Quote:
Originally Posted by matttr6 Right, another twist.Just been looking on ebay and it seems I can get a Nikon 40D(with the stock lens) for around £200 which makes me think why spend £150 on a Bridge camera.
The 40D seems well respected on here as a good starter camera- would this be a better direction to go in?? |
I assume you mean the Nikon D40 (a 40D is a mid range Canon model).
Well, here are your pros and cons. The D40 won't give you the same zoom capability with the kit lens as a bridge camera. It doesn't have a macro mode, so won't do extreme closeup work. On the other hand it has a MUCH better high ISO (low light) capability, and faster focussing and no shutter lag. This makes it more suitable for low light conditions and action shots. Due to the bigger sensor, DSLRS also have a shallow 'depth of field', allowing you to do arty blurred backgrounds. This is very hard on bridge and compact cameras which have a massive depth of field.
To add a pretty decent macro/telephoto zoom lens to a D40 later (I'm thinking of a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro) adds about 150 quid. For everyday snapshots you'd simply leave that at home, so a D40 isn't a lot less practical than the average bridge camera (how many people use a 300mm lens on holiday for example?)
If you just want something for bog standard holiday snaps etc- get a bridge or high quality compact. If you're likely to push it by shooting in tough lighting conditions or awkward subjects, then things like high ISO noise and shutter lag will drive you nuts.