buying a DSLR?

hey gfxvoidians,
i'm thinking of trading in my compact camera for cash, and saving up for a DSLR. anyone have any recommendations?
i was thinking maybe an olympus E-410, a canon eos 400D, or a nikon D40X. are there any other cameras around that price range worth mentioning?
i'm drawn to the E-410, because of its great value for money. but does anyone know how easy it is to find decent lenses for this camera, should i wish to upgrade from the stock lens?

can any photography veterans help me decide? i'm mainly interested in image quality (nothing under 10mpx :D), and will be mainly taking landscape/macro/portrait photos.
thanks in advance.

in this price range
Oly e-410
Canon 350d
Canon400d
Nikon d40x
Pentax k100d
Pentax k100d super
Pentax k10d (maybe, could be a bit more)

e-410 is good, light, small, has live view
350d and 400d are generally good, good IQ, good autofocusing. they have no up or down really. canon are known for their usability, and popularity. Its probably easier to buy accessories for the canon but lenses are expensive bar like, a few.
d40x is shit dont buy it.
k100d/k100d super, great high iso image quality. lots of lenses available and cheaper than other companies, shake reduction in camera. Pentax are well known for quality lenses.
k10d, more towards prosumer camera, mid range, very good, shake reduction again, and lenses again. Fully weather sealed (rain, dust, snow, etc) One of the best cameras last year, winning PopPhoto (a prestigious us magazine) editors choice award for advanced dslr catagory, the TIPA 2007 award for the best "Expert Digital SLR", the EISA Camera of the year award (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...nd_Association for description of EISA) and the Japanese Camera Grand Prix 2007.


theres also a sony one but it didnt review well and there arent lenses and its not worth it
the reason i said d40(x) was shit was that it doesnt have an in camera motor so basically, you have to buy expensive lenses for auto focus.

image quality has fuck all to do with megapixels btw. all of those i listed are 10mp apart from 350D, 8mp, and K100D, 6mp. Super is 10.
the sigma SD14, 4.7mp image output has one of the best IQs in its range
IQ also depends heavily on lenses

check out http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/ for some reviews
and before you buy
go to a photography shop and see how they feel in your hands
the e-410 might be TOO small, etc
I know the canon and the pentax cameras are liked for ergonomics.

Okay ive written a decent amount
hope it helps
im a pentaxian so probably biased
but i stated facts :p
wait for martins pro canon reply? :)

I'm too tired for a pro canon reply. xP
Go to any camera store, try out all the entry level cameras, go home, read reviews (dpreview.com) and then buy the one you liked the most. And a tip is not to get the most expensive one but to rather spend money on a lens, because that's what matters the most. When you become better at photography you can consider getting a better camera, but with you being a beginner it would be a waste of money.
Mp and image quality isn't the same thing. My friend shoots with a Nikon D50 (6 mp) and his images have the same quality as mine. You can even get really good prints with a 5-6 mp camera. I mean big prints. But oh well, the Canon 400D will go down in price when Canon release their new 450D (in april) so you'll be able to get it cheap.

Yeah
my ownly piece of advise apart from stating whats better
actually i have three
Dont get an early olympus, they have BAD noise levels
Dont get a Nikon D40/x, a D50 and D70 are awesome
Dont care much about the camera, all DSLRs are good these days

Its mainly about what you like the most, and if you like holding it.
And yeah, lenses.
And always try and save for what you want.
Theres no point in buying a 70-300 F4.5-6.3, for £80, then deciding the 50-200 F3.5-5.6 is better, for £150, and then deciding your going to buy a 70-200 F2.8 for £400 (those are made up numbers but you get the idea), just save for the good one.

Well
You dont have to follow that theory but personally i dont see the point in buying crap just to waste the money.

Since I'm still really new to photography I don't have a lot to say, except for teh fact that I love the 350d.

I agree with whats said above, you should definetly go to a camera store and hold them.

I wouldn't stray away from the reviews about the 350d or 400d being too small, I have the 350d, and to put it quite simply I'm a BIG man, I don't find it hard to grip the camera at all. People writing those reviews must have fricken trees for hands.

thanks for the great advice guys! really shed some light on the situation.
i might head down the the camera shop within the next week and handle all their cameras to see which one feels the best.
also rob, lol my mate just bought a D40x, i feel well sorry for him now. i'll try not to bring up its crapness in his presence!

Yes when buying lenses, it's ok to buy a cheap 50mm 1.8 just to have something else than the kit lens. But apart from that lens, all cheap lenses are crap. The 50mm is crap as well, but it's very sharp. The construction is poor and the overall feel is like a toy, kinda. Buy a real lens when you can afford one.

Most primes are very sharp
Apart from a sigma I read about
Well, its very sharp. Infact, the sharpest lens EVAR in the centre, but towards the border its crap, and its got loads of CA and PF ahahah :)

Yes, I would say straight away to buy the 50mm F/1.8, and if your buying pentax, the 1.4. Its one of the best lenses around, and £160, well built too.

rob why do you think d40 is crap?

It's possible you prefere Canon but other poeple prefer Nikon. The Nikon D40 kit lens has a very good kitlens compared to the price. There is nothing wrong with that camera. Reviews are really positive and I tried it in the shop and feels quite cool(that´s subjective, I know...) Maybe the reason you think D40 is crap is because it hasn't got autofocus motor in the body. So what? It's in msot of Nikon's lenses now..

You said it yourself
No autofocus motor in body
Considering that its a entry level camera
HSM in lenses means lots of money for lenses.

I dont like canon or nikon any more than each other, theres no bias.

And the nikon kit lens is crap
As in olympus'
The original canon 18-55 for digital cameras is pretty crap
The new version though, is top notch
The pentax 18-55 is one of the best kit lenses
And I dont know about sony.

I do agree it costs more money when HSM is not in the body, but dat doesn't make the D40 a bad camera at all. OIt does when your budget is really small.

And ofcourse the kitlens is crap compared to better and more expensive lenses.. but I read(so I do not know for sure) the Nikon D40 kitlens is reall good compared to other ordinary kitlenses (except the Pentax kitlens maybe)

Yes but if you have the budget to spend on those lenses, you would buy a D80 or something |:

Ok, now I totally agree with you :)

Heh
Its a fine camera, sure. Just.. its meant to be entry level, and if people are planning on buying more than one lens.. its effectively not. (entry level; ie, cheap)

I use that Pentax, and I love the entry level lens. The camera eats battery like none other (I was shooting our school's musical yesterday and I had to turn it off between dialogs because it was dying on me), but it captured the leaping spinning Sharks and Jets very well.

Weird, my battery is good. You use the K100D?
Get a pack of Sanyo Eneloop NiMH Batteries
Or any NiMH batteries.
Theyre about $15-20, but rechargable, it takes about 400 RAW shots to run em down, and they last a year before dropping even 5% of their charge :)

I recommend a Canon Rebel Xti.
:]

My Nikon D40 works well for me, so i guess it's not crap^^ And if i'm not mistaken eye2screen on this forum also uses the D40. So you can get really good shots with it^^

I might get a K10D, if I can raise enough money. It'll take me a while though :D
Here's the catalogue that the shop has (1000+ entries but no K100D o.o)
http://tw.user.bid.yahoo.com/tw/show...e=0tw&at=&new=
You can browse by brand to the left. the K10D costs 25,000 NT with a lens kit, which is equivalent to about 800 us dollars.
Man, I'm going to be saving for a while.

If you save up for that camera, you're doing pretty much the opposite of what we just said. Sure it's a great kamera, but you'll be stuck with just a kit lens. I would buy the K100D and a decent lens instead. Which camera you're shooting with isn't what's important. Having a good lens makes a much bigger difference!

Yeah find a K100D (or super), dont buy the kit lens but buy the 16-50 F/2.8, if thats not too expensive.

the reason i'm reluctant to get a k100d is because of the tiny continuous shot capabilities it has.. i'm going to be using it for sports photography and things like that a fair bit, so it's a tad unsuitable, 4 jpegs and 3 raw images just wouldn't cut it.
other than that, i can't fault it.
don't really want to get a nikon d40 because of the previously mentioned expensive lenses, due to in in-camera motor.
i'm probably going to get the olympus. it's a nice camera, and has good continuous shooting capabilities as well as lens compatability. not to mention higher resolution if i decide to make prints, and a lightweight body for travel (which i do a fair bit of).
thanks for all your help, i learnt a lot from this thread.
haha, i came in thinking number of megapixels drastically reflected final image quality. i feel like a dumbass.

The olympus remember is 4/3 format, so the crop factor is 2X rather than 1.5X

With say, my pentax, a 50mm lens would act like a 75mm lens would on a 35mm camera, however with the olympus it acts like a 100mm lens would on a 35mm camera ;)

Shit 2x crop must be fucking annoying. :S Remember if you will be doing sports you need a tele lens, or else you won't be getting any good shots.

Yeahhh
small sensor too
=/
but if your a wildlife photographer its good, shorter lenses :p
but.. again, few wide angles
infact this arguement is useless since olympus have like 10 lenses ahaha

grarrgh!
you're making the olympus sound rubbish! i really cant decide.
i'll probably with the the pentax now and deal with the crappy continuous shooting.
also, do you guys shoot in RAW, JPEG, or some other file format / combination that i'm unaware of?

I always shoot RAW
always always always

pentax's RAW is PEF, and can be converted with the adobe dng converter to DNG if your version of PS doesnt open it. Same with the canon nikon olympus etc formats.

Always raw.

Some cameras support DNG too rob. And there's always dcraw.

But yeah, always RAW. Even I could tell you that, and I'm not a photographer ;P. Never use a format that throws half your data away, except for the final thing. maybe.

yeah only newer cameras
best is to shoot raw+jpeg for convinience.