Posted by misstinavicious I'm going to be purchasing my first SLR camera soon and I'm debating on whether I should get a Nikon D3000 or a Canon EOS Rebel XS. They are the same exact price. Does anyone have an suggestions on which one I should get? |
Posted by budda I firmly believe no Nikon lower than the D90 is worth buying. |
Posted by budda I was talking in terms of the new nikons. Obviously older high end cameras are excluded. I would love a D80 personally. I could have just been more specific and said the D3000 and D 5000 are both shit, or better yet any Nikon that must use the AF-S lenses. |
Posted by Whootsinator Do not pay the same price as a D3000 for a D40. The D3000 is basically an updated D40. Same sensor, more features. |
Posted by robtastic I'm far from an expert, but I can say this. I owned a Panasonic TZ5 before my Canon T1i. The Panasonic was nice. VERY nice. But, it can't hold a candle to the Canon. No way. Plus, I was much more delicate with the P&S because it's just more fragile. I feel a lot more confident with my DSLR than I ever did with a point and shoot. Sure, it's bigger and bulkier, but it's more solid. I really didn't want the T1i when I first grabbed it. It felt VERY cheap to me. However, after putting a nicer lens on it and using it for awhile, I like it, a LOT. It won't feel cheap after awhile. It's well built, but light. |
Posted by TheVicariousVadder The TZ5 isn't comparable to the LX3. TZ5 doesn't have any manual modes and the more you stretch the zoom length of a lens the worse the image resultant quality, it's why prime lenses will always exceed zoom lenses. Pickup a EOS-3 or 5DmkII and shoot for a while then go back to the t1i, you'll see the difference. I want to be able to strap a tripod to my back, zip the PnS in my pocket, and scale the outside of a building from heights between broken bones and holyshitdeath. I looked into the Ricoh GX100 (299 @ amazon), which offers similar specs and offers the longest exposure I've seen yet of any camera, 180". But I feel that the Ricoh would take probably 5-6 minutes to take a 3 minute exposure and I feel the better low-light performance on the LX3 would make up for it. I feel The Ricoh GX100 @ f/5.6 180" ISO 100 vs The Panasonic LX3 @ f/5 60" ISO 400 ... The higher ISO LX3 would still win the image shootout. And I rarely use bulb mode on my Rebel as it is so I feel the 60" of the LX3 would be more than sufficient. |
Posted by Byberrian Fanman This is incorrect. D200 (2005) > D80 (2006) > D40x (2007) > D60 (2008) > D3000 (2009). They all use the same aging 10mp CCD sensor. D100 (2002) > D70/s (2004/5) > D50 (2005) > D40 (2006). They all use the same ancient 6mp CCD sensor. |
Posted by budda The D50 is still a hell of a camera though. |
Posted by Byberrian Fanman D200 (2005) > D80 (2006) > D40x (2007) > D60 (2008) > D3000 (2009). They all use the same aging 10mp CCD sensor. D100 (2002) > D70/s (2004/5) > D50 (2005) > D40 (2006). They all use the same ancient 6mp CCD sensor. |
Posted by budda I could have just been more specific and said the D3000 and D 5000 are both shit, or better yet any Nikon that must use the AF-S lenses. |
Posted by budda The D50 is still a hell of a camera though. |
Posted by Whootsinator Alright now you're mixing stories. First you said the D3000 and D5000 are "both shit". Now you're saying that the D50, that is MORE obsolete than the 'shitty' D3000, is 'still one hell of a camera'. I would think that if you believed the D3000 and D5000 are both shit, then you wouldn't even want to touch a D50. Now if we're talking FOR THE PRICE, a D50 or similar outdated camera would be an excellent jumping-on point to see if you're interested in photography, without investing a small relative fortune on a new entrylevel camera. But saying two new cameras are shit then coming back and saying an even more obsolete camera is 'one hell of a camera' is, well... Shit. |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |