DSLR with kit lens or 8mp digicam?

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']No, the kit lenses are not necessarily poorer than the "highly touted" lenses on the 8 Mp digicams.

Don't make me defend this statement from the gut (we now have a guy on the LL forums that demands proof for every subjective statement)...

If you originally wanted a DSLR, there is nothing better available in a digicam. Given the choice between the 300D and the D70, get the Nikon and be happy that you got the best all-around camera.

Why? Gut reaction.

By the way, I own a Canon 10D and a Minolta A2. I know what I'm talking about. Totally different beasts. When it counts, I use the 10D. And, I'm recommending the Nikon for you since you're starting out fresh without a pile of lenses to reuse. (I had the 300D and traded it for a better body.) The D70 is probably every bit a good as the 10D and it cost less.[/font]

[Sheldon N]

[font color=\'#000000\'](we now have a guy on the LL forums that demands proof for every subjective statement)[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Yeah, but don't his posts add a little bit of life to the forums?

 


Sheldon[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']

(we now have a guy on the LL forums that demands proof for every subjective statement)

Yeah, but don't his posts add a little bit of life to the forums?

 


Sheldon[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Sheldon - I'm a project manager. I deal with difficult situtations all day long. I come here for recreation, not a challenge.

On the other hand, it can be entertaining to observe human nature. Just need to be careful to keep out of the fray. I'm not too good at that.[/font]

[Hank]

[font color=\'#000000\']Owning both DSLR's and digicams, I'd go with the DSLR and kit lens.  It will give fine performance for now, as well as allowing later lens upgrades.  I own a stack of high-end lenses and relish their performance, but they weren't the first lenses I bought.  Starting out with "kit" lenses, I was able to define my needs closely while I refined my skills, then make informed choices about which "non-kit" lens I would buy first.  Recommend same for you.

Having that stack of lenses, I find that in my work I still reach for two "kit" lenses due to their versatile zoom ranges and the lack of comparable pro versions.  These are the Canon 28-135 and the Nikkor 24-120.  I'll jump on the first f/2.8 version of either that appears with a 77mm filter thread.  In the meantime the advantages offered by these "kit" lenses make me use them professionally over "better" lenses that I also own.  

Whatever your own photo interests, getting the shot is the first priority.  If the kit lens meets your needs, enjoy your photos and ingore the kibitzers and back-benchers.  Anyone with that much time on their hands should spend more time taking pictures and less time looking in other folk's camera bags.[/font]

[stewardrobbins]

[font color=\'#000000\']I planned to get a DSLR, but the great images I’ve seen from the 8 megapixel digicams have complicated my decision.  If I get a DSLR, it will be the Canon 300D or the Nikon D70 with their kit lenses, which I will be using for the foreseeable future.  My concern is that images made with the kit lenses (at low ISO’s, of course) will be inferior to those made with the digicams, whose lenses have had excellent reviews.  Most digicam/DSLR comparisons are made with expensive SLR lenses that won’t be in my budget for some time to come (if ever).  So, the bottom line is, would I be happier with a digicam (again, at the lowest ISO’s) or a kit lens DSLR?[/font]

[Lisa Nikodym]

[font color=\'#000000\']Some of the 8 mp digicams may have highly-regarded lenses, but then the D70's kit lens is quite highly regarded too.  Where the DSLR really shines, in my opinion, is in low-light or high-ISO images, where its larger sensor will produce pictures with much less noise.  The extra megapixels don't do you much good when you enlarge the picture and see ugly graininess everywhere!

Other advantages of a DSLR:

You might want to expand your lens collection some day; can't do that with a digicam.  If you don't insist on pro quality, many lenses can be found quite cheaply.

Also, I believe the viewfinders on DSLRs are much better than on digicams (someone correct me if I'm wrong; I've never used a digicam), making it easier to see what you're trying to photograph better.

(Hey Bob - I guess all us "rodent people" like D70's too!)

Lisa[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Also, I believe the viewfinders on DSLRs are much better than on digicams (someone correct me if I'm wrong; I've never used a digicam), making it easier to see what you're trying to photograph better.

I have yet to get used to the A2's electronic viewfinder. Forget manual focus or the ability to judge depth of field. And that's the best EVF available![/font]

[Peter McLennan]

[font color=\'#000000\']Boku wrote: "I have yet to get used to the A2's electronic viewfinder. Forget manual focus or the ability to judge depth of field. And that's the best EVF available"

Video cameramen have been focussing just fine for years, and with much lower res viewfinders than the A2's.  Suck it up!  

EVF's just take a little getting used to, that's all.  They have several advantages over optical VF's.  Orientability being one of them.[/font]

[Bobtrips]

[font color=\'#000000\']I made the fixed-lens/dSLR decision before the "8s" had hit the market and chose a Minolta A1 rather than the 300D (the D70 hadn't been released at the time).

I made my decision based on my particular needs.  I travel 6-12 weeks every year.  Most days I get up in the morning, hang my camera bag on my shoulder and start walking.  I'm often on my feet for ~12 hours a day.  The A1 gives me the ability to get great shots while toting a lighter load.  A 300D along with an image stabilized lens that got me out to the 200 mm range would have been considerable heavier.

If I didn't spend dozens of days every year carrying my camera I would have gone the dSLR route.[/font]