First DSLR -- Need advice

Thank you all for your responses.

My statement "extremely high resolution pictures of breathtaking clarity"
was to be placed in the context of cameras within my price range and not in
relation to industry cameras worth $20,000. Apologies for not making this
clear in my original post. Of course, I would like to get as close to
"extremely high resolution pictures of breathtaking clarity" as possible for
my budget, as anyone naturally would.

I've decided on the Nikon D40X as the body.

However, I'm now seriously reviewing accepting the standard 18-55mm lens.
One poster, namely Floyd L. Davidson, mentioned the 18-70mm Nikkor as a
better alternative to the 18-55mm. Unfortunately, this is a little outside
my budget. Although, I would have liked to make this upgrade.

I think I'm going to have to stick with the Nikon D40X and 18-55mm lens for
starters simply because I can get the two for £350 (700$). However, I've
realised that I'm going to have to invest in another lens at a later stage.
Your suggestions in this regard have been particularly useful and I have
made careful notes of the suggested lenses and will now do some researching
to learn more about each type.

Thank you once again.

Doug Jewell wrote:
[]
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.


Thanks, Doug. At least you've actually done the comparison!

What display format did you use for comparison - prints or what, and what
size?

Thanks,
David

Martin Humlark wrote:
[]
I think I'm going to have to stick with the Nikon D40X and 18-55mm
lens for starters simply because I can get the two for £350 (700$).
[]
Thank you once again.

FYI, there is (or was) a £60 cash-back offer in the UK recently.....

David

"Martin Humlark" wrote in message
. ..
snip
I've decided on the Nikon D40X as the body.

However, I'm now seriously reviewing accepting the standard 18-55mm lens.
One poster, namely Floyd L. Davidson, mentioned the 18-70mm Nikkor as a
better alternative to the 18-55mm. Unfortunately, this is a little
outside my budget. Although, I would have liked to make this upgrade.

I think I'm going to have to stick with the Nikon D40X and 18-55mm lens
for starters simply because I can get the two for £350 (700$). However,
I've realised that I'm going to have to invest in another lens at a later
stage. Your suggestions in this regard have been particularly useful and I
have made careful notes of the suggested lenses and will now do some
researching to learn more about each type.

Thank you once again.


While I read with interest the opinions of the image quality of the better
(and more expensive) alternatives to the 18-55 kit lens, it has one feature
that is seldom mentioned. It is very light. As someone who has often not
carried my heavier SLR outfit when backpacking due mainly to its weight, I
am planning on the purchase of a D40x w/18-55 kit lens mainly due to its
light weight. I feel that having the option of having a light weight option
is easily worth the small price of the kit lens even if you already have
several higher quality lenses. I know a P&S would be even lighter but it
would also not be as versatile and also lack image quality.

In your case, after you get some experience with the camera & kit lens, you
will be in a better position to choose which additional lens you need.

Good luck,

"Private" wrote in message
news:SAKoi.137626$1i1.131888@pd7urf3no...

"Martin Humlark" wrote in message
. ..
snip
I've decided on the Nikon D40X as the body.

However, I'm now seriously reviewing accepting the standard 18-55mm lens.
One poster, namely Floyd L. Davidson, mentioned the 18-70mm Nikkor as a
better alternative to the 18-55mm. Unfortunately, this is a little
outside my budget. Although, I would have liked to make this upgrade.

I think I'm going to have to stick with the Nikon D40X and 18-55mm lens
for starters simply because I can get the two for £350 (700$). However,
I've realised that I'm going to have to invest in another lens at a later
stage. Your suggestions in this regard have been particularly useful and
I have made careful notes of the suggested lenses and will now do some
researching to learn more about each type.

Thank you once again.


While I read with interest the opinions of the image quality of the better
(and more expensive) alternatives to the 18-55 kit lens, it has one
feature that is seldom mentioned. It is very light. As someone who has
often not carried my heavier SLR outfit when backpacking due mainly to its
weight, I am planning on the purchase of a D40x w/18-55 kit lens mainly
due to its light weight. I feel that having the option of having a light
weight option is easily worth the small price of the kit lens even if you
already have several higher quality lenses. I know a P&S would be even
lighter but it would also not be as versatile and also lack image quality.

In your case, after you get some experience with the camera & kit lens,
you will be in a better position to choose which additional lens you need.

Good luck,

That's interesting and an added benifit. Thanks for mentioning that.

Yes, I think I need to familiarise myself with this 18-55 lens and then work
out what's best for me after I've gained some experience with it. In any
case, it seems good for starters.

Cheers.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message k...
Martin Humlark wrote:
[]
I think I'm going to have to stick with the Nikon D40X and 18-55mm
lens for starters simply because I can get the two for £350 (700$).
[]
Thank you once again.

FYI, there is (or was) a £60 cash-back offer in the UK recently.....

David

Thanks David. Yes, I think they are offering this cashback upto the end of
August so an added incentive!

Cheers.

"Doug Jewell" wrote in message
...

"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


In general I would agree that the range of versatility requested by the OP
from a single lens camera setup falls best within the domain of the good
P&S. It's when one starts tossing in words like amazing and breathtaking
that I have to go the other direction, given the obvious. I have never seen
anything I consider amazing or breathtaking from a P&S camera when compared
to the same shot taken with quality glass in the appropriate lens and a pro
dslr. Perfectly functional and more then adequate? yes. Amazing and
breathtaking? Not by any comparison I've made. YMMV.

joe

..

JoeT wrote:
[]
In general I would agree that the range of versatility requested by
the OP from a single lens camera setup falls best within the domain
of the good P&S. It's when one starts tossing in words like amazing
and breathtaking that I have to go the other direction, given the
obvious. I have never seen anything I consider amazing or
breathtaking from a P&S camera when compared to the same shot taken
with quality glass in the appropriate lens and a pro dslr. Perfectly
functional and more then adequate? yes. Amazing and breathtaking? Not
by any comparison I've made. YMMV.
joe

A "pro dslr" and lens to match, of course, has an amazing and breathtaking
price by comparison!

G

David

Chris Malcolm wrote:



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.



My wife can - I have to use the magnifier. Hell, that's one of these in
Edinburgh and one in Kelso. I would that a frequency of one per 50 miles
is good going for a volume like this. Had ours for maybe 10 years, more,
not sure.

David

Martin Humlark schreef:
Hi Guys,

I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. I'm planning to buy a
digital SLR. I have established this is the type of camera I need for
performance, usability and quality reasons.

However, I'm unsure about which model to go for.

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.

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.

Any clarification or personal experiences would be gratefully received.

Cheers!





My advice : take the 18-70 mm. It is worth it !
It's one hell of a lens. You never have to look for another one in this
reach.
The 18-55 is very good for a kit-lens though but the 18-70 is so much
better.
Some time later you can look for a real tele.
The new Nikkor 70-300 VR for instance is awesome
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...hp?product=992


-=Rob