Not used the photography forum before so excuse my ignorance if I say something stupid.

I am looking at getting into the digital SLR market. I mainly use my camera for people shots, landscapes but mostly motorsport. I am on a budget of approx £500 ish.

I have been doing a bit of research on the net and the best options I think I can come up with is either the Nikon D50 or the Canon EOS 300d. Does anyone use / have an opinion on either of these, or can anyone suggest an alternative if I am missing out on another candidate.

Thanks in anticipation of your help,

Cheers,

Ian

I was in the very same boat as yourself a few weeks back. After countless hours of research on here and other dedicated camera sites I opted for the Canon 350D. It's very early days at the moment but I'm throughly enjoying using the camera/learning techniques and it is far more capable than I am.

If you do a search on here for 350D or D50 and you will find lots of useful posts/information.

Just be careful though it does/can start to get expensive. Only had mine a few weeks and I'm already pricing up a new lens! :0/

A 350D with kit lens and then a 70-300 should give a pretty versatile setup for both landscapes and motorsport. You can then add or upgrade lenses as funs allow.

I have no experience of Nikons, but opted for the Canon - I understand the Canon has more features that you can learn to master in terms of manual modes.

Try them in a shop to see how you like the feel. also ask if you can try the 350D with the battery grip attached - makes a huge difference.

if i were to start again, i'd go with the canon.

get a 350D, but the best glass you can. you've then got a route to a full frame DSLR mapped out.

*buy the best glass you can

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

What do you mean by this comment ??

you've then got a route to a full frame DSLR mapped out.

the cheaper end DSLRs have physically smaller sensors in them than a 35mm negative - a full frame

the image that comes through the lens into a film camera has no cropping, ie, the image falls fully onto the negative.

because the digital cmos or ccd is physically smaller, the image that comes through the lens is bigger than the sensor that will capture it. kinda like a projector shining onto a smaller screen - the picture extends onto the wall behind the projector screen. so there is cropping of the image that falls over the edge of the sensor.

this crop factor must be factored in to get the same image that you would get from a 'full frame' film camera.

i think on canons it's 1.6x and nikons 1.5x. Nikon doesn't yet have an up to date prosumer full frame dslr yet, but canon have the shiny 5D :(

apart from the ease of the maths on a full frame camera, ie; a 50mm lens gives you an uncropped 50mm image, physically bigger sensors catch more light - the holy grail of digital image capture

this is all a bit woolly, but you should get the picture lol

Chef - It is becoming clearer I think :thumb:

Who would have thought it was all so complicated . . . . . . . .

i think on canons it's 1.6x and nikons 1.5x. Nikon doesn't yet have an up to date prosumer full frame dslr yet, but canon have the shiny 5D :(

Depends on the Camera to be honest,

300D/350D/20D/30D = 1.6 Crop
1d Mk2/MK2N = 1.3 crop
1DS/5D = Full Frame

Nikon have made a comment they will never produce a Full frame sensor as they dont see the need !

I wouldn't discount the second hand market either. Some incredible cameras sell for amazingly/depressingly* low amounts on ebay and the like.

* Depending on whether you are buying or selling!