Which SLR to buy? Nikon D40 or Canon Rebel (above water)

[mike_s]

I shoot with a D40 using Nikons 18-200 VR lens. I think that is a hard to beat for what I use it for and what I shoot.

that Nikon 18-200VR lens is what I really want to get if I get it, but it still looks like that lens is hovering in the $700 range for just the lens.

 

[jeckyll]

Mike: I love that combo. It just works for such a wide range of conditions and I don't have to swap to get the shot.

I really think working out the lenses you may want to use & type of shooting you are going to use them for should be a driving factor.

I shot with the 18-55 for a while. I now use it at night when I'm in potentially questionable locations / where camera & lens theft may be an issue. But generally I keep the 18 - 200 on, it just works for everything I do.

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions or want to see some samples.

At the same time, I hear that on the ultra wide end the Canon 10-20mm lens is hard to beat. While the Sigma gets close (some say) the Canon ultrawide sure sounds like a winner. (Disclaimer: I have no direct experience with either, I'm just investigating ultrawides. )

Bjorn

 

[vondo]

So... with the big sales on, trying to figure out which SLR to buy. The Cannon Rebel or the Nikon D40.

Here's the delimma... I've got an EOS 35mm film camera now with two lens. So should I stay with the Cannon because of this or go to the Nikon which I think I'll like better. (note my cannon lens are old. like 1990 made).

However, my point and shoot is Nikon (Coolpix 4600), which uses SD cards. My dive camera uses SD cards also. The Rebel uses the Compact Flash. I'd prefer to stay with the SD cards across the board if possible.


Is there any clear choice over the D40 and the Cannon Rebels?


BTW.... the local stores have a deal on the D40 for $649.
Comes with 18-55mm lens, 55-200mm lens, camera bag, and 2gb SD card, plus a few other trinkets not worth mentioning.

A question and a comment:

What are your Canon lenses? They certainly will work with a new Canon DSLR, but they may be good quality or they may not be.

Stay away from the D40. It's very entry level and as some else pointed out, it only works with a few Nikon lenses. The D40x is a better choice, but still doesn't work with many of their lenses.

Full disclosure: I shoot with a Canon 20D.

Oh, which "Rebel"? The XT and XTi are both available.

 

[jeckyll]

...
Stay away from the D40. It's very entry level and as some else pointed out, it only works with a few Nikon lenses. The D40x is a better choice, but still doesn't work with many of their lenses.

...

Interesting. Though I'm not sure where you get that info from ...

But the impressive thing about the D40 is that it is arguably the best-designed small camera to date. Handwise, it's perfect. The viewfinder is good, if not up to the D200 level. The controls are sensible and what we Nikon users expect. And the moving of the top LCD to the color LCD, while still with some slightly rough edges, turns out to be a lot more useful than you'd expect. As I note in the handling section, you can do 99% of the settings you're likely to make while shooting without dropping into the actual menus.

and

I don't expect to use my D80 much any more with the D40x being smaller and lighter.

Both from Nikon D40 and D40x Review by Thom Hogan

 

[vondo]

Interesting. Though I'm not sure where you get that info from ...



and



Both from Nikon D40 and D40x Review by Thom Hogan

Which part of my "info"?

From the same review you quoted:

"The big changes, though, are the lack of support for lenses that don't have built-in focusing motors (ones with such motors include only Nikon's AF-S line and Sigma's HSM line at the present time)."

Until recently, all of Nikon's lenses used autofocus motors in the body turning, via a screw, the focus in the lens. The D40/D40X do not have this motor so they can only AF with newer Nikon lenses.

And the D40 is a 6 MP camera while the D40X is 10 MP. The D40 also shoots at only 2.5 fps as opposed to the D40x and Rebel's 3 fps.

Aside from the motor, the D40x is comparable to the Rebel. But that one omission would make me really nervous about buying one as an entry point into Nikon gear.

 

[jeckyll]

vondo: That part where the 40x is a better way to go.

I think in general the people worry about the body too much. And about MP way to much.

To me, the body is not very relative to my results. The lens is (as I pointed out above). For instance, if you want to go from 15 mm -> 300 mm (35 mm equivalent) you don't have a problem doing that with AFS only (Sigma 10-20 and all sorts of Nikkor AFS lenses, with the 18-200 being an excellent all rounder, and the 18-55 / 55 - 200 VR kit as a 'budget' option). But again, thinking about the lenses, shooting conditions and environments you're going to encounter first, then picking the body after, is way more important IMO.

Then again, maybe the extra MP or features of the body will be the difference for someone...

 

[RonFrank]

While the 40 looks appealing, realize that there aren't any Nikon prime lenses with built-in autofocus motors.

Well, I can't let that slide. You either are not aware of what a Prime lens is, or what Nikon calls their autofocus motor, but that is dead wrong.

ANY Nikon lens with the designation of AF-S has the motor. So just off the top of my head, I own the 300mm F4 AFS. The 105mm macro VR is AF-S. Every Slab of big Nikon glass has AF-S, so 300mm 2.8/2, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm.

The real question here is WHY does it matter if the motor is in the Camera body, or in the lens, or both!

Canon does not put the motor in the Body. Nikon does. Initially this resulted in the increased cost of Canon lenses.

Recognize that all motors are not equal. What does one get with Canon's *KIT* lenses for a motor... Well basically a junky slow motor. If the motor fails, forget AF.

There are arguments on both sides as to what the best approach is. But let's not state mis-information as fact.

From my perspective, the reason one may want to consider something other than the D40 is IF there are prime lenses that one wants to use that do not have a motor. The 60mm macro is a good example.

Nikon's thinking is cut costs, and offer a low end, low cost DSLR. Msost folks that won't pay more than $500 for a body are not going to purchase expensive glass. Prime lenses are generally expensive, and most consumers out there looking for a low end DSLR want zooms.

 

[vondo]

Well, I can't let that slide. You either are not aware of what a Prime lens is, or what Nikon calls their autofocus motor, but that is dead wrong.

ANY Nikon lens with the designation of AF-S has the motor. So just off the top of my head, I own the 300mm F4 AFS. The 105mm macro VR is AF-S. Every Slab of big Nikon glass has AF-S, so 300mm 2.8/2, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm.

The real question here is WHY does it matter if the motor is in the Camera body, or in the lens, or both!

Because Nikon is now making cameras without a motor in the body.

Yes, the motors in the low end Canon lenses are a slow and noisy compared to the motors in the more expensive lenses and they don't allow full time manual focus (manual focus without switching to manual mode). But they do focus and reasonably quickly.

The AF-S super-teles are a new (within the last year) development, right?

I think in five or ten years it may make sense to buy a Nikon without a focusing motor in the body. Right now, I don't think it does unless you are looking at your DSLR as a big point and shoot. At the moment, Nikon's choices seem confusing to the newbie, but that's my HO.

 

[jeraldjcook]

Well, I can't let that slide. You either are not aware of what a Prime lens is, or what Nikon calls their autofocus motor, but that is dead wrong.

ANY Nikon lens with the designation of AF-S has the motor. So just off the top of my head, I own the 300mm F4 AFS. The 105mm macro VR is AF-S. Every Slab of big Nikon glass has AF-S, so 300mm 2.8/2, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm.

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm getting ready to pull the trigger myself and had ruled out the D40x for this very reason. I haven't been able to find a fast (1.2-1.8) AF-S lens in the 50mm range. Do you know of any? I haven't been able to find ANY in the 24-70mm range.

Whoa, that 300mm lens of yours is $1200, and the 105mm macro lens is $900. Does Nikon make any cheaper (but not crappy) AF-S lenses?

 

[RonFrank]

vondo: That part where the 40x is a better way to go.

I think in general the people worry about the body too much. And about MP way to much.

To me, the body is not very relative to my results.

Then again, maybe the extra MP or features of the body will be the difference for someone...

It depends on what you are using the camera for. If you are wanting to shoot sports (even Kindergarten Soccer) than the body is a huge consideration, and you do not want to skimp. The AF systems in high end camera's is amazing. FPS matters in that type of shooting.

Another similar subject is birding. If you want to be a serious bird shooter, skip the new car, and buy high end glass, and a high end body to match.

My suggestion is to skip all that expense, and buy some prints from your local nature photographer, or local soccer shooting photo Guru unless you are REALLY dedicated to those types of photography!

For UW photography however I agree. The body is less important. Overall, one will go through a lot of bodies over the decades. I still have some lenses I purchased in the 80's, but I have owned about a dozen bodies over the years.