[Johnny Thunder]

I've just been in to my local Jessops and had a demo/play with a few cameras.
I am not in the Canon or Nikon camp, basically a fresh starter.
I did like the feel of the D80, so, unless anyone convinces me differently, this is the one I will go for when I eventually convince my wife.

The one thing I am unsure about, is which lens to start off with as a good beginners lens.
The two I tried were the 18-70, and 18-135 (I think).

Could you give me some advice and opinion on what I should be considering?

Thank you.

John.

[vulkan75]

Happy D80 owner here and its a great camera.
I would consider the 18-135 to start as it covers the range for you a bit better.

Alternatively you could consider the 18-70 and buy somthing like sigmas 70-300 Apo for about £100 that'll give you a nice telephoto plus macro capablility quite cheap.

Not a bad starting combo if £££'s are an issue

all the best with your decision

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Johnny Thunder

I've just been in to my local Jessops and had a demo/play with a few cameras.
I am not in the Canon or Nikon camp, basically a fresh starter.
I did like the feel of the D80, so, unless anyone convinces me differently, this is the one I will go for when I eventually convince my wife.

The one thing I am unsure about, is which lens to start off with as a good beginners lens.
The two I tried were the 18-70, and 18-135 (I think).

Could you give me some advice and opinion on what I should be considering?

Thank you.

John.

I'm a D80 owner so I'll naturally be biased towards Nikon

I'd be tempted in your position if you go for the D80 to get the D80 body only and look buying the 18-200 VR Nikkor lens this will give you terrific flexibility and you've got the vibration reduction built into the lens for zoom shots, the picture below I took at close to 300 if I remember rightly on my D80 with the 70-300 VR Nikkor lens :

[SonicHedgehog]

I was going to start a similar thread but I'll tag along with this one instead. I am in a similar position. I've been using my compact camera with a couple of extra lens' for some time, but found myself really longing for a DSLR during a recent trip to Peru. The whole family has said they will club together and get me a camera for Xmas and I just have lo let them know which one. What I will actually end up doing is going to Jessops, having a fiddle and buying it myself and getting the money back from the family. (I'll use the price match voucher to get the best price)

So I have to choose which one. I have the choice of getting a camera and lens kit or I could put all the Xmas money into just the camera and buy myself a lens or two. Like Johnny Thunder I am not biased towards any one brand and tbh I didn't notice a massive difference in the way they handled when I had a quick play a month ago.

So, my question is slightly different to the usual one on this forum. Do I go for a D40x or 400D or should I stretch the budget and look at a D80 or 40D? Had I not been getting my Xmas subsidy I would have put my own cash into a D40x. The reason is that the Practical Photography review said that this camera was great for teaching you how to take pictures and that is probably what I need. However, with the classifieds full of ads for D40xs that people are disgarding for D80s I am wondering if I should go for the better camera straight away and make the effort to learn the necessary skills.

One final factor to be thrown into the mix is that I hate buying something that is superceded a few months later. The 40D appeals because it is brand new while the 400D, D80 and D40x have been around for a bit and must be due for an upgrade soon.

Thanks and sorry for hijacking the thread.

[Johnny Thunder]

Not a problem Sonic, any views on Nikon or Canon are welcome.
At the end of the day, the Nikon felt right, but that is certainly not what the deciding factor should be in my case.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

I was going to start a similar thread but I'll tag along with this one instead. I am in a similar position. I've been using my compact camera with a couple of extra lens' for some time, but found myself really longing for a DSLR during a recent trip to Peru. The whole family has said they will club together and get me a camera for Xmas and I just have lo let them know which one. What I will actually end up doing is going to Jessops, having a fiddle and buying it myself and getting the money back from the family. (I'll use the price match voucher to get the best price)

So I have to choose which one. I have the choice of getting a camera and lens kit or I could put all the Xmas money into just the camera and buy myself a lens or two. Like Johnny Thunder I am not biased towards any one brand and tbh I didn't notice a massive difference in the way they handled when I had a quick play a month ago.

So, my question is slightly different to the usual one on this forum. Do I go for a D40x or 400D or should I stretch the budget and look at a D80 or 40D? Had I not been getting my Xmas subsidy I would have put my own cash into a D40x. The reason is that the Practical Photography review said that this camera was great for teaching you how to take pictures and that is probably what I need. However, with the classifieds full of ads for D40xs that people are disgarding for D80s I am wondering if I should go for the better camera straight away and make the effort to learn the necessary skills.

One final factor to be thrown into the mix is that I hate buying something that is superceded a few months later. The 40D appeals because it is brand new while the 400D, D80 and D40x have been around for a bit and must be due for an upgrade soon.

Thanks and sorry for hijacking the thread.

Up until January this year the only cameras I'd owned were compacts never even gotten into SLR's. Nikon as a rule rarely change their cameras, the reason I bought the D80 was that it borrows a lot of the features from the semi pro D200, I think the D80 kind of fills the gap nicely for the beginner who could see themselves wanting to take the hobby further and develop there skills, although the D80 has been out a good while I think Nikon have pretty much played their hand for the time being with new cameras by launching a replacement for the D200 in the form of the D300. What's probably happening is people are buying the D40x getting quite into the photography and then realising they need cameras like the D80 to further their learning if that makes any sense. If you've the money I'd look at the D80 or the canon equivalent straight away.

I used this website quite a bit when trying to decide on what camera to buy :

www.cameralabs.com

[Yandros]

Image quality wise, there's not much in it. The 18-70 has the better build though (I think the 18-135 is a plastic mount).

I'd suggest the 18-70+70-300VR if you're likely to shoot wildlife, or the 18-200VR if you want low light static shooting capability in the 18-70 region.
The 70-300VR is certainly a sharper (and of course longer) telephoto, as the 18-200 gets a bit soft at 200mm. As a lightweight travel solution (when you don't want your partner growling at you as you lug a tripod or half a ton of lenses), the 18-200VR takes some beating.

Even though the VR is most useful for indoor no flash situations, I'm finding it's also handy for handheld landscapes, as you can stop down a long way and still get a steady shot (see the second example below)

18-200VR @18mm, 1/8th sec, f3.5

18-200VR @52mm, 1/15th sec f13

18-200VR @200mm, 1/350th sec f7.1

[senu]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

I was going to start a similar thread but I'll tag along with this one instead. I am in a similar position. I've been using my compact camera with a couple of extra lens' for some time, but found myself really longing for a DSLR during a recent trip to Peru.

...a DSLR along with a bunch of lenses ( very costly hobby..)

Like Johnny Thunder I am not biased towards any one brand and tbh I didn't notice a massive difference in the way they handled when I had a quick play a month ago.

They do feel different but just like cars it can be a different but good experience , not better or worse. This applies to image quality as well. I have a 350 and 30D at home and Nikon D80 I use exclusively at work ( I asked for it ,I could have had any) I used a Sony A100 for a few moths earlier this year.. Very nice to handle and felt very "business like"

So, my question is slightly different to the usual one on this forum.

Nah.... we get this all the time!!

Do I go for a D40x or 400D or should I stretch the budget and look at a D80 or 40D? Had I not been getting my Xmas subsidy I would have put my own cash into a D40x. The reason is that the Practical Photography review said that this camera was great for teaching you how to take pictures and that is probably what I need. However, with the classifieds full of ads for D40xs that people are disgarding for D80s I am wondering if I should go for the better camera straight away and make the effort to learn the necessary skills.

If you can afford the better cameras.. you will grow with them. TBH the less costly ones are not "worse" . The advantage of the D80. 40D over the less costly ones is the ability to get the image in more challenging situations
I happen to think the 40D is the better camera than D80, competing with the (D200) while the D80 is a notch or 2 above the 400D which has a few whistles and bells over the D40 series

One final factor to be thrown into the mix is that I hate buying something that is superseded a few months later. The 40D appeals because it is brand new while the 400D, D80 and D40x have been around for a bit and must be due for an upgrade soon.

I dont think the D40x will be replaced that soon..Having just announced the D3 and D300 it is not as clear that Nikon will be keen to replace the D80 as it is selling a fair bit but it is so much more affordable than it used to be.. maybe to compete with the 30/40D

Whatever you do.. don't put it off indefinitely .Whatever you buy now will be replaced by a better model. That will in no way make your camera less capable than it has been
All the currently available DSLRs are capable of excellent results in the right hands. the differences in "handling" and delivering result in very challenging conditions are what makes you pay extra for the costlier models.
Features like anti dust, built in lens stabilisation are not gimmicks but the fact that cameras which don't have them still sell in large no speaks volumes of the need to be circumspect about the headline grabbing "must have features"
Also the megapixel race has slowed down considerably ( not a bad thing) and the provision of better low light /noise handling for getting better Image quality is a top priority for most manufacturers

[dazza74]

I feel senu has this right with regards the mega pixel race, I liken it to plasma and LCD's a plasma may have less pixels but doesn't mean it will produce a worse picture. I print 30" x 48" canvas pictures of the back of 10 mega pixel jpegs and they look excellent after being enlarged in photoshop.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I feel senu has this right with regards the mega pixel race, I liken it to plasma and LCD's a plasma may have less pixels but doesn't mean it will produce a worse picture. I print 30" x 48" canvas pictures of the back of 10 mega pixel jpegs and they look excellent after being enlarged in photoshop.

Exactly. Marketing idiots are now trying to get us to run 1080p on 32" screens

If you shoot sports and other fast moving subjects, or need the tank-like build/weather sealing, the 40D or D200 would be a good choice. Otherwise, they're luxury items - like a Ferrari on a public road (look great, tough for the novice, and overkill for regular use).

The £300-£400 diference between a 400D and 40D
or D80 to D200 (or £500 between D40 and D200) would be far better spent on lenses to be honest with you (for most people). I saw a hilarious shot of a D40 on a £1000 Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR the other day but the results were pretty impressive.

A D40 or 400D would allow you to get some good lenses from day 1 (which can last DECADES). A D80 is a good compromise candidate, giving you a feel and feature set very much like a D200 but for £300 less. It would also be pretty hypocritical of me to dissuade from a 40D (since I bought a D200), but be aware that my spend so far is rapidly heading to £3K for lenses and accessories

[dazza74]

Yep have to agree the camera is only the start think I've racked up about a grand in extras if you factor in the sigma 10-22, nikkor 70-300 VR lenses and the polarisers, filters and not to mention the tripod.

[johnaalex]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I'm a D80 owner so I'll naturally be biased towards Nikon

I'd be tempted in your position if you go for the D80 to get the D80 body only and look buying the 18-200 VR Nikkor lens this will give you terrific flexibility and you've got the vibration reduction built into the lens for zoom shots, the picture below I took at close to 300 if I remember rightly on my D80 with the 70-300 VR Nikkor lens :

I got my Nikon D80 a few months ago with the 18-70 lens and a sigma 70-300 telephoto, but have just got the much praised 18-200 VR Nikkor. Although I have not had much chance to put the new lens through its paces it does seem very sharp and the versatility is useful. Here is a sample:

BUT, if you can hang on until February I could be selling my D80 body to help pay for a D300

[bibamus]

Theres not much to choose between Canon and Nikon, to me, its all about feel. I prefer the feel of Nikon over Canon because I have big hands. So, I bought the D50, then D70s. Now I have a D80. Love it!
Lenses are a compromise though. I bought the Nikon 18-200VR when I had the D70s, now I use it on the D80. I also have Sigma 28-200 and 70-300 APO. The Nikon is better than both the Sigmas, both in image sharpness and contrast, at equivalent focal lengths, so they stay in the bag.
But, there is a downside to the Nikon VR.
......Its heavy.
If thats not a problem, fine, its a great lens, but, I recently went to Paris. Took the camera and lens out all day. ( four days on the trot). The 18-200VR will creep. If you carry the camera over your shoulder, you will knock it as the lens screws itself out. Or, you will need a big bag, but make sure you have one one that is easy to open, because it will be in and out all the time.

I`m not trying to put anyone off, I would highly recommend the D80 and Nikon 18-200VR as a good walk around kit, just be aware of its weight and size.
The D200 / D300, will be heavier still. ( But I would still get one.....)

John, I reckon if you have thought seriously about the D80, you need to buy one. Get the 18-70 lens. It is superb ( I didnt like the 18-135 that I borrowed) then save up for the 18-200VR and a rubber band to stop the creeping.

Allan

[SonicHedgehog]

This is all very interesting stuff, thank you. I think the general opinion seems to be that the base model DSLRs are very good cameras in their own right and not just an stepping stone to the domain of "proper" cameras. If you choose the next level of DSLR such as the D80 or 40D it would seem you are paying for better build, increased ability in tricky situations and weatherproofing. So the next question is, how great a leap are we talking about here? Can I take my 40D scubadiving while being foced to leave my 400D in the bag on a slightly moist morning? Exactly what kind of lighting conditions am I going to appreciate the increased abilities of the better camera and how much more durable is it? The reason I ask is that I travel an awful lot and find myself in all sorts of odd places and I don't want to be frustrated by a lack of performance from my expensive camera. I appreciate these things are difficult to quantify, but I could really do with a little more detail.

Cheers

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

This is all very interesting stuff, thank you. I think the general opinion seems to be that the base model DSLRs are very good cameras in their own right and not just an stepping stone to the domain of "proper" cameras. If you choose the next level of DSLR such as the D80 or 40D it would seem you are paying for better build, increased ability in tricky situations and weatherproofing. So the next question is, how great a leap are we talking about here? Can I take my 40D scubadiving while being foced to leave my 400D in the bag on a slightly moist morning? Exactly what kind of lighting conditions am I going to appreciate the increased abilities of the better camera and how much more durable is it? The reason I ask is that I travel an awful lot and find myself in all sorts of odd places and I don't want to be frustrated by a lack of performance from my expensive camera. I appreciate these things are difficult to quantify, but I could really do with a little more detail.

Cheers

Yeah the weathersealing and body is quite hard to quantify. Drop 'em in the river and they're all a gonner, that's for sure. The weathersealed gaskets just mean you can be a little more relaxed about rain and splashes, but even then, the lenses aren't sealed, so you can never be cavalier about it. I've stool in drizzle taking shots, but I'd not want to risk driving rain. The alloy bodies increase the survivability if the camera takes a tumble or knock, but interestingly, lens hoods are the best protection as they seem to invariably hit surfaces first

As for getting though tough shots - the D40 is only 2.5fps, the D80/400D are 3fps, and the 40D crowd is now typically 5-6fps. This makes all the difference for action shots. For closeup work, things like mirror lockup and depth of field preview are useful extras on more expensive models. You tend to get faster and more accurate AF and metering the higher you go, and more focus points. You also get more dedicated buttons for functions, rather than having to dig in menus.

Having said all that, 'challenging' shots often need good lenses. If I had to get a handheld wildlife shot in poor light, I'd take a D40 and a 2.8 VR lens over a D200 and a cheapo lens any day.

[Fozzybear]

None of the SLR cameras on the market are actually waterproof - you can't dunk them and expect them to survive (although I know one person who was lucky in that respect). The weatherproofing that the 40D has will protect it from the weather to some degree but it's not guaranteed and you certainly couldn't take it scubadiving. (eek!)

The more expensive cameras make it easier to adjust settings on the fly (such as AF, metering modes) and have improved AF, white balance and so-on. The viewfinders also are quite improved over the cheaper cameras, offering a larger, brighter view. If you think you'll be taking your photography seriously then it may be worth the extra money. If you think you'll just set the camera to auto and leave it there then it probably won't be.

[SonicHedgehog]

Ok, things are getting clearer now. Basically all cameras are fragile things and you'll only notice the differences if you have the skill to make the most of them. I appreciate there are probably a few bits and bobs which are nice to have, but you aren't going to be distraught if they're not included on your 400D or D80. (I was kidding about taking it scubadiving btw)

The comment about a D40 with a good lens taking a better picture than a D200 with a poor one is something I will try and keep in the forefront of my mind when handing over my cash. I will come back and ask more questions about lens' when I have decided on my purchase (I'll try and get it all in one go) as I don't have a clue about which ones to get. I'll need something similar to Monsieur Thunder and long range jobby for those...err...long range shots. Perhaps some Canon owners would like to suggest some lens' in the same way as the Nikon snappers have.

Thanks again...this is saving me a lot of anxiety and money.

[dazza74]

I bought my Nikon D80 with the kit lens 18-70mm DX which is good, and I've got the 70-300mm Nikkor VR for stuff that's a bit further away, not a bad combination for around a grand.

[SonicHedgehog]

Damn and blast and blast and damn! Just been in Jessops for a fiddle and I can now see what everyone means about the handling. Tried the 400D, D80 and 40D and it is almost as if the bigger they get the more comfy they are. I have average size hands for a man and thought the 400D felt fine to begin with. My little pinky hooked underneath the body ok and I thought that would do nicely. Then came the D80 which was more substantial and easier to hold but had a less sophisticated grip - it felt like more thought had gone into where your fingers would rest on the 400D whereas the D80 felt like someone had said "we need to make this grip big and chunky" and had thought about little else. And then came the 40D which felt like a serious chunk of camera and welcomed my hands with open arms. So I now have to decide whether to chip in some cash of my own and go for the 40D or take the D80.

Just to get this thread back on topic, while in Jessops I noticed that the size of, say, an 18-200 lens is the same as an 18-55 lens. Why would you bother going for the lens with the low zoom (and it is low compared to even a 3x optical zoom compact) when you could have the more powerful lens on all the time with all the practicality that entails? Is the image quality really that much better? Does anyone only have one lens that does everything? For example, an 18-400 jobby would cover all my requirements and be very convenient. I appreciate that I would need a bundle of lens' if I was going to enter a photo competition, but that isn't going to happen any time soon and would I notice the difference?

I guess what I am getting at is how does a 40D with an 18-300/400 lens sound as a package. If I go for the very comfortable 40D I am going to have to break the bank and am fully aware that all the little consumables could easily add another couple of hundred quid to the price? One lens would be great for now and I could get more specialist ones as funds allow.

[SonicHedgehog]

Just to say that my last post wasn't very complimentary about the D80's grip and that wasn't my intention at all. I don't want to get up the noses of all the D80 owners who are clearly united in their praise for that camera. I was just trying to describe the ergonomics of the grips and overexagerated the differences. Don't want to upset anyone on this very grown up forum.

[senu]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

Just to say that my last post wasn't very complimentary about the D80's grip and that wasn't my intention at all. .... I was just trying to describe the ergonomics of the grips and overexagerated the differences. Don't want to upset anyone on this very grown up forum.

I wouldnt wory about it..As you say it is a grown up Forum.
No one knows just how big your paws are.. !!
Besides, the 350/400D Canons have a £80-100 battery grip that makes them feel "all grown up" ( pun unintended) suddenly

In relation to lenses. Primes are often excellent quality. It would seem that the more focal length range that goes into a lens , the more difficult it is to get the optics spot on.. compromises have to be made. For instance the £50 50mm 1.8 prime is an example of a low cost excellent lens
This is not to say that a costly 24-105L is not better than say a "kit" 18-55. But the quite good 40D "kit" 17-85 IS USM is nowhere as good as the 17-55 2.8 IS USM and costs about £250 less

Each lens should be taken on its own merits but regardless of any intention to go into competitions, you should be aiming for the best lens for the money.. not the most range otherwise, I assure you, discontentment and upgraditis will set in early and youll soon be lens hunting.
If you want to go as long as 300, youll probably need a walkabout wide angle zoom and a medium-long Zoom
Happy hunting
As an aside. the Nikon "kit "lenses are in generally better than Canons offerings but even the much derided Canon 18-55mm kit lens ( with the 400D ect) has been used to take some of the winning entries in this very forums monthly Photo competitions

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

Damn and blast and blast and damn! Just been in Jessops for a fiddle and I can now see what everyone means about the handling. Tried the 400D, D80 and 40D and it is almost as if the bigger they get the more comfy they are. I have average size hands for a man and thought the 400D felt fine to begin with. My little pinky hooked underneath the body ok and I thought that would do nicely. Then came the D80 which was more substantial and easier to hold but had a less sophisticated grip - it felt like more thought had gone into where your fingers would rest on the 400D whereas the D80 felt like someone had said "we need to make this grip big and chunky" and had thought about little else. And then came the 40D which felt like a serious chunk of camera and welcomed my hands with open arms. So I now have to decide whether to chip in some cash of my own and go for the 40D or take the D80.

Just to get this thread back on topic, while in Jessops I noticed that the size of, say, an 18-200 lens is the same as an 18-55 lens. Why would you bother going for the lens with the low zoom (and it is low compared to even a 3x optical zoom compact) when you could have the more powerful lens on all the time with all the practicality that entails? Is the image quality really that much better? Does anyone only have one lens that does everything? For example, an 18-400 jobby would cover all my requirements and be very convenient. I appreciate that I would need a bundle of lens' if I was going to enter a photo competition, but that isn't going to happen any time soon and would I notice the difference?

I guess what I am getting at is how does a 40D with an 18-300/400 lens sound as a package. If I go for the very comfortable 40D I am going to have to break the bank and am fully aware that all the little consumables could easily add another couple of hundred quid to the price? One lens would be great for now and I could get more specialist ones as funds allow.

My 70-300mm VR is very heavy, I wouldn't want to have to walk around with that all day hanging around my kneck. To use an analogy I liken Cameras to cars, and lenses to engines. You wouldn't for example go out and buy a ferrari and then put a 1 litre engine in it. I understand lenses as the "F" factor the lower the number and the more limited range between those two numbers if applicable the better quality it is, of course whether the difference in quality between two lenses justifies the extra expense well therein lies the research again with engines you could have a 1.6 or 2.0 will the 2.0 give you much more than the 1.6. All you can really do is set the budget your willing to pay and then through research and advice from others on this forum decide how best to spend it. I'd probably start a thread along the lines of "Help me spend a grand" or whatever you have available and see what it throws up.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

Just to say that my last post wasn't very complimentary about the D80's grip and that wasn't my intention at all. I don't want to get up the noses of all the D80 owners who are clearly united in their praise for that camera. I was just trying to describe the ergonomics of the grips and overexagerated the differences. Don't want to upset anyone on this very grown up forum.

No offense will be taken I'm sure My shortlist last year was D80,D200 or 30D. I went with Nikon over Canon incidentally because the lenses suited my needs better, and I knew Nikons interface from my prosumer Nikon 5700. My D200 (like the 40D) feels huge, tank-like and comfy, and once you've tried these semi-pro cameras I'm afraid your quite often lost, and reaching for the credit card

As for the jack of all trades lenses, and talking Nikon specifically here...

The 18-55,55-200, 18-70, 18-135 kit lenses are pretty much optically equivalent to the 18-200VR. However, it's much harder to make a single lens solution, so the 18-200VR costs over £450. So, if you can afford it, there's no reason to get the kit lenses, but the 18-200VR is beyond a lot of peoples budgets. So far nobody has come up with a superzoom longer than this with a decent image quality. As I mentioned earlier, even the 18-200 gets soft at the 200mm end, so the 18-200VR+70-300VR is the best consumer grade two lens Nikon solution.

Beyond these 'consumer grade' lenses, you get into the realms of 'pro lenses'. These generally have 2 features - more light gathering power, and greater sharpness. For example, the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR is widely regarded as the best zoom Nikon makes. It's £1000, and weighs a ton, but is f2.8 at 200mm, vs f5.6 with consumer lenses. You can shoot at much higher shutter speeds, and can also get nicer portrait style background blur. You can also get rather nice f2.8 standard zooms (in the 18-55ish range) from Nikon, Sigma and Tamron, starting at about £250.

Here's the thread from Fredmiranda by the guy using a 70-200VR on the D40!

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/580374/0

In general, you'll get better results with a £250 body and a £1000 worth of glass, compared to a £1000 body and £250 of lenses.

[SonicHedgehog]

OK, we're really getting somewhere now. I now appreciate why so many people end up with a D80 - it is not just the fact they prefer the feel/features/lens options etc, but also that it occupies a price point all of it's own. I think it is fair to say that everyone is politely telling me that I would be a fool to spend a fortune on a 40D unless I have the same amount of money again to spend on lens'. Then by the time I add a decent bag, memory card, tripod....I would be looking about about 2 grand all in. With my Xmas subsidy I could get close to that if I sunk a load of my own cash into it, but frankly this is starting to get stupid. My original plan was to get a 400D with a kit lens and a long range extra lens and I am now staring down the barrel of a 40D and pair of very expensive serious-enthusiast lens'. I think I need to get my feet back on the ground.

So, I think the best plan of action is to forget the 40D. I won't be buying until nearer Xmas and so there is a possibility of a price cut, but I won't hold my breath. It therefore comes down to the 400D or the D80 - and that has been done to death on every forum on the internet. I'll go for the D80 because they are much the same price yet the Nikon has the better features and a better grip (for me).

We therefore come full circle back to Johnny Thunder's orginial question about which lens/lens' to get with the D80. I could run to the 18-200VR so that would make sense. I would imagine it would also be good enough to work well on a D300 which would be the logical next step in a few years time. The 70-300VR can come later when I know what I am talking about.

I would have got this all wrong had it not been for the time people have taken to answer my questions. Thank you very much.

[johnaalex]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

We therefore come full circle back to Johnny Thunder's orginial question about which lens/lens' to get with the D80. I could run to the 18-200VR so that would make sense. I would imagine it would also be good enough to work well on a D300 which would be the logical next step in a few years time. The 70-300VR can come later when I know what I am talking about.

I would have got this all wrong had it not been for the time people have taken to answer my questions. Thank you very much.

The 18-200VR will work fine a D300 (according to everything I read before buying one!). Note that you can get a good deal on the lens on eBay, I saved over 70 quid on mine from a Hong Kong supplier. Another thing to consider is that the actual difference between 200 and 200 on the zoom front is not much. Next time you go to Jessops look at any camera with a 300 telephoto frame a shot at 200 and then at the 300 point and you'll see what I mean. If you have a good camera and lens combination and shoot in RAW the 200 will give you options for good sized of photos of faraway things. "No, they are not small cows, they are large cows far away"

Regards

John

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by SonicHedgehog

OK, we're really getting somewhere now. I now appreciate why so many people end up with a D80 - it is not just the fact they prefer the feel/features/lens options etc, but also that it occupies a price point all of it's own. I think it is fair to say that everyone is politely telling me that I would be a fool to spend a fortune on a 40D unless I have the same amount of money again to spend on lens'. Then by the time I add a decent bag, memory card, tripod....I would be looking about about 2 grand all in. With my Xmas subsidy I could get close to that if I sunk a load of my own cash into it, but frankly this is starting to get stupid. My original plan was to get a 400D with a kit lens and a long range extra lens and I am now staring down the barrel of a 40D and pair of very expensive serious-enthusiast lens'. I think I need to get my feet back on the ground.

So, I think the best plan of action is to forget the 40D. I won't be buying until nearer Xmas and so there is a possibility of a price cut, but I won't hold my breath. It therefore comes down to the 400D or the D80 - and that has been done to death on every forum on the internet. I'll go for the D80 because they are much the same price yet the Nikon has the better features and a better grip (for me).

We therefore come full circle back to Johnny Thunder's orginial question about which lens/lens' to get with the D80. I could run to the 18-200VR so that would make sense. I would imagine it would also be good enough to work well on a D300 which would be the logical next step in a few years time. The 70-300VR can come later when I know what I am talking about.

I would have got this all wrong had it not been for the time people have taken to answer my questions. Thank you very much.

The 70-300 VR is not a necessity I really think if you get the D80 with the 18-200VR you can't go wrong. I've got the 70-300 VR and to be honest with you I've used it twice it's lovely to have but for me it's a luxury I've had far more use out of my 18-70mm DX and my sigma 10-20 lens (I'm into landscape photography mostly).

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by johnaalex

The 18-200VR will work fine a D300 (according to everything I read before buying one!). Note that you can get a good deal on the lens on eBay, I saved over 70 quid on mine from a Hong Kong supplier. Another thing to consider is that the actual difference between 200 and 200 on the zoom front is not much. Next time you go to Jessops look at any camera with a 300 telephoto frame a shot at 200 and then at the 300 point and you'll see what I mean. If you have a good camera and lens combination and shoot in RAW the 200 will give you options for good sized of photos of faraway things. "No, they are not small cows, they are large cows far away"

Regards

John

The 18-200VR works fine on the D200, and I've no reason to think that there will be a problem on the D300. The only weak points I can identify are that it's not long enough for wildlife, gets a bit soft at the long end, doesn't have particularly great bokeh, and isn't f2.8 . I love having a couple of good fast portrait lenses as well, because these fill in some of the 18-200VR weaknesses pretty effectively.

[Johnny Thunder]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.
I am of the same opinion as sonic, and will probably buy the body only, with the 18-200VR.

The real sickener for me is, I was on holiday in Hong Kong a couple of months ago.
A real missed opportunity.

[pixelpixel]

Originally Posted by Johnny Thunder

Thanks for all the replies everyone.
I am of the same opinion as sonic, and will probably buy the body only, with the 18-200VR.

The real sickener for me is, I was on holiday in Hong Kong a couple of months ago.
A real missed opportunity.

Don't worry: You can pick the D80 body only for £403.99 from DigitalRev

Jessops have it at £514.95

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by pixelpixel

Don't worry: You can pick the D80 body only for £403.99 from DigitalRev

Jessops have it at £514.95

Dear me that is cheap