[blacky]

I'm in the market for an enthusiast level dSLR and I was about to unthinkingly go out an buy an EOS40D (can't afford the 50) when it occured to me that I may be ignoring better offeringings from other manufacturers. I've used an EOS350d for 2 years now so know a fair bit about how to use a dSLR but I haven't kept up to date with the new technology as it has come out. I've read the DP review tests of similar cameras such as the Nikon D90 etc. but they never seem to say buy this one cos it's better than that one because..... So, I've come to the conclusion that all well reviewed cameras from the main manufacturers are much of a muchness and which to buy is down to personal preference or a particular feature. Is this a fair assessment?

[slackline]

How many lenses do you currently have?

If you switch brands you'll either need to get some sort of adapter ring (and potentially loose things like AF), or buy new lenses.

[dave]

the main players (canon, nikon, pentax) these days don't really make shite cameras, so to an extent any one will be ok. you're really more worried about getting the best value for money since these cameras depreciate like stocks in woolworths so you don't want to pay over the odds.

as a gross generalisation, at the same pricepoint canons tend to offer higher specs and new innovations sooner (like more pixels, sensor cleaning etc etc) whereas nikon's tend to offer better useability. both are capable of good results, you pays your money you takes you choice. I don't know anyone with a pentax so can't comment, except that like nikon they offer a degree of backwards compatability with old manual focus lenses, whereas with canon they changed their lens mount in the 1980s.

if you already have some decent canon lenses then i'd stick with canon. if you've only got say a 350d kit lens then starting from scratch with another brand ain't a big deal.

[SA Chris]

Wot the Slack one said.

For me getting a Pentax was mug's choice, as I had 4 existing lenses that are pretty much interchangeable.

As long as you stick to the main makes you won't really go far wrong. My next upgrade will definitely be the K20 or the K200, due to the dust removal system, and the dust proof and water resistant bodies.

[blacky]

I do have several canon lenses but to be honest they proabably have a combined worth of < 50quid so I could change brands without too much damage. One adavantage of buying a canon would be that my old man has a 100-400 white lens (i'm keen to get more into wildlife photography) which could be borrowed for trips etc.

I guess a more specific question would be - how does the eos 40d stack up against the d90? I know the d90 is a newer camera with a movie mode and more megapixels but does that really make a massive difference? Also, how does it rate against the eos 450d. I mean, apart from the obvious differences in handling and build quality, are newer entry-level type dSLRs as good as enthusiast level cameras from a few years ago?

[slackline]

I guess a more specific question would be - how does the eos 40d stack up against the d90? I know the d90 is a newer camera with a movie mode and more megapixels but does that really make a massive difference? Also, how does it rate against the eos 450d. I mean, apart from the obvious differences in handling and build quality, are newer entry-level type dSLRs as good as enthusiast level cameras from a few years ago?

<--- Clickety click.

Would you use a "Movie mode" on an SLR?  I know I wouldn't if I wanted to take a decent movie I'd buy a HD digital camera.  The Megapixel gumpf is discussed and debunked heavily on t'net.

Of course newer entry-level type dSLRs are as good as enthusiast cameras, its called progression 

[SA Chris]

I know the d90 is a newer camera with a movie mode and more megapixels but does that really make a massive difference?

A good rule of sales - a feature is not a benefit unless there is a need for it. Unless you intend making movies with your dSLR, the movie mode is nothing more than a nice to have. Likewise more megapixels. Ask yourself this question with all the features - fps, ISO range etc.

None of them will take a crap picture in the right hands.

[blacky]

 
I understand about the megapixel race bullshite and I'm not a hotshot photographer so I guess I'm splitting hairs.

[Blunk]

I'm in the market for an enthusiast level dSLR and I was about to unthinkingly go out an buy an EOS40D (can't afford the 50) when it occured to me that I may be ignoring better offeringings from other manufacturers. I've used an EOS350d for 2 years now so know a fair bit about how to use a dSLR but I haven't kept up to date with the new technology as it has come out. I've read the DP review tests of similar cameras such as the Nikon D90 etc. but they never seem to say buy this one cos it's better than that one because..... So, I've come to the conclusion that all well reviewed cameras from the main manufacturers are much of a muchness and which to buy is down to personal preference or a particular feature. Is this a fair assessment?

Last summer I upgraded to a 40D from a Canon similar to yours. Am very well pleased with the change. I especially like the short learning curve, most of the operations are very similar and easily learned from one Canon to the next. On the down side it's become extremely tempting to buy more and more expensive lenses, etc since the camera makes such good use of them!!