# nikon d50, first camera?



## dontfollowrulezevar (Oct 12, 2009)

I have decided to get a nikon d50 for my first camera due to it's low price and overall good reviews. (if you think I am making a mistake, please realize I have a low price range, and if you still think I could make a better buy, do tell.)

I know nothing about lenses and don't know if the one the d50 comes with is any good. I could use some advice on that. Realize I would just like to do simple photography on the creative side and I am a beginner so I don't need a super fancy lens at the moment, let alone I can't afford one.

SO, if you think I should rather a) look into a different camera. or b) buy a separate body and lens for a better deal. Voice your opinion.

If anyone selling a cheap d50 tell me about it.

Thanks fellas, hope to get a lot of feedback.


----------



## IgsEMT (Oct 12, 2009)

D50, is and was a GREAT camera. The only limitations I found it to have is shooting above ISO400 was a bit noisy and lack of CLS compatibility. Otherwise, it worked great, never failed and was a pleasure to work with.


----------



## ScottWy (Oct 12, 2009)

I still use the same D50 I got new in 2005.  The standard kit lens will work well for what you want if you have good light.  It is a good outfit to start with.  Read, experiment, repeat, until you know exactly what you want to accomplish.  Then you can start thinking about upgrades in a year or three.

I used it for about a year, then got the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens.  This allowed me better use in low light, without a flash, at a new price under $400.  I would imagine you could get one at or under $300 on the used market now.

I have printed some very nice 8x10's with it.  I am wanting better ISO performance, so I'm considering a D90, or possibly a D300.  I do believe I will hold onto the D50, however.  It is a good learner camera, and there are features (such as bracketing) that I still have not used much.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 12, 2009)

If I knew what I know now when I bought my D40, I'd have bought a D50 instead.  The choice of lenses is far greater simply because it has the in-body AF motor.


----------



## Hobbes (Oct 13, 2009)

epp_b said:


> If I knew what I know now when I bought my D40, I'd have bought a D50 instead.  The choice of lenses is far greater simply because it has the in-body AF motor.



why don't you just sell your d40 and buy a used d50? I know someone who actually bought his d50 plus a lens for 50 bucks at a garage sale lol Even if you won't get that lucky I wouldn't be surprised that the resale value on d40 is higher than d50


----------



## epp_b (Oct 13, 2009)

> why don't you just sell your d40 and buy a used d50?


I've been thinking about it, but it some ways, it is a downgrade (screen size, weight, etc).  On the other hand, I'm just aching for some AF-D lenses!  I might consider it once the warranty is up, but I also might be looking at a D90 before that point.


----------



## NateS (Oct 13, 2009)

I'd take a D50 over a D40 anyday.  Plus, it's high ISO performance was really ahead of it's time for the price point (even not based on price point really).  I have seen some surprisingly low noise ISO1600 shots from the D50.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2009)

The D50 has a very poor viewfinder image--it's really "squinty". The D40 has a significantly clearer, easier to see viewfinder image. D50's are available pretty cheaply on the used market. If you're new to photography, I think the better viewfinder image in the D40 or D60 or better yet, the D3000, will  make your photos turn out better.


----------



## dontfollowrulezevar (Oct 22, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback fellas


----------

