Higher-end compact or SLR for me?

Sosumi wrote:
[]
> I´ve taken thousands of pictures with both and just the other day I
> was in a shopping mall, looking at the Pentax, Canon, Nikon and
> Olympus. Holding, feeling and see thru the viewfinder. The cheap
> Nikon has about the brightest view!

Funny you should mention that. It was also my impression. I didn't quite
believe it because so many had said "the Nikon D40 doesn't have a proper
prism" - to save weight and cost, I expect. But it was brighter than the
Canon 400. So I bought it!

Thanks for your other observations as well.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

On 2007-11-30, David J Taylor <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Sosumi wrote:
> []
>> I´ve taken thousands of pictures with both and just the other day I
>> was in a shopping mall, looking at the Pentax, Canon, Nikon and
>> Olympus. Holding, feeling and see thru the viewfinder. The cheap
>> Nikon has about the brightest view!
>
> Funny you should mention that. It was also my impression. I didn't quite
> believe it because so many had said "the Nikon D40 doesn't have a proper
> prism" - to save weight and cost, I expect. But it was brighter than the
> Canon 400. So I bought it!

The EOS400D likewise has a pentamirror rather than a prism, and yes, just
like the 300/350 before it, the experience is that of looking down a rather
dim tunnel.
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

On Nov 30, 1:17 pm, "Mr. Strat" <r... RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <ZWN3j.66295$RX.61...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Daniel
>
> Lenski <dlen... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Go with the Nikon or the Canon. Jeez...why waste money on something
> > > less?
>
> > Something less?
>
> Olympus...definitely something less than Nikon or Canon.

Just in terms of sensor size?

Frankly, I don't understand how sensor size itself is so critical.
Can someone explain to me why a 10 megapixel sensor covering 370 mm^2
(APS-C) is more noise-immune or has better dynamic range than a 10
megapixel sensor covering 225 mm^2 (four-thirds)?

Dan
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

In article
<8b5a868b-eca2-4e53-93cb-aea615aa0600 RemoveThis @s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Dan Lenski <dlenski RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> > Olympus...definitely something less than Nikon or Canon.
>
> Just in terms of sensor size?
>
> Frankly, I don't understand how sensor size itself is so critical.
> Can someone explain to me why a 10 megapixel sensor covering 370 mm^2
> (APS-C) is more noise-immune or has better dynamic range than a 10
> megapixel sensor covering 225 mm^2 (four-thirds)?

for the same number of pixels, a larger sensor will have larger
individual pixels which will capture more photons per pixel, thus
having a better signal to noise ratio and better dynamic range.

for the gory details:

<http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summa
ry/>
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

Chris Savage wrote:
> On 2007-11-30, David J Taylor
> <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sosumi wrote:
>> []
>>> I´ve taken thousands of pictures with both and just the other day I
>>> was in a shopping mall, looking at the Pentax, Canon, Nikon and
>>> Olympus. Holding, feeling and see thru the viewfinder. The cheap
>>> Nikon has about the brightest view!
>>
>> Funny you should mention that. It was also my impression. I didn't
>> quite believe it because so many had said "the Nikon D40 doesn't
>> have a proper prism" - to save weight and cost, I expect. But it
>> was brighter than the Canon 400. So I bought it!
>
> The EOS400D likewise has a pentamirror rather than a prism, and yes,
> just
> like the 300/350 before it, the experience is that of looking down a
> rather
> dim tunnel.

But Nikon do it better - a more pleasant viewfinder experience. My
congratulations to them for a job well done.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

SMS ???. ? wrote:
[]
> This advice is correct. Canon has a much wider selection of good
> lenses that what is available for the D40. Another advantage of Canon
> is that their mid-range lenses are much better than what's available
> from Nikon, though Nikon has better low end, and equivalent high end
> other than the fluorite lenses which Nikon doesn't do. Before you
> think that you'll never use a high end lens, remember that if the
> situation demands it you can rent a high end lens fairly
> inexpensively for a few days, but it actually has to exist. In that
> sense, Canon has an advantage because they have lenses for which
> Nikon has no equivalent.

And vice-versa. Where is Canon's 18 - 200mm image stabilised lens?

David
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:20 +0000, Sosumi wrote:
>> For me, the 4/3 system has been a disappointment, in that it has not
>> produced enough size and weight saving to offset the poorer performance
>> of the smaller sensor.

Yeah, I keep hearing that, pity

>> The Nikon D40/D40x and kit lens are almost as
>> light, and more versatile with lens choice. I got the D40 with the
>> 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 VR lens (the image stabilisation is very
>> helpful).
>>
>> Beyond that, handle the cameras, and if possible, try and define what
>> type of photography or what aspect of photography matters to you.
>
>
> I agree 100%. In fact I too tried the Olympus and brought it back the
> next day..
> I have the D40 and D40x. Both outstanding and very good in dynamic range
> and light metering. It's even said it 's better than the D80 and even
> D200. The D80 I can confirm; better with highlights. Another thing is
> handling. The Nikon feels so much better than the Canon. The door to the
> card is very easy to open when your card is full; much easier than any
> other dslr. The kit lens, 18-55 is the best of all kitlenses. I also
> have the 55-200 VR and agree its very good. Ive taken thousands of
> pictures with both and just the other day I was in a shopping mall,
> looking at the Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Holding, feeling and
> see thru the viewfinder. The cheap Nikon has about the brightest view!
> The 400D looks like when youre looking thru a tunnel, compared. The body
> feels very plastic and flimsy. Pentax K10 much more expensive and very
> heavy, but unlogical to handle. I tried to open the card door but it
> took me a while to discover: you have to look at the back (door is on
> the side, go figure!) and lift a very small latch that you can only
> touch with the tip of your nail and then in one movement have to turn to
> open the door. The first time the latch jumped back (spring loaded) so I
> had to try again. Geez, what a pain. Hold it, all you people, animals: I
> need a few minutes to change my card. LOL Great for action shooting...
>
> The 400D looses all pictures in memory if by accident you open the door.
> It also has no spot metering and the kit lens is very bad in all tests.

Thanks for this information. Looks like I could get the D40 with the
18-55mm kit lens + 2gb card for $460 from a reputable online shop. I
gather the lack of an AF drive motor in the body is really only an issue
for those who own a lot of Nikon lenses already, and won't really restrict
future offerings?

Also, it looks like 10 vs 6 megapixels and about $130 more is the only
important difference between the D40 and D40x, anything else?

Dan
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

Daniel Lenski wrote:
[]
> Thanks for this information. Looks like I could get the D40 with the
> 18-55mm kit lens + 2gb card for $460 from a reputable online shop. I
> gather the lack of an AF drive motor in the body is really only an
> issue for those who own a lot of Nikon lenses already, and won't
> really restrict future offerings?

Correct. It might be nice to get an old lens cheap, but it's just another
item to have to carry around. <G>

> Also, it looks like 10 vs 6 megapixels and about $130 more is the only
> important difference between the D40 and D40x, anything else?

That's about it - oh, and the bigger file size from more pixels. So fewer
pictures per card.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

"Daniel Lenski" <dlenski RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94L3j.4764$C24.814@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:24:33 -0700, ray wrote:
>> You seem to be outlining two different sets of requirements - sounds to
>> me like you'd really like two cameras. A P&S to pack around most of the
>> time, and a DSLR when you're 'more serious' about it.
>
> Yeah, I expect I will keep the Olympus C-740 UZ... and I have a little
> credit-card-cam as well which is okay for casual snapshots. At this point
> I'll say I'm going for DSLR at this point, since it seems I'll be
> disappointed by anything less.
>
> My good options are the Nikon D40, Canon EOS 350D or 400D, and Olympus
> E410 or E510, I think.

I would say the Nikon D40 is the hands-down choice there.

>
> The advice I keep getting is to focus on availability of good lenses.
> Which makes the Canons come out way ahead, I gather.

Dunno where you got that idea. Canon does have a large selection of
professional lenses, most of them so ultra-expensive you'd probably never
buy one. Nikon has many such lenses too, but Canon's catalog of super-lenses
is probably greater. It's unlikely you'd ever actually buy any of these, at
least in the foreseeable future.


> And apparently the
> number of autofocus-capable lenses for the Nikon is fairly small.

Of the lenses you *would* buy, Nikon has as much of a selection as you'd
ever be likely to need or want, and Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens is excellent,
while reportedly Canon's corresponding 18-55 is rather poor -- even Canon
fans have described it as "trash". Nikon's 55-200mm VR lens is the ideal
companion to the 18-55. I don't think Canon makes a similar lens. They do
have an inexpensive 55-200 too, but it's not image-stabilized as the Nikon
55-200 VR is and probably not as good optically. Those two, the 18-55 and
55-200 VR, are lenses you would actually *want* as opposed to the dozens of
other lenses you'd probably never want.

I have the D40 as well as the above mentioned Nikon lenses (along with many
others) and I love it, so I'll have to admit to some bias. All the later
Nikon lenses autofocus just fine on the D40, and every new lens Nikon
introduces does also. The only Nikon AF lenses that don't autofocus on the
D40 are those older ones that require the AF motor to be in the camera body.
Those can be easily manually focused on the D40 (there's an electronic aid
for this), as can a lot of much older manual-focus lenses.


> One
> other thing is that I have heard the inexpensive kit lenses that come with
> the Olympus (14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 & 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 Zuiko Digital Lenses)
> are much better than the Canons. Which makes me lean towards the Olympus
> more.
>
> What do you think about the prospects of the 4/3 Olympus lens system?
> Will I have better choice in a year or 5 if I get really serious?

Maybe. The Four Thirds system has a significantly smaller sensor, which may
prove to be a serious liability for that system. The question is, Does it
have any real benefits that make up for that? Or will it turn out to be a
misguided approach to digital as APS was to film? Asking about what things
will be like in five years is unlikely to produce any accurate answers.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

"acl" <achilleaslazarides.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ed2630fa-94be-404c-9087-9f03dda89465@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 8:30 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-tay....RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-
> bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> Daniel Lenski wrote:
>>
>> []
>>
>> > Thanks for this information. Looks like I could get the D40 with the
>> > 18-55mm kit lens + 2gb card for $460 from a reputable online shop. I
>> > gather the lack of an AF drive motor in the body is really only an
>> > issue for those who own a lot of Nikon lenses already, and won't
>> > really restrict future offerings?
>>
>> Correct. It might be nice to get an old lens cheap, but it's just
>> another
>> item to have to carry around. <G>
>
> There are a few exceptions, though; a 50mm f/1.8, for example, is the
> cheapest lens nikon sells, is fast, very light and very sharp when
> stopped down. A 85mm f/1.8 is also a potentially useful lens (for
> portraits, for instance). Neither of these autofocuses on the d40.

Right. However, I have both the 50/1.8 and the 85/1.8 and they do manually
focus easily on the D40 with the little focus indicator in the viewfinder.
Too bad it's down there in the corner, but short of replacing the screen
it's the best available solution I suppose.

>
> But if the decision is between a long-zoom compact and a dslr, then I
> imagine the dslr will be used with a long-zoom lens and these lenses
> aren't too relevant.
>
>>
>> > Also, it looks like 10 vs 6 megapixels and about $130 more is the only
>> > important difference between the D40 and D40x, anything else?
>>
>> That's about it - oh, and the bigger file size from more pixels. So
>> fewer
>> pictures per card.

Also a difference in sync speed -- 1/500 for the D40, 1/200 for the D40x.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:l7Y3j.55695$c_1.38841@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> SMS ???. ? wrote:
> []
>> This advice is correct. Canon has a much wider selection of good
>> lenses that what is available for the D40. Another advantage of Canon
>> is that their mid-range lenses are much better than what's available
>> from Nikon, though Nikon has better low end, and equivalent high end
>> other than the fluorite lenses which Nikon doesn't do. Before you
>> think that you'll never use a high end lens, remember that if the
>> situation demands it you can rent a high end lens fairly
>> inexpensively for a few days, but it actually has to exist. In that
>> sense, Canon has an advantage because they have lenses for which
>> Nikon has no equivalent.
>
> And vice-versa. Where is Canon's 18 - 200mm image stabilised lens?

For that matter, where is Canon's low-priced 55-200mm image-stabilized lens?
Nikon's 55-200 VR is a real honey.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47503aef$0$84250$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

>
> Canon has a big advantage over Nikon because _every_ EOS lens made can be
> used on the 350D or 400D, while Nikon is a mess of bodies of lenses that
> can't be used together, or that can be used without full functionality, or
> that can be used if they are modified electronically and/or mechanically.

But there is at least that capability, which Canon does not have. Nikon's
lens mount is *basically* the same as the first Nikon F in 1959, which
allows some degree of compatibility either with or without modification. You
say every *EOS* lens is usable on a new Canon 350D or 400D, but the Canon FD
and FL mount lenses made before the EOS are not compatible and cannot be
made so, since the mount is entirely different. Also, I see that Canon's
EF-S mount introduced in 2004 introduced another incompatibility -- not all
EOS cameras can accept EF-S lenses, though all EOS cameras made now can take
both EF and EF-S lenses.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me? 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:39:10 -0800, nospam wrote:
>> Frankly, I don't understand how sensor size itself is so critical. Can
>> someone explain to me why a 10 megapixel sensor covering 370 mm^2
>> (APS-C) is more noise-immune or has better dynamic range than a 10
>> megapixel sensor covering 225 mm^2 (four-thirds)?
>
> for the same number of pixels, a larger sensor will have larger
> individual pixels which will capture more photons per pixel, thus having
> a better signal to noise ratio and better dynamic range.
>
> for the gory details:
>
> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summa
> ry/>

Thank you, that's a really great explanation.

I'm embarrassed to say I took advanced astronomy lab in college and
learned all about low-temperature CCDs for astrophotography... but I
really needed the refresher. It's interesting to learn about the newer
CMOS sensors as well.

One of the things that strikes me from this article is that, wow, digital
is way better than film. The dynamic range and SNR are better even for
the cheaper cameras it seems. I remember the quantum efficiency of CCDs
is way higher than film too, at least at LN2 temperature... how does that
compare at room temp? The article doesn't give low-light sensitivity for
film.

Dan
 >> Stay informed about: Higher-end compact or SLR for me?