# Advice on a camera...



## Vito (1 Apr 2009)

I have been advised by a guy who works with me that a Nikon D60 would be a suitable choice for a beginners SLR camera. My requirements are simple I want to photograph my tank and I would like to be able to get close up shots and stuff, im sure in the future ill be snapping pics of everything but my main intention is the tank. The only thing that puts me off is the size of the cameras and my colleage mentioned the D60 is a smaller one. Anyway im going to be spending some cash and I want to be sure im getting something good for my money. 
Could someone advise me?

Vito


----------



## Dan Crawford (1 Apr 2009)

A canon 350D has done me and many others very well. A 450D is now more readily available, 12 megapixels and live view, you dont get that with a D60. A second hand 350D will do the trick right nice though.


----------



## LondonDragon (1 Apr 2009)

Also for close up shots with a DSLR you will need a decent Macro lens which are not cheap. Have a look at my journals, the fish and shrimp macros are taken with a Tamron 90mm Macro lens, which you can purchase for both Nikon and Canon.
Most DLSR cameras its more about the lenses than the camera, but a decent camera does help too


----------



## MattB (29 Apr 2009)

I have a 350D and it's great. Unfortunately over the last year or so I haven't had the time to do as much photography as I'd like to. I only have the kit lens as well, keep meaning to save some cash for another lens but haven't managed it really (certainly won't now I have just bought a new tank!) It has all the features you need as a beginner and more, IMHO. Also, as mentioned before, as a beginner it seems it is better to spend money on glass rather than a super-expensive body. 

One thing I would say is that all the Nikons I have dabbled with seemed chunkier than the Canon models. But it just depends on what feels better in your hands.


----------



## ceg4048 (29 Apr 2009)

Hi Vito,
           FYI the D60 is essentially the same camera as the D40 but with more pixels (which you really don't need). This makes it less sensitive as each pixel is smaller. The implication of the D40's higher sensitivity is that you'll use faster shutter speeds which will reduce blurring. You'll therefore wind up taking sharper pictures as a result. If you can find a D40 for less, or even second hand it would be a much better bargain. The money saved should go towards a better lens so instead of getting the basic 18-55mm VR lens you can get the much better 18-200 VR or even the 55-200 VR.

If you have a friend with Nikon experience close at hand that you can learn from, then it's a better idea to stick with a Nikon. Ultimately there is little to choose from between the two brands, as it's your skill and knowledge of the machine that will determine the quality of the photos.

Cheers,


----------



## Dave Spencer (29 Apr 2009)

I agree with Clive. It`s either or either. I now have a Nikon D700, but I still carry my D40 around with me everywhere, as it is so small. If you know a few Nikon users, you may be able to borrow some lenses off them.

Dave.


----------



## oldwhitewood (30 Apr 2009)

Also bear in mind the kit lens at 55mm will focus VERY closely to the subject, I use it all the time now since I sold my 28mm prime. So you might get away with not needing a macro lens for the time being. 

Isn't this new D5000 out soon? That might be similarly priced but bear in mind you can pick up D40's for buttons now as stated. They're great cameras.


----------



## George Farmer (30 Apr 2009)

oldwhitewood said:
			
		

> Isn't this new D5000 out soon? That might be similarly priced but bear in mind you can pick up D40's for buttons now as stated. They're great cameras.



The D5000 RRP is Â£720. 

I'd go with a D40 if on a budget and just starting out - around Â£250 if you shop around and cheaper than some compacts.  I know a few guys with them and they get superb results.  The 18-55mm Nikon kit lens is pretty sharp too (and I'm a Canon man so you know it's an unbiased review!)


----------



## LondonDragon (30 Apr 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> The 18-55mm Nikon kit lens is pretty sharp too (and I'm a Canon man so you know it's an unbiased review!)


Yep its a lot better than the Canon equivalent


----------



## George Farmer (30 Apr 2009)

LondonDragon said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know!  I gave mine to Dan and bought the Sigma 17-70mm that's superb.


----------



## LondonDragon (30 Apr 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> I know!  I gave mine to Dan and bought the Sigma 17-70mm that's superb.


And the Nikon does have a great 18-200mm lens that is missing on the Canon range which is a shame, has its perfect for holidays!


----------



## George Farmer (30 Apr 2009)

LondonDragon said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/can ... p6_is_c16/


----------



## LondonDragon (30 Apr 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/


Haha so they do have one now cool  last time I checked they didn't was sometime ago


----------



## oldwhitewood (30 Apr 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> oldwhitewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah right bit pricey then LOL.

Yeah the kit lenses get some stick and I used to think mine was rubbish but I've learnt a bit more since then and I now realise it's not, far from it.


----------

