I'm still on the fence......

[sh0tyme83]

I still can not decide what to get... a Nikon or a Canon. I don't like the fact that the D40 doesn't have an autofocus motor. Does anyone have any experience with the D60? Does it have an autofocus motor in the body of the camera? Does it have the ability to have savable settings? The reason I am so curious about the Nikon, is because I am able to get a Tamron 28-300 mm macro for 90 bucks for the Nikon, however this lens does not have an autofocus motor in it. Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

 

[bdepp]

Hi sh0tyme83,

i'm a canon user so i'm not much help to you on the Nikon questions but autofocus is a huge advantage and personally i would steer you away from buying a manual lens.

Depp

 

[Toddrtrex]

I picked up a D60 about a month ago. While I am still figuring it all out, I am pretty pleased with it.

You will need an auto focus lens for the D60. For a macro shots I prefer manual focus, but that is just me.

I haven't dug deep enough into it to know if there are savable settings, but from after a quick look at the manual it seems like you can.

Lisle isn't that far from where I live, so if you ever want to look at my camera, you are more then welcome.

 

[MCary]

Whichever side of the fence you land, you'll be happy.

 

[Misled]

I own a D40 and though all my lenses have a motor for auto, I rarely use it, maybe 15-20% of the time. Alot depends on what you shoot. I take alot of bugs, critters and flowers. Sometimes I can use it but there's usually something that gets in the way.

 

[sassafrass]

Go to the store and hold them see how they feel in your hands they are different enough to make a difference in which one you will like I like canon but that is what I have always used so my finger know where the buttons are. If you buy one without trying it first and it isn't intuitive for you you will use it less
Lee

 

[OkR33Fer]

Another viable option with those cameras is a Sony A100 and one can be had for $500 brand new, and it's a 10mp camera instead of 6.

I have the Sony(Minolta) and love it.

Here's a pretty good head to head to head comparison.

D80 - XTi - A100

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/co...ad-to-Head-to-Head-Digital-Camera-Review-.htm

 

[mcliffy2]

Get a Pentax K10D I have one and love it. $650 and its twice the camera of the entry level Nikon and Canon IMO. The image stabilization built-in makes buying lenses much less expensive.

 

[Dino]

I'm not sure what you mean by an autofocus motor in the body, the motor is inside the lens - there is no motor in the body. Nikon or Canon. As far as autofocus during macro, what has been mentioned a couple times is correct. Usually while taking macro you don't use autofocus, manual focus all the way. When you're dealing with such shallow DOF, small subjects, and in the case of going beyond 1:1 autofocus doesn't work that well. I'm a Canon shooter but my 100mm f/2.8 macro spends about 98% of its time in MF .

I don't think you'll be disappointed in either way you go, both Canon and Nikon produce great bodies. What is important is to take a look at the range of lenses each offers. Don't get cheap with your glass as it is what impacts your IQ, not the body.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12693763#post12693763 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcliffy2
Get a Pentax K10D I have one and love it. $650 and its twice the camera of the entry level Nikon and Canon IMO. The image stabilization built-in makes buying lenses much less expensive.

Mmm yes and no. It is cheaper, yes. You buy one image stabilizer and your done. The performance of this stabilization doesn't stack up to that offered in comparable in-lens systems however. The big guns (Nikon and Canon) use the in-lens approach for this reason. Many of the up and coming companies are offering simplified systems to reduce cost and attract buyers. That said I think Pentax, Sony, and Olympus are all very good cameras and I almost bought into the Sony line.

 

[IPT]

I am also a Canon person myself. I originally choose it because they had mirror lock up (in the price range I was looking at) and a better lens selection. Now it seems like Ford and Chevy to me. SOme of what I have read recently seems to have Nikon with a little less noise on the high ISO settings verse Canon. I agree though, get one of each in your hand and see how it feels and how much you like the positions of the controls. Either will take high quality images.

 

[Misled]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12693841#post12693841 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dinoman
I'm not sure what you mean by an autofocus motor in the body, the motor is inside the lens - there is no motor in the body. Nikon or Canon.

Dino, the D40, dD40x and I believe a couple others require different lenses to work in the auto focus mode. Nikon makes a few that work with it, and both Sigma and Tamron now make some that will auto with it now. I just purchased one from Sigma, 70-300 that does.

The other thing to think about is the D40's are a smaller camera than their larger counterparts. With the "kit" lenses balance is ok but it takes some getting used to using my Sigma. The lens is quite a bit heavier than the kit lenses.

Of corse they all work in the manual mode.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12697004#post12697004 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
ISOme of what I have read recently seems to have Nikon with a little less noise on the high ISO settings verse Canon. I agree though, get one of each in your hand and see how it feels and how much you like the positions of the controls. Either will take high quality images.

Your first statement really only applies to the new D3 and only then if you're comparing it against the Canon consumer line. The 1DsMIII still kicks it's butt. Even the 5D gives it a run for it's money and that's a 3 year old design.

The second statement is right on. Any DSLR that you can buy today will take excellent pictures when used properly. Glass (lenses) really have more to do with image quality than the camera body.

 

[IPT]

I just figured that performance at high ISO could be a factor if he was palnning on a lot of handheld shooting in low light places.

I keep hearing the "new" 5D is right around the corner and maybe it will meet or exceed the D3's high ISO performance. Myself, I was always quite please with my 5D even at ISO 800.

Neither the 5D or the D3 are inexpensive cameras though. If I were on a buget I may even get a D40 or Rebel and spend the rest on quality lenses and a good tripod. Again, I am a Canon user though. Just food for thought...

 

[VoidRaven]

Problem with Image Stabilization in the camera body....sensors can only be "moved" so far to keep the image "stable". Quite honesty, IMHO and totally unprofessional opinion, I don't want my sensor constantly being jacked around. Sure it costs more for lenses that have IS in the lens but they are more effective if you get really nit-picky. I would prefer image stabilized lenses.

You can never go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. I'm a Nikon guy, many here are Canon. Sony and Olympus have some decent cameras, as does Fuji though Fuji uses the Nikon lens mount so you end up buying Nikon (or "made for Nikon mount") lenses anyway. Sony has its own lenses and Olympus has its own lenses (along with the Four-Thirds system).

In the end, a great portion of it is how well YOU know how you use your gear and how well you apply via lots and lots and lots of practice your photography lessons.