General discussion

D40 or Alpha?

Well, I've just realized I have to go a step further from digital photography, I was researching some SLR models. I've found that for an SLR newbie (me) the Sony Apha packs great features for a modest price and the Nikon D40 too, and it's a little bit faster than the alpha in some conditions. The thing is I won't take both, so the thread is open for you to comment, If you have questions don't doubt to ask. Thanks.


Discussion is locked
Reply to: D40 or Alpha?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: D40 or Alpha?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Nikon is in the still camera business. They know how to make

excellent cameras and the lenses those cameras rely on. Canon also makes excellent equipment although Canon's offerings are more extensive and reach into the video market.

Sony is trying to learn how to make still cameras, but, IMO, their expertise is elsewhere in electronics rather than optics.

- Collapse -
That's one for Nikon
- Collapse -
That's why Sony bought Minolta. They are trying to learn how

to make the cameras.

Buying an SLR is buying into a lense system. The lenses can cost far more than the camera. Buying Sony is buying into the Sony lense system.

Nikon has much better lenses.

Canon at least matches the Nikon lenses with many thinking Canon has the edge in lenses. However, Canon definitely pulls ahead of Nikon with their camera technology.

- Collapse -

I don't know what to pick! I have some points and questions:
-The Alpha has super steady shot now matter what lenses it has.
-I'm a newbie in dSLRs, I'm not going to buy a lot of lenses, only the one that comes with the package and maybe another one.
-The Alpha is capable of minolta lenses.
-If I buy the Nikon one and then for a couple of years I buy another Nikon, the lenses I had previosly will fit perfectly?
-Supposing we are not debating between Alpha and D40, what dSLR camera would you recomend for me knowing that it's my first dSLR.

- Collapse -
D-SLR system

As stated above, when you buy D-SLR, you are buying into the whole system. You need to evaluate the whole system. You may be a newbie for now, but you may become a serious amateur and then a semi-pro, maybe even a pro one day. So you should consider a system that can allow you to grow and upgrade. Overall Canon and Nikon offer the best selections, and can satisfy most, if not all, your photographic needs, but at a price of course. Pentax is less expensive and still has a good selection (though the quality is not as good as Canon and Nikon).
The problem with Sony is that you don't know how its next D-SLR will be like. The first one is basically a make-over of the Minolta's Maxxum 5D, not the work of Sony. The lenses are also makeover of the Minolta's old lines of lenses. But Carl Zeiss is making some top quality lenses for the A100 and future Sony D-SLR. Problem is that Carl Zeiss lenses are more expensive than Canon and Nikon. The savings you get from the in-camera stabilization will be gone with one Carl Zeiss lens. For example, the Carl Zeiss 70-200mm f/2.8 G lens (without stabilization) costs $2400 whereas the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (with stablization) costs $1700-2000. Canon and Nikon have multiple camera bodies and lenses that you can upgrade as your skill and need increase. Sony has only one camera body. And you won't know what Sony will do in the future. Sony sometimes spent a lot of money venturing into something, and when the product does not catch on as they expected, Sony abandoned the product.
If you are planning on getting just the entry level camera and the kit lens, then it really doesn't matter which one to pick. But if you think that your photographic needs may grow and expand, then Pentax is a more economical system. Nikon and Canon have higher quality and wider selections, but are also more expensive. Time will tell about the Sony system. I think you need to wait and see how the second generation Sony D-SLR turn out before you judge Sony. Hopefully Sony has kept the original Minolta's creative R & D team to design their next generation D-SLR. With more financial resources from Sony, there can be some exciting new product to come.
Olympus, Leica and Sigma are pushing out their four-third systems, but the selections of four-third systems are somewhat limited at this time.
I will recommend Canon or Nikon, but if you want a more economical system, then Pentax is a decent choice. It is a toss between Canon and Nikon. I personally use Canon and love the system. Nikon users will say the same for their system.

- Collapse -
Lens fitting

Not all the lenses in the D-SLR system fit all their own camera models.
The lenses that you use for Nikon D40 will fit the D50, 70, 80, and 200. But the reverse is not necessarily true, because D40 lacks an internal motor and some Nikon lenses are not fully compatible with D40.
The EF lenses of Canon will fit all Canon D-SLR. But the EF-S lenses will only fit the Rebel XT/XTi and 20D/30D.

- Collapse -
There are two problems with in-camera stabilization.

The first is in-camera (electronic) stabilization does not work as well as in-lense (optical) stabilization. Optical produces superior images, but can be more expensive (but, note the cost of Zeiss lenses mentioned elsewhere).

The second is that you cannot see the stabilized image in the camera's viewfinder as you can with optical. Thus, you have no visual information to tell you when to shoot. This problem is reduced if the camera has a 'live view' where the image is seen in the LCD. However, that will probably require the use of a tripod.

- Collapse -
it sometimes Depends what you are looking for

Both cameras are very good but i have a nikon D40 myself. And i was just like you and i looked at the sony alpha too. But i chose the nikon d40 because it was cheap, great for newbies and it came with an adequate amount of pixels and a kit lens. Both cameras are good though but who need a sony alpha when you can get something just as good and cheaper and besides the sony alpha is expensive with 32 other different lenses and it can lead to great confusion. I have took up photography as a hobby and i don't takes that greater photos. But here are the link to some of my best shot i have taken with it. These shots are ok but consiidering i suck at photography i myself is getting good with the nikons great handling and simpleness. Well heres the links to my photos:

Well, im only 13 so the photos arent that great but nikon d40 is the way to go!

- Collapse -
Wow, thanks for the replyes!

Great answer hjfok it helpd me a lot. I can't believe you are 13 watto star Silly, by the way, the photos are so crisp and clear. I can't wait until I get my camera, I think I will look up to the Nikon D40. I'm a huge fan of Sony, but I'm going to the secure with nikon but who knows, maybe Sony will learn. Anyway thanks for all the help I just suscribed to this site yesterday with no idea and today I have my feet on the ground, I'm from Puerto Rico so sorry if there was errors on the posts Happy.


CNET Forums