canon digital rebel xt vs nikon D40. which is better for first time DSLR buyer? TIA

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by joe smith, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. joe smith

    joe smith Guest

     
    joe smith, Mar 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It very probably doesn't matter a bit. Unless you get into buying the
    $1000+ lenses very quickly, it just won't matter. Even for low-light
    performance, it doesn't sound like the bottom-end Canon has much of
    anything over the D40.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. joe smith

    joe smith Guest

    i don't really plan to buy new lenses. does d40 produce better quality
    than the rebel xt with the kit lens?
     
    joe smith, Mar 9, 2007
    #3
  4. joe smith

    King Sardon Guest

    Not planning to buy accessory lenses is up to you, of course, but the
    main advantage of a DSLR, and a justification for the extra cost and
    weight, is being able to change lenses.

    The kit lenses for both Canon and Nikon are very good, though, and I
    doubt you will see any difference between these and the expensive
    lenses when viewing on a monitor or printing up to 8x10 inches. But
    you do limit yourself in other ways, for instance speed (max aperture)
    and no image stabilization.

    KS
     
    King Sardon, Mar 9, 2007
    #4
  5. That's because Canon AF lenses ALL have a motor in them. Which made
    them more expensive than Nikon lenses, in the early years. Tradeoffs
    change over the years, and for at least that camera Nikon seems to have
    decided Canon was right.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 16, 2007
    #5
  6. joe smith

    dj_nme Guest

    I have a feeling that Nikon adpoted it because it make the body that
    tiny bit cheaper to manufacture: no lens-motor and gearing required.
    It also makes all of the new lenses slightly dearer to manufacture, now
    they must have an inbuilt motor for AF to work on the new body.
     
    dj_nme, Mar 16, 2007
    #6
  7. joe smith

    ASAAR Guest

    While the savings are no doubt viewed favorably by Nikon, I think
    that the motor was dropped primarily because the intention was to
    produce a very small camera. Because of minor size differences,
    I've thought that arguments that "changing from CF to SD cards
    allows cameras to be smaller" to be almost silly, except for
    possibly the smallest cameras. But the D40 is certainly much
    smaller than the similar D50, so the elimination of the motor and
    drive train probably was a big contributing factor. Although I'd
    prefer the smaller size, I may get a D50 while they're still
    available new, as I have several of Nikon's older lenses. The D50
    and D40 have almost identical optical performance, but the D50
    shares compatibility with the batteries used by several other Nikons
    (D70, D80, etc.). So the new battery, or at least the clones will
    probably be more expensive for a while. Additionally, its capacity
    is much reduced, 1,000mAh for the new EN-EL9 vs. 1,400mAh for the
    EN-EL3a. Battery life should still be pretty good for the D40 so
    the reduced battery life may not be too important unless the flash
    gets considerable use.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 17, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.