[JohnR]

Nikon D40 is a great discount DSLR, I see it for about $400 everywhere. With the nice 18-55 lens.

Also it is significantly smaller and lighter than many cameras. It is a great all around camera and can become your backup camera when newer more expensive cameras are more desirable in the future.

Agree 100%. Here's mine:



It's not so much a backup now as a different - and in many ways, more fun - camera than my S5. At the time it was introduced, it was the cheapest DSLR you could get, and most definitely great bang for the buck.

[nathanm]

That's one helluva tripod you've got there.  I wouldn't want to carry it myself, but I bet it's very solid!

[WerTicus]

So what's the best bang for your buck DSLR?

I don't know about today, but when I bought my Pentax k20d last year it was the best value for money around, for what i wanted my camera to do.

You really need to look at what you want the camera for before you make the choice however, there are strengths and weakness that vary greatly across brands.

My only real concern is that people see the pro's using canon and nikon and think that somehow, magically, their entry level model camera is going to be the best choice because the 'pro's' use canon or nikon gear.  When at the entry level and even the mid level their options are not the best, not the best value and just a plain poor choice.

Id highly recommend canon or nikon if we were talking about the very top end kit but if you cannot afford that then there are better choices to be made.

This is called the 'halo' marketing effect.

The d90 however isnt a bad choice, its better than the d300 and cheaper

[WerTicus]

Which image is better?  Is it significantly better?  Is it 4x the price better?
Ill tell you what cameras they are from a little later...

[ecramer]

Which image is better?  Is it significantly better?  Is it 4x the price better?
Ill tell you what cameras they are from a little later...

The image on the left appears sharper to me with better color but with so many variables 

been kicking around the d300 d90 options for a while but havent got to serious yet. I am interested in why you think the d90 is better though

ED

[WerTicus]

because the d90 has far better high iso performance than the d300.
left is d90 right is d300.  iso 6400.

[jermmd]

Staples has the Nikon D40 for $350 if you're interested.

[JohnR]

because the d90 has far better high iso performance than the d300.

But it's a year newer. And both of them are far better than the K20D. Not to mention, that ISO6400 performance is a rather bizarre way to judge the merits of a camera.

[WerTicus]

Well I dont rate high iso performance too highly, as 99% of my photos are at iso 100 - 400... but people who buy nikons generally do consider it a selling point, and thought the op might care to see how the d90 out does the d300...

Id be interested in hearing why you think the k20d is far worse than either of the nikon's though... 

If its because the Nikon's AF performance is superior, then your absolutely correct, however the latest k20d firmware brought af speed up significantly, though its still not as fast as nikon or canon.  Besides this I think the k20 might surprise you.

Id also like your opinion on the test image above the last image.

[tanchiro58]

What I can see any brand names camera bodies which are built with CMOS sensor have a superior results. They have most nice pictures but they are not cheap either!

[JohnR]

Id be interested in hearing why you think the k20d is far worse than either of the nikon's though... 

Because of the measurements and samples on dpreview... ? (You were talking about high-ISO noise - ?)

To me, the image on the right looks like it has too much noise reduction (assuming there are no other issues). This is settable in the camera... however I would think that if you need to shoot at that ISO you would want to do the noise reduction in post-processing.

[WerTicus]

Which image is better?  Is it significantly better?  Is it 4x the price better?
Ill tell you what cameras they are from a little later...

The Left image is the Pentax k20d with its cmos sensor  @200iso
the Right image is the Nikon D3 @200iso.

Pentax's noise reduction is off by default at any iso btw.  But regardless the cmos cannot compete with ccd at the higher iso's for noise.
The advantage to cmos is better detail and colour at any iso however.

For me I shoot 90% mid to low iso so the choice was easy. 

Then went I looked at the prices of lenses etc the choice was obvious. (especially since i love primes and they are renowned for them)
To shoot nikon for me would cost more than 2x the price, and I would gain af speed and high iso noise performance at the cost of detail and colour.

Since i shoot mostly landscapes, and real estate it would be a bad choice. 

[JohnR]

Oh right, different image... well, whatever you say, man How are you generating these anyway?

[WerTicus]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

[JohnR]

Cool, thanks, interesting resource. Have you seen the color charts on dpreview? You can play with comparing loads of cameras (for JPEG output modes) - it's interesting how much difference there is, so much so that a similarity is perhaps more illuminating than the differences

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk20d/page22.asp?color_compare=nikon_d40/2

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page21.asp?color_compare=fuji_s5/0

I have no idea what these charts say about the usage of the cameras in practice, though

[Mr Content]

What you use your camera for is what really counts. Most of my shooting is at church, where lighting is very low. My D700 is perfect for this, giving usable output at high ISO's. But it is a lot of money, so wont suit someone looking for a discount DSLR.

Mr C aa

[WerTicus]

the d700 is certainly the right choice for low light situations, well the d3 performs a bit better    

interestingly the d3x does not.

as for colours charts i guess whatever is closer to what was really there is best.  Can always punch up the colours later in photoshop if you want to but to get the most accurate colours at the time of recording is obviously better... but maybe not that important depending on the applications of the photo.

[tanchiro58]

What I can see any brand names camera bodies which are built with CMOS sensor have a superior results. They have most nice pictures but they are not cheap either!

Well, these pictures were shot with d700 and 24-70 2.8 AFS lens. Yes, the combo costs a lot of money (>4K) but it worth!!! 

[Mr Content]

Yep Nice camera. We had a bit of a problem with ours on Sunday. Well not the camera. Third party accessories. We bought a couple of backup batteries. One of them AWOL after about 350 frames. Keep on locking up the shutter, and the LCD screen would turn of while you were trying to use the menu. Very weird. Anyway after a lot of testing yesterday, we figured out it was the battery in the grip. Changed it and everything is fine. NOTE to self, dont buy third party batteries.

Mr C aa

[rmassey]

FYI, I am the OP here.  It's interesting to see that this discussion has gone all over the place.  No problem I enjoy the pics even if they are completely OT.

Since my OP we're seen the release of the new Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 - both of which will be priced at/near list for the next few months.  I'm not really interested in this upper entry level DSLR myself, but I am hoping to see some price pressure on the D90 and similar 'Pro-summer' models.  The D300/D700 and 40D/50D are just too big for my needs.  So I'm still leaning towards the D90. I've waited on the purchase while watching the market and new products are released.

Still, I am confused on the pricing here.  I recently saw B&H and Adorama both raise prices about $40 on the D90 body.... I guess sales still exceed supply, so it's pretty simple to understand that, but  it's still an expensive luxury item in a a bad economy.  I can wait