am now stuck trying to decide what level I want to get in at.
There is the Nikon D80, which is a step up from my current Canon 300D, it's nice and compact, fits my hand well and has a good range of features.
Then I started looking at a Canon 40D and, although it is a bit more expensive, it comes with a great lens (EFS 17-85), it seemed really adaptable, simple to understand and well made.
It only got worse when I had a play with a Sony Alpha A700, which is more again, but really nice to use and had a great feel about it. However, with a good lens, it was a bucket load of cash.
I can just about afford the Sony, but I can't help thinking that spending that much on a camera is not worth it, particularly bearing in mind that I am still a rank amateur at all this. It was jolly nice, though.
Then there is the question of the 40D. That would be a step up the range, rather than replacing the 300D with a similarly adaptable modern version (the D80).
All very confusing. I can't help thinking, though, that I am not going to be the first one to have had this dilemma. I would be so very grateful for any advice you guys have. Thanks for reading.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that I want the camera to be ideal for any particular discipline - the photos I take (albeit not very well) are of just about everything except macro and studio work.
I made the choice between the 30D and the D80 last summer - i went with the 30D.But then I made the mistake of popping into Jessops and my local independent camera outfit. Now I am all of a quandry again!
Normally, these 'what camera' threads look at immediately comparable cameras, but I am now stuck trying to decide what level I want to get in at.
There is the Nikon D80, which is a step up from my current Canon 300D, it's nice and compact, fits my hand well and has a good range of features.
Then I started looking at a Canon 40D and, although it is a bit more expensive, it comes with a great lens (EFS 17-85), it seemed really adaptable, simple to understand and well made.
It only got worse when I had a play with a Sony Alpha A700, which is more again, but really nice to use and had a great feel about it. However, with a good lens, it was a bucket load of cash.
I can just about afford the Sony, but I can't help thinking that spending that much on a camera is not worth it, particularly bearing in mind that I am still a rank amateur at all this. It was jolly nice, though.
Then there is the question of the 40D. That would be a step up the range, rather than replacing the 300D with a similarly adaptable modern version (the D80).
All very confusing. I can't help thinking, though, that I am not going to be the first one to have had this dilemma. I would be so very grateful for any advice you guys have. Thanks for reading.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that I want the camera to be ideal for any particular discipline - the photos I take (albeit not very well) are of just about everything except macro and studio work.
All imo of course
-My decision was made on the performance of the 30D relative to the D80 - specifically in relation to noise at medium iso settings. I think this is at least partly to do with the difference in sensor type - the D80 has a CCD, the 30D uses a CMOS sensor. Interestingly Nikon has gone with CMOS sensors for the new D300 and D3.
-The range of canon eos mount lenses.
-The deal i could get at the time with the additional cashback.
As you are comparing the 40D to the D80, i'd personally go with the 40D (by a fair margin actually).
If you were to compare the 40D (£619 body only on warehouseexpress) and the D300 (£989 body-only on W.E.) then that would be a whole different story...
Cheers.
Simpo Two said:
NG, Sony make televisions not cameras
Odd looking TV...Edited by Andy M on Tuesday 25th March 23:24
Thanks for the really helpful replies.
My wife had made the same point about Sony and their TVs (I wonder if Alba make a DSLR...). I am sure the guys in the research and development team ay Sony Cameras Ltd would go nuts to hear that. However, I have to agree - maybe the A700 will be the camera that puts them on the DSLR map, but I don't want to be one of the people who's shelled out for it if it isn't.
So that leaves the D80 and the 40D. It is encouraging that you formed the same impression as I did on first handling the camera. I went to Jessops to buy a D80 and was persuaded to have a quick look at the 40D and I was really impressed. The only downsides I could see were that it is a bit bigger and a bit heavier. That aside, it seemed very easy to use and as fast as I could ever need it to be.
So I think my mind is made up. I think I will go for the 40D with the 17-55 IS lens. If I'm feeling like Mrs NG won't go mad as a result, I might also go for the 70-300 IS lens in the same range - I've read a couple of good write-ups for it.
I'll sleep on that idea and do some grovelling before Mrs Griff doses off. Thanks again for the advice - I'll let you know how it goes...
My wife had made the same point about Sony and their TVs (I wonder if Alba make a DSLR...). I am sure the guys in the research and development team ay Sony Cameras Ltd would go nuts to hear that. However, I have to agree - maybe the A700 will be the camera that puts them on the DSLR map, but I don't want to be one of the people who's shelled out for it if it isn't.
So that leaves the D80 and the 40D. It is encouraging that you formed the same impression as I did on first handling the camera. I went to Jessops to buy a D80 and was persuaded to have a quick look at the 40D and I was really impressed. The only downsides I could see were that it is a bit bigger and a bit heavier. That aside, it seemed very easy to use and as fast as I could ever need it to be.
So I think my mind is made up. I think I will go for the 40D with the 17-55 IS lens. If I'm feeling like Mrs NG won't go mad as a result, I might also go for the 70-300 IS lens in the same range - I've read a couple of good write-ups for it.
I'll sleep on that idea and do some grovelling before Mrs Griff doses off. Thanks again for the advice - I'll let you know how it goes...
NoisyGriff said:
I think I will go for the 40D with the 17-55 IS lens.
You mentioned the 17-85 previously? The 17-55 is a bunch more cash but with some real benefits...The 17-85 is ok if you get it as part of a kit for about £200, but for me, its own retail price (£329) is a bit high. People seem to suggest the sigma 17-70 (£219.99) as an alternative 'kit' lens - no IS or USM though.
The 17-55 IS (£659) is a constant f2.8 and highly regarded. Only 'downside' is that its EF-S rather than EF (not an issue if you don't intend on moving to a full-frame camera any time soon).
NoisyGriff said:
I might also go for the 70-300 IS lens in the same range - I've read a couple of good write-ups for it.
Its a good lens, i have it If you shoot a lot of motorsports then you may want to consider the 70-200 f4 L. Its roughly the same price, doesn't have IS, but does have super-fast ring-type USM auto focusing that can really make the difference when tracking fast moving objects.
Cheers.
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Wednesday 26th March 04:34
paul.deitch said:
Sony is one of the biggest pro tv/braodcast camera manufacturers, ergo top quality lenses-much bigger than your standard dslr lenses.
True but not relevant; you can't put a TV camera lens, especially a much bigger one, on a DSLR.Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the Sonys, Samsungs and other newcomers in the DSLR field are perfectly good and competitive for the price, but they lack the expandability and sheer range of Nikon and Canon. If the OP is just going to buy one setup now and stick with it, then that's fine, but DSLR systems have a habit of growing... it's not easy to guess where you'll be in even a year. For example, if he discovers he needs a 70-200 f2.8, or a 50mm f1.4, do Sony make them? If not, does Sigma make one in Sony fit? I don't know. So my comment was not being snobbish, just practical/futureproof.
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 26th March 09:55
Simpo Two said:
For example, if he discovers he needs a 70-200 f2.8, or a 50mm f1.4, do Sony make them? If not, does Sigma make one in Sony fit? I don't know
The answer is Yes, Sony make both. The 70-200 is actually a G lens.If you look, the range of lenses available for the Sony mount is pretty good really.
However, if you're looking for the extremely fast (and bloody expensive) long-telephoto primes, then clearly Canon and Nikon are way ahead.
Simpo Two said:
NG, Sony make televisions not cameras
paul.deitch
Sony is one of the biggest pro tv/braodcast camera manufacturers, ergo top quality lenses-much bigger than your standard dslr lenses. Question is really whether the product and its expansion possibilities meet your needs.
Simpo Two said:
True but not relevant;
Make up your mind then! What exactly are you an expert on?
NG, Sony make televisions not cameras
paul.deitch
Sony is one of the biggest pro tv/braodcast camera manufacturers, ergo top quality lenses-much bigger than your standard dslr lenses. Question is really whether the product and its expansion possibilities meet your needs.
Simpo Two said:
True but not relevant;
Make up your mind then! What exactly are you an expert on?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff