dSLR: something big about to happen?

[srf4real]

Six months ago I was looking into stepping up to the dSLR cameras from my 5mp p+s Kodak, did alot of research, compared prices, specs, etc... ended up buying a high end pro-sumer model p+s (Panasonic lumix fz50) and saved around $400 on what a comparable entry level system dSLR was going for. I'm very happy with my choice, don't get me wrong, but after six months I am feeling like I'm really ready to get into the advantages of dSLR and have acquired enough skills to use one reasonably well.

So, I'm price shopping and comparing specs again, reading reviews, I really like the Nikon D40x due to the compact body, large sensor, low noise, and availability of a zillion excellent lenses, plus I already have mega gigabytes of SD memory so I chose Nikon over Canon.:o

Looking at prices, I can get an entry level D40x with good kit lens for about thirty bucks more than I paid six months ago for my fuzzy 50! These models were several hundred dollars more expensive and even the cheapest dSLRs were more costly by a couple hundred.

To the point, I am noticing many very nice cameras come well equipped with one or two lens kits for $700 to $1000, all of which are probably more camera than I will learn how to use for a long time!

:confused: Why so low? Does anyone forsee some kind of new technology, a great new feature that is a must have, about to be revealed! Why are dSLRs getting so cheap? I hope I don't give in to my impulsive nature and buy a D40x two months before the big names announce a noise free 12 MP sensor, a camera that sees in the dark at 6400 ISO, shoots ten fps and weighs 1.4 lbs. :rolleyes:

[job]

You'll be fine.

As most people will tell you, the photographer makes the most out of the equipment. A seasoned pro can get excellent pictures out of a crappy P&S and a doofus can get horrible pictures out of a rig $10k+

If you like the D40x for all the reasons you mentioned, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't get it. Also, I'd say a large part of a good picture rests with the lens that you're using, so dSLR bodies play even less of a role.

Have you considered the D40? It's about $200-$250 cheaper and comes with the exact same kit lens. You could put the extra money towards a better lens...

[djbahdow01]

:confused: Why so low? Does anyone forsee some kind of new technology, a great new feature that is a must have, about to be revealed! Why are dSLRs getting so cheap? I hope I don't give in to my impulsive nature and buy a D40x two months before the big names announce a noise free 12 MP sensor, a camera that sees in the dark at 6400 ISO, shoots ten fps and weighs 1.4 lbs. :rolleyes:

Because they make them limited in what they do. Figure the D40x doesn't have a focusing screw like the higher up models. Nothing new in the consumer end DSLR. Only thing that was just announced was the new Kodak sensor that does a lot better in low light. There will mostlikely never be a noise free camera. There will be some that might be close but itll be just like film always a grain/noise. As for the 6400 ISO there are cameras that can see in the dark, maybe not pitch black but can do pretty well in really low light. But you won't find them, in any consumer based camera with 10 fps and 12 MP images. Its gonna be a long time of technology before we ever see something even close to this.

[Westside guy]

Only thing that was just announced was the new Kodak sensor that does a lot better in low light.

You should probably also point out that this Kodak sensor was not announced in a camera - it's likely quite a few years away in terms of actually being available in a consumer product.

[miloblithe]

The prices are lowering because the technology reached a certain critical mass that all new technology eventually does. CD players initially cost $1000. Now they cost about $15.

I predict that there will be no truly significant advancements in DSLR technology in the next 5 years. The rate of advancement in the difference between, say, DSLRs available now and DSLRs available 6 years ago will not be achieved within the next 20 years.

[TheBonk]

10fps and 6400 ISO does exist, in the Canon EOS-1D Mark III, but that's a pro model, no where near consumer.

The reason that dSLRs like the D40x are so cheap is because they are aimed at the point and shoot consumers who are looking to upgrade. They also lack in alot of features that the higher end SLRs have.

I would recommend the D40 or D50. Besides the megapixels, the D40 and the D40x are almost the same thing. The D40 and the D50 are both 6 MP which should be more than enough unless you're planning on making big prints.

[srf4real]

I appreciate all the quick replys.:)
This is comforting to know, as I want to get dSLR this year, hopefully. I'm not the type to get upset over missing a little upgrade by early purchase, but I'd hate to miss the big one. Speaking of which, I dream of having skills and equipment good enough to shoot and market poster-sized personal surf photos, maybe to supplement my own surfboard fund.:p

[M@lew]

I'm not too sure about the D40x. If you want that camera, I think you'd be better off getting the D40 and spending the left over money on a better lens. The D40 to D40x price increase isn't really worth it for mainly 4 more megapixels.

[andiwm2003]

the prices come down because nikon, canon, sony and olympus have very good models in the $1000 price range. there is fierce competition for market share going on. i don't think the prize drops are because a technical revolution is on the horizon.

[redrabbit]

touchscreen dSLRs soon! I know it, i just know it!

[Keebler]

You'll be fine.

As most people will tell you, the photographer makes the most out of the equipment. A seasoned pro can get excellent pictures out of a crappy P&S and a doofus can get horrible pictures out of a rig $10k+

If you like the D40x for all the reasons you mentioned, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't get it. Also, I'd say a large part of a good picture rests with the lens that you're using, so dSLR bodies play even less of a role.

Have you considered the D40? It's about $200-$250 cheaper and comes with the exact same kit lens. You could put the extra money towards a better lens...

i second job's recommendation about the D40 for less. i'm looking at these cameras right now and the guy at the store plain out told me the biggest diff b/c the 40 and the 40x is the latter has 10 mbs instead of 6. unless you are doing massively sized reprints, the 40 will do the trick. take the savings and put it towards a new lense.

the lower prices are simply supply and demand i figure. i see more people buying dslrs than p&s' these days.

[andiwm2003]

i second job's recommendation about the D40 for less. i'm looking at these cameras right now and the guy at the store plain out told me the biggest diff b/c the 40 and the 40x is the latter has 10 mbs instead of 6. unless you are doing massively sized reprints, the 40 will do the trick. take the savings and put it towards a new lense.

the lower prices are simply supply and demand i figure. i see more people buying dslrs than p&s' these days.

i would not go with the 6 MP model but instead get the 10 MP version. it's not about bragging rights. but more Megapixels allow you later on to crop your pictures by 60% and you still have 6 MP resolution. this way you can save pics that would be lost otherwise.

often when you take pics from animals or kids you don't have time to compose the image. it's good to have more space to crop away.

[compuwar]

:confused: Why so low? Does anyone forsee some kind of new technology, a great new feature that is a must have, about to be revealed! Why are dSLRs getting so cheap? I hope I don't give in to my impulsive nature and buy a D40x two months before the big names announce a noise free 12 MP sensor, a camera that sees in the dark at 6400 ISO, shoots ten fps and weighs 1.4 lbs. :rolleyes:

Here's what you need to ask yourself to not get into analysis paralysis:

Will the camera I'm choosing let me get the pictures I want to take for the next few years?

That's it.

If the answer is yes, then don't miss shots sitting on the fence and don't worry about theoretical features for theoretical cameras.

Competition and commoditizing components affect the pricing, don't sweat it it's good for consumers that prices are dropping.

[cube]

The Olympus E-510 is ahead of the curve in terms of features.

[miloblithe]

The Olympus E-510 is ahead of the curve in terms of features.

Such as?

[job]

Such as?

He might be talking about the only effective dust-removal system on the market, but other than that, I'm not exactly sure what he's talking about.

The E-510 is also priced closer to the D80 anyways, so I'm not so sure why the Olympus even enters the discussion.:confused:

[cube]

dust-removal + in-body stabilization + live preview

[Westside guy]

i would not go with the 6 MP model but instead get the 10 MP version. it's not about bragging rights. but more Megapixels allow you later on to crop your pictures by 60% and you still have 6 MP resolution. this way you can save pics that would be lost otherwise.

often when you take pics from animals or kids you don't have time to compose the image. it's good to have more space to crop away.

Some problems with this logic:
- Smaller photosites (higher MP sensors) make it easier to blur photos due to sloppy/informal technique
- If the underlaying technology is of the same generation, smaller photosites mean higher noise than larger photosites (newer technology, though, generally means better noise reduction tech inside the camera - for instance the 6MP D50 has better noise characteristics than the 6MP D70)
- With the kit lens I'd be very surprised if, even with good technique, you're getting 10MP of resolution.
- You have less leeway with aperture, since diffraction blurring hits earlier.

Basically unless the picture truly has 10MP worth of detail as captured, the crop argument is a straw man. Having a picture with a higher number of pixels is not the same having more detail, unless the sensor truly was the limiting factor.

The one circumstance where you have a really good argument in support of getting the higher-density sensor is if you tend to take a lot of photos using a wide aperture, e.g. portraits. High light levels mean there's less of a penalty to having smaller photosites, and if you have good glass and good technique (use a tripod and remote release) you actually do get more detail. So if this is the type of photo you like to take, then definitely lean towards the higher-density sensor.

[andiwm2003]

Some problems with this logic:
- Smaller photosites (higher MP sensors) make it easier to blur photos due to sloppy/informal technique
- If the underlaying technology is of the same generation, smaller photosites mean higher noise than larger photosites (newer technology, though, generally means better noise reduction tech inside the camera - for instance the 6MP D50 has better noise characteristics than the 6MP D70)
- With the kit lens I'd be very surprised if, even with good technique, you're getting 10MP of resolution.
- You have less leeway with aperture, since diffraction blurring hits earlier.

Basically unless the picture truly has 10MP worth of detail as captured, the crop argument is a straw man. Having a picture with a higher number of pixels is not the same having more detail, unless the sensor truly was the limiting factor.

The one circumstance where you have a really good argument in support of getting the higher-density sensor is if you tend to take a lot of photos using a wide aperture, e.g. portraits. High light levels mean there's less of a penalty to having smaller photosites, and if you have good glass and good technique (use a tripod and remote release) you actually do get more detail. So if this is the type of photo you like to take, then definitely lean towards the higher-density sensor.


i agree with everything you say. only points to add is that image stabilization helps you using those 10MP. and i said animals and kids. in both cases I though of your usual outdoor sunny party conditions. there you have enough light and small aperture to use the 10MP as well. the price difference between D40 and D40x is only ~$150. not enough to buy anything like pro lenses. i would spend it on the D40x body.

incidently there is a great review at dpreview.com for the D40x. a must read!

comarison of pixel resolutions:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page26.asp

[simie]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm

FORECAST

The D300 is expected in November 2007.

The D200 is still new and on back order. It will be a year or so until Nikon replaces it.

I'll take a wild guess at:

SPECIFICATIONS

ISO range 50 - 3,200. 12.8 MP.

Battery is the same Li-Ion as the D200 as are most of the body mechanics.

Speed is 5.5 FPS.

Nikon listened to me and added an electronic shutter for 1/500 flash sync.

Possibly an integral vertical grip.

As I said, the above paragraphs are pure fiction.

Nikon usually releases everything in Finland, France or countries that begin with the letter F first to respect the F mount and F series heritage.

[srf4real]

incidently there is a great review at dpreview.com for the D40x. a must read!

Yeah, been drooling at that site.:D I am talking about taking photos of sunny parties, :p
where subject will be in center focus and tracked in center of image through series shooting... so I could crop out a good portion, re-compositioning for better appearance.
For example, this photo at the boardwalk of a surfer 100 yards out (5 mp Kodak 10x zoom, sport mode, heavy post-p) :o and getting a usable large poster size print of the actual subject with fair detail. I know I'll need a high quality 200 mm or 300 mm zoom lens but I think the chances of saving more shots lies in the extra megapixels. It's been the case with my Lumix fz 50 with a 10 mp sensor... but noise is really a drawback of the Panasonic. Excellent p+s. but I hate fudging good shots because of my camera's limitations!

Thanks again for all your input. All I need now is my wife's permission!;)

[Westside guy]

Thanks again for all your input. All I need now is my wife's permission!;)

Been there, done that. Good luck! It helps if she has an expensive hobby (my wife's hobby is sewing, and she's spent far more on sewing machines, sergers, and the like than I ever have on photography). :p

[job]

the price difference between D40 and D40x is only ~$150. not enough to buy anything like pro lenses. i would spend it on the D40x body.

If it were me, I'd get the SB-400 flash for $120 and stick with the D40. ;)

[ChrisA]

I really like the Nikon D40x due to the compact body, large sensor, low noise, and availability of a zillion excellent lenses,

Wrong. The D40 can use only one half a zillion lenses.

The D40 lacks an in-body focus motor and therefore can only use the Nikon lenses that happen to contain their own in-lens motors. None of the AF or AF-D type lenses can be automatically focused with a D40. You will need to buy only AF-S type Nikon lenses. To bad because the lenses I like best are not AF-S. The 50mm and 85mm and the good used 80-200mm f/2.8 zooms are not AF-S.

So look at Nikon's lens line up and see if you can live with the reduced set of lenses offered.

Personally I would not even consider buying a Nikon body that could not use the three lenses listed above. But then if all you need is the 18-55 kit lens you will never notice the lack of in-body focus motor. If you post here and ask what lens to buy as your second lens. I bet you get 100 people all saying to get the 50mm lens and a few saying to get the 85 or 35 but neaither of these will work well with the D40.

[ChrisA]

Only thing that was just announced was the new Kodak sensor that does a lot better in low light. There will mostlikely never be a noise free camera. There will be some that might be close but itll be just like film always a grain/noise. As for the 6400 ISO there are cameras that can see in the dark,

This is all correct. But the Kodak idea was not really new. What they did was take the color filter off about 1/2 the pixels. So the "old" camera has red, green and blue sensors the "new" camera was red, green,blue and white. I guess this is a new idea. The first chips just had "white" only and were very sensitive to light. This is now a technical inovation, just an enginerrig trade off were this decide to give up some color fidelity for more low light performance.

Cameras have "grain" or "noise" due to the laws of physics and technology can't get around this. It can minimize the effect but noise is due to the fact that light comes in packets called photons. Each photon acts independent of the others and the number of them that fall on a given pixel is just by random chance. So even if two pixels are looking at the same blue sky one just might have an few photon land on it than the other pixel.

[Mr.Noisy]

Buying a DSLR is crazy now with so many to choose from, having said that, ive always used Nikon, now using a D200 + 70-200 f2.8 lens, but i had to start somewhere with Digital SLRs and i found the D70 was great, if i had to start again, would i buy a D40?, yes it's good ?? Maybe but check the Lens, the 18-55 isn't great, see what it would take to upgrade the glass to the 18-70 that comes in the D70/D70s kit, it's a great lens, but consider a good second hand D70/D70s there are plenty about & it will last years, buy and enjoy but try a few out in your hands first, no 2 are the same to handle.
In my experience The Nikon sensor produces some of the sharpest, cleanest images out there, not the cheapest kit, but might just be the best.

[job]

So look at Nikon's lens line up and see if you can live with the reduced set of lenses offered.

If one is willing to use other lenses by other manufacturers, it can open up a whole new world of possibilities.

Sigma, in particular, appears to be making great strides in making "made for digital" lenses. In particular, their 30mm 1.4 appears to be a perfect, modern, fast prime for digital crop bodies.

To each their own though...

[miloblithe]

If one is willing to use other lenses by other manufacturers, it can open up a whole new world of possibilities.

Sigma, in particular, appears to be making great strides in making "made for digital" lenses. In particular, their 30mm 1.4 appears to be a perfect, modern, fast prime for digital crop bodies.

To each their own though...

This review seems to think that Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 is far from perfect:

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm

In particular, distortion, border resolution, vignetting, and CAs aren't all that impressive.

Of course, for the price, there's no other competition if the f/1.4 is appealing.

[job]

This review seems to think that Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 is far from perfect:

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm

In particular, distortion, border resolution, vignetting, and CAs aren't all that impressive.

Of course, for the price, there's no other competition if the f/1.4 is appealing.

:)

I can definitely understand where this is coming from. Sigma had some serious QC issues when the 30mm was first released. In fact, I don't think I would have recommended the lens two years ago when it first came out.

But since then, enough users have complained and Sigma got their act together for the later batches of lenses. I've read about a number of forums users on dpreview and other sites returning their previous copies of the lens to Sigma and receiving a much improved replacement.

In particular, pay attention to the dates of this review:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4269/lens-test-sigma-30mm-f14-ex-dc-hsm-af.html

It was originally published in 2005, but was updated in 2007. Coincidence? I think not, especially with the PopPhoto review mentioning few issues in the way of distortion.

Also, check this review out:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

As much as I respect photozone.de, it almost seems like they expected this lens to be the second coming and hammered it for minor, albeit, present issues that the lens has.

Certainly, if you stop the lens down to 2.8, the IQ improves.

[miloblithe]

Well that's all great to know! Thanks. It's definitely an attractive lens, although I personally like the idea of having all full-frame lenses just in case the next camera I buy (hopefully some time around 2016) is full-frame. On the other hand, Canon's 35mm f/1.4 is not something I would ever pay for, probably even if I won the lottery!

[jayb2000]

Yeah, been drooling at that site.:D I am talking about taking photos of sunny parties, :p
where subject will be in center focus and tracked in center of image through series shooting... so I could crop out a good portion, re-compositioning for better appearance.
For example, this photo at the boardwalk of a surfer 100 yards out (5 mp Kodak 10x zoom, sport mode, heavy post-p) :o and getting a usable large poster size print of the actual subject with fair detail. I know I'll need a high quality 200 mm or 300 mm zoom lens but I think the chances of saving more shots lies in the extra megapixels. It's been the case with my Lumix fz 50 with a 10 mp sensor... but noise is really a drawback of the Panasonic. Excellent p+s. but I hate fudging good shots because of my camera's limitations!

Thanks again for all your input. All I need now is my wife's permission!;)


Ahh, just get a D2Xs and this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images4/sigma300-800.jpg

five, 12mp frames per second @ 800mmxx1.5 should let you get some real tight surf shots! :D

[M@lew]

Holy crap :eek: That's massive....I don't I'd ever need a lens like that. :p

[andiwm2003]

Holy crap :eek: That's massive....I don't I'd ever need a lens like that. :p

hey, of course you need it. with the rent so crazy high in boston i consider buying one and living in it. it has weatherseals, has it?

[jpfisher]

So, I'm price shopping and comparing specs again, reading reviews, I really like the Nikon D40x due to the compact body, large sensor, low noise, and availability of a zillion excellent lenses, plus I already have mega gigabytes of SD memory so I chose Nikon over Canon.

The major downside to the D40x is that you don't have full Nikkor lens compatibility -- it will only use autofocus lenses that have internal drive motors.

You might want to look into getting a second-hand D50... or consider the Pentax K100D -- it's at a similar price point and gives you in-body anti-shake and dust removal... and it takes SD.

[Lovesong]

hey, of course you need it. with the rent so crazy high in boston i consider buying one and living in it. it has weatherseals, has it?

Now, now... he who lives in a glass house... :p

[srf4real]

five, 12mp frames per second @ 800mmxx1.5 should let you get some real tight surf shots! :D:eek:

Definately never get any candids if I was swinging that thing around.;)
Well I told my wife to get an expensive hobby like sewing the other day...:p

[compuwar]

:eek:

Definately never get any candids if I was swinging that thing around.;)
Well I told my wife to get an expensive hobby like sewing the other day...:p

You'd be surprised at the candids you can get even at 400mm with a 400/2.8. The trick is to be off in the background.

[compuwar]

Ahh, just get a D2Xs and this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images4/sigma300-800.jpg

five, 12mp frames per second @ 800mmxx1.5 should let you get some real tight surf shots! :D

The 800 prime looks to be a tad sharper. It's on my long-term wish list (though I'll probably try the TC20E-II on my 400 first and see if I can find some way to compare,) though I'm really waiting to see what the 200-500/2.8 will be priced at.

[tracktionmonkey]

Get a D50.
Wonderful camera.
13" x 19" prints have proved no problem with a D50 for me.
Many reviews state it has better iso performance/noise handling than a D200.
If not the D80 is getting cheaper (even a refurbished one with a guarantee).
And why limit your choice of lens in future as with the D40.

[OreoCookie]

Ahh, just get a D2Xs and this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images4/sigma300-800.jpg

five, 12mp frames per second @ 800mmxx1.5 should let you get some real tight surf shots! :D
Even weight and size aren't a problem, if you can afford this lens, then you can also pay an assistant who luggs it around all day.

I wouldn't want to get caught with one at US customs either, I'm sure I'd spend a few days in solitary confinement until they are convinced it's not a ray gun :D

[srf4real]

You'd be surprised at the candids you can get even at 400mm with a 400/2.8. The trick is to be off in the background.Oh yeah, my FZ50 goes up to 420mm @ F4... so I'm getting around... but not at 5fps and not suitable for poster size prints.

Even weight and size aren't a problem, if you can afford this lens, then you can also pay an assistant who luggs it around all day.

I wouldn't want to get caught with one at US customs either, I'm sure I'd spend a few days in solitary confinement until they are convinced it's not a ray gun :DThat is surely not a travel lens. Gotta buy a semi truck to get it around.:p

I ended up getting a Panasonic L1. Mainly because I got a brand new one for $500.:D The Leica 14-50mm F2.8-3.5 lens will satisfy me long after I outgrow the body, but I am locked into the four/thirds line of lenses for now, of which there aren't very many.:(

I'm looking forward to Olympus and their forecasted Zuiko 70-300mm F4-5.6 this fall. And of course the 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 later when my wife calms down...

[zagato27]

Regarding the Nikon D40. I too am considering this as a first DSLR for my son a high school senior. I'm currently looking at an eBay auction for ~ $504 (new/sealed w/warranty and 18-55 kit lens and shipping is an additional $30) that I believe is a good price. I am aware of the "auto focus" lens issue in that the Nikon glass has to be AF-S to be auto focus which will limit choices. I haven't investigated other lens makers yet but I would imagine that they are producing glass that has internal motors for auto focus. So this may not be a huge issue. Additionally I'm not "locked" into Nikon glass just because it's Nikon and probably excellent quality. Price is an issue. Speaking of price. I was also considering the Canon Rebel XT, XTI but the price is more expensive and reviews of the kit lens are not as good as the D40. I haven't been able to determine if the Canon has the same issue as the D40 regarding auto-focus lens.......motor in the body or have to buy glass with motors. Lastly, whats the problem with getting a non-autofocus lens? Cheers

[srf4real]

Lastly, whats the problem with getting a non-autofocus lens? CheersI was dissappointed to learn about the need for AFS lenses in low-end Nikons, helped me rule it out unless I wanted to spend real $$ on the D80 or D200. I actually prefer manual focus myself... however nothing works like a quick AF motor when the shot is totally spontaneous! I'd have missed a zillion pics without it.;)

[OreoCookie]

I ended up getting a Panasonic L1. Mainly because I got a brand new one for $500.:D
Wow, that's really a bargain! I probably couldn't have resisted that deal a few months ago either.
Was the lens included?
The Leica 14-50mm F2.8-3.5 lens will satisfy me long after I outgrow the body, but I am locked into the four/thirds line of lenses for now, of which there aren't very many.:(
Fortunately for you, the Olympus lens line-up (the more expensive variety) has outstanding optical quality, is well-built and light-weight.

[srf4real]

Wow, that's really a bargain! I probably couldn't have resisted that deal a few months ago either.
Was the lens included?

Fortunately for you, the Olympus lens line-up (the more expensive variety) has outstanding optical quality, is well-built and light-weight.Yes, the deal was for a new L1 kit in unopened box. The guy's wife got it as a gift and they weren't the least bit interested in learning how to use it.:confused:
Found it on craigslist and took a short drive to pick it up!

I'm glad to hear that Oly has a good reputation for glass... I need a tele-zoom fer sure.;)

[OreoCookie]

Yes, the deal was for a new L1 kit in unopened box. The guy's wife got it as a gift and they weren't the least bit interested in learning how to use it.:confused:
Found it on craigslist and took a short drive to pick it up!
Are these guys crazy??! Great find, congrats!
I'm glad to hear that Oly has a good reputation for glass... I need a tele-zoom fer sure.;)
Yes, they do.
There is no equivalent for the 50-200 zoom either (which corresponds to 100-400 mm at 2.8-3.5!).
If you want to invest just a tad more (hopefully not at the cost of your wife's temper), the 35-100 lens (corresponds to 70-200 on 35 mm) should do the trick. The review of Germany's most prominent photo magazine reads something like: `best lens ever tested with our BAS digital test, enough reserves for sensors with significantly higher resolution …' The reviews of other Olympus lenses are also excellent.

[-hh]

I wouldn't want to get caught with one at US customs either, I'm sure I'd spend a few days in solitary confinement until they are convinced it's not a ray gun :D


Just tell them that ray guns look like this:

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/images/nonlethal-weaponry_nr.jpg


...well, at least OUR ray guns do :D


-hh

[ChrisA]

.... I really like the Nikon D40x due to the compact body, large sensor, low noise, and availability of a zillion excellent lenses,

You are going at it backwards. All beginners do this -- they think the most important part of the dSLR system is the camera body. The body matters the least. Take a photo with a D200 and a D40 and post both to the web and absolutely no one will be able to tell which is which by just looking at the image on the screen.

But the above can't be said about lenses. a 50mm f/1.4 lens will make strikingly different photographs then a 80-200 f/2.8 zoom the two are very different

Now, after I said "bodies don't matter" I'll modify that. The body can place a limit on what lens you can use. The D40 has a severe limitation that to me is a deal killer. It can only focus AF-S type lenses. This means you can'r use some of Nikon's best optics and shuts off most of the used lens market. The robust used lens market is one of the best reason to choose the Nikon brand

So, after you choose what lenses you like and which you may want to buy in a year or two only then select a body that will work. In my case I see a real deal in the used 80-200. You can pick them up for $600. but that lens will not fit the D40. Also none of the Nikon primes fit the D40 and the 50 and 85 are twoof the most usful lenses I have.

I'd much rather have a used D100, D70 or D50 than a new D40 and all are about the same price

[ChrisA]

I was also considering the Canon Rebel XT, XTI but the price is more expensive and reviews of the kit lens are not as good as the D40. I haven't been able to determine if the Canon has the same issue as the D40 regarding auto-focus lens.......motor in the body or have to buy glass with motors. Lastly, whats the problem with getting a non-autofocus lens? Cheers

All Canon lenses have the motor inside the lens. Canon changed their lens mount some years ago and obsoleted all their old lenses. All lenses sense the change (20+ years ago) use the new EOS electronic mount. Nikon never changed their lens mount system and it's the same old "F mount" that dates from the 1960's but they keep adding new features to it. the latest new feature was in-len focus motor.

In theory you can use the D40 with non-AF-S lenses. It works if yu are willing to rotate a focus ring. The problem is that the focus rings on the AF lenses are not so good and have a loose "sloppy" feel to them compared to a true manual focus lens with it's solid brass internal helix. Also the viewfinder lacks a split prism or other optical focus aids so you have to have good eyes. But yes it works.

The other thing is that people who want a D40 are likely never going to a professional level lens and they's likey never buy a prime. And all of Nikon's lw end f/5.6 zoom lenses will work with the D40. For most D40 buys the AF-S issue is not a big deal. For long time Nikon shooters this is a deal killer.

[zagato27]

All Canon lenses have the motor inside the lens. Canon changed their lens mount some years ago and obsoleted all their old lenses. All lenses sense the change (20+ years ago) use the new EOS electronic mount. Nikon never changed their lens mount system and it's the same old "F mount" that dates from the 1960's but they keep adding new features to it. the latest new feature was in-len focus motor.

Ahhhh, thank you for the info. The Nikon with the kit lens is cheaper but this autofocus lens issue makes a difference. Think I'll start looking for a Canon XT. Sadly, $ is still an issue so the so it's the XT instead of the XTI. Besides, I do think that the info screen on the back of the XT is valuable though it does reduce the size of the LCD compared to the XTI. So, maybe an XT body and then look for an all purpose lens. Any suggestions?

[seenew]

Ahhhh, thank you for the info. The Nikon with the kit lens is cheaper but this autofocus lens issue makes a difference. Think I'll start looking for a Canon XT. Sadly, $ is still an issue so the so it's the XT instead of the XTI. Besides, I do think that the info screen on the back of the XT is valuable though it does reduce the size of the LCD compared to the XTI. So, maybe an XT body and then look for an all purpose lens. Any suggestions?

The XT is the better buy, anyway. The difference between 8MP and 10MP is not noticeable, and you'll get more noise on the 10MP sensor.
As for a starter lens, definitely the EF 50mm f/1.8. Can't get any cheaper than that, and it's a top notch lens. Tack sharp, beautiful bokeh (out of focus areas), and fast.

shot with the 50mm f/1.8 (first two are film, the rest are on a Rebel XT)
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/48695701/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/48695642/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41306670/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40890521/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40512040/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/39892122/