[Y15HAL]

Hi All,

I need to buy a DSLR and am looking to spend around £400. I was looking into the D40, but after reading a few posts on here, people are saying that the D40 is not really classed as a proper DSLR. Because of this, i am thinking of going for the D50. I have seen it at PC World for £469.99 with the standard lens (18-55mm) and also an extra lens (55-200mm). I will be receiving staff discount of 10% off this, making the total price around £423. I think this is quite a good price.

Could someone please advise me whether this is a good price/kit. It looks like a decent price to me, compared to anything on google.

Am i also correct in assuming that the d50 is now discontinued?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Liquid101]

The D50 is a great camera. I've been using one for over a year, and have been very happy. It's a better buy than the D40 for several reasons - the most important of which is the ability to use autofocus in a wider range of lenses, including the fantastic 50mm 1.8

If it was me, i'd lose the budget 55-200, and put the 100 quid you'd save towards a replacement for the kit lens. Although thats just me.

As far as I know, the D50 is not discontinued - still appears as a live product on Nikon's website.

[Yandros]

Well, in fairness, the D40 is a proper DSLR, but won't suit everyone.

That price is very good, and both kit lenses get quite good writeups. Considering the body only price for the D50 is about £325, getting the lot for £423 is a no brainer I reckon. If you fancy upgrading your glass later, you've hardly lost much!

I reckon both D50 and D70s have pretty much been discontinued, but don't let that worry you - the D50 actually has more features than the D40, and only loses out very very slighty on image processing (ok, and .5" smaller screen...but then it has a top LCD...swings and roundabouts!)

[Fozzybear]

The D50 is a great camera and the two lenses you'd get in this kit, while not at the dizzy height of optics, are perfectly acceptable lenses and I think it's a good deal. I have owned a D50 for nearly a year and have rarely found it lacking, and the image quality is very high. I used the 18-55 lens for most of that time and although the 18-70 lens offers better sharpness and reduced colour fringing the 18-55 is not really lacking that much in quality - I've always been very happy with the shots taken with it.

[beachy]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

The D50 is a great camera. I've been using one for over a year, and have been very happy. It's a better buy than the D40 for several reasons - the most important of which is the ability to use autofocus in a wider range of lenses, including the fantastic 50mm 1.8

If it was me, i'd lose the budget 55-200, and put the 100 quid you'd save towards a replacement for the kit lens. Although thats just me.

i would agree with losing the 55-200mm and putting the money to another len's, probably the sigma 17-70mm or the sigma 24-70mm, both can be had for about £220 and £230 respectively.

[mjw123]

Don't dismiss the D40 so readily - have a read in the d70/d50/d40 forum on dpreview.com for a more balanced view on the D40. No disrespect to the guys on here but I doubt very few if any have actually seen a D40 let alone used / own one.

The camera is causing quite a bit of a stir and naturally the D50 / D70 owners want to defend their own fine cameras.

If you plan to really get into DSLR photography in a big way and are likely to want a large collection lenses then the D50 will be a better option.

If for now you want a camera with a better kit lens that gives slightly better images, is smaller and lighter (more likely to get taken out !) then the D40 could be a good choice. As you are a newbie the fact that certain lenses don't auto-focus isn't as big a deal as those who may already have a decent lens collection.

The D50 is a fine camera but don't dismiss the D40 either it has some very good strengths.

You win which ever you go for - just win in different ways

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by beachy

i would agree with losing the 55-200mm and putting the money to another len's, probably the sigma 17-70mm or the sigma 24-70mm, both can be had for about £220 and £230 respectively.

Hmm, yeah I guess so. I have to admit that I don't shoot much above 70mm myself except macro. If you want to see a worthwhile return on a lens upgrade from the 18-55, you'll probably need to lay down a fair wodge of cash though (unless you pixel peep).

The happiest shooters around seem to fall into two camps at the moment - the constant f2.8 zoom brigade, and the 18-200VR group. I opted for the 18-200VR and am constantly delighted by how much I can abuse the rules of shutter speed I may at some point give in an get a 2.8 though, or maybe a fast prime (Sigma 30 1.4 or Nikon 35f2) to go with my 50 1.8.

I would point out though that the advantage of getting a couple of cheap zooms is that it gives you a chance to work out what sort of range you use, so you can spend the serious money in the right place.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by mjw123

Don't dismiss the D40 so readily - have a read in the d70/d50/d40 forum on dpreview.com for a more balanced view on the D40. No disrespect to the guys on here but I doubt very few if any have actually seen a D40 let alone used / own one.

The camera is causing quite a bit of a stir and naturally the D50 / D70 owners want to defend their own fine cameras.

Nah, I'm pretty neutral on this - my D200 probably won't be be superceded by an entry level model for...oooh at least 6 months

If you're not planning on straying too far from kit/AFS lenses, get the D40. If you think you might get a case of lens lust, get the D50. If you can get a stupidly good deal on the D50 (eg staff discount) , and money is tight - get that.

[senu]

Originally Posted by mjw123

Don't dismiss the D40 so readily - have a read in the d70/d50/d40 forum on dpreview.com for a more balanced view on the D40. No disrespect to the guys on here but I doubt very few if any have actually seen a D40 let alone used / own one.

The camera is causing quite a bit of a stir and naturally the D50 / D70 owners want to defend their own fine cameras.

If you plan to really get into DSLR photography in a big way and are likely to want a large collection lenses then the D50 will be a better option.

If for now you want a camera with a better kit lens that gives slightly better images, is smaller and lighter (more likely to get taken out !) then the D40 could be a good choice. As you are a newbie the fact that certain lenses don't auto-focus isn't as big a deal as those who may already have a decent lens collection.

The D50 is a fine camera but don't dismiss the D40 either it has some very good strengths.

You win which ever you go for - just win in different ways

The D40 is actually in Jessops and isn't that hard to get hold of, Similarly the dpreview forums are reasonably well known if you face reading thru quite a few threads on there without getting eyestrain .
Ive certainly have had a play with it a few times just to enlighten myself as I already own 2 Canons ( 350 and 30D)

The actual Image quality of the D40 has never been slagged ( even by the die hards) : It was bewilderment about launch price.

That is why the "pros can use it as a " backup" , But the other user related features they might want as a primary camera are lacking . I imagine a newer user may not want or need them at this point and would be getting great IQ for reasonable money but if one has expressed a wish for slightly more than it has it is only fair to point out what Nikon has left out.
Some newbees become "Semi-Pros" very fast!!
And its launch price was offputting bringing its shortcomings ( no matter how subtle) into sharp focus ( pun unintended )

Your last sentence aptly sums it up brilliantly

If I had to go Nikon I would certainly go straight for the D80 .
Im sure many D80 owners may want the D40 as a second (but not primary) Camera

I only wish your response to my post in a previous thread had been just as helpful

[Y15HAL]

Woah! Loads of responses on this one! The most ive had from any posts ive put up.

AFAIK, everyone is saying not to go for the extra kit lense, and buy a separate one? I am only starting off, and have used the standard lens that comes with it, that does not have that much zoom And i am not sure about spending £200+ on a lense! COuld someone please explain the advantages of the above sigma lenses mentioned?

If i do end up going for a kit lense, they also had a tamron lense. Is this one any good? They have the tamon one priced at £100 and the nikon at £200. But i would end up getting the extra nikon lens for £100, which i thought wasnt bad.

If i get the 55-200 nikin kit lense, will i be able to do macro, and i am assuming it will have a good zoom on it?

As alot of you will probably gather, i do know the basics of taking pictures, and can take a good one, although am VERY new to all these flter sizes and all these numbers are very daunting

[PaulBoy]

Vishal - What people are trying to advise you is that the 55-200mm isnt the best lens to add to the kit 17-55mm lens & there are better options like the Sigma 70-300mm which if you go for the better (APO) one will give you macro capability which the Nikon 55-200mm does not - apart from that the Nikon only goes to 200mm & whilst that is fine IMHO 300mm is a better option - the other thing is whilst it sounds good for the likes of Je$$op$ to say "you can buy this £200 lens for only £100" the £200 price THEY charge is way more than what you can pay if you shop around (e.g. they sell the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG (Nikon AF) for £199 buy OneStopDigital will pop it through your letterbox for £119
HTH - Paul

[Yandros]

Hi Vishal,

Sorry we've got a bit carried away here. Let's step back a moment and try to cut though the techno babble and give you a crash course...

Firstly, lenses costing £200-300 are very common. In fact, there are very few lenses costing less that 'serious' photographers won't sneer at.

When looking for DSLR lenses, there are 4 key properties to consider - the focal length (or focal length range for zooms), how much light the lens gathers, the optical quality, and lastly other bells and whistles like Vibration Reduction (VR).

Focal Length (zoom range)
The most commonly used lens range is that covered pretty well by the kit lenses - about 18-85mm. That range is perfect for landscapes, people etc. Any longer and it gets hard to keep the camera steady without a high shutter speed or a tripod. Although you may think that you need a big zoom, the vast majority of your everyday shots will probably be below 50mm. The problem with cheap long zooms is that they need to be kept very steady, need lots of light, and tend to produce soft, dull photos. Even 200mm isn't good enough for birds and wildlife incidentally - you really need 300-400mm.

Light gathering ability
That little f number eg f3.5-f5.6, tells you how much light the lens lets in. Light is the most important currency in photography, and you pay through the nose to get more of it to your little sensor. The lower that f number the better when choosing a lens. That sigma 24-70 mentioned above is f2.8 all the time, whereas the D50 kit lens is f5.6 at 55mm - without boring you with the techincal explanation, this means that it lets in 4 times the amount of light as the kit lens, and means you could be shooting at say 125th of a second on a dull day instead of 1/30th, which will make the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry mess.

Optical quality
Expensive lenses will be sharper than cheap ones, and less prone to things like flare and purple fringing.

Extra stuff
"macro" just means that the lens focuses closer than normal. If a lens doesn't say macro, then assume that you can't get closer than 1-2ft. The kit lenses are NOT macro, but there are some sigma zooms which have some macro capability.
VR lenses such as the Nikon 18-200VR and 70-300VR allow you to take photos of stationary subjects at extremely slow shutter speeds (ie in very low light). However, if you're going pale at £200 for a lens, the £350-500 price tag for these is probably a bit rich for you at the moment!

Getting back to the plot again - if you want a cheap long zoom with macro, take a look at the great value Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for £158.

For a replacement for your kit lens, further down the line, the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro (£237) or Tamron AF SP 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II (£299) spring to mind. Replacing the pretty decent Nikon 17-55 with anything less is frankly a waste of money.

[Y15HAL]

Thanks alot Paul and Yandros!
That has helped me alot. I think i will give the extra lens a miss, and go for the sigma one, both of you have mentioned. Im sure the standard lens and sigma one, will be more than capable for what i want at the moment, to start off with.

Paul, I have managed to find the sigma lense below, i am assuming this is the correct one?

Does anyone have any experience with this company?

http://www.cameras2u.com/products/de...9944&refer=dlt

Probably another silly question, but will i need a UV filter? What do these do?

Thanks for your patience and help!

[beachy]

Originally Posted by Y15HAL

Paul, I have managed to find the sigma lense below, i am assuming this is the correct one?

no this is not the lens, the one paul mentioned is the APO version which is a bit more expensive than the normal 70-300mm.

[PaulBoy]

Originally Posted by beachy

no this is not the lens, the one paul mentioned is the APO version which is a bit more expensive than the normal 70-300mm.

beachy is right you want the APO version (unfortunately the more expensive version as the glass used is better quality so the pics are better also) - cheapest price is at onestopdigital in HK at £119 or if not keen on importing £159 at bristolcameras (you might find it a tad cheaper if you search around online)
Most people (me included) put a UV filter on their lenses for protection (of the lens) but they don't do too much to the light that passes through them so don't have any affect on the pics you take - good prices on filters at 7dayshop in Jersey ... Paul

[Adrenochrome]

Originally Posted by Yandros

Hi Vishal,

Sorry we've got a bit carried away here. Let's step back a moment and try to cut though the techno babble and give you a crash course...

Firstly, lenses costing £200-300 are very common. In fact, there are very few lenses costing less that 'serious' photographers won't sneer at.

When looking for DSLR lenses, there are 4 key properties to consider - the focal length (or focal length range for zooms), how much light the lens gathers, the optical quality, and lastly other bells and whistles like Vibration Reduction (VR).

Focal Length (zoom range)
The most commonly used lens range is that covered pretty well by the kit lenses - about 18-85mm. That range is perfect for landscapes, people etc. Any longer and it gets hard to keep the camera steady without a high shutter speed or a tripod. Although you may think that you need a big zoom, the vast majority of your everyday shots will probably be below 50mm. The problem with cheap long zooms is that they need to be kept very steady, need lots of light, and tend to produce soft, dull photos. Even 200mm isn't good enough for birds and wildlife incidentally - you really need 300-400mm.

Light gathering ability
That little f number eg f3.5-f5.6, tells you how much light the lens lets in. Light is the most important currency in photography, and you pay through the nose to get more of it to your little sensor. The lower that f number the better when choosing a lens. That sigma 24-70 mentioned above is f2.8 all the time, whereas the D50 kit lens is f5.6 at 55mm - without boring you with the techincal explanation, this means that it lets in 4 times the amount of light as the kit lens, and means you could be shooting at say 125th of a second on a dull day instead of 1/30th, which will make the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry mess.

Optical quality
Expensive lenses will be sharper than cheap ones, and less prone to things like flare and purple fringing.

Extra stuff
"macro" just means that the lens focuses closer than normal. If a lens doesn't say macro, then assume that you can't get closer than 1-2ft. The kit lenses are NOT macro, but there are some sigma zooms which have some macro capability.
VR lenses such as the Nikon 18-200VR and 70-300VR allow you to take photos of stationary subjects at extremely slow shutter speeds (ie in very low light). However, if you're going pale at £200 for a lens, the £350-500 price tag for these is probably a bit rich for you at the moment!

Getting back to the plot again - if you want a cheap long zoom with macro, take a look at the great value Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for £158.

For a replacement for your kit lens, further down the line, the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro (£237) or Tamron AF SP 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II (£299) spring to mind. Replacing the pretty decent Nikon 17-55 with anything less is frankly a waste of money.

What a wonderfully descriptive and very helpful post. Thank you.

[Y15HAL]

OK People, this is beginning to make more sense now

Now, is this the lens?

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catal...roducts_id=275

I have had a quick read on their site, and they say i dont have to pay any VAT/customs charges etc. I just wanted to know, has anyone used this company before? As you may be able to tell, i have never ordered from abroad before.

I have seen the lens £20 dearer, at a place in the UK, but i would prefer to save this amount, and maybe put it towards something else for the camera!

Hopefully, i should e picking the camera up tonight! Cant wait!

Vishal

[PaulBoy]

Originally Posted by Y15HAL

OK People, this is beginning to make more sense now

Now, is this the lens?

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catal...roducts_id=275

I have had a quick read on their site, and they say i dont have to pay any VAT/customs charges etc. I just wanted to know, has anyone used this company before? As you may be able to tell, i have never ordered from abroad before.

I have seen the lens £20 dearer, at a place in the UK, but i would prefer to save this amount, and maybe put it towards something else for the camera!

Hopefully, i should e picking the camera up tonight! Cant wait!

Vishal

Vishal - I can vouch for OneStopDigital in this respect - Their cheaper stuff is sent HK Post & delivered by your postman - More expensive items are sent by courier (FedEx IIRC) - If you get a bill from them (& I did once) you send a copy to OneStop & they will reimburse you in full ...
That said if you can get the lens incld delivery for only £20 more I would go for that as you will have a full UK Warranty whereas with the HK lens you will only get an International Warranty & from what I've read you're better off with the UK one if the smelly stuff hits the fan ...
Paul

[beachy]

i can also vouch for onestop, i bought the sigma 70-300mm lens from there, takes about 5 working days and no problems whatsoever.

OT... paul are you saying the sigma international warranty does'ent cover the UK ? as i find that a little worrying

[Y15HAL]

I think will will just buy one from here for £20 more, plus del or i could pick it up. Just in case others want to know where this company is:

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/product_...aebc57ea64b961

Just want to thank everyone for contributing to the thread, it has helped me out alot to make a few decisions and clarify a few things! Hopefully it will maybe help others as it as done me!

Vishal

[PaulBoy]

Originally Posted by beachy

i can also vouch for onestop, i bought the sigma 70-300mm lens from there, takes about 5 working days and no problems whatsoever.

OT... paul are you saying the sigma international warranty does'ent cover the UK ? as i find that a little worrying

beachy - no I am not saying that - I'm saying that other people have had issues to do with International Warranties as opposed to a UK Warranty where there will be no issues - this is with all makes of equipment not just Sigma - IMHO if the 70-300mm could be had for only £20 extra I'd go for that but Yishal suggests he'd rather save the £20 + put it towards more kit - that's his call ... Paul

[Yandros]

It's even possible that Microglobe one is an import, but don't worry, they provide a 1yr warranty on all stuff, and are very good on customer service. My Tokina 12-24 came from there and they swapped it out with no fuss as it had a speck of something stuck behind the front element. I also picked up my 50mm 1.8 from them and it turned up next day.

[Y15HAL]

Cool, thanks for the input! Picked up teh camera last night!
Aint had the chance to play with it properly yet, but no doubt i will!

Was just going through the manual, and it says recommended sd cards upto 1gb. Is it still possible to buy a larger capacity card as i am looking to get the 2gb version, which should hold around 300 Fine quality pics.

[beachy]

Originally Posted by Y15HAL

Cool, thanks for the input! Picked up teh camera last night!
Aint had the chance to play with it properly yet, but no doubt i will!

Was just going through the manual, and it says recommended sd cards upto 1gb. Is it still possible to buy a larger capacity card as i am looking to get the 2gb version, which should hold around 300 Fine quality pics.

which camera did you get in the end ? a 1gb sd card on the D50 will give you 284 photos on the highest resolution on fine setting.

[Y15HAL]

Originally Posted by beachy

which camera did you get in the end ? a 1gb sd card on the D50 will give you 284 photos on the highest resolution on fine setting.

I got the Nikon D50

I borrowed a card from a friend (1GB) and it said it had a capacity of 154 pics at the finest quality. Maybe there was stuff stored on the card still. So am i right in assuming the camera will not accept anything higher than 1GB? Also, does it matter what speed the card is, i know obviously it makes a difference when transferring to PC, but just wanted to know, will it make a difference in taking pics?

[beachy]

Originally Posted by Y15HAL

I got the Nikon D50

I borrowed a card from a friend (1GB) and it said it had a capacity of 154 pics at the finest quality. Maybe there was stuff stored on the card still. So am i right in assuming the camera will not accept anything higher than 1GB? Also, does it matter what speed the card is, i know obviously it makes a difference when transferring to PC, but just wanted to know, will it make a difference in taking pics?

to be honest i've never really looked to see whats the highest card the D50 will take, i just assumed it would take any, i'm sure there should be no problem with a 2gb, but to be honest i personaly would'ent use anything above 1gb anyway just incase anything happened to the card, i just don't like to keep all my eggs in one basket so to speak, i use sandisk ultra 2 1gb with the usb hub which just plugs straight into the front of my pc and they are great for writing and reading, but if i was going to buy one now i would get the sandisk extreme 3 simply because they have come right down in price since i bought the ultra 2.

[PaulBoy]

You'd have to ask Nikon if there is a limit but 2gb is certainly OK - the following quote is from the review of the D50 at www.steves-digicams.com

These measurements were made using an AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm lens and a fast SanDisk Ultra II 2GB SD memory card, shooting Large (3008x2000) Fine JPEG images.

beachy's point about a couple of smaller (1gb) cards is valid but with 2gb ones going for £9.99 (7dayshop) a few of them are not going to break the bank ...
Paul

[Y15HAL]

I have just ordered a Kingston 2gb card from ebuyer for £11.99 with free delivery! Happy days!

[PaulBoy]

Originally Posted by Y15HAL

I have just ordered a Kingston 2gb card from ebuyer for £11.99 with free delivery! Happy days!

Sweet - You're not really Phil Tufnell are you ?
Paul

[jomike]

Originally Posted by PaulBoy

You'd have to ask Nikon if there is a limit but 2gb is certainly OK - the following quote is from the review of the D50 at www.steves-digicams.com

beachy's point about a couple of smaller (1gb) cards is valid but with 2gb ones going for £9.99 (7dayshop) a few of them are not going to break the bank ...
Paul

The D50 can handle a 4GB card if you format it in an external reader connected to a PC. It can format a maximum of 2GB internally, because it uses the FAT16 file system.
I personally would rather use more and smaller cards for the "eggs in one basket" theory.

Regards, Mike