When the #($#*&$ did Nikon SLR's get so cheap?!

glasswars · Post by **glasswars** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:41 pm

I've been finding that a Nikon D60 can be had with lens for 600 dollars.

A D40? That'll only run you 450 dollars. No wonder every noob on the streets of New York City has one now. Geez, last year they were 800 and up! Maybe I'll upgrade come fall/winter time.

/ mini rant

Post by **racer12306** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:47 pm

didn't realize a D60 was that cheap

i think i know what i'm getting when i can afford it

glasswars · Post by **glasswars** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:56 pm

Yeah honestly. May 2007 when I bought my current camera, (Panasonic Lumix FZ50), a d40 was about 750. I wonder what happened to the market???

Danteneon · Post by **Danteneon** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:27 pm

I'm not sure what happened either, but I'm happy it did. I have been looking at the D series for a while now.

REKIII · Post by **REKIII** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:29 pm

I Know they took a big price hit when a lot of people were realizinf Canons superiority. Nikon had to do something.

Bob

Andpto · Post by **Andpto** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:19 pm

well last christmas i was seeing d40s for 500 for the 18-55mm lens kit or 100 dollars more for the 55-200mm lens kit

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:24 pm

REKIII wrote:I Know they took a big price hit when a lot of people were realizinf Canons superiority. Nikon had to do something.

Bob

Canon's superiority?

you gotta be kidding me. Canon has been bent over and spanked for the past year or so.

I cant even remember the last time I sold a canon at work... I can remember the last few Nikon's and Sony's however.

All cameras start out at a higher price... over time they go down because of newer models. So of course a D40 is wicked cheap... it's been out for a while.. and the D40x replaced it and now the D60.

LilSparkPlug · Post by **LilSparkPlug** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:45 am

My D40 was up there in price when it was purchased for me. Canon is definitely NOT superior to the Nikon....at all. Granted parts of it is all user preference, but Nikon has better glass, and better cameras all around.

Nikon > Canon.

REKIII · Post by **REKIII** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:59 am

I will disagree, but that's OK. Nikons could be 4.99 for a full SLR and I wouldn't buy one.

Bob

LilSparkPlug · Post by **LilSparkPlug** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:16 pm

To each their own.

heyitsstock · Post by **heyitsstock** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:28 am

Im happy with my cannon

tho I have no negitive about either camera...
A good photographer should be able to take great pictures with a point and shoot....no?

03_SXT · Post by **03_SXT** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:04 pm

I'm happy with my XTi, I love the price I paid for it too, $FREE$.

I got the camera body, 18-55IS lens, 2GB CF card, extra battery, case, and some lens filters for free...

Gotta love retail and being #1 sales in the company for November. My fellow coworkers and I managed to sell roughly $70,000 in cameras alone (just P&S), and me being the senior, I get to reap all the benefits (Free camera and a nice bonus)...

I work with Canon's, Nikon's, Panasonic's, Sony's, and Olympus's. Canon has the best image stabilization in my opinion, but all the lens's are damn expensive (I'm thinking of a 14-42IS for $1150). Nikon has the best user interface, Sony has the best white balance, and Olympus, well I can't say much, I tend not to use them so much...

~Amit

Post by **racer12306** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:23 pm

Free would make anything appealing.

03_SXT · Post by **03_SXT** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:10 pm

racer12306 wrote:Free would make anything appealing.

I paid as much for my little P&S Canon camera as I did for my high def camcorder. I picked up a brand new Sony SR1 for $350 about a year ago. I paid $330 for my 850IS with a card and warranty

~Amit

Post by **racer12306** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:19 pm

So, Amit, my buddy. What kind of a deal can you get me on a D60?

jk, or am I?

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:04 am

REKIII wrote:I will disagree, but that's OK. Nikons could be 4.99 for a full SLR and I wouldn't buy one.

Bob

you're one of those people that just makes comments... and says nothing to back it up.

You should work on that.

BTW.... I showed a customer a Canon today.
Then showed them a Nikon and a Sony.. and the canon went back on the shelf where it belongs. lol

03_SXT wrote:
racer12306 wrote:Free would make anything appealing.
I paid as much for my little P&S Canon camera as I did for my high def camcorder. I picked up a brand new Sony SR1 for $350 about a year ago. I paid $330 for my 850IS with a card and warranty

~Amit

you paid too much lol

where do you work? You should of been able to get that Canon for half that through incentives. Then again that also depends on whatever "warranty" you got and what it covers.

kc2005ptgt · Post by **kc2005ptgt** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:51 pm

I picked up a sony alpha 300 for $599, with a lens (18mm to 70mm) and another 100-300mm telephoto lens for another $249... I also bought several other things; tripod, filters, bag, etc... all in all, I spent about $1000... not a bad deal since the alpha will take all old sony and minolta lenses.

03_SXT · Post by **03_SXT** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:46 pm

Trinity wrote:you paid too much lol

I bought my SD850IS in May of 07, about 2-3 months before they were available in retail stores. I bought the accidental warranty, a memory card, and a case. A great price at that time...

I work for Circuit City...

~Amit

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:19 pm

03_SXT wrote:
Trinity wrote:you paid too much lol
I bought my SD850IS in May of 07, about 2-3 months before they were available in retail stores. I bought the accidental warranty, a memory card, and a case. A great price at that time...

I work for Circuit City...

~Amit

is circuit city's "warranty" like best buy's?

you break it.. they will repair... but if they gotta replace it... thats a one time deal?

03_SXT · Post by **03_SXT** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:52 pm

The warranty is almost the same, except the company actually buys an insurance policy on the electronic item. I've used it about three times so far.

Yes, it is replacement once and then thats it. But on my laptop, which was around $1700, I paid an extra $250 for the accidental, and I got my full $1700 back in a gift card, after 3 years and 9 months (so shoot me that it "accidentaly" fell 3 months before the warranty expired

).

Used it on my old Olympus, that actually was an accident by a freind, and then on another Panasonic. That wasn't accident, the warranty was about to expire...

Its worked out for me, because the way electronics are dropping in price, I still get the nice new stuff, with a warranty, and I still have money left over on the gift cards to buy accessories or just random stuff...

~Amit

REKIII · Post by **REKIII** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:16 am

Trinity wrote:
REKIII wrote:I will disagree, but that's OK. Nikons could be 4.99 for a full SLR and I wouldn't buy one.

Bob
you're one of those people that just makes comments... and says nothing to back it up.

You should work on that.

WTF? Where did that come from?

I would say lots to back that statement up, but then I'd be banned.

Bob

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:09 am

03_SXT wrote:The warranty is almost the same, except the company actually buys an insurance policy on the electronic item. I've used it about three times so far.

Yes, it is replacement once and then thats it. But on my laptop, which was around $1700, I paid an extra $250 for the accidental, and I got my full $1700 back in a gift card, after 3 years and 9 months (so shoot me that it "accidentaly" fell 3 months before the warranty expired ).

Used it on my old Olympus, that actually was an accident by a freind, and then on another Panasonic. That wasn't accident, the warranty was about to expire...

Its worked out for me, because the way electronics are dropping in price, I still get the nice new stuff, with a warranty, and I still have money left over on the gift cards to buy accessories or just random stuff...

~Amit

way to abuse warranties lol

I <3 the one Ritz has... cept any thing I am going to get is direct from manufacturer.... so unless I like kiss someones ass I cant get it on the product I get through manufacturer. The price I pay for kicking a few hundred off the price of things.

REKIII wrote:
Trinity wrote:
REKIII wrote:I will disagree, but that's OK. Nikons could be 4.99 for a full SLR and I wouldn't buy one.

Bob
you're one of those people that just makes comments... and says nothing to back it up.

You should work on that.

WTF? Where did that come from?
I would say lots to back that statement up, but then I'd be banned.
Bob

what do you mean where did that come from? lol
right off the bat you were just like "canon is better than everything everyone else is talking about or has" and no reason.

Now, there are PMs if you are making it personal somehow.

otherwise... you can post in here the details of the superiority you believe Canon has over all the other brands.

Wenuden · Post by **Wenuden** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:14 am

03_SXT wrote:The warranty is almost the same, except the company actually buys an insurance policy on the electronic item. I've used it about three times so far.

Yes, it is replacement once and then thats it. But on my laptop, which was around $1700, I paid an extra $250 for the accidental, and I got my full $1700 back in a gift card, after 3 years and 9 months (so shoot me that it "accidentaly" fell 3 months before the warranty expired ).

Used it on my old Olympus, that actually was an accident by a freind, and then on another Panasonic. That wasn't accident, the warranty was about to expire...

Its worked out for me, because the way electronics are dropping in price, I still get the nice new stuff, with a warranty, and I still have money left over on the gift cards to buy accessories or just random stuff...

~Amit

Yay fraud...

REKIII · Post by **REKIII** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:44 am

Trinity wrote:
REKIII wrote:
Trinity wrote: you're one of those people that just makes comments... and says nothing to back it up.

You should work on that.

WTF? Where did that come from?
I would say lots to back that statement up, but then I'd be banned.
Bob
what do you mean where did that come from? lol
right off the bat you were just like "canon is better than everything everyone else is talking about or has" and no reason.

Now, there are PMs if you are making it personal somehow.

otherwise... you can post in here the details of the superiority you believe Canon has over all the other brands.

I'm not a camera expert. But here is my reasoning (even if it is poor). My dad has been using Canon camers for 40 years. He still has the first SLR chassis he ever bought and it works flawlessly. The digitals are the same. Awesome pics, flawless operation etc. The inlaws, they have used Nikon for the last 40 years. The first SLR chassis is long gone, and the 3 SLR's that are floating around are constantly getting repairs or replaced, not even the lenses hold up. On top of that, a lot of pics seem to have artifacts here and there, and it seems impossible to get the picture crop to match what you see in the eyepiece.

S, no, I can't rattle off tons of stats and data and specs, I can only speak from experience.

Therefore, I hold to my statement of a 4.99 Nikon SLR being a ripoff.

Bob

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:18 am

REKIII wrote:
Trinity wrote:
REKIII wrote: WTF? Where did that come from?
I would say lots to back that statement up, but then I'd be banned.
Bob
what do you mean where did that come from? lol
right off the bat you were just like "canon is better than everything everyone else is talking about or has" and no reason.

Now, there are PMs if you are making it personal somehow.

otherwise... you can post in here the details of the superiority you believe Canon has over all the other brands.
I'm not a camera expert. But here is my reasoning (even if it is poor). My dad has been using Canon camers for 40 years. He still has the first SLR chassis he ever bought and it works flawlessly. The digitals are the same. Awesome pics, flawless operation etc. The inlaws, they have used Nikon for the last 40 years. The first SLR chassis is long gone, and the 3 SLR's that are floating around are constantly getting repairs or replaced, not even the lenses hold up. On top of that, a lot of pics seem to have artifacts here and there, and it seems impossible to get the picture crop to match what you see in the eyepiece.

S, no, I can't rattle off tons of stats and data and specs, I can only speak from experience.

Therefore, I hold to my statement of a 4.99 Nikon SLR being a ripoff.

Bob

When I hear something like that... I usually just assume the cameras were not treated right. As for your dad... he might be one of those people that takes very good care of his things, and maybe the inlaws.. not so much. I don't know them so I cannot say.

I can say I have nikon lenses that are about 30 years old and they are perfect. I use them... and no one even knows the difference between the glass. I still have a functional 35mm body as well. Most of my film is shot with a Minolta however since I have two of those and about 8 lenses.

Now speaking from my experience and the experience of others... Canon lacks in many areas. Old canon users cannot even transfer their old lenses to the new ones.. where as Nikon can. Same for Sony, older Minolta AF lenses are all useable. Hell... Pentax has THOUSANDS of lenses that can be used on all of their current DSLRs.

I had a canon 30D for a year... it reminded me of my old D50. That's not a good thing for a $1200 camera body. The screen quality was apparently rated up with my D80s... however photos ALWAYS looked over exposed when they were not. Photos straight out of the camera were very very bland and 'cold'. Even using colour temp settings it was never right. Auto white balance? forget it. Adjusting saturation settings to make things more vivid just took more away from the photo and required more post processing. And to top it all off, The controls were very awkward and the learning curve was horrible.

The same goes for their amateur models. The learning curve is not even close to that of a Nikon or Sony. If I cant find my way around a camera in 5 minutes... that means an average person will spend a lot longer learning things.

Now on relation to the original topic... Canon is falling because their products cost too much for the consumer market. It does not make sense to many to pay so much for a camera when another brand usually has something better/with more options for less.. or the same price. Most people that ask about Canon, are people stuck on the brand. That's all.

I used to give them props on their digital glass and their point and shoots... until I realized they just ask wayyy too much for it all. Hell their G series was one of the first P&S series to have the avility to shoot RAW and L-glass is used in many professional instances. However, The past year has been hell for them because of the slip ups with the 40D and Mark3 having auto focus problems and the lack of new point and shoots (and by new I mean something innovative, different from their normal few).

now.. you can keep trash talking Nikon and all the other brands if you want. Or you can actually go out and get your own experience with things.

It's a known little saying.... don't know it til you've tried it. And from what you said and how you react, it does not seem like you have really tried much of anything. Just using other peoples opinions and past as an excuse to back up your "opinion".

Nothing new, I see/hear it every day at work.

wooooooooooo that was long. made me feel like I was actually at work. guess I should sleep.

OB · Post by OB » Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:20 am

So that's why your car always looks so damn good in pics. You're a damn camera nerd! lol I meant that in a good way. I wish I could afford a good digital SLR. Come down to CA when you get one for a photoshoot!!!

Mr Josh Zombie · Post by **Mr Josh Zombie** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:02 am

i know three photographers.

two professionals who making a living (about 120k a year) off of their work.

the other a free lance photographer who's trying to make his way into the gig.

they all use nikons

Trinity · Post by **Trinity** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:37 am

Opi wrote:i know three photographers.

two professionals who making a living (about 120k a year) off of their work.

the other a free lance photographer who's trying to make his way into the gig.

they all use nikons

kinda the same with the ones I know.
One of my close friends always does assisting jobs with a pro that is one of those living off of his work. Probably why he could afford to upgrade to a D3 ($5000 camera body).
HOPEFULLY I can head in that direction if I get better at things.

OB wrote:So that's why your car always looks so damn good in pics. You're a damn camera nerd! lol I meant that in a good way. I wish I could afford a good digital SLR. Come down to CA when you get one for a photoshoot!!!

lol thanks?
i'm learning every day though. it could always be better. These days... its actually all about post processing. You don't know photoshop, you know nothing. And I hardly know anything lol

I am a photography major in school though, only done film so far, digital is next. My jobs for the last 4 years have all been camera related too lol

If you save up like $500 or so, you can get an DSLR easy. Check a place called KEH.com. They have used/refurbished things.

REKIII · Post by **REKIII** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:09 pm

Trinity wrote: I'm not a camera expert. But here is my reasoning (even if it is poor). My dad has been using Canon camers for 40 years. He still has the first SLR chassis he ever bought and it works flawlessly. The digitals are the same. Awesome pics, flawless operation etc. The inlaws, they have used Nikon for the last 40 years. The first SLR chassis is long gone, and the 3 SLR's that are floating around are constantly getting repairs or replaced, not even the lenses hold up. On top of that, a lot of pics seem to have artifacts here and there, and it seems impossible to get the picture crop to match what you see in the eyepiece.

S, no, I can't rattle off tons of stats and data and specs, I can only speak from experience.

Therefore, I hold to my statement of a 4.99 Nikon SLR being a ripoff.

Bob

When I hear something like that... I usually just assume the cameras were not treated right. As for your dad... he might be one of those people that takes very good care of his things, and maybe the inlaws.. not so much. I don't know them so I cannot say.

I can say I have nikon lenses that are about 30 years old and they are perfect. I use them... and no one even knows the difference between the glass. I still have a functional 35mm body as well. Most of my film is shot with a Minolta however since I have two of those and about 8 lenses.

Now speaking from my experience and the experience of others... Canon lacks in many areas. Old canon users cannot even transfer their old lenses to the new ones.. where as Nikon can. Same for Sony, older Minolta AF lenses are all useable. Hell... Pentax has THOUSANDS of lenses that can be used on all of their current DSLRs.

I had a canon 30D for a year... it reminded me of my old D50. That's not a good thing for a $1200 camera body. The screen quality was apparently rated up with my D80s... however photos ALWAYS looked over exposed when they were not. Photos straight out of the camera were very very bland and 'cold'. Even using colour temp settings it was never right. Auto white balance? forget it. Adjusting saturation settings to make things more vivid just took more away from the photo and required more post processing. And to top it all off, The controls were very awkward and the learning curve was horrible.

The same goes for their amateur models. The learning curve is not even close to that of a Nikon or Sony. If I cant find my way around a camera in 5 minutes... that means an average person will spend a lot longer learning things.

Now on relation to the original topic... Canon is falling because their products cost too much for the consumer market. It does not make sense to many to pay so much for a camera when another brand usually has something better/with more options for less.. or the same price. Most people that ask about Canon, are people stuck on the brand. That's all.

I used to give them props on their digital glass and their point and shoots... until I realized they just ask wayyy too much for it all. Hell their G series was one of the first P&S series to have the avility to shoot RAW and L-glass is used in many professional instances. However, The past year has been hell for them because of the slip ups with the 40D and Mark3 having auto focus problems and the lack of new point and shoots (and by new I mean something innovative, different from their normal few).

now.. you can keep trash talking Nikon and all the other brands if you want. Or you can actually go out and get your own experience with things.

It's a known little saying.... don't know it til you've tried it. And from what you said and how you react, it does not seem like you have really tried much of anything. Just using other peoples opinions and past as an excuse to back up your "opinion".

Nothing new, I see/hear it every day at work.
[/quote]

I enjoyed your responce. I was agreeing with a lot of it, especially the useability of Sonys, everyone I've bought I learned to use very easily.

But then at the end you turn back into a a-hole.

Oh well, thanks for the info. It was informative.

Bob

SX_2.0_Monkey · Post by **SX_2.0_Monkey** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:08 pm

YAY for Pentax! lol My little K100D hasn't even been mentioned. Got it for under 500 CDN a year and a half ago with in camera shake reduction. I love using shake reduction on a lens that was made in the 60's. It just feels so right. enjoy your canikon!

would I say no to a mark II and some L glass? no. Would I say no to a D90/D300? no. But I love my Pentax and my SR.