First DSLR -- Need advice

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:31:02 GMT, Martin Humlark wrote:

I'm after a camera which can take extremely high resolution pictures of
breathtaking clarity.
Budget: approx. £400 ($800) -- which seems will buy me about 10mp
Make: I would like a Nikon; have heard Canon can be just as good.
Model: D40X seems appealing; not familiar with Canon models (it seems the
Canon 400d would be its equal).

I know many are against the Nikon D40X because autofocus is not built into
the body but into the lens. I don't have lenses and I don't intend to buy
another for my camera so I don't think this is an issue. I think the
package "Nikon D40X + 18-55mm lens" would be all I need.

By the way, I need a camera that can take close up (and focused) shots of
documents, as well as a camera that can capture amazing landscapes and also
work well with group shots etc. I can't seem to find any documentation
anywhere telling me if the Nikon D40X would be right for close up shots of
documents.

Wow, I'm amazed at some the misinformation and poor advice you've
gotten in response to your questions. It should be equally obvious
that a $20,000 camera would produce more breathtaking clarity than
an $800 DSLR and that that breathtaking clarity would be just as
impossible to get as the impossibly priced cameras. Spending double
or triple the price for a higher end DSLR won't significantly
improve the pictures, but a more expensive lens would. But you can
still create "breathtaking" landscapes with the inexpensive 18-55mm
lens if you get a good tripod/head and create multi-image mosaics.

For taking good, sharp closeups of documents a moderately
expensive macro lens would be best, but don't count out the 18-55mm
lens. I've copied documents using 4mp and 8mp P&S cameras, and the
resolution far exceeded what I needed. How sharp do you need the
document photos to be? The 8mp P&S produced fantastic legibility,
and when enlarged, imperfections in individual typewritten
characters were easily seen, and would be good enough to distinguish
documents produced by one typewriter vs. those produced by another.
Handwritten corrections were also more legible, far easier to read
on the computer screen than by reading the actual document. What is
really important for good photocopies is good, glare free lighting
and a tripod or copy stand, whether the camera is $800 or $8000.

I think that the results produced by the D40x and the 18-55mm lens
will be all you need, but if I'm mistaken, it wouldn't really be
improved very much by spending thousands of dollars more on a better
body, but by spending much less on a better lens. As the 18-55mm
kit lens is so inexpensive, it's the best starting point for you,
since it will very likely satisfy your needs. If you think you
really need a more expensive lens, there are ways to prevent
expensive mistakes. One depends on being near a good store such as
B&H, where you can test the lens on your own camera in the store,
and evaluate the shots at home. Another would be to rent an
expensive lens for a day and give it a good workout. But there's no
need to go this route if the 18-55mm lens gives you what you want.

"the_niner_nation" wrote in message
.. .

the whole idea of a DSLR is to interchange lenses according to the type of
photo you want to shoot and capture....perhaps a basic point and shoot
might better serve your needs?

A lot of DSLR users only use one lens, myself included, and don't have the
need to be constantly swapping lenses. There are a lot more reasons for
using a DSLR than the ability to swap lenses.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
news:6Ktoi.3107$Gs4.186@trndny05...
Martin Humlark wrote:
I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. I'm planning to
buy a digital SLR. [...]
I'm after a camera which can take extremely high resolution pictures
of breathtaking clarity.
Budget: approx. £400 ($800) -- which seems will buy me about 10mp
Make: I would like a Nikon; have heard Canon can be just as good.
Model: D40X seems appealing; not familiar with Canon models (it
seems the Canon 400d would be its equal).

D40[x] is a bottom-end dSLR. It will not give you "extremely high
resolution pictures".
depends on the definition of "extremely high resolution". For someone used
to shooting 8x10 sheet film, the D40x will give extremely low resolution.
For someone used to shooting with a 5MP P&S, then it will give extremely
high resolution.

I know many are against the Nikon D40X because autofocus is not built
into the body but into the lens. I don't have lenses and I don't
intend to buy another for my camera so I don't think this is an
issue. I think the package "Nikon D40X + 18-55mm lens" would be all
I need.

While the 18-55 is not a bad lens (there are much worse), it is not a lens
to give you pictures in "breathtaking clarity" either.
Compared to a typical P&S camera it will.

By the way, I need a camera that can take close up (and focused)
shots of documents,

That has nothing to do with the camera but with the lens.

as well as a camera that can capture amazing
landscapes and also work well with group shots etc.

This has very little to do with the camera but mostly with the
photographer (composition!) and the lens.

I can't seem to
find any documentation anywhere telling me if the Nikon D40X would be
right for close up shots of documents.

You should target your search for this question on the lens, not the
camera.
Yes the lens is critical here. For a typical A4 document, the kit lens will
get close enough to capture the entire document in readable quality.

As you can see, I'm pretty set on the Nikon D40X but there is so much
information on the internet both positive and negative about the
camera that I'm really not sure anymore.

The D40x is not a bad camera at all and you certainly get your money's
worth. But neither the camera nor the kit lens is the right tool for
"extremely high resolution pictures
Once again it is relatively speaking, if he's come from a background of a
p&s digi, then it will indeed deliver what he is expecting. The kit lens
ain't no "L" series, but for someone who has never had an SLR before, it
will be better than anything he's ever used in the past.
of breathtaking clarity". If you want those, then you need to look at
digital backs for medium format cameras like Hasselblad or Mayima. Of
course those don't go for 800$ but start at 20000$+.
And for the money, the D40x is as good or better than anything else of
similar price.

jue

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
...
"the_niner_nation" wrote in message
.. .

the whole idea of a DSLR is to interchange lenses according to the type
of photo you want to shoot and capture....perhaps a basic point and
shoot might better serve your needs?

A lot of DSLR users only use one lens, myself included, and don't have the
need to be constantly swapping lenses. There are a lot more reasons for
using a DSLR than the ability to swap lenses.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk



yeah but this guy is thinking of leaving his * kit lens* on all the time...



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
...
"the_niner_nation" wrote in message
.. .

the whole idea of a DSLR is to interchange lenses according to the type
of photo you want to shoot and capture....perhaps a basic point and
shoot might better serve your needs?

A lot of DSLR users only use one lens, myself included, and don't have the
need to be constantly swapping lenses. There are a lot more reasons for
using a DSLR than the ability to swap lenses.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

While a dslr with only one lens may well suit the needs of some, the OP's
stated needs of "close up (and focused) shots of documents, as well as a
camera that can capture amazing landscapes and also work well with group
shots etc." at the same time providing "breathtaking clarity" in all these
instances, using only one lens are simply unrealistic expectations.

These are the reasons why dslr is such an attractive option. If you expect
amazing, breathtaking, versatility, you must first reconcile yourself to
using the proper equipment!

joe

Doug Jewell wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
[]
While the 18-55 is not a bad lens (there are much worse), it is not
a lens to give you pictures in "breathtaking clarity" either.
Compared to a typical P&S camera it will.


You seem very critical of the "typical P&S". Some of the better
small-sensor models can take just as good pictures as the entry-level
DSLRs, although they have different versatilities.

David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
Doug Jewell wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
[]
While the 18-55 is not a bad lens (there are much worse), it is not
a lens to give you pictures in "breathtaking clarity" either.
Compared to a typical P&S camera it will.


You seem very critical of the "typical P&S". Some of the better
small-sensor models can take just as good pictures as the entry-level
DSLRs, although they have different versatilities.
even the very best of the P&S's can't blow wind up a DSLR for overall image
quality. In some circumstances a P&S shot may be practically
indistinguishable from a DSLR (eg bright, even lighting), but overall the
DSLR will win handsdown. In my own testing, the Pentax K100D (About as low
on the DSLR scale as you can get) stood head and shoulders above the Canon
A640 (one of the best compact cameras) when using the two side-by-side.
There were a small handful of shots where you could barely tell the
difference (mainly sunlit landscapes), but whenever the lighting was less
than sunlit/flash, or the shot demanded the finest detail, the 6MP SLR was
clearly superior to the 10MP compact. Even down to things like being able to
focus on the eyes with the SLR, vs having focus somewhere inside the green
rectangle and not really being able to tell for sure what it focussed on
until the image was viewed on the computer afterwards.

David

Matt Clara wrote:



You're slow if you're making document copies hand held...



The places I make document copies would throw you out if they spotted a
'professional' camera, let alone a tripod - and many forbid flash.

I don't mean security issues, I just mean places like fleamarkets and
antique fairs, museums or galleries (which allow photography - I don't
take pictures in those which don't). Airports, train and bus stations etc.

Anyway, to answer you more fully, I thought that for our Sony Alpha
users I would write up the topic more fully, with examples -

http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/07/22...ibit-shooting/

David

JoeT wrote:

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
...
"the_niner_nation" wrote in message
.. .

the whole idea of a DSLR is to interchange lenses according to the type
of photo you want to shoot and capture....perhaps a basic point and
shoot might better serve your needs?

A lot of DSLR users only use one lens, myself included, and don't have the
need to be constantly swapping lenses. There are a lot more reasons for
using a DSLR than the ability to swap lenses.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

While a dslr with only one lens may well suit the needs of some, the OP's
stated needs of "close up (and focused) shots of documents, as well as a
camera that can capture amazing landscapes and also work well with group
shots etc." at the same time providing "breathtaking clarity" in all these
instances, using only one lens are simply unrealistic expectations.

These are the reasons why dslr is such an attractive option. If you expect
amazing, breathtaking, versatility, you must first reconcile yourself to
using the proper equipment!

Here's a photograph of part of a page of the Compact Oxford English
Dictionary taken with a Sony DSC-R1 plus its accessory close up
lens. This is the dictionary with all 24 (?) volumes of the full size
OED photoreduced into one very large volume with print so small that
very few people can read it without a magnifying glass.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/4...d6bad109_o.jpg

There's a couple of images taken without the close up lens, just the
native zoom, here.

They could be improved by editing for exposure contrast and sharpness,
but I've deliberately left them as plain unaltered jpegs straight out
of the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_m...7600201737025/

What DSLR would do better than these? BTW, it's quite good at
breathtaking landscapes too :-)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Doug Jewell" writes:

depends on the definition of "extremely high resolution". For
someone used to shooting 8x10 sheet film, the D40x will give
extremely low resolution. For someone used to shooting with a 5MP
P&S, then it will give extremely high resolution.

That is a common misconception. Doubling the number of pixels does
not work wonders for the resolution in either direction.

A 5 MP camera with an aspect ratio of 4:3 has something like 2582 x
1936 pixels; the Nikon D40x has 3872 x 2592. That is a factor of 1.5
horizontally and 1.3 vertically, hardly "extreme".

--
There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price alone are that person's lawful prey. -- John Ruskin