[wozwebs]

Hi folks, have been interested in photography for a while now and have had 4 or 5 point and shoot digital cameras over the years but now I want to get into it a bit more. Looking at some of your photos in this forum have inspired me. They are awesome, truly are.

I am presuming going from a standard digital camera to a digital SLR I will notice a big improvement? Current camera is a Samsung 10 mega pixels but the battery life is shocking and indoor shots blur, even with anti-shake on.

Having an active 2 year old who won't stand still for a photo, i'm hoping the fast taking of photos will help get some good shots.

I know there is a lot to learn and I hope to get into it a lot more this year.

I have narrowed down my search to 3 cameras

Nikon D40 (Can get for £240 with cashback)
Sony A200 (Can get for £270)
Pentax K100D (Can get for £249)

All seem well rated but the Pentax seems to have the best ratings i've seen, has I.S. and can use many old Pentax lenses which I could pick up on ebay cheaply.

But then the Nikon is lighter and the Sony has recently won an award for best entry level DSLR

Oh the choices!!

What do you guys recommend?

Here are a few favourites that i've taken over the years
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2791160...th/2600296690/

Cheers for any advice

[dazza74]

First of all I would advise at the very least handling each of these camera, in most cases with D-SLR's something just feels right and that's what a lot of people buy.

I think it's fair to say feature wise both the Sony & Pentax offer better value for money. I'd buy the Nikon D40 though purely because you can get a cheap 50mm 1.8 (around £80 ideal for the portraits and low light fast photography). Not to knowledgable on Sony & Pentax lens options so hopefully we'll get other arguments for these two brands to give you a balanced opinion.

[springtide]

Originally Posted by dazza74

First of all I would advise at the very least handling each of these camera, in most cases with D-SLR's something just feels right and that's what a lot of people buy.

I think it's fair to say feature wise both the Sony & Pentax offer better value for money. I'd buy the Nikon D40 though purely because you can get a cheap 50mm 1.8 (around £80 ideal for the portraits and low light fast photography). Not to knowledgable on Sony & Pentax lens options so hopefully we'll get other arguments for these two brands to give you a balanced opinion.

The only issue with the cheap 50mm 1.8 for the D40 (and D60) is it doesn't autofocus on the D40 (or D60) since it doesn't have an AF Motor in the body, but this may or may not be an issue for you.

Think most of the brands have a cheap 50mm portrait option, but as 'dazza74' said you are probably better off trying one in your hands.

...although cameras are something you get used to pretty quickly unless you have either very large or very small hands. Maybe I just have very average sized hands, as I'm pretty happy using most makes/models.

Might be worth looking on EBay for any lenses that you might need. Note that Sony and Minolta AF lenses are the same (since Sony bought the technology)

It sounds like you've done your research, so make a shortlist of your requirements on paper and compare this against the specs and reviews to help decide. Only you can really make the decision, since it's your money that you are spending to meet your requirements.

[Mike.P®]

I was in exactly the same boat a few months ago and decided on the Pentax.
Then I looked at the K10D, bought it and haven't looked back since.
As you say, all the old Pentax glass can be used quite happily and as long as you are alright with using manual focus etc then there are some real bargains to be had.

[johndow]

Again, i was also in this position, and have an active two year old.

I went from a bridge camera. A Panasonic FZ7. It had an image stabilizer, but that is no use for a fast moving subject, and even at ISO 80 the noise was noticeable, unbearable above ISO 200.
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the cameras you mentioned. Personally i chose a reconditioned Canon 350D 8MP from a canon reseller on ebay for £210 with kit lens and 1 year full warranty. I then went and bought a 50mm 1.8 prime from onestop-digital for £50 delivered. The combination of low noise on the DSLR (800 no problem, 1600 may need some noise reduction) and the fast lens mean that i can get excellent shots of my son indoors without the flash and very little or no noise.

I am sure i made the right decision to upgrade.

Good Luck

[peteblakemore]

First off I don't think you should go for the Nikon D40. My reasoning behind this is that you're only going to get 6 mega pixels from it, and if you're coming from a 10mp camera that could really suck! If you really like the Nikon D40 and want more mega pixels then get the D40x, the x being the magic part because it means it's got the same CCD as it's bigger brothers and gives you 10mp.

I can't say much about the Sony or the Pentax, but I'm going to stir things up a bit now and suggest you take a look at the Canon 400d. I discounted the Canon at first because I'd read reviews that the 18-55mm lens that comes with it is rubbish. In my opinion that's not true (I finally bought one after much debating about 3 months ago and haven't regretted it). In the end for me it came down to the Nikon D40x or the Canon 400d. I was about to get the Nikon but reviews elsewhere had said that the manual settings are fiddly and you have to go into the menus to adjust things like ISO, where as on the Canon functions like ISO, aperture and shutter, etc. all have independant buttons which is brilliant. Also the Canon has a dust prevention system where the low pass filter (a filter that sits just infront of the camera's CCD or CMOS sensor) shakes to get all the dust off during start up and turning off, where as the Nikon does not.

The image quality of the Canon 400d is very good. In fact if you'd like to see some example shots all taken with my 400d you can take a look at my gallery here http://www.peteblakemore.com/gallery.html (the images have been edited a bit in Photoshop btw!).

At the end of the day it depends on what is right for your situation. I got my DSLR because I wanted to be more creative and access the manual controls and have myself do ALL the work, and because of this the 400d was great. For you it might be different, you might just want a point and shoot camera, or something where you can have full manual but is very easy to use and looks nice. If this is the case then the Nikon D40x is a good camera because it has nicer looking menus and good auto settings but lets you use manual as well. However, the question could be raised that if you just want a simple point and shoot camera and don't really want to get into manual settings much, then why get a DSLR in the first place.

Oh, one more thing that I just remembered about the Canon 400d is that the ISO level goes up to 1600 which is actually fantastic for low light conditions, but don't expect to print huge images with it because it does introduce a bit of noise. It goes does to ISO100 where noise is minimal and the images looks crisp and sharp.

Hope that helps and hasn't confused you anymore by suggesting the Canon!

[jomike]

Originally Posted by peteblakemore

First off I don't think you should go for the Nikon D40. My reasoning behind this is that you're only going to get 6 mega pixels from it, and if you're coming from a 10mp camera that could really suck! If you really like the Nikon D40 and want more mega pixels then get the D40x, the x being the magic part because it means it's got the same CCD as it's bigger brothers and gives you 10mp.

Have a look here and tell me if this "sucks". (Warning, large file). This was taken with the Nikon D50, same 6Mp sensor as the D40. Do not get sucked () into the pixel count marketing hype. Unless you are going to print very large or crop severely, 6Mp in a DSLR is more than enough, and you get less noise direct from the sensor in low light/high ISO

Basically any DSLR on the market will take brilliant photos in the right hands. Choice is down to price, features and wether it feels right to you.

[Triggaaar]

I imagine when starting out and not knowing how you're going to like slr photography it's difficult to think long term, but it would be nice to have plenty of future options in terms of lenses etc.

If you are particularly interested in photographing the kids, then IS isn't that important - instead, what you need is reasonable shutter speeds (1/60th, 1/125th). No point taking a stable image at 1/8th when your subject is on the move. And for that, you want a fast lens (low aperture). As said above, a 50mm f1.8 is perfect (use mine to photograph the kids all the time).

Are you only considering new? There are bargains to be had second hand.

[wozwebs]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Are you only considering new? There are bargains to be had second hand.

Would certainly consider 2nd hand at the right price. With some of these at under £250 though I figured that with a 12 month warranty also they represent excellent value. Going towards the Sony now as it is lighter and less bulky than the Pentax

[Triggaaar]

Yeah I agree, there's lots of value to be had. As said above, don't worry about the megapixels. If you think you'll be happy with 1 or 2 lenses for a couple of years, it wouldn't matter if you changed brands later, you wouldn't lose much - the total amount you've spent will be less than the fall in price of the next camera you may choose. I've decided not to make a specific recommendation for that reason, and the fact that I'm biased towards Nikon, as I've used them so long.

[Yandros]

Another "me too" post about megapixels. In fact the D40 has marginally better low light characteristics than the D40x, as the pixels are bigger, and catch more light.

It's not always about the pixels, but the quality of the pixels.