40d worth it for amature only taking periodic pictures?

Started Jun 17, 2008 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Regular MemberPosts: 252
40d worth it for amature only taking periodic pictures?
Jun 17, 2008

I currently have a good P&S camera (canon A620). I don't use it as much as I would prefer. For starters, I get discouraged with low light picts and when shooting scenic pics, such as at the japanese gardens, the contrast isn't that good. Manual mode helps some, but colors still seem washed out.

As such, I have been drooling over dslrs. After spending months researching Nikon and waiting patiently for their D90, I am now focusing on the Canons. Given my preference for low level lighting (family and dog), I started looking at the 40d since it is on sale.

In store, it felt comfortable to hold (though the nikon was a little better in ergonomics for me). The canon XSI (?), while not bad, was actually small in my hands. The 40D has most of what I want or drool for, but after buying the camera with a lens at $1150 and adding a 70-300, I am now looking at nearly $1700.

Question, is it really worth it? While wonderful to drool and get myself worked up, when it actually gets time to drop the money I am a bit more hesitant. I am known for "having to have something", only to find I rarely use it. So for those out there who are into dslr just as a hobby and not heavily, is it worth spending this kind of money on a camera that may only see 25-50 pictures a month at most?

Pictures I usually take are of pets, zoos/animals, and scenic when out hiking.

Thanks in advance for any input.


ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow