Nikon Cost v. Value Question

[MassJester]

I've been looking at DSLRs, and have narrowed it down to either the Xti from Cannon, or one of the Nikon Models: D40, D70 or D80

Taking the Xti off the stage for a moment, do any of you have any thoughts about the cost v. value of those three Nikon models?

 

[RitchG]

This could go on and on about pixel count, sensor size, focus/exposure points, size/weight, and so on. I usually suggest that one sets a budget and then attempts to get the most camera for that amount. The Nikon D-- are all really great cameras (dpreview loves them); but do you want to spend $500 or $1000? Although I went with a Canon (whole 'nuther discussion), I chose the EOS 30D rather than the 5D and put more money into a better collection of lenses, flash, etc. (having said that I still lust for the 5D).

Also, WRT your sig, another take on friendship I heard on the radio today:
A "friend" will bail you out of jail; a "good friend" will turn to you in the cell and say "Cool, huh?"
---Ritch

 

[Ratpack]

Just curious why you included the D40 but not the D50. I have the D50 and believe it to be a great camera both in performance and cost / value.

 

[YEKCIM]

Just curious why you included the D40 but not the D50. I have the D50 and believe it to be a great camera both in performance and cost / value.

I second that. You can pick up a D50 body for about $450 online (plus shipping) and add whatever lenses best suit your needs. For example, you could get the 18-135 Nikkor for +/-$350 and have a very fine setup for around $800. The Sigma 17-70 is also very highly regarded, and sells for around the same as the 18-135. Just my $0.02.

~YEKCIM

 

[ndelaware]

I think the D50 is the best value in the Nikon line. I would chose it over the more expensive D70.

 

[fitzperry]

Just curious why you included the D40 but not the D50. I have the D50 and believe it to be a great camera both in performance and cost / value.

IMO, the D50 is probably the best value in the Nikon dslr line. I've had a D70 for a little over 2 years, and I've been quite pleased with it overall, but it's virtually worthless at ISO 1600, which I believe is not the case with the D50 because of the newer sensor. If memory serves, the D50 does not have true spot metering and is missing a couple of other features that are found on the D70 and 80. However, there are excellent deals to be had on the D50 at the moment. Although I'd love a D80, one could make a compelling argument that your money would be better spent on a D50 and some higher quality lenses.

 

[handicap18]

The D50 does have spot metering and your correct about the sensor. The D50's sensor is much better than the D70. As for the D40, its basically a "dumbed down" (for lack of a better term) version of the D50. Biggest issue with the D40 vs the D50 is no internal focus motor in the D40 body which mean it can only use Nikkors AF-S lenses for auto focus, all the other auto focus lenses (ie: 50mm f/1.8 & 85mm f/1.8 to name a few along with most of the 3rd party lenses)will not work in AF mode, only manual focus.

I've been using the D50 for over a year and absolutly love it. I have been keeping an eye on the D80, but its ISO1600 performance isn't as good as the D50, infact the D50 probably has the best high ISO performance in the Nikon dSLR line. Like YEKCIM said, for twice the money, the D80 isn't twice as good as the D50. Take the extra money and get yourself some extra lenses and a speedlight flash. 6.1MP is more than enough for a dSLR. The sensor on the D80 is the same size, but it has to fit more MP on it which takes away from the higher ISO performance giving the images a much greater chance of having noise issues.

For the cost of the D80 body only you can get the D50 with the 18-135mm lens and also the 50mm f/1.8 or for slightly more the SB-600 flash instead of the 50mm f/1.8.

See either of the links in my signature for samples of my D50 pictures, for the Disney site all the pics from 2006 were taken with the D50, in the Misc gallery, 99% of the pics were with the D50

Happy shopping.

 

[YEKCIM]

FWIW, here are some test samples I took just a few days ago, using my brand new D50 and the various lenses I acquired at the same time, if you'd like to evaluate the image quality:

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/fasteddiew/Nikon D50 Lens Tests/

All shots taken with the D50, tripod mounted, focused on same spot, aperture set to f/8 in each case. Lenses used were:

Sigma 10-20 HSM
Nikkor 18-135
Nikkor 50 f/1.8
Nikkor 70-300VR

BTW, my first inclination was to buy two D50 bodies and the lenses listed but I decided to wait on the second body until I had the first one in-hand and had evaluated it.

The second D50 shipped from B&H today.

As Kyle said, "for twice the money, the D80 isn't twice as good as the D50". It's good, no doubt, but for my purposes, the 50 is fine and I'd rather have two D50 bodies than one D80, for several reasons.

Hope this helps. I'm sure you will be happy with whichever camera you decide upon, Canon or one of the Nikons.

~YEKCIM

 

[MassJester]

This is all good feedback. Perhaps it will help if I give a little more information on expectations, and some thoughts that I have (perhaps not...)

Money is not the big issue for me. That is to say, I want the right camera for me, and $350-$500 saved or spent is less important than getting the best fit.

Although I can see some desire for producing images in the 8"x10" range, I don't expect the need to come up with anything larger on a regular basis. Much of my personal demand will fall into sizes substantially smaller (4x6 or web viewing).

Weight of the unit is an issue, but then so are other ergonomics. I've held the D40 and after I wrap my right hand around it I run out of camera long before I run out of hand (ok, I'm a gorilla, but a good natured one). I am concerned that I will find this annoying after extended use.

Overall versatility is very important. I want to be limited by my skill set, not the tool.

That said, it seems that there are places that the D80 has taken a bit of a step back, and so just going for the most expensive of the three may not get me there.

Maybe that helps? Or, maybe that doesn't give you any better understanding.

 

[YEKCIM]

Paul,

I have not handled a D40, but it *does* seem small-ish. I came from a Maxxum film SLR, and the D50 "fits" my hand in much the same way that my old 7000i's did, so that was a pretty seamless transition. My "strategy", if you want to call it that, was to buy into the Nikon system by acquiring the lenses I wanted and could afford, and a body with which to use those lenses. Many forum members here and elsewhere advise to put one's money in glass, which is what I tried to do, perhaps to a degree, at the expense of the body. I ordered the D50 body with the clear intention of buying a second body as soon as possible, with the following being the options:

A) Another D50
B) A D80
C) Wait for the next midrange Nikon body

B was, as Kyle has stated, 2X the money for less than 2X the camera; C is an unknown, and I love the D50, so A became my choice, and I like the fact that I won't have to learn another operation manual.


Of equal importance here is the overall "system" you will be buying into...lenses, flash, etc, etc. and not just the body. I assume you have compared the offerings that both Canon and Nikon (and Pentax and Sony??) have, and that your decision will give the proper weight to those considerations.

If you plan to buy from a brick-n-mortar store, I would suggest you ask to handle each model that you are interested in, with the intention of buying from that B-n-M store, if they are cooperative and helpful.

BTW, you may want to lurk around the Nikon forum over at www.dpreview.com. Good source of information and image samples.

Hope that helps. Be sure and let us know what you end up with. I suggest a prompt visit to the House of Mouse, to "field-test" your new gear!

~YEKCIM

 

[Steve's Girl]

Just have to put my plug in for the D80. I had originally decided the D50 was the best way to go. However, I made the mistake of trying a D80 while I was looking at the D50. Needless to say, I now own the D80. I have been very happy with the camera. I can't give you all the techie details - it just felt right in my hands. It is a very capable camera that makes up for a lot of my photographic incapabilities! The camera is so much smarter than I am and very forgiving of my oofs.

 

[Ratpack]

Paul,

I assume you have compared the offerings that both Canon and Nikon (and Pentax and Sony??) have, and that your decision will give the proper weight to those considerations.

~YEKCIM

Didn't touch on this since you only mentioned Canon and Nikon, but you may want to look at Sony. In one of my recent PC Photo magazines, it was voted the best DSLR in it's class right now.

Also, if price is not an issue, then forget the D80 and go ahead and get D200. But since you are only looking at 4x6 prints, the D50 is still my choice. Enough features to handle any situation I could ever use until I become well versed in photography. Once I max out it's capabilities, I will be ready to get paid for taking photos!

 

[ukcatfan]

I have to throw in a mention of Pentax. At your willing spending level, the K10D is a really nice choice. Plus you get the IS built into the body. It seems to work well on my K100D.

What lenses do you plan on buying? That can help determine what brand.

As for Nikon, I say D50, D80, or D200. The D70 is too noisy and the D40 is too limiting and small. For Canon, skip the Rebel series and go to a 20D or 30D b/c of the small size of the Rebels.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Any DSLR past the entry-level will have a big drop-off of value... the diminishing returns hit quickly! You probably could not tell the difference between photos taken with a D40, D50, or D80, they just offer more tools to help the photographer, not necessarily produce noticeably better photos (the higher megapixels of the D80 probably not being clearly visible except on a large print, and definitely not on a PC screen.)

I would also have to toss in a mention of the K10D, it easily gives you more features than any other camera in the price range, and uses the same sensor as the D80, only with image stabilization and dust removal... plus it's water/dust sealed, has hyperprogram, ISO priority mode, etc, etc. Again, though, is it going to produce better photos than the K100D? Not significantly so. (The K100D is a stellar bargain, the K110D even more so.)

Unless there's a feature that the entry-level model lacks (and I'd go with the D50 over the D40 any day), I'd tend to recommend the entry-level and spend the extra on lenses or other accessories.

 

[Armadillo4]

I second that. You can pick up a D50 body for about $450 online (plus shipping) and add whatever lenses best suit your needs.

I'm going to do exactly this! I've been debating between a Rebel XT and the D50 for the past couple of weeks. And have finally decided to go with the D50 body and a couple of lenses. I really wanted to go with the Rebel XT since I've been really happy with my Canon A95 PnS, but I think the D50 feels better in my hands and I like several of the lenses that I've researched. The Nikkor 18-200 DX VR is really enticing.

 

[YEKCIM]

And have finally decided to go with the D50 body and a couple of lenses.

Before I had the unexpected cash windfall in December that greatly "enhanced" the range of lenses available to me, I was pretty keen on a D50 body, the Sigma 17-70, and the 28-200 "G" Nikkor, all of which would run about $1150 online, at present. 35mm equivalent focal range would be 25.5mm to 300mm in two lenses, plus semi-macro via the Sigma.

I still want the Nikkor; it'd be a great "DisneyWorld" lens.

~YEKCIM

 

[MassJester]

First, I have to say I am very happy with the well reasoned advice. Making this decision is like getting on a highway with no exit for 100 miles.

I will give a very serious look to the D50. Additionally, there are models from other lines that I will review as well that were mentioned here. There is no harm in the extra research.

The issue of lenses was brought up above, so I thought I'd give a thought or two just to see what you think.

• Normal lense, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 looked good (for indoor/candid photography)
• Utility zoom, perhaps the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ED
• Telephoto

zoom, perhaps the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED

Of course, a Macro and a Telephoto Prime lense would come later.

Flashes, filters, tripods, etc...well, those decisions will wait a bit.

 

[YEKCIM]

First, I have to say I am very happy with the well reasoned advice. Making this decision is like getting on a highway with no exit for 100 miles.

I will give a very serious look to the D50. Additionally, there are models from other lines that I will review as well that were mentioned here. There is no harm in the extra research.

The issue of lenses was brought up above, so I thought I'd give a thought or two just to see what you think.

• Normal lense, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 looked good (for indoor/candid photography)
• Utility zoom, perhaps the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ED
• Telephoto

zoom, perhaps the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED

Of course, a Macro and a Telephoto Prime lense would come later.

Flashes, filters, tripods, etc...well, those decisions will wait a bit.

The 50 f/1.8 is widely acclaimed as a "must have", given the price point (~$120.00 online) and versatility. My wife has the 18-70, that she uses on her D200; it is a fine lens, but I would also consider the Sigma 17-70, which is a tad more money, but is slightly wider, faster, and has semi-macro capability. A couple more telezooms you might consider, in addition to the 70-300 Nikkor (non-VR) and 28-200 I mentioned earlier, are the 55-200 Nikkor ($180 online) and the 70-300 APO Sigma ($190 online).

Keep in mind that, should you revisit the D40, it does not have a focus motor in-body, so you could only AF with those lenses that have AF motors; some of the above that I've mentioned do not have this feature, and rely on the camera body's AF motor. Just something to keep in mind, and a real "plus" for the D50 over the D40, IMO.

~YEKCIM

 

[MassJester]

The 50 f/1.8 is widely acclaimed as a "must have", given the price point (~$120.00 online) and versatility. My wife has the 18-70, that she uses on her D200; it is a fine lens, but I would also consider the Sigma 17-70, which is a tad more money, but is slightly wider, faster, and has semi-macro capability. A couple more telezooms you might consider, in addition to the 70-300 Nikkor (non-VR) and 28-200 I mentioned earlier, are the 55-200 Nikkor ($180 online) and the 70-300 APO Sigma ($190 online).

Semi-macro...hmmm...I don't know what that means, but I will look at the lense. Thanks for that.

My note taking isn't what it should be, but I had seen the 55-200, and then read somewhere that it wasn't a quality lense. Of course, now I have no idea where I read that.

I have some lower end zoom lenses for my film SLRs -- they cover a wide range, but are tough in less than bright light (which is where the price trade-off came in).

Keep in mind that, should you revisit the D40, it does not have a focus motor in-body, so you could only AF with those lenses that have AF motors; some of the above that I've mentioned do not have this feature, and rely on the camera body's AF motor. Just something to keep in mind, and a real "plus" for the D50 over the D40, IMO.

~YEKCIM

Very solid point that I had not had on my list of important items--thanks for that.

 

[YEKCIM]

Semi-macro...hmmm...I don't know what that means, but I will look at the lense. Thanks for that.

My note taking isn't what it should be, but I had seen the 55-200, and then read somewhere that it wasn't a quality lense. Of course, now I have no idea where I read that.

I have some lower end zoom lenses for my film SLRs -- they cover a wide range, but are tough in less than bright light (which is where the price trade-off came in).

Very solid point that I had not had on my list of important items--thanks for that.

Macro = close focus. I'm not certain, but I believe that "true" macro means that the lens has a 1:1 reproduction ratio. The Sigma is 1:2, if I recall correctly. Having said that, though, my 18-135 focuses impressively closely for a non-macro lens.

I have read good things about the 55-200, optically, but the build quality is..well...you get what you pay for. Based on what I have read, if I were comparing the three telezooms (excluding the 28-200 for a moment), I'd rank them thusly:

1) Sigma 70-300 APO
2) Nikkor 55-200
3) Nikkor 70-300 (non-VR)

Keep in mind that I have zero experience with any of the three and my comments reflect mainly my recollection of forum posts on dpreview.com. "Your mileage may vary".

~YEKCIM