I've tried 350D, 400D, D50 and A100 (alpha).
For someone with big hands, the alpha is the most comfortable, at least to me. Holding in portrait position also comfortable.

That's not entirely true....

I agree with you too, that one should get a cam which he is most comfortable with and of course suit his budget.

And since buying a dslr is quite an investment, I strongly urge thread started to not rush, and make sure he finds something he would keep for a long time.

how bout those high-end digital cam? DSLR-like...
Canon S3 IS, G7...

regarding what i mentioned.

my point is that when someone uses a particular product, he / she will definitely give good word about what he / she is using, meaning that despite highlighting the weakness, you'll still highlight the strong points. so in the end, every product has a strong-point thus it will be a never-ending story on which to buy - hence the best is to identify what suits one's needs and budget, then of course visit camera shops and have a FEEL of the product. (which you agreed).

---

Added on September 29, 2007, 3:41 pmDSLR-like, in appearance la. but G7 look more like compact.

btw those you highlighted fall under Prosumer type of cameras.

This post has been edited by goldfries: Sep 29 2007, 03:41 PM

DCM septemer issue gave S5IS quite an average review... didnt looks impressive to me... judging from the review of course

So Canon D40 and Canon 400D is the best pick?

Sony Alpha definitely for me, looking toward upgrading to A700 or a Nikon in future, but A100 for now's good enough

---

Added on September 29, 2007, 10:25 pmSony Alpha definitely for me, looking toward upgrading to A700 or a Nikon in future, but A100 for now's good enough

This post has been edited by [Raven]: Sep 29 2007, 10:25 PM

The way I look at it, mind as well go with the best that anyone can afford, even though just beginner. It's not a small investment, and it's not going to be easy to upgrade later. So why not get the best that can afford and then save up for lens for future.

I'm eying on the Canon 40D for my first DSLR. Hopefully by end of year which should be cheaper by then.

it depends la. even the 350D is sufficient for a lot of usage.

the price of a 40D alone, you can buy 350D and a bunch of other lenses. so for the same $$$ you get to do more things.

Well yea, but I'm looking at it long term, 40D will definitely last longer in every way than 350D. Worthy investment if you ask me.

Rather spend more now, save for lens later, better than spending a little less now, save for a better DSLR later AND then save for lens again, ending up spending more in the long run with a extra DSLR (probably won't worth much then).

A D70s would help you learn alot

define 'last longer'

Haha my definition of last longer is more towards the time for me to yearn for a better DSLR.

you can check out my photos on my flickr to see how the Sony Alpha pictures are like

For me, the yearning kicked in about 2 weeks after getting my hands on my 400D

(Why no spot metering on 400D? WHY??? but then I knew this before I bought it. I thought I could live without it, but... enough of my ranting)

Just get the best body your budget allows for now, and maybe 1 or 2 lenses (maybe one wide zoom, one tele zoom). If you really think the 40D is for you, then go for it.

Going by that train of thought you might as well go for a 5D right away since full frame as more potential.

But seriously, the extra features of the 40D are more of a convenience and/or marketing thing than anything else. Personally I'd rather put money towards good glassware. IQ of both bodies are approximately the same. I have a feeling in your case your definition of "last longer" will be limited to whenever Canon decides to release a new body.

depends on what you emphasis more lo.
be warned, i am a noob and what i say may or may not be correct...

but from what i see from various camera's sample pics la,
canon's pics are very sharp and normally retains the sharpness even at high isos. good for sports i think
nikon's pics are more to very vibrant colors. good for scenery and portraits i think.

maybe the color have something to do with their lenses (can anyone clarify this?).
cos i saw pics snapped using leica lenses have one of the best colors i've seen, even though they are using different camera bodies (leica m8 and epson r-d1s).

overall IMO, i think nikon makes better lenses than canon. nikon's microscopes are among the top class in the world with leica. summore, i've seen pictures taken by nikon and canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens. both cost almost the same but nikon's are more natural and creamier than canon's.

i'm just a noob here, if i'm wrong or anything, please correct me cos i want to learn more about this. :-)

I totally agree with u.

Canon maintains its sharpness at high ISOs coz' they're probably more 'efficient' in noise control.

Canon colors give a sense of warmness, whilst Nikon is best for it's natural colors.

Conclusion: Both equally great cameras. It's the skills and preference that matters...

Played with my partner's backup body few days back (350d), and I took about 3-5 pictures and I tossed it back into his bag. I was worried if I drop it, it'd just crap out on me. My partner was asking me why was I messing with that crap, he says he only use it if he really have to. Despite that, it can still create good pictures when used properly.

However, if you can, definitely get a good body. If you are going with canon, either the 30D or 40D and above. As for Nikon, either the older D50, D80 (if u can live with its matrix metering), D200, and D300.

Technically, you will only need 2 lenses, one wide zoom, and one telezoom. Many professionals have streamline their lenses to only the 17-55mm and 70-200mm on Nikon.

I am planning to get a D80, mind to share more about D80's matrix metering part?