I want to get a different camera, but i don't really know much about cameras. I looked online and these are the ones that i kind of liked:
http://www.cameraworld.com/product/54153...
http://www.cameraworld.com/product/54153...
http://www.cameraworld.com/product/54116...
http://www.cameraworld.com/product/54116...
I like to do photography for fun, and i am currently using a nikon coolpix E6400. Do you think that the coolpix i listed is a good camera, or are the other ones that i listed better. Thank you ! Ana, it's no secret here that I like the Nikon D40 over the Rebels. It's the spot meter, if nothing else, that wins me over.
I'll post my stock answers here, just to test the limits of our answer length. First is my usual thing about the D40. Next compares the D40 and Rebel XT. Next compares the D40X and XTi.
Shop at B&H, though. Ask me if you don't know how to find them. They have the exact same kit you linked to for $475. Add a good memory card and you are still about $75 less than the place you linked. Adorama is probably cheaper, too. Both are excellent retailers.
Here we go...
Nikon D40
The Nikon D40 is a great little camera, very easy to use and quite reasonably priced. It's just under $500 with a lens. It has a few "consumer friendly" totally automatic modes that make it very easy to use, but still offers total photographic control when you are ready to take charge. It will get you in the Nikon family which is a great place to be. If you buy accessories and lenses, you will be able to use everything on any Nikon that you might upgrade to later on. The user manual is among the easiest to use, also, including three pages of "frequently asked questions" that could put Yahoo! Answers out of business.
Check out Nikon's "Picturetown" promotion, where they handed out 200 D40's in Georgetown, SC. http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown...
Here are a few reviews, in case you have not read them yet. Be sure to note that they are several pages long and some of the reviews also have some sample images that you can look at.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_revi...
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3756/cam...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40...
I hate to see people slam the camera because it can't autofocus with older Nikon lenses. It is true that there is a "slight problem" with older Nikon lenses not autofocusing on the D40, but if you do not own a bag full of older lenses, it is not going to be a problem. It is barely a problem anyhow. If you check www.nikonusa.com for "AF-S" lenses, which are ALL 100% compatible with the D40, you will find 28 lenses, including 13 "VR" (vibration Reduction) lenses and one true macro lens with "VR". There are another 25-plus lenses in the current catalog that provide all functions except autofocus as well as many (possibly dozens) "out of print" lenses that will work just as well. In addition, although these lens will not autofocus, most of them will still give focus confirmation. From the D40 manual: "If the lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of faster, the viewfinder focus indicator can be used to confirm whether the portion of the subject in the selected focus area is in focus. After positioning the subject in the active focus area, press the shutter release button halfway and rotate the lens focusing ring until the in-focus indicator is displayed." (See http://www.members.aol.com/swf08302/niko... for a list of AF-S lenses or see http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum... for even more...)
The D40 only has 3 autofocus zones arranged horizontally at the center, 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions. This might be considered a limitation, but realistically, most people will find this perfectly adequate, especially if you are moving up from a point and shoot with only a center zone.
There is no "Status LCD" on top of the camera, but Nikon chose to use the rear LCD for this information. This is actually a nice move, as the display is bigger than the top display and you aren't using the read LCD for anything BEFORE you take the picture anyway. This is not a step backwards and it actually makes sense to me.
You can get the D40 with the 18-55 kit lens at B&H Photo available through Yahoo! Shopping or at 1-800-622-4987) for $475 (December 2007). Add a Lexar Platinum (60X speed) card for $25 or 2 GB for $35. Or - get the D40 with 18-135 lens and 1 GB Lexar card for around $700. This is a decent lens and it is very versatile. You will find it suitable for pretty much anything you want to do, other than really long telephoto shots. It will let you explore the range of focal lengths to decide where to start filling in your lens collection. If you don't want to buy any more lenses, this one will carry you through pretty much everything. B&H also have used D40's with the lens from $419.
~~~~~~~~~~
Nikon D40 vs. D40X
You can get a Nikon D40x, 10.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera Kit with Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens and Two SanDisk 2GB Ultra II Secure Digital (SD) Card from B&H Photo for less that $1,000 (July 2007), including shipping.
I'd lean towards the D40X, since it's "only" $135 more than the D40 and you sure can't buy a decent lens for so little money.
There are a few slight differences in these cameras that need to be considered. Rather than write it all out, I'll send you to a few sites.
See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.ht...
See: http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3896/cam... for a glowing review.
See also:
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotograp...
http://www.bythom.com/d40review.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_...
See also:
http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForum...
See the REVIEW here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
As far as the pixel issue, I say, if you have no other basis for making your decision, go for more pixels. If you always plan to compose your pictures perfectly, you don't need a whole lot of pixels. If you want to allow for cropping, which means enlarging only a portion of your image, the more pixels the better.
Imagine taking a scenic view and then noticing that the middle 20% of the photo would make an even better picture. Suppose you take a picture of a whole group of people and Aunt Clara really, really looks great in the picture, but everyone else looks lousy. If you have the pixels to work with, you can still make a decent print of Aunt Clara that she would be happy to have. If you buy an 8-to-10 MP camera and don't want to TAKE large photos, you can always set the camera to a lower file size. You can never go the other direction, though. Unless the cost is a major issue, buy the camera with more pixels. You will never be sorry that you did, but you might one day be sorry that you didn't.
I have a few photos on Flickr to include in a discussion on how many pixels are enough. Go to my page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei... Some of the pictures are from a 4 MP or even 3 MP camera, showing you what you might expect without any cropping. I think they are quite acceptable. Some of the pictures are from a 10 MP camera (the swan and the pansies), showing the value of having those large images so that you can crop a smaller image out of the original picture and still end up with a satisfactory image.
~~~~~~~~~~
Nikon D40 vs. Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT)
I have never used a Canon EOS 350D, so I can't actually compare the cameras, but I favor the D40 because it has a spotmeter and the 350D doesn't. Although the D40 seems small, it is practically the exact same size as the 350D.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
tells us that the Canon 350D meter calibration is off by about 1/3 of a stop. This would not really present any problems, except that it suggests "something" to me about the quality, since the Nikon and Pentax are dead on.
Scroll on down the page for image comparisons. The D40 is clearly sharper and shows less noise at all ISO settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40... shows us that both handle shadows equally, but the D40 clips the highlights by about 1/3 of a stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40... shows a side-by-side of studio images. The 8 MP of the Canon 350D at least put the camera on equal footing with the Nikon D40 for image quality, but you have to take note that the Rebel XT is shot at ISO 100 and the Nikon is shot at it lowest setting of ISO 200. I think the Canon images may look a little better, but we know from the prior page that under equal lighting levels, the Canon will start to break up before the Nikon.
The reviewer says, "While it is possible to pick areas of the image which lend some credence to the EOS 350D's 34% pixel count advantage it's clear that the average observer would not notice these differences and that you would need a very large output size for any of them to become visible."
Check this out...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ca... is taken by the Canon 350D with a 17 mm focal length at f/6.3, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using RAW.
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ni... is taken with the Nikon D40 with an 18 mm focal length at f/4.5, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using jpeg.
The point of focus for the Canon photo is a bit deeper than it is for the Nikon, but even having 8MP and using RAW and a smaller aperture, I think the Canon image breaks up a lot more than the Nikon. You can barely make out the features on the face of the gentleman in the background. Is this the camera or the superiority of the Nikon 17-55 lens, which so many of us here praise???
Okay, I've made my stance clear. I like the Nikon D40 better than the Canon EOS 350D, so here's my general review of the D40.
[THIS WAS POSTED ABOVE]
And yet... clearly these are both very good cameras. What it all comes down to is which one YOU feel better about. Go to a camera shop and pick them up and see.
~~~~~~~~~~
Nikon D40X vs. Canon Rebel XTi
You can go here to see a review. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40... The last page takes you to some sample images. See: http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3896/cam... for a glowing review that even compares it with the XTi just a little bit.
Open a copy of Internet Explorer (or the browser of your choice) and go to http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond40... Open another copy and go to http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos... You can then scroll along the top and try to find some similar images to compare. Click on the file name below the image and you will get a new window that shows the image full-sized. Once it loads it will shrink to fit your screen, but you can click on the image to zoom to full-size. Hit [TAB]+[ALT] to toggle back and forth between the images and pick out hte differences. You can easily spend an hour doing this, but you are talkin gabout the best way to spend $1,000 for a camera and I think it is well worth your time.
These two are very similar as far as the subject, ISO, lens and other values:
Canon: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ca...
Nikon: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ni...
I don't know what's up with the focus in the Canon sample, but try to overlook that as it's the photographer's decision where to focus.
The Canon might win in this next pair, but it's processed from a RAW image, so it's hard to compare.
Canon: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ca...
Nikon: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ni...
See:
Canon: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ca...
Nikon: http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ni...
You get the idea. There are not too many that actually match up for comparison.
See this page for a side-by-side comparison:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
See this page for some controled side-by-side studio tests with jpeg images:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
and read the comments at the end of the page.
Here are some studio tests with RAW images that you can click to enlrage, just as before:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40...
Here are some studio ISO comparisons:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40...
The long and short of it is that Phil Askey at dpreview.com tested both cameras and called it a draw in image quality except high ISO sensitivity, where the Canon takes the slight edge. The Nikon was termed "quicker and more comfortable to use."
I still like the idea that the Nikon has a spot meter and find it odd that the Canon doesn't. The Nikon is a bit limited in autofocus capabilities and speed compared to the Canon, though.
Here are some pertinent quotes about the D40X:
"Noise suppression was generally better than the D80's and much better than the Rebel's. As ISOs increased, the D40x's resolution exceeded that of the Rebel."
"The economy-model status of the D40x doesn't show in picture quality, either. At ISO 100, the D40x turned in an average resolution of 2075 lines, slightly behind the Nikon D80 and Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi."
Continue on down on page 2 for a direct comparison to the XTi. I'll let you read it for yourself, as it seems to lean slightly towards the Canon and it would kill me to write that. I'll leave that job for Koko.
But seriously, these cameras are EXTREMELY close in performance and value. You need to go to a real camera store and pick up both cameras and see how they feel to you. Some people will love the Canon and some will love the Nikon. Find out which one you are. You will be happy with either one, but you will be happiest with the one that fits your hands better.
See also:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_... Wise move. The way they feel in YOUR hands matters. I think you already know the Nikon menu system and that might matter. They make things a little easier to find, or so I hear... I think you NEED a spot meter, too. Report It
I would go with the D40. It is a really good blend of functionality and great pictures. Also most camera stores sell a packaged deal that comes with two lenses. I personally like Nikon over Cannon, that's why I would choose the D40 but the Cannon at the bottom is also a great camera. Excellent, a DSLR is the way to go. The D40 or the Rebel are great choices.
The beauty of DSLR is one can extend their creativity due to much better control.
I would go for the Rebel and others will pump the D40, end of the day get the one you can grow into over time - they both have pluses and minuses.
Think of your purchase as an investment in a system, not is D40 better then a rebel or whatever, what brand will offer the most over the long term............
a Annafur, I've seen your work on Flickr, and I think in the long run, you would be happy with nothing less than a DSLR. Don't buy another Coolpix. Nikon or Canon, either would be an excellent choice. Start building up a collection of good lenses.
I say this because you've been experimenting with different techniques. A pocket camera can only take you so far, then you will hit a wall of frustration that you can't go beyond. That's where you will need the flexibility of the SLR.
Find a good camera store and ask to try out a few different models. You might notice one particular brand has a better feel to you than another. Go with that one. You'll want your camera to be a tool, but one you can use easily. One that becomes an extension of you. We can't tell you which camera that is. You need to try them out and decide. And good luck in your search! Come back and let us know what you decided. Annafur, you're moving up! A DSLR is the way to go, for someone like you. Let me start out by saying, I've used all four cameras so I can personally throw in my opinion.
Let's start out with the Nikon P5100. The P5100 is one of the best digital point and shoot cameras I've held. It feels amazing in the hands, plain and simple. However, the P5100 has a small 12 mega pixel CCD sensor, which causes bad noise while using higher ISO. Overall, it's a good camera to use with friends, but nothing serious.
Onto the Canon K2. As you know, the K2 is a film camera. This was the first camera I had, so it always strikes a chord with me. Anyway, the camera is an entry level SLR. The build quality is not at all good, as goes for the entire Rebel series, sorry to say. Also, the kit lens is not so good, so it would be best to find a new lens if you go this route. If you want a Canon film camera, look into the Elan series. These are a lot better built and have more features.
Next is the Canon XT. Let me start off by listing it's major plus: This 8 mega pixel camera uses a CMOS sensor, which makes for great image quality. However, this is all it has going for it, in my opinion. Befor I went to digital SLRs with the Nikon D50, my other choice was the Canon XT. After I held it, I knew it was not right for me. You see, the XT, like all the models in the Rebel series suffer from sub par build quality. This goes for the XTi as well. Great image quality, poor build quality.
Now onto the Nikon D40. This little camera is the best choice, in my opinion. The D40 is small, compact, yet at the same time, it is strong and sturdy. The image quality is great and the LCD is good as well. For the money, it is the best in its class. However, every camera suffers from some kind of flaw. With the D40 and D40x, the flaw is, they do not have an in camera motor. What this means, older screw driven lenses will not auto focus. This sounds bad, I know, but the D40 and D40x are designed for people who are moving up from point and shoot cameras, who have no previous Nikkors, and who do not plan to buy anymore Nikkors. The older lenses will work and work well, just not AF. If you can live without AF on some lenses, go with the D40. If you want AF, go for either the Nikon D80 or the D70s or D50 if money is tight. Both the D70s (One of my favorite cameras) and the D50 are pretty cheap nowadays. The D80 is around $1000, but well worth the money.
So, I would suggest the Nikon D40. This is just my suggestion, though. Annafur,
I join the chorus to get a dSLR so you can continue to grow. My personal vote would be the Nikon D40, (and Dr Sam has given you a wealth of information on it, so I won't add anything) but Canon will do just fine as well. I notice you are linking to cameraworld, which is Ritz camera site. I just wanted to say you might be happier with the service (and maybe the price) at B&H Photo.
Keep us informed! Show me the pix you have taken that were ruined by the lack of a better camera. |
