Game Specials

@Devill: just be aware that the ISO on the d40 starts at 200, not at 100 like all the other brands.
 
BigAl-sa said:
@Devill: just be aware that the ISO on the d40 starts at 200, not at 100 like all the other brands.
Click to expand...
Ouch - I regularly find myself wishing my camera went to 50.
 
Genius. said:
It still wont work out cheaper than R4800. Trust me, i explored all those options.

Only way you will really score is if u have someone travelling back from overseas and they agree to buy it for you and bring it over.
Click to expand...

O, ok:(

bwana said:
Ouch - I regularly find myself wishing my camera went to 50.
Click to expand...

Lol, ok you mean person!:p (canonfanboi:p:D)

Which camera would you take for R5000?
 
Get the Nikon D40. I think the best advice i got off this forum was when comparing the Nikon D40 to the 400D or even the better 450D

...is that the D40 will satisfy all your needs and even the 450D cannot teach u more and let u grow more as a photogrpaher. If you want to get really serious, you gonna spend much more money on a camera.

...just remember the D40 is the gateway drug into SLR :D
 
Devill said:
Lol, ok you mean person!:p (canonfanboi:p:D)

Which camera would you take for R5000?
Click to expand...
I take a lot of my portraits outdoors and love having my camera wide open so that ISO really would be a deal breaker for me but it's not something you're going to need to worry about too much - particularly with the kit lens.

But yeah . . considering the no AEB, the ISO and the lens issue (apparently you're limited to the lenses you can use with auto focusing) I'd go for . . . whichever one I could afford on the day. :o

EDIT - the 400D and the 450D are in a different league and are priced accordingly - imo they'll also take you further than the D40.
 
Last edited:
SlinkyMike said:
I suppose what I am asking is: are you not shooting yourself in the foot having an expensive Nikon/Canon body and lens - all manufactured to exacting quality control standards... toppped off with a POS generic piece of glass?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Hoya or B+W "a POS generic pice of glass" - they're top quailty filters. Sure, there are cheap generics but that doesn't mean only Canon or Nikon make good filters. Coming to think of it, I've *never* seen Canon or Nikon filters in any shop, and I've never seen anyone use it, so in all likelihood, theirs is not as good as the top 3rd party brands.

Also, many of the generic POS brands are just rebranded Hoyas

SlinkyMike said:
What are the chances of causing harm to your lens should the thread on the filter not be up to standard?
Click to expand...

If it doesn't fit properly and you force it on, you have only yourself to blame. Rather take it back and ask your money back.

SlinkyMike said:
in the back of my head that any issues I encounter may be caused by a cheap piece of substandard equipment thrown into the mix - its possible that I am totally wrong on this one, I'll admit that but those are my feelings at any rate.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions to everything. This is one of them.
 
bwana said:
I take a lot of my portraits outdoors and love having my camera wide open so that ISO really would be a deal breaker for me but it's not something you're going to need to worry about too much - particularly with the kit lens.

But yeah . . considering the no AEB, the ISO and the lens issue (apparently you're limited to the lenses you can use with auto focusing) I'd go for . . . whichever one I could afford on the day. :o

EDIT - the 400D and the 450D are in a different bracket and are priced accordingly - imo they'll also take you further than the D40.
Click to expand...

LOL, Bwana you are not helping you yanky doodle! :p

@Genius. I think I am going to get the D40 :)
 
Devill said:
Which camera would you take for R5000?
Click to expand...
I'd look at a Canon 400d. The sensor cleaning thingy would be the deal breaker for me. When I was in Game a couple of weeks back, they had a Canon 350d for about R4.2k (I think someone mentioned it higher up in this thread), but that's 1.5yrs older than the Canon 400d and Nikon D40. I still use my 350d for macro, but having to clean the sensor every so often is a pain.
 
There is a difference in D40's. The one is a later model 10MP - the more expensive one and the other is the 5k one - which retailds for around 5k
 
Genius. said:
There is a difference in D40's. The one is a later model 10MP - the more expensive one and the other is the 5k one - which retailds for around 5k
Click to expand...

Awesome news ! :D

Just spoke to my boss and her son can get Canons cheaper, as he works for a parner company :)

Says they have 5 demo cams for between R2000 and R4000 :D

He will email th models later :D

FFS, hope its not shltty models :(
 
Genius. said:
There is a difference in D40's. The one is a later model 10MP - the more expensive one and the other is the 5k one - which retailds for around 5k
Click to expand...

That is the D40x (10MP and 100 ISO min) to the D40 (6.2 MP & 200 ISO min) IIRC
 
Devill said:
Awesome news ! :D

Just spoke to my boss and her son can get Canons cheaper, as he works for a parner company :)

Says they have 5 demo cams for between R2000 and R4000 :D

He will email th models later :D

FFS, hope its not shltty models :(
Click to expand...

Everyone, I just wanna say, back the fck off, cos Devill is my best friend... mkay? My best friend. Don't act all nice now just because he has connections mkay and don't flatter or suddenly agree with all his posts, because it would be far too obvious.

Hi Devill :)
 
bwana said:
I'm of the feeling that if the manufacturer doesnt expressly recommend the use of a filter for that particular lens then dont. You're only asking for a degradation of the image quality.

That said some of the third party filters are excellent. I've used Hoy'a and Kenko's without any quality control issues.
Click to expand...

Sorry for kind of perpetuating a parallel thread but just one more comment: a friend recommended the use of a UV filter to cut a little glare but mainly to protect the lens - the reasoning seems sound enough in the absence of any contradictory argument.... is there one? Any drawbacks to the use of a filter?
 
mercurial said:
Everyone, I just wanna say, back the fck off, cos Devill is my best friend... mkay? My best friend. Don't act all nice now just because he has connections mkay and don't flatter or suddenly agree with all his posts, because it would be far too obvious.

Hi Devill :)
Click to expand...

Lol, well MBS (my boss' son) said they only have those 4-5 left and they are looking to ship them soon :) Hope he can get lenses cheeap aswell :p

Will post the list, im sure he won't mind selling the others if anyone is interested, also then you guys can comment on the price.
 
SlinkyMike said:
Sorry for kind of perpetuating a parallel thread but just one more comment: a friend recommended the use of a UV filter to cut a little glare but mainly to protect the lens - the reasoning seems sound enough in the absence of any contradictory argument.... is there one? Any drawbacks to the use of a filter?
Click to expand...
In my experience filters are the main reason for flaring. dSLRs already have UV filtering built in to the sensor - having it on the lens is unnecessary.

Also, while they might offer a bit of protection (they are after all only a thin piece of glass) a lens hood offers more and offers better protection from stray light.

IMO a $10 filter on $1000 lens cant be a recipe for success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X