Any thoughts on a budget digital SLR - budget is the key here, around $500. [ invalid url ] Plus best buy has a deal where they throw in another zoom lens for just $100 more - that pretty much why this one caught my eye. But even at 6 MP (which this what that Nikon is) would provide stunning pics for digital viewing and any photo printing I would do - normally just 6 by 4 inches. Either that or I'd pick up a thin camera to replace the old Sony "Cyber-shot" which is kind of a lunk. I might end up picking up two if we want to have an easy to carry camera also. I did read the GaySytr camera thread - probably too high end of stuff for me.
Still wanking after all these years. 8082 Posts 10/00
Posted - May 17 2008 : 2:37PM
You can do bigger prints than this with good photo quality. I'd still go with a digital SLR and I'm a Nikon man anyway. As you're not into tech stuff I just linked to the conclusion part of the review on DPreview.com (I know, I know...). Or you could go for the newer D4 hex , which has 10 MP and also allows a lower ISO rating so you can take significantly better photos. [Link]
Amazon.com user reviews are pretty glowing - for the most part. I think this would be a good camera for me. The price point fits me - I can't justify spending $800+. I had a 35mm SLR - Canon Rebel something that has been gathering dust for years. Joey, would you agree with this review: "6 megapixel is plenty, I get tack sharp 8x12 inch prints. Don't get stuck in counting megapixels. 6MP from a DSLR will blow the doors off a 6,7,8MP compact or even DSLR-like cameras. Especially under low light conditions. 6mp is 3008x2000 pixels. 10mp is just 3888x2592pixels. Not as much difference as many people think."
The people have spoken. I'm a nitpicking dick. Woo! 8751 Posts 1/04
Posted - May 18 2008 : 1:10PM
The question you need to ask is... plenty enough for what? You won't be able to print quality as large as if you had a 10 mp or 12 mp camera. But in small sized prints, 4 x 6" you probably won't see a difference. On screen they will look great.
Still wanking after all these years. 8082 Posts 10/00
Posted - May 18 2008 : 2:04PM
Yeah 8x12 is what I was thinking about. Get a decent lens too but the standard Nikon lens packaged with the D40 seems to be their 18-55 zoom and it's pretty good. [Link]
Well, I guess you already know Nikon lenses and accessories are among the most expensive out there. They make good stuff but you pay a pretty penny for it. I think Canon DSLRs are a pretty good value for the money. I've seen really good images from Canon cameras and really bad ones. It could have been just the difference between a photographer who knew what they were doing and one who didn't but I don't know. I've seen a lot of gritty and off-color looking images from Nikons too but the same thing applies there. One thing you could try is to go to Flickr and do an advanced search. Search for large images by camera model and look at what comes up for the models you're interested in. It'll give you a decent idea of what kind of image quality you can expect. Personally, if image quality (and especially control) is important to you and you don't mind paying a little more, I'd go for an SLR. P&S models are just too limited if you want to do much of anything beyond the most basic photography. And P&S models often suffer from pretty bad lens distortion as well (especially at the wide end). At least with an SLR you have the option of buying a good lens.
Lower base ISO does not necessarily mean better quality pictures. The Nikon D300 has a base ISO of 200 and no one is going to argue that it provides inferior picture quality to a base 100 D4 hex . You might as well get a D60 instead of a D4 hex if you're tempted by more megapixels.
All other things being equal lower pixel counts will give better color resolution because of better dynamic range in each pixel ("well"). So the tradeoff is better spacial resolution with a high pixel count vs. better chroma resolution with fewer (but larger) wells/pixels on a sensor of the same overall size. And yes 6 MP is a lot. I prefer the colors that come out on my ancient 4 MP Canon 1D over many newer cameras: the newer cameras show pimples in a lot more detail but don't do as good a job, in my opinion, and prom shots with a flowers, dresses, etc, all gloriously rich in color in person but often a little flat at first coming out of the camera. A 6 MP camera will almost do 8x10 at 300dpi so I think few people need more resolution than that unless they also plan on a buying a big printer and very expensive paper to do posters.
I'm a Canon DSLR user, but I've played with the Nikon D40 a little bit and read up on it some as well. As far as I can tell, it is one heck of a value. It can't use a lot of the Nikon lenses in the field, but it can use anything relatively modern AFAIK. It's user interface is fast, fast, fast. The most recent Canons seem to be just as fast, but not my digital rebel (300D). I think image quality is going to be great with this camera, and it shoots fast, and doesn't have ridiculous sized files to write to the card. Sure the newer Canons have more pixels, can use more lenses, and can use many cheaper lenses. But the kit lens for the Nikon is said to be very good and it's not super expensive like many of the higher end Nikon lenses. I'll caution you on two things: 1. This camera can't use any Nikon lenses that don't have their own autofocus motor. 2. You may, like me, expect that you will take better pictures with a DSLR than with a point and shoot. Like me, you will be wrong, at least at first. The DSLR requires a LOT more care in taking shots. Part of it has to do with lens to sensor geometry, but I don't want to bore you. Just keep in mind that it will require more effort to get even passable pictures. Dr. P
In that case, it looks like they have a lot of work left to do on DSLRs because that shouldn't be the case at all. When I went from a 35 mm P&S to a basic 35mm SLRm, the pictures were so much better (with almost no effort) that the difference was litterally like night and day.
^ I would say "it's just me with that problem then..." , but it's a common enough experience that Chris Marquart of the Tips From The Top Floor podcast did an episode on it. His podcast on the subject mainly deals with depth of field. Since you have shallower (in general) DOF with an SLR, small focus mistakes look far worse on an SLR than a P&S. In my experience it's just a lot easier to make mistakes with an SLR than with a P&S. For example, it's easy to flip the manual focus switch on the lens without noticing it. Or you can have your white balance set incorrectly. ISO can be set too high for the conditions. I've also had the mode of the camera (Av, Tv, P, etc) get changed between shots without my noticing it. This happened to me at Exxxotica Miami 2008, as I was carrying the camera slung over one arm, and I guess the mode dial brushed up against something. Anyway my pictures, in general, look good now but there is a lot to remember and a lot of technique to learn as well. Dr. P
Well, everything I say is merely from my experience with 35mm and my limited experience with a couple of cheap P&S digital cameras so keep that in mind. But I found it liberating when I switched to P&S 35mmm to SLR 35mm because I was tired of the camera making all the decisions. I often got blurry pictures with P&s, regardless of whether or not there was greater DOF. I found it a lot easier to just use manual focus on an SLR and my photos were always in focus. Of course, I never took large numbers of photos, either. I had time to compose and focus each picture.True enough. I guess with 35mm, the biggest advantage was that you could have the film developed by someone who knew their stuff and you only really had to worry about the basics (Unless you wanted to develop the film yourself). Unless something was horribly wrong, a good developer could correct almost anything with film. Or at least minimize it. I have a feeling it's going to be a while before they can make digital cameras that can truly minimize the worst mistakes a photographer can make. The idea is the same but the media is totally different. Edited by - randomprecision on 5/25/2008 3:07:48 PM
Most SLRs show the exposure settings in the viewfinder. If the mode setting gets accidentally changed it's going to be obvious that something is wrong. If the ISO is set too high then the exposure settings in the viewfinder are going to reflect this, even if the ISO setting itself isn't in the viewfinder. If the exposure settings show a fast exposure at a slow f/stop in a dark room with no flash... that's a hint. (that doesn't work if you shoot in full manual mode but if you do that you'll probably be used to double-checking everything anyway) On a Canon I don't think the white balance settings affect RAW exposures at all, and you can always fix it up later. I'm not sure Nikon is this way. I take gray card shots early & often to simplify things.
Well, I bought the Nikon D40 over the weekend - along with that extra lens. Seems pretty great though it will take some time to figure things out. Yet, auto setting will probably be fine for much of what I'll do. At last I bought a toy for me - after asking about this, a game machine, a laptop, probably a TV and computer here I bought something. Computer is next probably. Is my old 35mm Canon Rebel II of any value?
Legendary Alinas First Anal - review by bono-one
Posted - May 17 2008 : 12:59PM
