what camera for a teenager

my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she
has been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

"william kossack" wrote in message
. ..
my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she has
been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

Now that Nikon is pushing the D-80 and the D-40, better prices are available
for the D-50 and D-70s. If I did not already have a D-50, my choice would be
the D-70s. The 18-70mm kit lens is great.

william kossack wrote:
my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she
has been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

This really depends on how serious and good a photographer she really is, and
where she wants to go with her skill. If she's serious and you get her a
camera without enough 'bells and whistles' she could get discouraged.

A parallel here, I once had a friend that loved to bicycle, his wife wanted to
go along on rides. So he bought her a very low priced bike from one of the
*-mart type stores. probably 5 speed and heavy. After a couple rides together
she quit. Why - well he had the lightest top of the line model and she
couldn't keep up (Duh!). Was he really trying to discourage her from riding?
I've seen the same with tennis players. One had a heavy wood racket while the
other had the latest, lightest Titanium. Guess which one played best and loved
the game.

The D40 (as far as a sailsdroid said) is a watered down D50, the D50 is almost
as good as a D70. So I'd look for a good deal on a D50 and a different lens
set as your D70. Sticking with Nikon has the advantage that the two of you
could trade lenses when need be.

Or give her you D70 and treat yourself to the newer D80. Then you won't be
spending your budget on her. :-)








--
Mike Vore
http://www.OhMyWoodness.com
http://mike.vorefamily.net/twr

In article ,
"Rudy Benner" wrote:

Now that Nikon is pushing the D-80 and the D-40, better prices are available
for the D-50 and D-70s. If I did not already have a D-50, my choice would be
the D-70s. The 18-70mm kit lens is great.

Or the D-50 with the 18-70 lens -- and that last can be found used
fairly commonly (people sold it to get the 18-200 zoom). The D-50 also
has the body focus motor so you can add the autofocus 50 mm f/1.8 (or
just start her with that). The D 40 doesn't.

If the D-70s body is within $50 of the D50, you might want to go with
that rather than the D50, but do get the 18-70 lens.

On 25 Jan, 14:24, william kossack wrote:
my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she
has been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

You might be able to find a re-furbed D50 for less than the D40, or
even a used D70 which should be substantially less than either.

Doc

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rudy Benner" wrote:

Now that Nikon is pushing the D-80 and the D-40, better prices are
available
for the D-50 and D-70s. If I did not already have a D-50, my choice would
be
the D-70s. The 18-70mm kit lens is great.

Or the D-50 with the 18-70 lens -- and that last can be found used
fairly commonly (people sold it to get the 18-200 zoom). The D-50 also
has the body focus motor so you can add the autofocus 50 mm f/1.8 (or
just start her with that). The D 40 doesn't.

If the D-70s body is within $50 of the D50, you might want to go with
that rather than the D50, but do get the 18-70 lens.

I bought my D-50 with the 18-70mm, later purchasing a 18-200mm VR. I do not
use the 18-70mm anymore.
The other big lens purchase was a Nikkor 12-24mm.

I agree about getting the D-70s, the bodies sell for about the same price
now. The illuminated LCD screen on the top is a much needed feature, also
the DOF preview.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:24:29 -0700, william kossack wrote:

my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she
has been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

Is she serious about photography or just mostly takes snapshots?
Either way, as a interim solution, I'd get her a higher end, 6 to 8
megapixel point-n-shoot (less pricey than a DSLR) that has a "manual" mode
with a zoom range that goes from moderate wide angle to moderate tele --
28mm to 85mm 35mm equivalent. This will do until she's really good enough
to NEED a DSLR.

Stef

william kossack wrote:
my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she
has been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

I got my first SLR (film, long ago) as a teenager, and a number of other
people in my highschool were using SLRs (I wasn't always clear which
ones they "owned" vs. which they were merely "borrowing" from their
parents). This was before auto-exposure. So I have a good sample size
saying that a teenager can make good use of an SLR (I don't think the
digital vs. film issue is relevant here).

Mine cost $280 new. In 1969. Adjusting for cost of living
increase...that'd be $1500 in today's dollars, it says here.

Plus I had to buy film and processing (and darkroom chemicals); whereas
most of that's included with a digital camera :-).

Of course "too expensive" is really an issue of current budget, rather
than any sort of historic comparison.

You can often get the D50 cheaper than the D40, right now.

You could also maybe do okay with something like a used Fuji S2, or a
used D70.

Or...drumroll please...upgrade to a D200 for yourself and pass on your
D70 to your daughter (I think that's where a number of my highschool
friends' cameras came from).

Seems to me there's significant benefit to maintaining lens
compatibility within the family, which argues for staying with a Nikon
mount system for you.

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:24:29 -0700, william kossack wrote:

my daughter has an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera but she
has been wanting a better camera for a long time.

She has birthday coming up (turning 16) and we are debating a better
camera like a Nikon D40. I have a D70 with a couple lenses and really
like it.

Are there other options? I'm not stuck on Nikon. The D40 is a bit too
expensive and we have been watching the sales.

Is she serious about photography or just mostly takes snapshots?

Note that the daughter has had a P&S digital for some time, and is now
wanting something better.

Stefan Patric wrote:

Is she serious about photography or just mostly takes snapshots?
Either way, as a interim solution, I'd get her a higher end, 6 to 8
megapixel point-n-shoot (less pricey than a DSLR) that has a "manual" mode
with a zoom range that goes from moderate wide angle to moderate tele --
28mm to 85mm 35mm equivalent. This will do until she's really good enough
to NEED a DSLR.



You don't become good enough to NEED a DSLR without having an SLR
(DSLR or non-D-SLR).

You need it to try the expanded possibilities.

Doug McDonald