Camera Labs

Please help me with buying my first Digital Camera!

I'm a graphic designer who needs to have a camera. I need to find a camera with lens for make all kinds of photos like macro, sports, at night, potrait etc.

I would like to buy a Nikon D200 or a Canon 40D but still a after reading from both cameras the reviews and specs.. i cannot make a choice!

most inportant for me is the image quality and body (durability)

Can someone help me please! D200 or 40D. i realy apreciate your help, i wont buy the D300 becuase it wil cost me 400-500 euro's more and then i reach my budget.

Thank you!!

(and if you know a good lens voor all kinds of situations? please let me know!)

Hello ppb, and welcome to the Camera Labs forum!
But we cannot solve all your problems: D40 vs. 200D that's a tough question to answer. Many people here would suggest two things:
(1) get your hands on both bodies and make sure you feel comfortable to hold them (although I bought my D80 without holding it and never looked back)
(2) be more specific about which lenses you will need! As building up a collection of lenses will tie you more into one manufacturer than a body.
So do you have more specific ideas of the scenes you'd like to shoot?

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

thank you for your awnser ,tombomba2.

About my future lens? i have no idea. There is no lens usefull for all kinds of situations?

i need photos of buildings, people, nature like flowers, bee, grass. i think you can compare it with advertisement photos like you can find on a (good) stockimages CD's. Fresh, colorfull, images of lifestye and business.

i tought of a Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 DC... but like you maybe understand of my message i don't know anything of lenses. my budget is close to 400 euro. i found the 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC between 267 euro and 314 euro.

I thank you for all help and sugrestions

Sincerly,
Peter

Ah, ok Peter, that makes it much clearer! If you have a budget of 400$ (assuming US$, that is) a good allround lens may be the Nikon AF-S DX 18-135mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED. Gordon tested it here. This lens covers many situations and is equivalent to a 27mm-200mm film-lens. The bad thing is though that you cannot get a stabilized Nikon lens ("VR") for this price.
On the Canon side you can get the Canon EF-S 17-85mm 4.0–5.6 IS USM. It has image stabilization ("IS"), but the "reach" of this zoom is limited to 135mm film-equivalent on the tele-side. But it's a good starting point and Gordon tested this lens there.
From the third-party manufacturers I know the 18-200 range is tempting, but I would strictly suggest to take the stabilized version, the Sigma AF 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 DC OS, but that could be over your budget Focal lengths over 135mm are very hard to shoot without a tripod or image stabilization! But even at 50mm IS already makes sense...

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Regarding lens; that's a tough one, I don't think you will find a lens that suits all your listed purposes equally good. I don't know much about lens for sports but when you look at sport shots you can see they use a fast lens with shallow depth of field to single out people and avoid motion blur. For macro sharpness and bokeh(out of focus effect) is important, portrait sharpness and DOF and night shots a fast lens. 85mm prime is perfect for portrait and with extension tubes it can be used for macros aswell and primes usually is very fast (f/1.8 ) for those night shots (and sports?). You can get a Canon or Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for about 400€ but then you don't have any IS (important) and you might find it to short a focal length for sports but it will shine at the other things. Perhaps a kit lens with 85mm and extension tubes is a good choice?

I have three zooms (two of them very sharp in zoom terms) that has a dedicated macro mode but only one of them is ok and nothing compared to what I see from real macro lenses so don't expect too much if you buy a zoom. I use my primes more and I would have had a 85mm and a 135mm now if I had a Canon or Nikon camera

_________________
Minolta primes: 2.8/20 2.8/24 1.7/50 2.8/135
Minolta zooms: 28-135 35-70 70-210(beercan) kit
Minolta cameras: Dynax 5D 7000
M42: Pentax Asahi S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50 and 2.8/105 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35 Industar-61L/Z Kiron 2.8/105 Macro

Hi ppb, the image quality and durability are roughly equivalent on both cameras, so as everyone's said, it comes down to comparing look, feel, features and lens selection.

Would you find the 40D's Live View useful for instance? If you do a lot of studio-based work you might find it useful to be able to remote control the camera with your computer while seeing a Live image on your screen...

Hi all,
Thank you so much for you reply's.

I'm allmost sure i will get an Canon 40D. Does all Nikkor/Nikkon lensses fit on my Canon camera?

I'm doubting about nikkor/nikkon and Canon lenssen. I have a feeling that Sigma (and others) is a better mark for lensses. Am i wrong about that?

I've seen a demo of VR, and it looks like i realy sould take a lens with VR. the AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED is a bit too expencive for me (630 Euro). Are there any alternatives?

once again. thanks alot!

Nikkor lenses fit on Nikon cameras. Canon lenses fit on Canon cameras.

_________________
Nikon D90 + MB-D80 + SB-600 + AF-S VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 + AF-S 35mm f/1.8 + AF 85mm f/1.8 | My photos on Flickr.

If you're going to make the move to Canon, you'll have to invest in new lenses. Nikkor are designed for Nikon only and that means much more expense if you've already got Nikkor lenses.

If you already have Nikkor lenses, then I would go with Nikon. The lenses aren't universal, you have to have Nkkor for Nikon and Canon for Canon.

_________________
Canon EOS 5D + 50mm f/1.8

http://flickr.com/photos/nathan_ward

To continue this thread:

Both cameras will deliver roughly similar quality, so it boils down to the following:

1: Which feature-set do you prefer? For example, do you value the Live View and slightly faster 6.5fps shooting on the 40D?

2: Which body looks, feels (and even sounds) best to you personally?

3: Do you prefer the lens selection from Canon or Nikon?

I have only played around with the Canon 30D. I have never used the 200d. I have heard the canon 40D is loud, is this true? Which technology will last longer and still be competitive?
Thanks

Canon 40D loud? Where did you hear this? It's actually quite quiet and also have a silent mode (albeit of debatable practicality). See our video tour here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon ... view.shtml

Bad_Blood, with regard to longevity there are two aspects:
- Is he body sturdy enough to live to 100,000 shots and all the banging around that you might throw at it in the lifetime? I think in this respect the 40D and the D200 are basically equal.
- Does one body become outdated faster than the other? Well, Canon has the lead here as the 40D is brand-spanking new and the D200 will be superseded by the D300 soon.
So without looking to deep into the feature-set that you need, body-wise the 40D has a lead.
But from all gadgets that contain a lot of electronics plus some critical moving parts you come to expect an update-cycle of the manufacturer from 12-18 months and from critical users around 2-3 years.

If you look into the whole system (incl. lenses and accessories) the longevity of the body is decreasing in weight as the major invest in lenses will not be obsolete too fast.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Having had the experience of feeling the 40D shooting at 6 fps and then immediately after picking a D200 up and listening to that wheeze and rattle its way through 4 fps the last thing you need to worry about with the canon is noise, ( I am a Nikon owner and intend to remain that way but the canon is very very quiet, if that is a major concern)