I’ve been in discussions lately with a good friend who is in the enviable position of shopping for his first digital SLR camera. He has two young daughters, a supportive wife, a fabulous new job, and plenty of disposable income should he choose to use it. So, yeah, Mike knows how lucky he is.
He’s not exceptionally loyal to any brand, and he’s prepared to take his time, do his homework, and find the absolute best equipment for his needs. In fact, the only thing wrong with his situation is that he made the mistake of asking me for advice.
My standard story is to buy Canon point-and-shoot digital cameras and Nikon DSLR’s. Having said that, my first reaction was to recommend the camera I thought I’d buy if I was shopping for a new camera right now. (Of course, I have to keep telling myself I’m not shopping for a new camera, but I do stay on the lookout as new models are announced.)
My recommendation was the $900 (body-only) 12.3 megapixel Nikon D90. It’s a great camera, and probably as much as or more camera than Mike (or I) would ever actually need. It was just announced last August, so it also has that “latest-greatest” appeal. I told him to pair it with Nikon’s 18-200mm lens, and maybe pick up the 35mm f/1.8 lens for indoor photography. And that should about do it.
And that’s when it got complex. I compared that camera to my older, cheaper 6 (yes, only SIX) megapixel, $450 Nikon D40. The results were surprising.
Now before I go down this road, let me assure you that I can read a spec sheet just as well as anyone else. I don’t need anyone to tell me which is the “better” camera. But the question not answered by the spec sheets is, “does it matter?”
Consumer electronics marketing has conditioned us to buy the best you can afford at the time you’re buying. Probably not a bad plan, but how do we tell what is best? Easy, they say, it’s the “latest, biggest, and fastest.” And they’re usually right. We intuitively know, for example, that a 750 Gb hard disk drive can hold more data than a 520 Gb drive. So the “more is better” maxim applies.
According to the spec sheets, the D90 is clearly a much better camera than the D40. But let me throw one more spec sheet number at you regarding that dream camera of mine: 620. It’s the weight, in grams, of a Nikon D90, sans battery. That works out to 1 lb., 6 oz., so figure on a pound and a half with the battery. When I hefted the camera for the first time on Friday night at Best Buy, it definitely felt like it.
Thinking the security lanyard that they use to keep the merchandise from growing legs was distorting my perception, I put it down and picked up the more-familiar Nikon D40. At only 475 grams (just over a pound), it almost flew out of my hand.
And that’s when I knew I’d never own a Nikon D90.
For as great of a camera as it is, can I see myself hoisting that thing up and down a trail at Pere Marquette State Park? Taking it around the far side of Silver Lake to capture a sunset? Strapping it around my neck and paddling to some spot in my kayak? No way, that thing weights a ton!
Not to mention the folly of recommending that Mike carry it while trying to keep up with his two active daughters. Or lifting it up to his eye over and over again to get those special moments at family gatherings.
So if that extra weight is the price of the D90, what is the value? Will the upgraded quality of my photography make it worth the extra weight?
I submit that it will not. Certainly, the greatest improvement in my photography will come from the continued improvement of my photography skills, not the improvement of my equipment.
So then I looked back at the lowly “entry-level” D40. It looked back at me with the same love of the girlfriend that’s loved you for all the right reasons all along, in spite of your friends who say you should ask out some other girl because she’s prettier.
I appreciated the smaller, lighter body more than ever before. My former “dream camera,” the D300, felt like a cinder block by comparison. Six megapixels suddenly seemed enough — would I really notice more, except in the increased storage space? And what exactly is it missing that would be provided by the newer models? Not much, I surmised.
So even though it’s a couple of years old, and probably due for replacement in the next few months, I just might buy that D40 again if I was in the market. Maybe the latest really isn’t the greatest. And Mike: I was wrong. Get the D40, and put the extra money in lenses. You’ll thank me later.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
So true! So so true! Having been a 35mm SLR girl that was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age (I still have an APS camera), I kept thinking I wanted a nice DSLR. Then I looked at them, and truth be told, I was overwhelmed. I found a CANON Powershot something or other, the one with the huge display, is totally square in a retro way, but has 10 megapixels and was $179 at Dell instead of the $199 at Target.
Guess what? I love it! I can coax some pretty decent shots out of it, and I look forward to trying more outside as it warms up. Amazing that a point-and-shoot could make me that happy.
Thanks for the comment, Bethany! You’re the first person to leave one here on my “semi-private blog.”
Canon makes great point & shoot cameras. I’ve recommended them to several friends and family members, and they’ve all worked out well.
I was never really able to get into photography back in the film days because, well, I am a pretty terrible photographer without that instant LCD feedback.
Hopefully you can share some shots sometime soon!
–Matt