[Photographer Nick]

Hi,

I am an amateur photographer, and i'm in the market for a new camera. I currently have an advanced point and shoot called a Lumix, and I want to upgrade to a DSLR. I have a small budget, because my parents will split the cost of one for me for Christmas. I am torn between a Nikon D40x deal I had found on ebay that includes the body only for 504.00. So I would have to buy like a 70-300mm lens seperate, and A Sony Alpha A100 body for around 549.00-599.00. But I already have a 35mm Minolta Maxxum 5 with a 70-300mm, and a 18-55mm that I could use with the Alpha. My uncle is a photographer as well and has a bunch of old minota lenses like 400, and 600mm that he might sell to me because his vision is going bad, but we are not that close, so im not sure if he will or not.
I mainly photograph birds so I know it would be smart to get the Alpha if I could get my hands on a 400mm. But I have read some bad reviews on the alpha, and great reviews on the D40x. My cousin who is also a photographer only uses Nikon so I figured he could help me if I got a D40x. so I would like to know your opinions on what I should do, and If you have either of these cameras do they work well, etc.

-Nick

[DenisG]

Originally Posted by Photographer Nick

Hi,

I am an amateur photographer, and i'm in the market for a new camera. I currently have an advanced point and shoot called a Lumix, and I want to upgrade to a DSLR. I have a small budget, because my parents will split the cost of one for me for Christmas. I am torn between a Nikon D40x deal I had found on ebay that includes the body only for 504.00. So I would have to buy like a 70-300mm lens seperate, and A Sony Alpha A100 body for around 549.00-599.00. But I already have a 35mm Minolta Maxxum 5 with a 70-300mm, and a 18-55mm that I could use with the Alpha. My uncle is a photographer as well and has a bunch of old minota lenses like 400, and 600mm that he might sell to me because his vision is going bad, but we are not that close, so im not sure if he will or not.
I mainly photograph birds so I know it would be smart to get the Alpha if I could get my hands on a 400mm. But I have read some bad reviews on the alpha, and great reviews on the D40x. My cousin who is also a photographer only uses Nikon so I figured he could help me if I got a D40x. so I would like to know your opinions on what I should do, and If you have either of these cameras do they work well, etc.

-Nick

Hard one Nick. If all the lenses that are potentially available to you in the minolta fit are autofocus I would go Alpha. If that 600 is a minolta AND autofocus it would be worth a second mortgage. The Minolta 600 was a legend and classed as one of the best lenses made - ever!

If not autofocus, go nikon, although I would personally shop for a good new or s/h D70/s or D80. There are many third party options available with nikon that are just not available in alpha mount and alpha lenses and accessories are currently way overpriced imho.

Denis.

[TBMike]

Question would be Nick how much do you want to spend and what are your long term goals. Given what you have, the less expensive short term route is Alpha (althought the Sony branded stuff is high). There are a lot of excellent used Minolta lenses available. Sony gives you Image Stabilization with all that old glass because it is in the body, while with Nikon you have to get the newer lenses to get it. I think I would recommend that you go to the A700 or D300 rather than the A 100. Both the DX40 and A 100 have consumer(low end) sensors and are not real a significant improvement over your 5D. You would have to go to the A 700 or D300 to get a good low noise camera sensor. I have the A 100 as I came from Minolta and overall I am pleased. It is capable of some stunning photographs. I just know I need good light and good exposures to avoid high noise images. However I think this is a tendency of all digital sensors.
I would agree with Dennis also the Nikon name has a longer history and produced some excellent cameras and lenses. There are also a few more options available in third party lenses and equipment.
I think Sony is building their camera dynasty but that will take time. I think the best indication of that is the new A 700. An upgrade to the A 700 is on my short list for the future now I have the 70-200 f2.8 Sony G lens(an unbelievably sharp lens).
Long term do you go with the upstart Sony( somewhat an unknown) or the venerable Nikon name and build a stable of lenses over the long haul.

[ikw101]

Nick

Definitely worth a chat with your cousin especially if he's got loads of Nikon gear he can lend you eg.long lenses!

After the Lumix an SLR is a significant learning curve. Whilst capable of far better results they're also expensive and represent a significant investment.

Before jumping in with both feet a second hand Nikon D50 would be a good option (circa 400 USD) complete with a second hand Nikon AF 300mm/f4 lens. (again circa 4/500 USD). A Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter can also be added relatively cheaply to get to 420mm. If for whatever reason you later decide to sell the camera and lens you'll find that they hold their value extremely well.

The main advantage of the D50 is that unlike the D40's it has an autofocus motor built in and will therefore use any Nikon and most compatible 3rd party AF lens. With the D40's you're restricted to Nikon's limited range of very expensive AF-S lenses.

[Alpha Birder]

I too upgraded from a point and shoot and considered all available but went with Alpha 700. I tried Alpha 100 but found it too noisy (loud) for wildlife. I love the 700. I know you don't want to spend that much but if you already have some lenses maybe you could hold out for it. I shot a Common Redpoll with my new 200-500mm zoom lens the first five minutes it was on the camera. You can find the Redpoll picture at http://www.icbirds.org. Click on it to enlarge it. Hope this helps.