Which camera and Lens?

[ReefRockerLive]

I'm currently looking at the following SLR digital cameras:

Nikon D40
Nikon D40X
Canon Rebel XT
Canon Rebel XTi

I can get any one of the 4 cameras with the perfect lens to give excellent quality macro shots, but my confusion comes in when choosing a camera. Is the D40X worth the extra money when I can get the D40? Is the Rebel XTi worth the extra money when I can get the XT? I just need to make sure that the quality shots are good and does not have all the extra functions that are not commonly used for this hobby.

Once a camera has been selected, I then need to select a good lens that is not over $350.

Thanks in advance to anyone who offers their advice and tips!

 

[reefman13]

There will be a lot of people posting copies of what they have said in other threads, but myself, I am a HUGE Nikon fan, and I managed to get one of the last few D50's with the 18-200mm lens. However, with the D40, you are going to get much more of a point and shoot/DSLR hybrid-like camera. It is a fantastic camera, don't get me wrong, but if you are going for a true SLR the Cannon is a better choice IMO. However, if an easy to use, great quality SLR-like camera, then I would with out a doubt go for the D40X (just that little bit better than the D40).

Now, I saw you posted "macro shots" just FYI you really can't get a good macro lens let alone a good regular lens under $1000 ($400 for a regular lens).

 

[PJSEA]

Here's my opinion on the Nikon. Someone else can answer for the Canon. If you're just using it for casual use, then don't spend the extra money for the higher end. The cheaper ones are fine for normal size prints. The Nikon D40x has extra pixels and slighly faster frame rate.
As for a lens I would recommend the Sigma 105mm/f2.8 Macro for the Nikon. I just ordered one for myself thru a dealer on Amazon.com for $350 shipped.

 

[ReefRockerLive]

I'm now debating on either the D40 or the XT by Nikon and Canon, respectively. When I get one of these camera, should I get an extended warrenty with it or are they just not worth the extra money?

 

[BlueCorn]

Both of those will produce excellent pictures. Your lens choice will have a much greater impact on the quality of your image than the camera body. I would purchase whichever is cheaper, allowing you more money to spend on glass.

Also, be careful where you buy the camera. There are LOTS of shady individuals in the camera business. Check them out with resellerratings.com before you give anyone your CC information.

 

[PJSEA]

Typically extended warranties are not worth the cost. Stores make huge profits off them. They would only cover manufacturing defects and probably have very strict limitations. The most likely thing to happen to the camera would be damage from dropping it which isn't covered.
The only time I would ever consider an extended warranty on a product is if they offered free cleanings or adjustments every year. Consider also the fact that these days the technology is outdated within 6 months - year.

 

[ReefRockerLive]

Alright so I am going to go with the D40, but there are many package deals that I am seeing on Amazon.com

Here are the packages I am looking at:

D40 with 2 lens

D40 with this lens?

Are any of those lens good for getting decent close-ups of Acros and full tank shots? If not, can someone show me which lens I should buy for this purpose?

 

[mpoletti]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11114465#post11114465 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by PJSEA
Typically extended warranties are not worth the cost. Stores make huge profits off them. They would only cover manufacturing defects and probably have very strict limitations. The most likely thing to happen to the camera would be damage from dropping it which isn't covered.
The only time I would ever consider an extended warranty on a product is if they offered free cleanings or adjustments every year. Consider also the fact that these days the technology is outdated within 6 months - year.

I differ on this opinion. I just bought a nikon 105 macro lens and I bought the 2 year warranty because when spending that much on a camera when you are going to use it around water, it is much better to be safe. I did not purchase the extended warranty on my last camera and now it is broke and they want me to pay to ship it and pay to fix the water damage.

BTW, do you buy the warranty with your car?

 

[mksalt]

This months Popular Photograph mag rates the cameras you’re looking at. The Cannon has better AF and prop more choices in lenses. Both cameras will take great pics.

 

[PJSEA]

Marko
I would not expect that water damage caused by your use would have been covered under the original or extended warranty. Read the terms of a warranty.
This is from Nikons web site related to their extended warranty:
"Nikon Extended Service Coverage does not cover the cost of repairs associated with misuse, abuse or damage as a result of water or impact."
http://www.nikonusa.com/esc/usa_esc.html

NO, I have never bought an extended warranty on a car or anything else I've purchased except recently. I bought a 3 year extended warranty on a table saw but it included free check and adjustment annually whether it was broken or not.

 

[mcliffy2]

I am starting to sound like a machine, person comes asking whether they should go Nikon or Canon, I say, go research the Pentax K10d. It is gives you way more for your $$$ than either of those.

 

[ReefRockerLive]

I was considering the K10d camera, but could not find a wide selection of lens for that camera.

 

[BlueCorn]

mcliffy2 there's a reason why Canon and Nikon have about 90% of the market. That's not to say that you can't take good pictures with the K10 but it's a statistic worth considering.