Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS

Many thanks for all your replies...gave food for thought.

JB


"David J Taylor"
wrote in message k...
Jürgen Exner wrote:
[]
Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S
camera?
jue

Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image
stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it
all day long is no problem....

On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

[]

Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S
camera?
jue

Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image
stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it
all day long is no problem....

If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due
to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason
to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots
have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of
ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here,
there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking
for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra
bulk, lenses, etc?

Rich wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor"
[]
Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm
image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so
carrying it all day long is no problem....

If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due
to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason
to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots
have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of
ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here,
there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking
for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra
bulk, lenses, etc?

It is not necessary to have the "best quality" all the time - for example,
if all you print is 7 x 5 inch images, or your main display device is an
HDTV with 2MP resolution. The quality of the image need only be good
enough for the intended purpose.

The composition or exposure of a image depends more on the photographer
using his equipment appropriately than on buying a particular brand or
style of camera. Both the S3 IS and the D40 are capable of producing
excellent results.

Better to actually get an image than to be without because your equipment
was too heavy or bulky to carry or too valuable to take with you.

David

On Apr 29, 11:33 am, "David J Taylor" -
this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote:
Rich wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor"
[]
Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm
image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so
carrying it all day long is no problem....

If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due
to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason
to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots
have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of
ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here,
there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking
for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra
bulk, lenses, etc?

It is not necessary to have the "best quality" all the time - for example,
if all you print is 7 x 5 inch images, or your main display device is an
HDTV with 2MP resolution. The quality of the image need only be good
enough for the intended purpose.

The composition or exposure of a image depends more on the photographer
using his equipment appropriately than on buying a particular brand or
style of camera. Both the S3 IS and the D40 are capable of producing
excellent results.

Better to actually get an image than to be without because your equipment
was too heavy or bulky to carry or too valuable to take with you.

David

It has the horrible 1/2.5" sensor. I don't care how good a photog you
are, that is going to be the biggest limitation to quality.

Rich wrote:
[]
It has the horrible 1/2.5" sensor. I don't care how good a photog you
are, that is going to be the biggest limitation to quality.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible to take good quality pictures
with the Canon S3 IS - I'm sure that many of the camera's users would not
agree with you.

David

David J Taylor wrote:
Rich wrote:
[]
It has the horrible 1/2.5" sensor. I don't care how good a photog you
are, that is going to be the biggest limitation to quality.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible to take good quality pictures
with the Canon S3 IS - I'm sure that many of the camera's users would not
agree with you.

David



I've had an S3 IS about a month (on retirement income I couldn't afford
a DSLR right now but I hope there's one in my future) and I've been very
happy with it except for one thing. One of the reasons I bought it were
to take sports pictures of my grandson--soccer and basketball. It does a
great job on soccer (no basketball until the fall). The other reason was
to take pictures of wildflowers, insects, etc. Now comes the unhappy
part: both the viewfinder and the LCD are too dim outdoors on a sunny
day. The viewfinder is so dim that it is rather hard to follow action,
and the LCD is just about useless for flower pictures. I might also
mention that the zoom control is very, very fast until you learn how to
control it; cropping in software is my friend because of that.
Otherwise, I like everything about it. I think I should say that I have
been using film SLRs for about 45 years and I do enjoy being able to go
out and take 100-200 exposures in an afternoon without bankrupting
myself on film and processing cost.
Allen

"Rich" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

[]

Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S
camera?
jue

Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image
stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it
all day long is no problem....

If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due
to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason
to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots
have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of
ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here,
there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking
for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra
bulk, lenses, etc?

This is exactly what interests me....can you say without doubt that all slrs
such as the d40
will not have burned out detail, noise etc too.These problems are hardly
just found in point & shoots.
I don't know because I'm on a learning curve but dpreviews seem to have
plenty of "cons" to
go with all the "pros" where all dlsrs are concerned too.

JB

Just thought I would pass on my experience after 3 happy years
shooting a Pana FZ5, I had no problem with image quality up to A4. And
the size/convenince factor is right up there. That is why I still own
and use it.
But I have recently acquired a dslr, and the handling and usability is
light years ahead (and yes, the detail in the images is waaay ahead).
Biggest single thing I like is being able to zoom with the lens barrel
- particularly good for sports where those subjects just wont stay
still. Closely followed by speed of autofocus. Now I get pretty
reasonable results off the FZ5, but using the dslr is in another
dimension, it is just a thousand times easier to get the photo I want.

Cheers
Steve

On Apr 30, 2:27 am, "Jackson Bryan" wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message

oups.com...
On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" -this-

bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

[]

Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S
camera?
jue

Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image
stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it
all day long is no problem....

If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due
to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason
to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots
have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of
ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here,
there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking
for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra
bulk, lenses, etc?

This is exactly what interests me....can you say without doubt that all slrs
such as the d40
will not have burned out detail, noise etc too.These problems are hardly
just found in point & shoots.
I don't know because I'm on a learning curve but dpreviews seem to have
plenty of "cons" to
go with all the "pros" where all dlsrs are concerned too.

JB

I would suggest to check the Fuji,
while the Sl provide nice hype,
the Fuji provide a 28 mm lens,
a zoom ring (like SLR )
and a CCD sensor that give the DSLR a real pain !

Until iso 400 there is no much diffrent!

check the Fuji S6000
and the Fuji s91000
amazing camers,
the only real prob is the Stabilizer there..
(doesn't really exist , they have some trick there,, bu tnot real
stabilizer.. )

I would wait For the next Fuji model.
and won't touch the canon,
it doesn't oofer 28MM lens, which means that altough it has nice zoom,
it can not produce amazing landscapes l;ike the DSLR .
also the ISO noise in canon is not as good as Fuji AMAZING sensor.

check it out.

On Apr 29, 3:42 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote:
Rich wrote:

[]

In every aspect of image quality, it will stomp the Canon P&S.
Try them both at 800 ISO, it'll make you cry.

.. but try holding a 400 mm eq. image-stabilised lens on that D40 for any
period of time, or try shots where you need the swivel LCd, or try doing
movies. Getting good pictures isn't just about image quality.

David

All true, and completely irrelevant if your goal is high quality
images in any of those areas.