If you search the beginners forum for queries along the lines of 'first DSLR' or 'beginners camera' you will find a lot of information. BOth of these are excellent and well-regarded cameras with lots of happy owners..

Main point: the different in price (the few goodies like a memory card and filter) should not tip the balance. You are buying into a system to which you may add a lot more lenses and accessories in the future. I'd make two points (which you will see reiterated by many people, many times, in answer to previous similar queries...).

1. Try the cameras in your hand and see what feels best for you. Can you get at the controls easily, can you grip it comfortably? This is important and something you can't judge from reading the technical specs..

2. An important technical difference between the two is the lack of an in-body autofocus motor on the D40, which restricts you (if you want to be able to autofocus) to lenses which have a motor in the body. So far these are restriced to some Nikon lenses and a few from Sigma (last time I looked). If you are only ever going to use the kit lens and maybe a tele zoom this isn't an issue. If however you want to be able to take advantage of more esoteric lenses, both from Nikon and third parties, this will be restrictive. Example: if you're into wildlife photography you might want a Sigma 50-500 which is popular.

You need to decide whether this is likely to be important to you, or whether the more common lenses like 55-200 are all you'll need..

Best wishesMike..

Deenoe wrote:.

Hi everyone,.

So I can get a Nikon D40 with a 18-55 kit lens for 700$ (CDN), brandnew..

But, I came across a deal.. a used Canon 350D with, also, a 18-55 kitlens, for 800$ CDN. This camera is sold 800$ new, but the thing is..it has some goodies..

2gb CF cardExtra batteryUV Filter2 years of extended warranty left..

The deal is pretty tempting I mean, but which will I appreciate more?The D40 or the 350D. Which tend to make sharper pictures..

Enlight me, photography gurus..

Both are decent capable cameras but the Canon 18-55 lens is universally regarded as very poor. The Nikon 18-55 is much better..

I would say the Canon is overpriced at $800. You have little knowledge about what abuse the 350D may have been subjected to. That requires a slightly bigger discount. Also you may care to ask for the shutter count. It may be very high..

Mike is quite right about the AF-S limitation of the D40 but in practical terms it is not now a problem unless you plan to spend megabucks on lenses in the near future. There are now 43 Nikon lenses that are AF-S and about 20 Sigmas. Sigma has just announced an 18-50 f2.8 (and 17-70 f2.8-4.5) which fills one of the obvious gaps. There are still few prime (i.e non-zoom lenses) available..

At the moment there are lots of good affordable AF-S lenses and expensive pro AF-S lenses. The gap in the middle is gradually being filled..

You will get very good results from a D40 plus 18-55 kit lens plus a 55-200 VR (which you may care to price before making your decision) or you could swap the 18-55 for an 18-135 and use just the one affordable lens. For most general photography you need look no further. With the Canon to get the same quality output you would need to bin the 18-55 and buy two new lenses..

If you get the bug you will probably want a good low light lens like an f2.8 constant zoom. Sigma covers most of the essential 18-200 range with two decent f2.8 AF-S lenses..

Hope that helps.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

You can get a new K100D with kit lens for about $400 US. It is a more capable camera than the D40 and one you can grow with...

The lack of AF on the D40 isn't all about big-budget lenses. Many of the most important beginner lenses lack AF-S and will not autofocus with the D40:.

Nikon 50 f1.8 (perhaps the most important beginner lens)Nikon 85 f1.8 (amazing portrait lens)Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (if you choose this route over the kit lens)Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (17-55 quality for $400).

All the cheap budget telephotos, like Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300...

I personally wouldn't even consider a 350D over a D40. I find the D40 much more refined..

As for AF lenses. Nikon has made it clear they are committed to AF in the lens, IMO. If your looking to the future I don't see the lack of AF motor in the body to be that big of a deal. When it first was announced I can understand the concern. But as many people predicted it has become a rather null point over time..

Also, IMO, Nikon has a better selection of low priced consumer lenses (ones that even AF on the D40). This is most likely what the OP (and the general D40 consumer) will purchase. The obvious choices being the 55-200mm VR, 70-300mm VR, 18-200mm VR. The 70-300m VR can be had for cheaper then the Canon counterpart and is one of the main reasons I went with Nikon. I considered Pentax but being interested in longer range photography I've put them on the back-burner. I'll revisit there offerings in a year or two..

Where Nikon is lacking right now is the relatively affordable constant aperture lenses such as F/4's. Canon has these. But they are still thousand dollar lenses and still out of the general consumers price range. With Nikon it is either lower prices (yet still very good) consumer lenses or all out F/2.8 pro level lenses..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The lack of AF on the D40 isn't all about big-budget lenses. Many ofthe most important beginner lenses lack AF-S and will not autofocuswith the D40:.

Nikon 50 f1.8 (perhaps the most important beginner lens)Nikon 85 f1.8 (amazing portrait lens)Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (if you choose this route over the kit lens)Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (17-55 quality for $400).

All the cheap budget telephotos, like Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300..

I'd say all 4 of those would really not benefit much from being able to AF with. When would you honestly use those in a situation where you would need to AF? Most would prefer MF with those lenses in the situations they would be used for..

There is an option if you really want AF in that range though..

As far as cheap budget 70-300mm telephotos, I wouldn't consider purchasing any of them over the AF-S 70-300mm VR anyways. The price difference is absolutely worth it. Checking out those that shoot birds and such, they almost all are using AF-S lenses. Besides getting into this area (long telephotos) is expensive regardless of having an AF motor or not...

JG30 wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The lack of AF on the D40 isn't all about big-budget lenses. Many ofthe most important beginner lenses lack AF-S and will not autofocuswith the D40:.

Nikon 50 f1.8 (perhaps the most important beginner lens)Nikon 85 f1.8 (amazing portrait lens)Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (if you choose this route over the kit lens)Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (17-55 quality for $400).

All the cheap budget telephotos, like Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300..

I'd say all 4 of those would really not benefit much from being ableto AF with. When would you honestly use those in a situation whereyou would need to AF? Most would prefer MF with those lenses in thesituations they would be used for..

There is an option if you really want AF in that range though..

As far as cheap budget 70-300mm telephotos, I wouldn't considerpurchasing any of them over the AF-S 70-300mm VR anyways. The pricedifference is absolutely worth it. Checking out those that shootbirds and such, they almost all are using AF-S lenses. Besidesgetting into this area (long telephotos) is expensive regardless ofhaving an AF motor or not..

Alright, let me ask you, do YOU manual focus with any of your primes? On an APS-C DSLR..

Without autofocus, all of these lenses are reduced to stationary or studio lenses - you can't capture fast action with manual focus, and even out in the field, the viewfinder of the APS-C cameras (especially without a split-prism) is not going to enable you to focus with any accuracy, especially if you're shooting with the thin margin for error at f1.8..

The Sigma and Tamron are standard zooms that would be very legitimate alternatives to the Nikon standard zooms. Why would they not make use of autofocus any more than a Nikon 18-55 or 18-70?.

And the telephotos, most of all, need autofocus. It would be impossible to shoot any sort of sports or action without it..

While the 70-300VR is a nice lens, you're also presuming that a user has $500 to spend on a telephoto (this would be the price of a D40 or Rebel XT itself!). Not everyone has that kind of budget, and the 70-300 budget telephotos are great for beginners. Unfortunately D40 users will not be able to make use of them...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The lack of AF on the D40 isn't all about big-budget lenses. Many ofthe most important beginner lenses lack AF-S and will not autofocuswith the D40:.

Nikon 50 f1.8 (perhaps the most important beginner lens)Nikon 85 f1.8 (amazing portrait lens)Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (if you choose this route over the kit lens)Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (17-55 quality for $400).

All the cheap budget telephotos, like Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300..

Nathan,.

I would have to talke issue with your description of 50mm and 85mm primes as "beginner lenses". The OP has just got the funds for a D40 or 350D. There is no suggestion he is planning to spend much more anytime soon. I have managed without a single prime using DSLRs over 8 years..

Sigma has announced an HSM version of their 18-50 f2.8. (and the 17-70 f2.8-4.5).http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072502sigmanikondchsm.asp.

That leaves the Tamron which has an excellent reputation..

Of course there are gaps which will get filled by Nikon and Sigma and the biggest one is affordable primes which will AF..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

My point is those lenses would mostly serve the purpose of macro or portriat work. Most people I've spoken to MF for this anyway. Thats my point..

A used 70-300mm VR can be had for $419 (I believe) used from adorama I think it was. The other 70-300mm options would have to be found first, and still aren't as cheap as you make them out to be. Not to mention they really don't match the quality of the new 70-300mm VR..

Obviously telephotos need AF the most. That was my point. Thats why if your going to get into those fields you should abadon all thoughts of budget. Like I said almost every wildlife, sports, or other moving objects I see being shot are from one of the new AF-S lenses that autofocus with the D40..

As someone mentioned already, there are AF options in the range your speaking of. Not to mention the 2 new releases. Given I have not seen a price (probably won't be cheap), but as with all things time will turn those offerings into the current day cheap offerings...

I'm not sure about the Canon or Pentax ,but I can tell you about the D40. I am a beginner to DLSR. I showed a vendor friend who has done many photo shots for my company some pics I took at a recent concert. Of course I took several hundred pics and only a handfull were usefull, however his comment to me on them was "this is as good as it gets". He shoots with a D2xs..

Of couse my response was and is "it's not me, it's the camera". The D40 takes awesome pics. I bought a 55-200VR lense for around $240 and now I'm set for quite a while. There's so much to learn that I don't think I'll be upgrading for a while.Good luck...

Of couse my response was and is "it's not me, it's the camera". TheD40 takes awesome pics..

Don't be too modest benchlegs! A camera is only as good as the person using it. If you got some shots that a pro said were 'as good as it gets' then most of that is down to your skill. Of course it helps to have a good-quality camera which can handle focus, exposure etc. but the subject, composition and how you shoot it are entirely your choice and I imagine you could have taken pictures of the same quality with a Canon, Pentax or whatever once you were familiar with the camera..

Would you care to post some of your pics in a new thread and let's have a look?Best wishesMike..

Here's one of John Kay and Steppenwolf.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Thsi is from my recemt trip to the Bay Area.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Superb pictures, both of them. All down to the camera of course...!Mike..

Absolutely! I don't know what the hell I'm doing...I'm just shooting...that's what I was told to do in order to get better...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The lack of AF on the D40 isn't all about big-budget lenses. Many ofthe most important beginner lenses lack AF-S and will not autofocuswith the D40:.

Nikon 50 f1.8 (perhaps the most important beginner lens)Nikon 85 f1.8 (amazing portrait lens)Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (if you choose this route over the kit lens)Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (17-55 quality for $400).

All the cheap budget telephotos, like Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300..

What makes a lens a beginners lens? If you were going with the theory that one focal length will make a shooter move around to get an interesting composition then they could easily get the kit lens and keep it at 50mm..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Stevef1961 wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The lack of AF on the D40 isn't all about big-budget lenses. Many ofthe most important beginner lenses lack AF-S and will not autofocuswith the D40:.

Nikon 50 f1.8 (perhaps the most important beginner lens)Nikon 85 f1.8 (amazing portrait lens)Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (if you choose this route over the kit lens)Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (17-55 quality for $400).

All the cheap budget telephotos, like Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 70-300..

What makes a lens a beginners lens? If you were going with thetheory that one focal length will make a shooter move around to getan interesting composition then they could easily get the kit lensand keep it at 50mm..

It's a bigger lens because a 50 f1.8 is by far the cheapest way to get large aperture, shallow depth of field photos. This is impossible to do with the kit lens, or most other zooms...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

It's a bigger lens because a 50 f1.8 is by far the cheapest way toget large aperture, shallow depth of field photos. This isimpossible to do with the kit lens, or most other zooms..

Since a shallower depth of field can make focus an issue I'd say it's more for an intermediate than for a beginner..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Stevef1961 wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

It's a bigger lens because a 50 f1.8 is by far the cheapest way toget large aperture, shallow depth of field photos. This isimpossible to do with the kit lens, or most other zooms..

Since a shallower depth of field can make focus an issue I'd say it'smore for an intermediate than for a beginner..

Fair enough. I suppose it depends what one defines as a 'beginner'. I've always thought of beginner as someone who's just starting out, so the priority is to have the greatest and cheapest flexibility to learn more, while your definition is one that guards against beginners' mistakes and the priority is fool-proofedness..

The answer will really depend on what group the OP falls into. I do agree the D40 is a more beginner-friendly camera, although a Rebel XT ultimately provides far more flexibility and ability to advance into more advanced photography...

I doagree the D40 is a more beginner-friendly camera, although a Rebel XTultimately provides far more flexibility and ability to advance intomore advanced photography..

That's a very good summary.Best wishesMike..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Fair enough. I suppose it depends what one defines as a 'beginner'.I've always thought of beginner as someone who's just starting out,so the priority is to have the greatest and cheapest flexibility tolearn more, while your definition is one that guards againstbeginners' mistakes and the priority is fool-proofedness..

The answer will really depend on what group the OP falls into. I doagree the D40 is a more beginner-friendly camera, although a Rebel XTultimately provides far more flexibility and ability to advance intomore advanced photography..

Fair enough but you can expect a discussion regarding which camera provides more ability to grow into. Both cameras can challenge any photographer and besides, the hardware is more than enough, the challenge in becoming a better photographer is the photographer's talent, not the gear..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

JG30 wrote:.

I find the D40 much more refined..

Is the lens cap a monocle or something?..

The 350d is an excellent camera, and you can get a brand new 350d complete with the kit lens from Amazon.com for $559. With the money you save, you can buy the phenomenal 50mm f/1.8 "thrifty 50," a spare battery and charger, a scandisc, and a camera bag to carry it in. If you would like to see what the 350d is capable of, check out http://jchttp:/...view.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&thread=24488012. I have yet to see any photos like these that were taken with a D40..

Jerry.

Http://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

You'll be hard put to find anything that gives you better right from the camera shots than the Nikon. I've played with one a good bit and find it very impressive. I used the Rebel XT last year and found it disappointing with inconsistent focus and somewhat iffy exposure some times. Before you spring with the money, though, do yourself a favor and look long at the Pentax K100D. It is the best all around DSLR I've owned and that includes a whole bunch over the years, starting with the Canon D30 five years ago.Dave Lewis..

Mike703 wrote:.

......2. An important technical difference between the two is the lack ofan in-body autofocus motor on the D40, which restricts you ..... Example: ifyou're into wildlife photography you might want a Sigma 50-500 whichis popular. Except that doesn't have an in-lens motor and won'tautofocus on the D40, but it will on the Canon.....

Actually it does have an in lens motor. It is an HSM lens..

Http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/50-500mm.htm.

Thus it will work with the D40 (as will 19 other Sigma lenses).

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..