Looking to buy a DSLR--30D, 40D or D200?

T

TheGardenTool

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
3,822
I'm looking to buy a DSLR for personal use. I'm currently trying to decide between three, older and discontinued models that I can still find new in the box. Right now I'm looking at the Canon 30D, 40D and Nikon D200. If I get the 40D, I will probably look for the kit that includes the 28-135mm USM IS. Otherwise the other two will probably be body only and purchase a lense seperately.

For work I've used several Nikon models including the D50, D70s, D100, D1X, D2Hs, D2X and D2Xs. I have no experience with Canon. I also have no personal money invested in either brand. I can't use work equipment for personal use either.

Here in about 2 or so years I'd like to get a full-frame camera as well and use both. I'm leaning toward Canon because of the 5D Mark II seems nice.

I'm not really looking at the 50D or D90 because I don't really care about the HD video. If I want to film video I'll buy a video camera.

I have no projected budget for this right now but I'm just looking for something to start a personal collection.

I'll also probaly be taking some college-level photography classes in the next couple of years as well. Assuming they offer some decent digital classes. I don't see much of a point in film right now. I understand a lot of the basics anyway.
 
as far as I know 50D doesnt have a video capability... I may be wrong as I'm still worshipping my 40D! 30D is not bad either.... I was gonna suggest Nikon but you mentioned "can't use office equipment for personal use" but honestly who hasn't? anyways why not go with nikon what is it you didn't like that makes you lean towards canon? I mean nikon is readily available to you already... IQ? Ergo? I say you can't go wrong in either of them, but them canon gLass is really something...
 
As a Nikon user, I'd say go for the 40D. It's newer tech compared to the "old" D200. Nikon also has risen their prices on lenses.
 
Regarding the office equipment, I'm in the military so there are some strict regulations regarding use of US Government equipment for personal gain. The gain probably isn't worth the punishment, if caught.

It's not that I mind Nikon but I'm keeping the options open. The battle of the best body seems to be back and forth a little and the price on lenses seems to be pretty even now. I also think the off-white on some of the L lenses is pretty nice from Nikon's all black.

Right now the problem is I do more writing and layout & design than photography. Also nobody I work with is really knowledgable with digital cameras so it's been a lot of self learning by trial and error. I'd like to start to be able to do more on my own time. Plus then I can sell any good photos. ;)

I plan to go back to school around Fall 2010. I'll most likely declare journalism or public relations as my major. I'd like to take as many photography electives as I can.
 
Welp. It is cheaper to go full frame on Canon than Nikon, BUT, I think Nikon cameras have the best ergonomics and, I feel, just as good if not better IQ than Canon. But, I was already heavily invested in Nikon when I shot film too. So.

Try to hold some. The d200 is still a hell of a camera and down into the 600-800 range used. I just bought a D300 for 1100 used, so that may be an option as well.
 
I got the 40d as my first dslr. It is super sweet and I love the controls
 
I'm a Canon guy myself. I have a 350D.

I would suggest you hold some Canons before you buy one. One of the most important aspects of a camera purchase is whether or not it's comfortable for you to hold. Who cares what it can/can not do. Good pictures don't come from better features. Good pictures come from better photographers.

If your looking to get a Mark II 5D in the future, then obviously I'd go with Canon.

With starting out building a collection, I'd start with a budget body first. Get one of the low range DSL cameras. 300D, 350D, 400D, 450D for relatively cheap. Then start spending money on lenses and learning how to use Canons'. Once you learn how to use one, it's pretty much easy to use them all after that.

As for the guy who has the 30D and wants to upgrade to a 50D. That's something I would never do. If I was going to upgrade my camera, the 350D. No way would I but another xxxD camera. It would have to be a xxD camera such as the 30D, 40D or 50D. I wouldn't stick with the same "tier" of models. My next camera will be the Mark II 5D though. That thing is just sexy. Full frame here I come, eventually.
 
I couple of years ago, Canon had better products that Nikon, but every since the release of the Nikon's D300, it has changed.... The D300 is superior to the 40D and 50D......arguably, even nikon's new D90 is better than canon 50D. ... The best dSLR out there currently a the nikon D3x....

The extra 3MP that the 50D has over competition comes at the expense of low light performance....

Saying, that Canon still has a stronger lens lineup than nikon.....
 
evilmedic said:
I couple of years ago, Canon had better products that Nikon, but every since the release of the Nikon's D300, it has changed.... The D300 is superior to the 40D and 50D......arguably, even nikon's new D90 is better than canon 50D. ... The best dSLR out there currently a the nikon D3x....

The extra 3MP that the 50D has over competition comes at the expense of low light performance....

Saying, that Canon still has a stronger lens lineup than nikon.....
Click to expand...

No, the D700 is tops.
 
I have a 350D and a 5D Mark I.

You can get a 40D with Lens for around $1200 and a 50D is about $1400. For the $200 I would go with the newer body, as it has improvements. That said, I got my 5D Mark I, for $1800 body only, new. ( $2k on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Canon-5D-Digi...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235049006&sr=8-2)

Either camera is great, but I guess each would be better for a certain type of shooting, what type of photography are you interested in? People, landscape, Sports, Wildlife ? The 5D would be better at the first two, and the 50D the last two. And of course, the 5D ( full frame ) will shoot different than a crop.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As for the guy who has the 30D and wants to upgrade to a 50D. That's something I would never do. If I was going to upgrade my camera, the 350D. No way would I but another xxxD camera. It would have to be a xxD camera such as the 30D, 40D or 50D. I wouldn't stick with the same "tier" of models.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Have a 350d and I feel no need to upgrade anything. Until the body doesn't do something that I need it to do - I'll be using this. My wife upgraded from this one to the 50d - she needed the extra ISO range and AF points (low light concert photography) - and that 28-135 IS is a NICE lens (for a kit). I got her hand me down 350d and I don't think I do it justice. I don't think I'll ever outgrow it.
 
bobdole369 said:
I feel the same way. Have a 350d and I feel no need to upgrade anything. Until the body doesn't do something that I need it to do - I'll be using this. My wife upgraded from this one to the 50d - she needed the extra ISO range and AF points (low light concert photography) - and that 28-135 IS is a NICE lens (for a kit). I got her hand me down 350d and I don't think I do it justice. I don't think I'll ever outgrow it.
Click to expand...


Alright, lets have a contest, two 50mm 1.8's, a low light room, and a running dog.

Who would have the best results?

The AF on the 350D is bad at hunting and pecking ( zooming in and out), I hardly get that now with my 5D.

Another Challenge, get 5 usable shots at ISO 1600, that need to be 16 * 20.

Results?

It is very hard to get a good printable shot on the 350D @ ISO 1600.

ISO performance is another weakness off the 350D.


I can't believe you have never experienced either of those scenario's on that body.
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3242608132/

These and several that follow. My wife managed 9 shots of a skier on the platform and made a nice action sequence. I only grabbed 4 (and one unusable due to the slow AF).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3233376026/

ISO 1600. Dunno about 16x20 but I think its definitely usable for 8x10, I wanted the 1/4000 speed at the kit lens sharpest aperture.

/shrugs , of course I've run into that - but neither of these are show stoppers for me so I'm still satisfied with what I've got.
 
bobdole369 said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3242608132/

These and several that follow. My wife managed 9 shots of a skier on the platform and made a nice action sequence. I only grabbed 4 (and one unusable due to the slow AF).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3233376026/

ISO 1600. Dunno about 16x20 but I think its definitely usable for 8x10, I wanted the 1/4000 speed at the kit lens sharpest aperture.

/shrugs , of course I've run into that - but neither of these are show stoppers for me so I'm still satisfied with what I've got.
Click to expand...

Thanks fine, but just pointing out the differences in bodies, and how it can effect real life.
 
I have to agree with the comment of. Get one of the cheaper Canon series. For example the Rebel XTi (400D), it's a decent camera. But put your money in on some lenses. That's where you'll see the difference. Learn how to use a Canon first, then go for the more expensive camera later. I went from a Rebel XT (350D) to a 40D mostly because I wanted something a bit heftier and had a wider range of ISO speeds. Do I use the iso 3200 that much? Actually, not really. But I know I have it there as a possibility. My kit lens, the 28-135 IS was nice, but I noticed it just wasn't the sharpest lens for most shots. I just recently bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8 which for the most part is close to the Canon version of this lens. It's been a world of difference. I also suggest investing in a decent flash. I picked up the 580EX II used from a friend for $300 and it's helped me out with a bunch of shots.

If you are determined to go with the 40D, then I suggest getting the body, and picking up a different lens then the kit one. Even a used 40D and a kit lens wouldn't cost that much. Craigslist always seems to have the 40Ds at decent prices from local sellers.
 
Skillz said:
I would suggest you hold some Canons before you buy one. One of the most important aspects of a camera purchase is whether or not it's comfortable for you to hold. Who cares what it can/can not do. Good pictures don't come from better features. Good pictures come from better photographers.
Click to expand...
I would definitely agree with this. While the xxxD cameras take perfectly good pictures equivalent to their x0D counterparts (each generation shares internal hardware), The digital rebel cameras feel like cheap toys to me and there's no way I could bring myself to spend that kind of money on a camera that doesn't have a metal body. It would also be an issue with larger zoom lenses. A 70-200mm f/2.8 would feel rather unbalanced on a plastic-body camera.
 
Agree with it not being worth it to upgrade to camera in same 'tier' *. I have a 30D and wouldn't upgrade to 50D due to low-light performance and the bigger file sizes. I lust after the 40D sometimes, but I doubt it's worth upgrading. I upgraded from a 300D Original Rebel though, definitely glad I did.
Don't like the 350/400/450/1000 in my hands though, feel like toys especially with anything bigger than the kit lens.
(*Upgrading to the next tier isn't always the right thing though, for instance, from a 1.6 crop to a 5D is a big investment, considering you'd have to re-buy lenses if you had EF-S, or potentially deal with vignetting. Unless I win the lottery I don't see a 5D in the cards, since it's a dramatic departure from the system I'm currently using.)
If I was choosing between the 30D, 40D, and 50D I'd choose the 40. If Nikon was thrown in the mix and I had no lenses, more research would be required. D200's supposed to be pretty awesome.
 
Well, since you are looking at your first DSLR, maybe you want stay away from cameras like D200 or 40D? I mean, these are great cameras, but old.

I'd suggest looking at the D90 or 50D.

You can also buy used for a great price. Check out www.fredmiranda.com
 
Having older EOS lenses made me stick with Canon. I had a workhorse EOS 30 for years and then bought my 30D a year and half ago, a month before they brought out the 40D. The 50D now makes me drool. My 30D is very good, especially with good L series glass, but the extra features of the 50D would allow greater flexibility when cropping and real time speed in processing continuous sporting and birding shots. The body size and tough lens fitting is a must with long lenses. My advice, find a local outlet and try them all, different situations and different lenses. It's a lot of money, either way.
 
bobdole369 said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3242608132/

These and several that follow. My wife managed 9 shots of a skier on the platform and made a nice action sequence. I only grabbed 4 (and one unusable due to the slow AF).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dolespics/3233376026/

ISO 1600. Dunno about 16x20 but I think its definitely usable for 8x10, I wanted the 1/4000 speed at the kit lens sharpest aperture.

/shrugs , of course I've run into that - but neither of these are show stoppers for me so I'm still satisfied with what I've got.
Click to expand...

Why were you using ISO 1600 in bright sunlight? Not a very good test of high ISO capabilities...

Anyway, the 40D is a great camera. If you don't need the faster AF or continuous speeds, I say just get an XSI, which also has excellent image quality. I can't comment on Nikon but they also make cameras that satisfy many.
 
I'd get a D90, hands down, no questions asked. You don't HAVE to use the video feature :)rolleyes:) and it's not even really a viable feature, it's there for shits&giggles, and takes nothing away from the SLR functionality.

Then again, I have a D90 and it rocks for high ISO and low light.
 
Why were you using ISO 1600 in bright sunlight?
Click to expand...

To use a 1/4000 shutter and still maintain a f/7.1 aperture. Opening up more than that was an unacceptable in terms of DOF.
 
bobdole369 said:
To use a 1/4000 shutter and still maintain a f/7.1 aperture. Opening up more than that was an unacceptable in terms of DOF.
Click to expand...

I'm not knocking your shots in any way, I just think it's an odd choice because you don't have any moving subjects in your pictures so a lower shutter speed should have been fine. I also think a low-light picture would provide a much better example of the cameras high-iso perfomance, but opinions may vary.

In any event, sorry to all for this off-topic diversion...
 
hmz said:
Well, since you are looking at your first DSLR, maybe you want stay away from cameras like D200 or 40D? I mean, these are great cameras, but old.

I'd suggest looking at the D90 or 50D.
Click to expand...

Well it isn't the first dSLR I'll be using. I've used many Nikons ranging from consumer to professional models. Although I'm strongly still leaning toward Canon as I think they have a wider selection of glass available, and looks to be cheaper right now for comparable lenses.

mwarps said:
I'd get a D90, hands down, no questions asked. You don't HAVE to use the video feature :)rolleyes:) and it's not even really a viable feature, it's there for shits&giggles, and takes nothing away from the SLR functionality.

Then again, I have a D90 and it rocks for high ISO and low light.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course I wouldn't have to use the video feature. The D90 is suppose to be nice. I just don't see why they have to use SD cards on their consumer line these days. :( Just some small nitpicks with the D90. It does seem like a very capable camera though.

I'm leaning toward a 40D right now. Maybe refurbished from Adorama. If the 5Ds were cheaper I'd go with that and the 5D Mark II is a little out of my price range right now. Although I did find a smoking deal on one but my wife says its too much.
 
TheGardenTool said:
The D90 is suppose to be nice. I just don't see why they have to use SD cards on their consumer line these days.
Click to expand...

Most newer laptops have a built-in card reader that supports SD cards... that's one nice reason right there. And the D90 is an upgrade from consumer point and shoots, which usually use SD cards.
 
If you are just getting into the DSLR market, don't jump right into a 5D or 5D MKII. It's a process to learn this stuff and it's pretty much wasting the life of a camera while you learn the basics. Get a cheaper camera so you can get use to things, then upgrade. You'll see more improvement with lenses then anything else.
 
Meh my notebook doesn't have an SD reader and it's no reason why I'd specifically buy one over another anyway. My wife does use the one on hers quite a bit for her Polariod P&S. I'd rather use the desktop and a monitor for any sort of editing that matters,

Anyway I think I've settled on what I'm getting, 40D with a 50mm F/1.8. I'll probably go ahead and pick up a grip and extra battery off the bat too. Then probably 2 Sandisk 4GB Extreme III's.

As much as I want to pick up a 5D Mark II I just can't justify the price and lense requirements for it at least until I can show some income from anything. And I think I'd rather have a cropped sensor first for the telephoto lenses for the extra reach and a full framed for the wides, ultra wides and portrait type stuff.
 
TheGardenTool said:
Meh my notebook doesn't have an SD reader and it's no reason why I'd specifically buy one over another anyway.
Click to expand...

It's just one of the benefits. You originally asked why the D90 uses SD cards... the D90 a higher-end consumer camera. And most consumers usually have a laptop these days.
 
mwarps said:
I'd get a D90, hands down, no questions asked. You don't HAVE to use the video feature :)rolleyes:) and it's not even really a viable feature, it's there for shits&giggles, and takes nothing away from the SLR functionality.

Then again, I have a D90 and it rocks for high ISO and low light.
Click to expand...

+1

You guys keep talking about SD cards like there's something else you could be using! :p I have a high-speed 8gb card in mine now, and haven't come anywhere close to hitting any of its limitations, speed or space. And they're cheap to boot too, so it's not like you'll have to spend any significant amount on replacing the old ones.
 
madFive said:
+1

You guys keep talking about SD cards like there's something else you could be using! :p I have a high-speed 8gb card in mine now, and haven't come anywhere close to hitting any of its limitations, speed or space. And they're cheap to boot too, so it's not like you'll have to spend any significant amount on replacing the old ones.
Click to expand...

Seriously. SD vs CF is a stupid fucking battle that only fangirls want to fight. It's cheap, it's fast, and it just works. Get over it, right?
 
hmm... fangirls you say. gots to get me some of those. :D

btw, I was saying I do like sd cards, in case that didn't come across. Can't say I'm a fanatic in any way, just that I would never make that a deciding factor in what camera I got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top