Agreed. I'm not saying it's Cr*p, but it is very limited. My D70 is so much nicer to use (backlight screen and fingertip jogwheel and buttons), despite my D50 having slightly better colour and sharpness.

I know flashes produce a completely different picture, but I think it's better to learn flash tricks that get complacant bumping up ISO's etc, although I guess you guys are talking track specific shots and not exactly high quality portraits. I'm probably one of the more experienced nightclub photgraphers (which along with weddings is the hardest photography to learn). I use various filters, homemade gells, bounce cards etc to get good light. Personally I think racers should be happy with subtle flashes used in moderation.

WITHOUT using flashes you might be better with a CANON to reduce noise.

Maverick, we obviously disagree. I've never said the D40/x was the best choice, period rather it was the best choice if buying new within the OP's budget.

All of this is your opinion. I used to have a Canon T90 film camera and haven't seriously missed any function. My D40 does everything I want most of the time. I do a lot of portrait shooting and would have liked a bottom grip and side shutter release, but it's not a big deal. It would be nice to be able to change the film speed and white balance quicker, but it's not a big deal. If I were doing it for a living it would be, but I don't, it's a hobby.

As for the caps, I was just empasizing in the same you had previously, apologies if you took it another way.

I do use flashes when I feel they are appropriate but when shooting r/c indoors I tend to not use flash so I wont distract people who are trying to race.

well this really has opened a can of worms but if i could put a finer search on what i'm after as i went into jessops today to have a look at these cameras first hand...

I really want a camera that i can build on and not have to upgrade after 6 months because either lack of lense choice or not being able to take the pics i want.

Also i really need to be able to change settings quickly as i will be mainly using it for RC race meets where you only have 5 mins to get the shot your after so i would really like more buttons over an on screen menu.

As for where the images will end up, a number of places really, generally not to be printed but they will be used on the web and also published in a magazine or 2 hopefully.

I would rather get a camera where a flash is not necessary as many people have already said drivers tend to start throwing things at you if you blind them too much with a flash and i dont like the pictures a flash generally provides.

from what people have said i guess the decission is between something like the Nikon D70 or the Cannon 350/400D. what are the differences between these cameras, or am i still on the wrong tracks?

are the nikon lenses compatible with the cannon systems and visa versa or are they a different fixing?

this sort of money is quite a lot to spend for me so i'm sorry if i'm asking obvious questions but i really dont want to make the wrong choice and have to shell out twice. I guess i'm in the same boat that Jimmy was in 3 years ago, no real intention of taking this too seriously but if i do i want to know the kit i'm buying is going to be up to the job, i'd rather spend an extra £100 now than have to buy a whole new body in a few months

once again all your help is very much appreciated :)

Both the Canons are newer than the D70 and both have higher resolution (which isn't that significant for many users). Review for the cameras can be found here:
D70 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/
350D http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/
400D http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

Totally different.

However, as I understand it, due to a slight difference in focusing distance between the back of the lens and the sensor (Nikon being slightly longer) it is possible to get an adaptor to fit Nikon lenses to Canon bodies, both adapting the physical connections and moving the lens away from the sensor so it focuses in the right place. Since you would need to move canon lenses closer on a Nikon camera, it is not possible, as any physical adaptor moves it further away.

I don't know if this allows the lenses to auto focus and other electronic communication between the lens and body, I doubt it.

Personally, I would treat the two systems as incompatible.

Reguarding nikon lenses on canon bodies, it can be done but you wont get autofocus and unless the lens has an aperture ring you also wont be able to stop down to smaller apertures.

There is an adapter that will give you the focus confirmation bleep when using nikon lenses on a canon body but thats about the most amount of talking between them you'll get.

There is an adapter that lets you use canon lenses on a nikon body but its quite expensive and will degrade image quality, increase the magnifcation and lower the amount of light getting in as it requires optical elements to refocus the lens.

Generally speaking they are incompatable in any real way (although I do use a Nikkor micro 55mm f2.8 macro on my 20d)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=008

what about this as a starter package?

Looks just fine. I would be inclined to almost ignore the fact it has a lens when deciding your bid. As mentioned previously this lens has been replaced with the 55-200VR which can be bought inexpensively, so the non-VR is should be pretty cheap now. The VR versions are selling new for around £130 and the non-VR new for around £100. Personally I don't think the non-VR is worth it at this price and I wouldn't be prepared to pay more than £60 for a used one.

Bodies only seem to sell for around £200 so I think I'd be bidding up to around £250. Ask to see some shots of the rear (check for scratches on the screen and excessive wear around the buttons) and inside the body with the lens off (look for damage to the lens mount and mirror, etc.)

Also "3 fps continuous shooting for up to 144 consecutive shots" is a bit of an exaggeration. It might be able to 144 images on the basic setting, lowest resolution, but DPReview.com reckons 12 (which will be at full quality jpeg setting). 12 is more than enough for most purposes but I thought I'd draw you attention to it.

HEY GUESS WHAT!!!!!

I got this at a vegas pawn shop for $65!!!!! SWEET!!!!!

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...8&modelid=8771

As far as i can see its not a digital........

"35mm" That's film that is.

so? that's not a bad thing.

yes it is think of all the money you spend on film with digital all you have to do is have a card any pictures that arent that good you can just delete.

A

:rolleyes:

canon's got those. but some are very ugly.
like this:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=10598
i don't like the bulge at the bottom.

Ye.... the buldge at the bottom is the battery, and the 1D is around £1600 IIRC in this country, could be wrong though.

The bulge at the bottom as well as for a battery is so you can hold the camera sideways and shoot portrait shots, it has an extra set of controls there so the camera can be operated at that orientation.

Films ok but I couldnt afford the cost of shooting it all the time, at least not without setting up my own darkroom. I had costed this out when I was looking to get my 20D, I had considered getting a 1V and a neg scanner but the added cost would of been too much to do event photography.

Tell you what.
When my daughter was born I just had a 35mm snapper. after spending 100's of pounds on films (you do take a lot of photo's when you have children) I decided to spend those 100's of pounds on a digital snapper....RESULT!!
I saved what has to be £1000's in films, developing etc.

and with an SLR, theres nothing worse that going through 3-4 rolls of film, only to realise when they're developed, that somethings not right with the camera. thats £3-6 per film and another £4-10 developing wasted, plus a day taking pictures that you wont get the chance to do again.

I've now had my new Canon 400d/Xti thingy about 2 month and I've already taken well over 3000 photos. Ok a lot of those didn't work out, but that is the beauty of digital. you can just snap away, look at the viewfinder, if it didn't work out, take it again!

At batley the other weekend, I took about 900 pics with around 150-200 being usable. (I am still getting used to it ;) ) Imagine how much that would cost in films!

But I would NEVER go back to film.

I need a 'reasonable' zoom to work with, just to stop me standing REALY close to the track.:D

Did you buy it?

no i missed it and it went for 275, i've got my eye on a couple of others though