Did I buy the worst two Nikon cameras (or are they all this bad?)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Linda Sands, Oct 11, 2007.

  1. Well the touch screen is a giant array of buttons so there is potential for
    them to stop working.

    Mike
     
    Michael Kennedy, Oct 17, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Linda Sands

    SMS Guest

    Not it isn't. There are no mechanical buttons in the iPhone. I've been
    to manufacturing sites for items like cell phones and PDAs. The "button
    tree" is something that is almost guaranteed to be the first part inside
    to fail.
     
    SMS, Oct 17, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Linda Sands

    Guest Guest

    wrong. there are five mechanical buttons on the iphone.
     
    Guest, Oct 17, 2007
    #43
  4. Linda Sands

    John Turco Guest

    <edited, for brevity>

    Hello, Steven:

    Oh, really? Lately, I've seen, and handled, a few of Canon's (and
    Nikon's) entry level DSLR cameras, at several stores (i.e., Wal-Mart,
    Target, Sam's Club). They seemed rather light and flimsy (as well as
    tacky looking), compared to my comparable Pentax K100D.

    (Now, to be fair, Nikon's equivalent models were only marginally
    better than Canon's, in my opinion.)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 21, 2007
    #44
  5. Linda Sands

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Jeanette:

    I heartily concur; go with Kodak, and never look back. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 21, 2007
    #45
  6. John Turco wrote:
    []
    But you pay for that difference in added weight. Actually, I would
    describe neither Nikon's nor Canon's DSLRs as tacky-looking, or flimsy.
    Light-weight is good!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2007
    #46
  7. Linda Sands

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Light, surely, but I suspect they are less 'flimsy' than they look.
    Materials technology has come a LONG way since the old 'Bakelite' days.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 22, 2007
    #47
  8. Linda Sands

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Unfortunately, Kodak has the same design philosophy, which is to use
    plastic, even when something more durable would work better. The
    battery doors on both my Kodak cameras are rather inadequate. It would
    be very easy of a ham-handed person in a hurry to break the little piece
    that holds them closed.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 22, 2007
    #48
  9. Linda Sands

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, David:

    What? Spending more, and getting less (i.e., a featherweight, shoddy
    camera) is a good thing, in your book?
    I should've made it clear that, I only considered the Canon device to be
    "tacky-looking." Its silver, "plasticky" appearance reminded me of a P&S
    film camera, of the 1980's.

    Conversely, the black Nikon was a fairly handsome unit, and more closely
    resembled the K100D.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 23, 2007
    #49
  10. John, I guess I missed the smiley there! Yes, getting the same capability
    in a lighter camera /is/ a good thing in my book. Hence buying "compact"
    cameas for the last ten years. I'm not sure which camera you regard as
    "shoddy".

    I agree that silver does not look as robust as black, and when I have had
    the choice it's been the black I have chosen. When I compared DSLRs both
    the Canon and Nikon came in black, so it wasn't a deciding factor. The
    Nikon "felt" better than the Canon, and the controls came more naturally
    to hand, something I felt would be important when using the camera. I
    looked at Olympus, but the lenses are very expensive and the basic sensor
    smaller, and I didn't even look at Pentax. Not sure why. But perhaps
    with Minolta's demise, I felt that sticking with the "big names" was
    safer.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 23, 2007
    #50
  11. Linda Sands

    John Turco Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    Hello, Ron:

    Perhaps, but, the K100D features a stainless steel chassis, beneath
    its fiber-reinforced, plastic housing; I doubt that corresponding
    bodies, from either Canon or Nikon, are as sturdy.
    Oh, no argument, here. The notoriously brittle Bakelite was okay, for
    "box cameras" (e.g., Kodak "Brownie") and the like. Not so hot, though,
    where other products were concerned.

    For instance, I recall several old clock radios, whose cases cracked
    into many pieces. :p


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 30, 2007
    #51
  12. Linda Sands

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Ron:

    So, what? There are countless other logical reasons, to buy Kodak
    digicams! <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 30, 2007
    #52
  13. Linda Sands

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, David:

    It was a silver Canon "Rebel XT" (8 megapixel) of some sort, which
    just struck me as laughably overpriced and delicately constructed.
    Why did you imply that Minolta was a "bigger name" than Pentax,
    however? Over the years, the latter company has probably been more
    highly regarded (in the lens department, especially) -- and, of
    course, it's still in the photography business. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 30, 2007
    #53
  14. John Turco wrote:
    []
    John,

    I feel that the two major players in DSLRs are Nikon and Canon, and I
    guess that market share supports that view. After that, the 4/3 system
    interests me, but hasn't lived up to my expectations. I'm not trying to
    imply anything about the comparative rating of the second tier vendors.
    If anything, I would probably agree with you about Pentax, but it seems
    that the second tier players and below are more vulnerable to the vagaries
    of the market than the two big names, so when buying into a system they
    would be a greater risk.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 30, 2007
    #54
  15. Linda Sands

    Guest Guest

    I don't know, if someone didn't have a collection of Nikon or Canon
    lenses, and was positive that they never would want to go up-market in
    terms of features, resolution, or performance, and didn't care about
    high-ISO noise, the lower price of the Pentax K10D combined with the
    integrated stabilization could be pretty compelling. I advise avoiding
    the K100D as it's just way too entry level and leaves out too many
    features, but the K10D is a very good deal for someone that wants to
    spend only. Even the K100D, at $395 including the kit lens, might be
    good for a beginner to play around with.
     
    Guest, Oct 30, 2007
    #55
  16. At GBP 76 (about US $160) more than a Nikon D40X with kit lens?

    http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/537349/art/nikon/d40x-af-s-dx-18-55-mm-len.html

    http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/416212/art/pentax/k10d-18-55-mm-lens.html

    That's a lot extra to pay for an image stabilisation which doesn't even
    help the viewfinder image. But if the handling suited, I suppose.
    Interesting to see US versus UK prices, though.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 30, 2007
    #56
  17. Linda Sands

    Guest Guest

    About the same. $635 for the D40x with the kit lens, $630 for the K10D
    with the kit lens. The Canon xTI is $649 with the kit lens.

    Tough choice. I think the K10D is a better choice, as long as the user
    is absolutely positively sure that they will never be moving up-market
    from amateur to semi-pro or pro. Personally I'd not get the D40x, but
    move one step up to the D80 if you're going the Nikon route.
     
    Guest, Oct 31, 2007
    #57
  18. SMS ???. ? wrote:
    []
    Personally, I went one step down and got the D40. It's cheaper and
    lighter, 6Mpix is enough for me, and you get better low-light
    performance - almost noise-free pictures at ISP 1600. The GBP 60 (about
    US $120) rebate was the final incentive!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 31, 2007
    #58
  19. I almost went with the D40, but decided that the inability to AF on
    lenses like the 50/1.8 was (for me) a real turn-off. There were also
    some interface annoyances that bothered me when I played with it, so
    the combination was enough to convince me to pay the extra money for a
    D80.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Oct 31, 2007
    #59
  20. Oh, the in-the-hand comparison is most important. All the lenses I now
    have are AF-S so the auto-focus constraints were not an issue, but the
    extra size and weight were.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 31, 2007
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.