If cost is an issue some of the other brands (Sigma, Tokina, etc.)can be pretty good. I'd highly recommend staying with Nikon glass if you go the Nikon route. Additionally, I know a number of people who have had Quantaray lenses literally fall apart on them. The image quality can be passable for snapshots, but doesn't tend to hold up well for critical work. Sometimes they will re-brand other makers lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.). You can also see what is out there on eBay.Īlso, while on the topic of photography equipment, are Quantaray brand lens's any good? A good place to start would be KEH Camera Brokers in Atlanta. Speaking of that, you might want to look into used equipment as you can usually get more bang for your buck there. (Remember, the camera body is just a film holder, the lens is the key element) If you decide it is not for you, Nikon equipment tends to hold its value better, IMO. I would recommend the Nikon as I feel the lens quality and selection (generally) would be better and if you take on photography as a serious hobby, you can grow very easily within the Nikon system. Assuming you are taking a step up from a P&S, either would be a reasonable improvement in terms of feature set and quality. I use Nikon equipment exclusively for 35mm and digital work, but have not used the model you mention.
Where to begin without starting a holy war? Minolta and Nikon both make good cameras and lenses. So, fire away and let me know what you think! Thanks in advance. I've also heard the Nikon's AF in low light conditions is crappy. As of right now, I'm debating whethere to get the Minolta Maxxum 5 or the Nikon N65.I like the fact that they both cost 300 dollars, and the Minolta has a richer feature set, but I also here Minolta quality isn't as good as Nikon's. I'm having a big problem here, I'm in the market for a really cheap, high quality SLR to use for general amateur photography.