Team-BHP - The DSLR Thread

@ Knight Rider

Yes a D80 is a good cam to start with. A friend of mine is actually selling her kit which consists of a sparingly used D80. We shoot together almost all the time so she's shifting to a Canon so that we can share lenses. I've been using her Nikon from time to time and it has many features which my existing Canon doesn't. I find the that cam a great one to start with.

Regards,

Anirban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotzuk (Post 1214478)

Welcome aboard Anirban....
I am sure you will have a great time around here.

Cheers

@ gotzuk

Thanks Vaibhav. Yes I will have it for sure. Well good news for you. The download is complete:D. I'm testing it if it works properly. Will let you know tomorrow on phone.

Cheers,

Anirban.

For the price you are not going to get anything better than the Nikon D40 period( I am not talking of the D40x). Have you wondered why the D40 is listed as a current model in the Nikon lineup even though its such an old camera. Its because the guys at Nikon could not conjure up a better replacement. Please do not get carried away by the megapixel race as it means sweet nothing for beginers like you and me.
Low light performance is the key for the likes of you and me and by that I mean lowest pixel density( I am not talking of total pixel count). Buy the camera that you can afford with the lowest pixel density and be warned that cameras with a lower pixel density than the D40 will cost you a bomb if you are climbing up the megapixel ladder.
Read the articles thoroughly and also know that when you buy a cmaera buy one that has a pixel density thats less than 2.

Once again may I remind you to forget about megapixels once and for all. For veiwing pictures on our computer monitors we do not need photos more than 4 megapixels anyway.

Nikon D40

Pixel Density: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Pixel Density: when Moore is less: Digital Photography Review

@Anirban
Thanks a lot man!
I think that sometime later this year I will take the plunge and buy myself a D-SLR.
What lenses do you advise, I should go in for.

My primary use will be

Wildlife (mostly in day time only) so I think that I won't be needing a higher aperture. Am I right? But I would be needing a good zoom
Action photography, (We guys go for Off-Road meets 4x4's etc) This too is in the daytime only.
Leisure (family functions, vacations, and misc, this might include night photography too) but again high zoom like the one required for the wildlife photography, won't be a priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpullockaran (Post 1214509)

D40 is a junk camera as has been mentioned quite a few times. Please search to know more. It doesn't autofocus a majority of nikon lenses and is quite kludgy to use overall. The high ISO performance is not great either - there's significant amount of noise at ISO 800.

Pixel density is useful as a measure only when the micro sites used for capture are identical. Obviously they are not across all cameras and newer models have better micro sites which resolve color/luma better. Moot point being my Canon 40D which is 10MP absolutely thrashes the old 8MP 350D I had in high ISO performance. ISO 800 on the 350D is worse than ISO 1600 on the 40D. Both have the same sized sensor but the pixel density is higher on the 40D. This obviously is becase of better photo sites on the sensor. However if the sites and image processing system are the same, a lower pixel density means lower noise.

The only reason the D40 has been kept alive by nikon is to grab market share. Folks with limited budgets who've not done enough background study are suckered into buying the D40 after looking at the low price tag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by harjeev (Post 1214589)

My primary use will be

Wildlife
Action photography
Leisure

Budget lens set: 18-55, 55-250, 50/1.8 even this set will cost you about Rs. 25K+.

Next step up
Wildlife:
70-200/2.8 IS with a 2x teleconverter or if you are on a budget the 70-300 IS. The advantage of IS on a wildlife lens is that most times you wont have a tripod and might even be panning to catch an animal on the move. If you are averse to teleconverters the 80-400/4-5.6 (100-400/4.5-5.6L in canon's case) is an option.

Action: depends on how far you are from the action
For my son's school sports I manage with a 17-55 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS (borrowed from my niece). For indoor sports (basketball/table tennis) the 85/1.8 offers low light performance at a good price if you have a bigger budget get the 135/2L (never used but it has a superb reputation).

Leisure: if you have the budget get the canon 18-200/3.5-5.6. It is prefered over the Sigma and Tamron even though the others are cheaper and have more range (250/270mm). Another option is the 24-105/4 IS which can work for both Action (under good lighting) and leisure and will stand in you in good stead if you ever upgrade to FF. I also use the 16-35/2.8 as it is light and manvouverable and works when the subjects are close (adult parties) and a 28/1.8 for candle light again if you have the budget go for the 24/1.4L (again never used it but excellent reputation).

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpullockaran (Post 1214509)

For the price you are not going to get anything better than the Nikon D40 period( I am not talking of the D40x).

If one is open to buying little older dSLRs, you can get better deals than D40.

Case in point: Amazon.com: Olympus Evolt E410 10MP Digital SLR Camera with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 Zuiko Lenses: Electronics

This comes with 2 kits lens, not just one. It even has live-view. When we compare DSLRs, there is no point talking about image quality. Every dSLR currently in the market can deliver more image quality than we amateurs can handle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselFan (Post 1214739)

How reliable is ebay.in in buying expensive DSLR cameras? Any first hand experience both good and bad would be really useful.

I bid for my Sony DSLR on ebay.com using my cousins account (she has a US address) and the camera was shipped to her address.

My experience with ebay.com was excellent and the condition of the camera was absolutely new as it was mentioned in the advert. The shipping and handling was professionally done too. Hence i save almost 30% of my money if I would have bought the same camera from India.

I guess it all depends upon the reputation of the seller and how many positives the sellar has. So you will have to keep that in mind before you buy something

Well I don't think so I've anything more to add to what Navin has already added. He's outlined the exact things which I'd have suggested you too. The only thing which I might say is that using a teleconvertor is not really appreciated as the f-stop increases drastically which results in the image quality getting low as the dof increases. And yes for wildlife a 400mm is like mandatory. Though the 70-200mm is a good lens but then again, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS costs almost as much as a 100-400mm so why not go for that the first place itself?

@ Navin

Do you have any idea how much the 85mm 1.8 costs?? I'm looking for a fast portrait lens for low light situations. I've zeroed on the 100mm 2.8 macro which doubles as a medium level portrait lens. But, after using the 50mm 1.8 I find most lenses not satisfactory. Hence the 85mm is an interesting proposition. What are your views on that lens?

Regards,

Anirban.