A Good Quality, Simple, Well Built Camera

Nikon D40.

Garyi - a fine looking machine indeed.

Forgive me for asking some non-camera buff questions:
- Would the resolution allow printing at A3 size?
- Is it not the case that 6MP will be obsolete in a number of years? Not that I am looking to exhibit of course...

..and I don't even get a flash?

In my experience the difference between even entry level Digi SLRs and any of the compacts is huge. I read one opinion that said it was to do with the sensor size - basically the D SLRs have bigger ones. The same opinion was moaning that there aren't really the digi equivalents of good quality compacts like Minox's, Ricoh GR1s, Contax Ts, etc.

The new Nikon D40 is quite small, as is the Oly E400 - they are £400 or so with a reasonable lens.

If you do go down the compact ish route, I believe the Canon G7 is supposed to be ok. Also there's a Ricoh GR digital which is supposed to be a digi version of the GR1 - although I'd be sceptical that it's just a regular digi inner inside an expensive jacket.

To be honest I can't imagine that any digicam will still be working in 10 years. My OM1 cameras (almost entirely manual and mechanical) have been serviced and repaired a couple of times and are probably both 20 years old - parts can either be made or salvaged from dead OM1s. However my my electronically controlled OM4Ti is about 15 years old and when it was repaired a few years ago the shop said that if it needed further fixing it would probably need a new circuit board which aren't made any more.

A couple of left-field suggestions:
- get a film camera, 2nd hand or new they are now so cheap that your £500 will pay for years of processing and converting the negatives into CD. If it dies you could just chuck it and not worry. Bet you could get a 2nd hand olypus mju with the fixed f2.8 lens for about £20 which would take much better pics than most digi compacts.
- get a decent phone camera, mate of mine has a sony ericsson 3.2MP job with flashe and autofocus which to be honest seems as good as the cheaper digi compacts (i.e. not very good but not awful). You could get a new one every year when your contract renews and the big benefit is you've got it with you all the time.

Just some thoughts
Phil

Hi dave.

Do not confuse sensor pixels with printed pixels, a four meg camera will easily print a lovely A3 if you took a good shot.

The D40 has a flash, its just well hid just above the Nikon logo. The internal ones are quite reasonable.

Nikon chose not to play the pixels games (you can compare this to Watts in HIFI terms) they have been using a 6 meg pixel for there basic DSLRs for a while, because they offer the best balance of features most people need. You can easily buy 14 meg cameras for the same money but what you get is a really really big shit picture.

Trust me 6 meg is more than enough for most peoples needs, it will give you a great picture,

"You can easily buy 14 meg cameras for the same money but what you get is a really really big shit picture"

Thanks Garyi, that's the best laugh I've had all day.

I've just been looking online at the Ricoh GR.

This looks very interesting - nice and small, simple elegant design. Would there be a significant difference in picture quality between this and say the Nikon D40?

Just looked up the Ricoh GR - dpreview says the sensor size is 7.18 x 5.32 mm.

Nikon D40 sensor size is 23.7 x 15.5 mm

Whatever you do, get a camera from companies that have been making them for a while. Canon and Nikon, for instance, have a lot of experience at making cameras work well in your hands. Sony cameras for instance (to me) just feel weird - like driving a car with the gearstick coming out of the roof.

And having done courses with people who had minor brands of SLR, I have to say that if you want a camera that lasts - get a Nikon or Canon. All the breakdowns I've seen have not been either of those brands.

the GR is a nice camera, with a crisp fixed-lens 28mm equivalent.

the D40 is an entirely different camera - a real D-SLR, with interchangeable lenses, decent sensor size etc.

agree with Garyi, more MP won't get you a better picture; and in fact, 6MP large sensor with a decent lens is better than a 10MP tiny sensor with a plastic lens. aside from the big vs small sensor facts, more megapixels show up how good your glass is. or isn't, as the case may be. it's the photographic mullett - crappy lens on a hi-res camera (eg canon 5D or nikon D2x as examples) won't give you a guaranteed great result.

ultimately, while the compact D40 is a great camera making DSLR easy to own for those that would previously own only an average point and shoot, all the benefits the D40 bring are worthless if it's at home in a drawer. If you want to dravel light and take a compact camera everywhere, the GR may be a better bet.

Another thing to remember with cameras:

Just because it's German; doesn't mean it's good.

Dave,
Lots of good stuff at www.dpreview.com Check out the various brand oriented fora to see what is good, and bad, with the various makes.

Get to handle a few different cameras. At a given price point, the various brands will offer broadly similar features. So the handling of the camera, ie especially how it feels in your hand(s), is pretty important.

Being as you are also looking at Ricoh you are obviously considering other brands than Canon + Nikon. Which is good.

/dl

I too am looking for the sort of camer Dave is after. When reading reviews it is evident that the expert critics are often troubled by something called 'noise' which is a 'bad thing'. And seemingly good cameras get the thumbs down because of this. Please can someone explain to a non physicist what noise is and does it matter for the amateur. Eg it seems to be an issue with Panasonic compacts.
Thanks, David

David, put really simply, it shows as a speckly effect on a solid colour. In film we used to talk of "grain", which was a generally accepted visual result of using higher ISO (also called "faster") films. In the world of digital imaging it has become a total no-no. However, it is extremely dfficult for manufacturers of cameras which incorporate really small imaging sensors to eradicate noise in processing the pixels.

Whether or not it matters to you depends on how big you want to print your digital pics. In real life, noise is hardly an issue if you are sticking to 6"x4" or 7"x5" prints.

read why noise doesn't matter

read also the link within this page "why your camera doesn't matter".

ultimately, all this interweb discussion about noise, is just that: noise.

If you happen to get a shot in low light that forced you to use one of these "noisy" settings and it *really bothers you that much*... you can use a smart tool (gently) such as Noise Ninja or similar. as with sharpening tools, a softly softly approach is best. HTH.

Thanks chaps - I guess you have saved me a £100 or so. David

It seems to me that many here have been seduced by Nikon and Canon marketing.

I have used Pentax for 30 years and they are cheaper, smaller, equally as good in quality - both of build and results - and more backward compatible than any other make.

I am not seduced by anything, just giving the experiences I have had.

Perhaps you can recommend a model then he has some choices to make.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

I have used Pentax for 30 years and they are cheaper, smaller, equally as good in quality - both of build and results - and more backward compatible than any other make.

How many rolls of film did you put through your Pentax bodies?

How accurate are the shutters after 1000 rolls? Did you get them tested?

How many times did you drop your Pentax cameras. Did they break?

I see very few professional photographers using anything but Canon or Nikon (in the 35mm format). Is that the result of marketing?

agreed.

great as my (fully professsional system camera) Olympus OM1 was/is, it wouldn't take the punishment of my friends Nikon bodies and lens system. The upside was my kit was lighter and more compact. Differences in build quality.

If you like the pentax, great. it's certainly value kit. To conclude the huge adoption of Nikon/Canon by the pros is down to marketing is asinine.

I bought a D40 only a week or two ago, and I'm amazed at how good a modern D-SLR is. It's good because it will do point-and-shoot, but will go into grown-up mode when you want it to. I am delighted with it and can't praise it enough. This is the first SLR I've bought since my OM1 & OM2.
As the others have said already, the 6MP is more than enough because the lens is good. You'd do A3 easily.... if you ever needed to that is!
This might be helpful

quote:

Originally posted by Rico:
agreed.

great as my (fully professsional system camera) Olympus OM1 was/is, it wouldn't take the punishment of my friends Nikon bodies and lens system. The upside was my kit was lighter and more compact. Differences in build quality.

If you like the pentax, great. it's certainly value kit. To conclude the huge adoption of Nikon/Canon by the pros is down to marketing is asinine.

I wasn't talking about "pros" - many of whom use the equipment their employer supplies - I was talking about people who post here and seem to assume that what "pros" use must be the best. But, of course, even you are not suggesting that we should buy what "pros" actually use(he only wants to spend £500), you are suggesting that we buy the same brand.

Anyway there are many “pros” who use Pentax – not that that is at all important in informing what cheap SLR one should buy.

"asinine" - I don't think so. You are so brand conscious, it is untrue.

Thankyou for all the assistance gentleman.

I've been irritating assistants in various camera shops all week, and have narrowed it down to a choice between the following:

Nikon D40. Nice to look at, nice to hold, seems to get a good write up. Preferred this over the equivalent Canon XTi(EOS 400d) and also the Pentax K... I forget the number.

Leica V-Lux 1. Call me a snob, but this is a beautiful machine, and appears to have an 'all in one' lens. It looks like an SLR but isn't, has 10MP, but has the smaller sensor.

Head says Nikon, heart says Leica...

Is there a marked difference in image quality between the above?

I have a feeling the answer is yes....

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:


How many rolls of film did you put through your Pentax bodies?

How accurate are the shutters after 1000 rolls? Did you get them tested?

How many times did you drop your Pentax cameras. Did they break?

I used one Pentax ME Super body for 28 years; at year 27 the meter failed; at year 28 the wind on mechanism failed.

Until then the camera performed impeccably.

I don't make a habit of dropping cameras but this certainly had a few dents.

Rolls of film? No idea but certainly more than your average punter.

And your point is?

Dave
While Nigel takes on all-comers, I think either camera will serve you well. The Nikon however will be more versatile with its interchangable lenses. If you think the Vlux is all the camera you'll ever need, go for it by all means. I like Leica but would be the first to admit there is better value for money to be had elsewhere.
y local camera shop, which sells Leica, Canon and Nikon, showed me a pair of A4 prints from a D40 and Canon400D. The same scene, same lighting, same settings on the camera, with no post processing except RAW conversion. The D40 image was very obviously better. I was quite surprised.

The picture quality from the Leica will be fine BUT the Leica has an "electronic" viewfinder. This is not a good thing.