Point & Shoot ftw.
(This pic is completely raw from my camera, all i did was turn it on, put it in macro mode and take a pic. Ironic as it's imo my best pic...)
Point & Shoot ftw.
(This pic is completely raw from my camera, all i did was turn it on, put it in macro mode and take a pic. Ironic as it's imo my best pic...)
It's far too cheap, well within the reach of commoners
ahhh, one of my favourite shots on your website. Love the way you got it to focus like that
Harjun.. you buy that D40x you're the biggest idiot in the land, the D40x is absolutely USELESS, great, it's got .5 FPS faster shooting, are you really going to take something that shoots at 3 FPS out to sporst? I doubt it, not without fast lenses, meaning spending thousands of dollars on those 400mm 2.8 lenses.
Great, it's got 10 MP, that means absolutely ... nothing, MP is the biggest gimmick in the world, so what if you get those few extra thousand resolution images, what good are they?
A picture is a picture, it's the inspiration and the mind behind the camera that makes it art, not how big or perfect in quality the image is.
Photography is an art, not a science.
Great, it's got 10 MP, that means absolutely ... nothing, MP is the biggest gimmick in the world, so what if you get those few extra thousand resolution images, what good are they?
A picture is a picture, it's the inspiration and the mind behind the camera that makes it art, not how big or perfect in quality the image is.
Photography is an art, not a science.
Well, Sony have made at least 12 CyberShot cameras with 7.2 MP sensors, so you've proved nothing here except ignorance.
What made you go for the Nikon? Does their lens range impress you more than Canon's? Can you borrow kit from a friend/relative who also has a Nikon?
The D40X is tiny. It's pretty much the smallest dSLR you can buy. You really should realise that a dSLR is not something you stick in your pocket before you go out for the evening.
NO! I even tried explaining it to you! 'x zoom' means precisely NOTHING...please understand this! Of course you can buy a telephoto lens to allow you to bring distant objects closer, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with 'x zoom'.
then what camera do you recommend...the EOS 400D?
You sure know your stuff Harjun
I wander how long (if you ever figured it out) it would take you to be able to use a SLR in a manual mode to get the full use out of it.
I don't often go out with the SLR but it has taken me a fair while to get used to setting the aperture and shutter speed to match and that includes learning the basics through a module on my college course.
Why exactly do you want an SLR for? Because looking at your posts so far you've displayed very little knowledge on them so chances are all you'll do is use it in a `point & shoot` macro...
Canon is even more expensive!
The cheapest lense they sell is in the $400 range, there are no such things as "manual lenses" when it comes to canon, they are all EFS.
My mom has the american version of the 400D, it's called the XTi here, I don't know what you'd use it for, but that is an expensive camera, it is nearly twice the price of the D40.
By the way, the D40x and D40 are the SMALLEST SLR cameras you'll ever find except for rangefinders, which .. I really don't think you want a rangefinder. If you can even buy rangefinders anymore..
It weighs in at a mere 1lb body weight, and the standard 18-55mm lens weighs less than 1 lb, the thing weighs almost less than a point and shoot!
It's a tiny camera, I don't know how small your hands are, but the grip is only 2 inches tall (5cm), I can only fit two fingers on it, while my pinky slides off the bottom of it.
I'm tell you though, you don't want to put up with an SLR, it's constant maintenance, and lots of work to get good picture quality, and there's tons of learning to go along with it, as far as ISO, shutter speed, aperture, sharpness, white balance, flash TTL if you really wanna get serious, and that's just the beginning.
Yes they have automatic this and that, but.. thats no fun, and not always will it come out right, especially if it is a Canon, canon has horrible auto everything in their SLRs.
Get a Canon powershot IS, the one I have that link to at the UK amazon, it's a great camera, has great reviews from PC Photo.. I think it's just what you want.
The cheapest lense they sell is in the $400 range, there are no such things as "manual lenses" when it comes to canon, they are all EFS.
My mom has the american version of the 400D, it's called the XTi here, I don't know what you'd use it for, but that is an expensive camera, it is nearly twice the price of the D40.
By the way, the D40x and D40 are the SMALLEST SLR cameras you'll ever find except for rangefinders, which .. I really don't think you want a rangefinder. If you can even buy rangefinders anymore..
It weighs in at a mere 1lb body weight, and the standard 18-55mm lens weighs less than 1 lb, the thing weighs almost less than a point and shoot!
It's a tiny camera, I don't know how small your hands are, but the grip is only 2 inches tall (5cm), I can only fit two fingers on it, while my pinky slides off the bottom of it.
I'm tell you though, you don't want to put up with an SLR, it's constant maintenance, and lots of work to get good picture quality, and there's tons of learning to go along with it, as far as ISO, shutter speed, aperture, sharpness, white balance, flash TTL if you really wanna get serious, and that's just the beginning.
Yes they have automatic this and that, but.. thats no fun, and not always will it come out right, especially if it is a Canon, canon has horrible auto everything in their SLRs.
Get a Canon powershot IS, the one I have that link to at the UK amazon, it's a great camera, has great reviews from PC Photo.. I think it's just what you want.
No, he's saying the D40x isn't worth the price over the D40.
Not true. There are plenty of lenses available for under £200 (approx. US$400)
This is a bad thing because...?
Not true. The 400D can take any Canon lens made since the EOS system was introduced in the mid-80s and, with the exception of one obscure lens, they all autofocus. The EF lenses can be used on any EOS camera, the EF-S lenses can only be used on APS-C dSLRs like the 400D.
It's pretty much the same price as the D40X, which is the more comparable camera (6 vs 10 MP).
That's not a problem if it's really what he wants. I'm also a little unsure why your camera requires 'constant maintenance'. What are you doing with it?
Utter nonsense. Anything which has an auto mode on my 400D can be switched to manual. Of course the camera doesn't always get it right, but there are decades of photography experience built into each modern SLR...why do you want to spend ages doing all the work yourself?
I'm probably going to be accused of being a Canon fanboy (I'm really not), but I couldn't let that post go by uncommented. To be honest there's very little to choose from between the D40X and the 400D, except you lock yourself into Canon or Nikon for the forseeable future.
really? what about the excellent 50/1.8 lens that cost 140$ here (and in usa even less). and you know there are also other lens manufacturers for canon like sigma, tamron, tokina etc. also, my belarussian peleng fisheye lens are manual.
but this is really nice this camera...i've watched pictures on youtube and stuff, and i understand that by changing apertures it opens up the aperture to let more light in, or less in, which makes the picture brighter or dimmer...I'm showing interest, because i've just come from South Africa for a wedding, and there were about 5+ photorgraphers there, and they let me try their SLRs, they were at Canons...the showed me how to take a good photo, although the first weren't that Great, they came out a bit dark, i opened the aperture up, and it came brighter, but they also taught me how to use the auto focus, by pointing the camera at a lighter part, auto adjusting the aperture to be bright, and then pointing it at the darker bit, so it comes light aswell 
But i wasn't really too keen on that bit.
Thanks
I think the 400D has grabbed me...£385 on amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/off ... qid=1199382414&sr=1-1
Is that new?
But i wasn't really too keen on that bit. Thanks
I think the 400D has grabbed me...£385 on amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/off ... qid=1199382414&sr=1-1
Is that new?
You're 13 and want to spend £500 on a camera that's harder to use, far more likely to be damaged and (when you use it) give no better pictures than something a fifth of the price. Seriously having a hobby is great but going and spending that much before you know if you even like it is stupid. My cousin has been into photography as a serious hobby since he was younger than you and has just bought a 400D, it's a serious investment. My uncle is a professional photographer and has a 5D. Despite not being interested myself I've got a bit of an insight into the kind of cost involved in photography taken seriously, you'll find the costs are in tens of thousands, not hundreds of pounds for things that seem relatively simple.
actually, the Olympus E-410 is smaller
just for comparison, here's a few camera sizes and weights. although, that's just the bodies. lenses will obviously add size and weight, and that all just depends on the lens itself. oh, the e-410 also has LCD live preview, for those that said dSLRs don't have that
E-410 :: 130 x 91 x 53 mm (5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 in) 435 g (15.3 oz)
D40 :: 124 x 94 x 64 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 522 g (18.4 oz)
D40X :: 124 x 94 x 64 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 522 g (18.4 oz)
400D :: 127 x 94 x 65 mm (5 x 3.7 x 2.6 in) 556 g (19.6 oz)
i have to agree with the popular voice here...get yourself one of the SLR style point and shoots. the better ones of those have good zoom (30-300 (10x) isn't uncommon), they have good auto features, and have manual adjustments, for just about any setting you'd need. and like was mentioned, they can do video, which dSLRs can't. and a lot of the SLR style cameras can also use filter attachements.
If one takes photos in dark D40x is better as even it has more pixels it has less noise.
Advantages are less noise, tad bigger pics (6 -> 10Mpx) but I guess that is it, so similar in every other aspect.
I have found few situations where I have missed seeing image from lcd before taking picture, but for most of those situations my Ixus 75 is doing ok job, noise is worst problem with Ixus 75.
i think you misread something, did i ever say i want to spend tens of thousands and become a professional photogropher, i just took a little interest, as my dad was buying a new camera to replace his cybershot 7.1mp...and my brother is putting in £200, i'm putting in £130, and my dad is putting in £50
...i'm not going to be buying some fancy pants lense, i just wanna take pictures of stuff and occasions and when i go on holiday, but in a nice clear sort of way. You seem to have caught the wrong end of the stick, once again....
So your Dad is really forking out for the camera...
Spectator 1: Hey, here's that Tristan guy coming around T4 now, check him out!
Spectator 2: Eh? What's that on the side of his car? Does that say "harjun"?
Spectator 1: Oh noes!!!! Tristan got harjun to overclock his car!!!
Ok, here goes.....
I'll second the S5700, just got one a week before Christmas. See, my wife bought me a "Sony Cyber-shot" and I tried it out. It took horrible pictures, and I mean horrible! Yes, "Sony Cybershot" means nothing since there are many many different variations and models. The one I got was the DSC-S650, which was cheapened up on price and boy was it cheapened up on the quality. I took 175 shots around the house since it's main purpose will be the kid's birthday party snapshots and stuff. Out of 175 shots with every combination from full manual to the extremely limited manual modes it has, NOT ONE picture turned out in focus and without less than extreme noise. This particular camera is cheap and it's built that way. On the other end, for more than twice the cost of mine, there is the DSC-W80 and others that do take quite nice pictures. But it is still an ultra-compact put it in your pocket limited to very few settings camera.
I chose to go with a larger bodied point-and-shoot of the Fuji S5700 after looking at many reviews online and picking one up in my hands. You just won't get the same photograph taking "feeling" with an ultra compact as you do with a bigger body camera. The Fuji is entry-level (meaning inexpensive) may not take as nice of pictures as Jakg's Kodak (about 75% more price than the Fuji) but it has nearly all the manual control of the big boys. It is of course, limited in how far you can go with settings, but it does have full manual control of all settings. So far, in my quest for learning a bit about photography, I'm thoroughly enjoying my S5700. An excellent cost-effective first jump in the beginning of photography.
In fact, I am sitting at work, with not much going on so I was surfing around on photography when I though, "what's going on in the LFS Forum". I was reading an excellent site on beginning photography. Here's the link: ShortCourses.com: The On-line Library of Digital Photography. I'm probably around 3 hours into reading this site, it goes pretty in-depth for someone like me just picking up more than a true point-and-shoot only camera a few weeks ago.
In the hands of an immature 13 year old (or whatever), a dSLR is not a good idea. There is precautions to be had because it is not a sealed body like a point-and-shoot (somewhat) is. You will get dust on the image sensor without taking extreme care in changing lenses. You must take extreme care of cleaning that dust off the limage sensor. You must take care in handling the very expensive lenses. Good lenses I've been seeing are in the cost range of probably $500-1000 (US) and not something for some immature kid to be playing with. Expensive camera equipment is not a toy, though it seems that anything expensive is simply just a toy to be used and tossed away to harjun.
The SLR cameras being discussed in this thread are digital. The Canon Rebel XT/XTi (EOS 350D/400D, I think), Pentax K10D/K100D, Nikon D40, D50, etc are digital SLR cameras. The camera that Jakg has and my and TiJay are described as "dSLR-like" cameras in that they have somewhat the look of a dSLR. And the Fuji S601 or the Sony DSC-xxx cameras that you and others mention are compact and ultra-compact point-and-shoot cameras with very limited manual control. It all comes down to how the camera receives and projects light from the lens to the image sensor and the size/quality of the image sensor. dSLR's would have the best and largest image sensors (not talking megapixels) and mine and your cameras have smaller and less quality image sensors.
Everything I have learned about photography so far has been within the last 2 weeks since I've started researching and learning on the subject. I'm guessing that is far more than you, harjun, know or will know probably in the next few years until you've matured out of this spoiled stage in your life if you ever do.
Holy cow, look at all the new posts since I've started typing this....
Check out that link I provided up above. You will see it is much more involved than "open up the aperture to let in more light". You have sensor sensitivity (ISO), aperture (f/xx), and shutterspeed (seconds down to 1/4000th of a second). All of them work in conjunction with one another for the exposure of a picture. Each one alone can do something different such as shutter speed affecting motion, aperture controls the depth of field (what is and isn't in focus), ISO, the sensitivity of the sensor to light. You adjust or let the camera adjust all the settings for the exposure, but can change individual settings to adjust a particular aspect of the image (stopping motion in an action shot or blurring the background of a portrait photo, for example).
lol
Only "10x" (whatever that means) or more is a sensible zoom range? Why do you want an SLR when you clearly haven't the faintest clue about lenses?
If "10x" or more is the only sensible range, what does that make prime (i.e. fixed focal length, i.e. no zoom) lenses? Unsensible?
You don't need an SLR, you need a high-end super-zoom point and shoot that looks like a mini SLR.
But if you did want a system with interchangeable lenses, I think I know of a lens just right for you.
What does the 400D or D40X (or any other SLR) give you that you can't do with your Dad's CyberShot? I've yet to see you explain why you think you need an SLR. I'm not trying to persuade you that you don't need one, I'm trying to work out what you think you're gaining compared to a compact digital camera.
I'm not sure I understood that. That 'bit' you weren't keen on seems to be the whole art of taking a photo! If you're not keen on thinking about apertures and shutter speed then I'd steer well clear of an SLR. While we're on the subject of apertures, could you explain the effect of aperture on depth of field? Or image sharpness? It's not just about letting more or less light through the lens.
Why have you now changed your mind about the D40X? I'm not trying to persuade you to buy a Canon over a Nikon, I just want you to think about the decision. Before you go buying anything, go here and read some reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com
At the very least, read this page:
Nikon D40X, Canon 400D and Olympus E-410 Comparison
Then you do NOT want an SLR! If that's all you want it for, I'd even be cautious buying a 'bridge' camera because you still have most of the portability issues of an SLR. Get a decent compact digital camera which fits in your pocket and enjoy it.
Grrrrr, almost bought one of those! Amazon were doing a "buy any Fuji camera, get a S5700 free". Seeing as the cheapest camera from Fuji in the offer was £50, getting £130 worth of camera for £50 seemed like an utter bargain. I waited until the start of the deal at 1 PM, and i hit Refresh like crazy. I was using my laptop at School, and to ease load we have a network cache box for the internet - it cached the page before the offer started and i spent the next 20 minutes bashing F5 wondering why it wasn't working. Amazon sold out in 13 minutes, and quite a few people made a tidy profit out of it
<off-topic>
Harjun, i really don't think you want an SLR.
any1 knows where i can order a nikon d40 kit cheaply?
ok, i'll confess the only reason i want one is because of the twisty zoom thing, and the fact the pictures are AMAZINGLY clear...and you can zooom onto a picture after you've taken it a lot, and it still being clear, + my brother does dentistry and he needs to take photos of people's teeth, and zoom onto them clearly, where a macro lense should do
Okay so I'm not up to all that Canon has to offer, but Canon is still much more expensive than Nikon no matter which way you look at it.
Plus, Harjun keeps bringing up Zoom, so I'm referring to zoom lenses, not a standard non zooming lens
@stewart fisher, yea the D40X and XTi have the same price relatively, I'm not talking about the D40x, the D40x is a worthless peice of machinery.
And no, I'm not gonna accuse you of being a Canon person, both Nikon and Canon are respective in their own accounts, I'm just referring to the fact that Canon is expensive no matter which way you look at it, when was the last time Canon came out with two IS lenses which were both priced $200 and ranged 18-55mm and 55-200mm? That is all I'm pointing out.
Canon has some nice features on the XTi, but if there is one thing I were to absolutely hate about Canon is the horrible white balance, auto or manual, even when trying to set a manual white balance, you first have to take a picture, go into white balance, set it to manual, and then go into the options of the camera, and find white balance, and set it to use the manual setting. Maybe I just don't know how to use the XT and XTi that well
But on my D40 I just have to hit one button, tell it to use manual white balance, and take a picture and it's set.
One last thing harjun, you say you want to take it on trips to take nice pictures.. seriously, that is just yelling point and shoot, today's point and shoots aren't even comparable to what they used to be, they're outstanding and take wonderful pictures, and are so much cheaper. Plus, why would you want to carry an SLR around the world with hundreds of dollars invested in the body and lenses, it just isn't safe.
Plus, you have to know what you're interested in photography, is it macro? is it profile shots? is it nature? is it landscapes? is it architecture?
Once you answer that question I'll tell you what you should get.
edit- yall caught up; harjun you do realize that you can zoom in on any camera's picture on a computer as long as it's past about 1.2 MP right? (depending on your desktop's resolution)
Here is a comparison of "megapixel" size: http://k53.pbase.com/g3/75/479 ... 20.MegapixelCompare10.jpg
Like I said megapixels are the biggest gimmick in the world, having a larger picture doesn't mean its any better, it's resolution that matters, who cares if you can take a 492^84932x432^894032 size picture, it doesn't mean crap when you have some crappy lens on it which is making the picture all blurry.
Plus, Harjun keeps bringing up Zoom, so I'm referring to zoom lenses, not a standard non zooming lens
@stewart fisher, yea the D40X and XTi have the same price relatively, I'm not talking about the D40x, the D40x is a worthless peice of machinery.
And no, I'm not gonna accuse you of being a Canon person, both Nikon and Canon are respective in their own accounts, I'm just referring to the fact that Canon is expensive no matter which way you look at it, when was the last time Canon came out with two IS lenses which were both priced $200 and ranged 18-55mm and 55-200mm? That is all I'm pointing out.
Canon has some nice features on the XTi, but if there is one thing I were to absolutely hate about Canon is the horrible white balance, auto or manual, even when trying to set a manual white balance, you first have to take a picture, go into white balance, set it to manual, and then go into the options of the camera, and find white balance, and set it to use the manual setting. Maybe I just don't know how to use the XT and XTi that well
But on my D40 I just have to hit one button, tell it to use manual white balance, and take a picture and it's set.
One last thing harjun, you say you want to take it on trips to take nice pictures.. seriously, that is just yelling point and shoot, today's point and shoots aren't even comparable to what they used to be, they're outstanding and take wonderful pictures, and are so much cheaper. Plus, why would you want to carry an SLR around the world with hundreds of dollars invested in the body and lenses, it just isn't safe.
Plus, you have to know what you're interested in photography, is it macro? is it profile shots? is it nature? is it landscapes? is it architecture?
Once you answer that question I'll tell you what you should get.
edit- yall caught up; harjun you do realize that you can zoom in on any camera's picture on a computer as long as it's past about 1.2 MP right? (depending on your desktop's resolution)
Here is a comparison of "megapixel" size: http://k53.pbase.com/g3/75/479 ... 20.MegapixelCompare10.jpg
Like I said megapixels are the biggest gimmick in the world, having a larger picture doesn't mean its any better, it's resolution that matters, who cares if you can take a 492^84932x432^894032 size picture, it doesn't mean crap when you have some crappy lens on it which is making the picture all blurry.
An SLR would be a pain for what you've just described, like I said photography doesn't rev me up but I've still lapped enough up to know you do not want an SLR, what you want is a quality compact camera that will do everything for you and let you focus on getting a nice picture whilst being more portable and harder to break (a priority for you I think
).
Digital SLR Cameras
(155 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG