A Good Quality, Simple, Well Built Camera

Dave its important to understand that the Lecia, is not, its a panasonic who licence the making of lenses from Leica, who I understand do not even make lenses anymore!

The digital view finder is a disgrace to humankind, if you are happy to use these, they don't bother with an DSLR, you are interested in a simple point and shoot, in which case 500 will get you a heck of a lot more than a Panasonic and thats for sure.

Or put another way, what Nigel said in his second post.

Garyi/ Rocking Doctor, please could you explain the negatives of the digital viewfinder to a novice...

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
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.

Ah at the mercy of the operator to get the best out of a RAW image. Not trivial, especially if default settings are used

Higher up the camera food chain Nikon tend to produce slightly more saturated images than Canon. However, I'm not convinced by Nikon's ability to handle shadow detail properly. Shooting back/side lit people can cause their faces in shadow to be too red.

I would say the most important factor is choose a camera that feels comfortable to handle. If it's not comfortable it's likely to stay at home more than it comes with you.

Graham.

The Leica/Panasonic does not have a direct optical viewfinder. When you peer down the eyepiece you see a little grainy television image with lots of lag, so you never actually know what you are looking at, unless it is completely still.

I disagree with Gayri regarding the build quality of the Leica/Panasonic compacts, as I have found them superior to all the other makes of compact except Contax (haven't had a Ricoh).

I agree LCD viewfinders are very inferior compared to optical ones that show you "through the lens". It's impossible to really see what's in focus and you certainly can't see depth of field with an LCD viewfinder.

For what its worth the Which reliability ratings for digital cameras (I guess based mainly on compacts) are:
Panasonic 99%
Sony 98%
Canon 95%
HP 95%
Kodak 95%
Nikon 95%
Olympus 95%
Samsung 95%
Casio 95%
Konica Minolta 94%
Pentax 94%
Fujifilm 92%


David

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

And your point is?

I am like Marvin, the paranoid android. I ask merely for information.

Canon and Nikon do just as much marketing as anyone. Point is, for me, their cameras handle beautifully. The buttons and controls make perfect sense. I don't have to look up from the eyepiece, it all just comes together so I can concentrate on what I am seeing - not what I am doing.

Image quality is a myth, really. It only really matters when you're comparing all the turds. When you get a good shot, it has impact, and it doesn't matter whether it's black and white, grainy, shot with a cellphone.

If the photographer wants to take shots of their puppy in a red bucket - fine. Compare specs and megapixels and on and on.

I like the old photo journalist saying:

"F8, 1/125, and be there."

It's very true that you still need to have "an eye" for a photo.

You can have the most expensive camera in the world, but if you just can't take a good photo it's not going to help you.

I recently saw a series of photos taken on a home made pin hole camera by a well known pro. Very interesting....

quote:

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.

Well I sort of agree with you - however, what works for the pros must work for the pros - we get the trickle-down effect of the technology. The only pros I know buy their own. I suggest the D40 becuase it's a great camera that I'd buy for myself. If you like the pentax, more power to you; useful to observe that you're getting defensive about Pentax' poor-cousin reputation in the market. and yes of course we know all about their 645 and 6x7 gear.

quote:

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

yeah, you just never see or hear of the few. must be that low-key underground approach to branding they use.

quote:

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

As to your personal barb: Brand concious? No, you're not correct. There are a couple of brands I buy becuase I like what they make... The rest of it - whatever fits needs and budget at the time of purchase. Kathmandu - it's cheap and comfortable, like Gap. Does that make me "brand concious?" But hey - why would you know about my wardrobe or my vehicles - you judge me by my all-Naim system right? FWIW, I have Nikon becuase I remember my friend's FM covered in mud, sluiced out after an hour chasing kids down a mudslide, and still working. That and the Canon gear I ordered in 1994 didn't turn up; the store I visited pushed Nikon and I saw the benefits and purchased. When evaluating which digital/film system to go for last year, I stayed Nikon with the headstart on lenses (despite the draw of canon's L-series glass). It's robust and I know it won't fail on me; it's given me as much trouble as my battered Olympus gear.

And hey - we are talking photgraphy right? Surely for you to be able to *really* make any milage out of a tag like "brand concious", the pre-requisite would be for me to have a Leica. oh shit, I don't own any Leica!

another staw man, if you please!

regards

gary
I think Leica do still make lenses in Solms, mostly M and R series, although I suspect the PanaLeica lenses are manufactured in the Far East to a Leica design. I doubt that Solms has the capacity to build the volume needed for the PanaLeica compacts.The Mseries 50mm f1 Noctilux takes 18 months to contruct apparently! That said, the compact lenses are fantastic performers. The weak link in the chain is the Venus image procesor in the camera.

I agree with the electronic viewfinder discussion. Not a very valuable tool. The only benefit is being able to overlay the grid which helps to keep the horizon straight and to compose using the rule of thirds, if that happens to be your thing. There isn't one on my Dlux3 - you get used to composing on the rear screen very quickly!

Leica.

If you really want to get good at photography, are not brand conscious and don't need to have an obviously expensive camera - then get a 1950s M series rangefinder and a bulk roll of black and white 400.

That will teach you about light. And the camera will still cost a shitload and only the cool people will know you are cool...

The Leica "look" is real - but you have to nail the shot and the print first.

Deane
Fair point. Although in truth very few people recognise a Leica of any vintage. And taking your advice to a digital extreme, learn to use an M8 and do away with the film and chemical stuff.

Alas, the rangefinder camera. I've done a lot of reading on these and the simplicity of operation does appeal.

However, I really can't be bothered with film processing, and the only digital rangefinders I can find are the Leica M8 and Epson RD1 which are somewhat pricey.

Maybe I should sell that CDX2 after all.

Looks like the D40 for me. Who knows, I might even manage a picture of my hi-fi on the forum!

Dave
I'm sure the D40 will serve you very well. Rasher seems very pleased with his. In truth, there are very few "bad" cameras made today. In the end the choice comes down to what feels best in your hands and most acceptable to your wallet! And maybe, if you shop the old-fashioned way, what your local shop has in stock!

quote:

Originally posted by dave brubeck:

Maybe I should sell that CDX2 after all.

(For that kind of money you could get a couple of Hasselblad accessories for the H3D - but then you'd have to sell a CD555 + PS to get the camera. That's the most megapixels anybody could want.)

I may have missed it, but I dont see anyone has mentioned that the D40X will be in the shops any day now. 10 meg sensor up from 6 and quite a few other improvements.

and very much higher price.

..and out of the question as I am now the proud owner of a sparkling new D40. Who needs pixels anyway..

Seriously though, thanks very much to all who have contributed. Now all I have to do is learn to work the beast.

Couple of things.... I looked at the DX wide angle lens, which apparently is the type I need to use with the D40 in order to get the autofocus to work. I enquired as to the price of this lens and the gentleman assistant said something in the region of 650 quid! SIX HUNDRED & FIFTY QUID? How can it be so?

The kit lens I received with the D40 is also marked 'DX' type and I got this and the camera and a big fat memory card for half that amount. Does this mean I am doomed to a life of manual focusing with a wide angle lens if I am not prepared to part with this kind of cash?

There are a fair number of DX lenses out there and offerings from other companies. But yes the D40 does not have the older screw type autofocus pin so many lenses will not work with it.

My recommendation was based on your thread title. If you feel you might want to experiment then I would suggest taking the D40 back and getting a D50. They are practically the same, but the d50 is a tadge bigger. The D50 will take and nikkor autofocus lens and there are thousands on eBay.

The other thing might be to keep the D40, get used to using it and learning to take great shots, and by then you might want to shunt it on for a new model or purchase a shiny new lens.

DX refers to Nikon's 'optimised for digital' lenses, which effectively means "we've built this for the sensor size of Nikon's digital cameras (DX sensor), so don't try and use it on film bodies, you'll not get a full-sized image. The bonus is they're lighter and more compact.

I agree with what Garyi's said above.

Dave - Shame you want to go wider. The 18mm setting is equavalent to 27mm in old money. If you were going the other way, the 55-200mm zoom is only £139!

Help!

I've taken a raft of photos on a 2GB card, and I am only just getting round to putting them onto my laptop.

I have Photoshop 6.

I tried opening the '.NEF' (RAW format) Nikon files with Photoshop.
Photoshop didn't recognise the file type.
So after some searching on the web I downloaded the Nikon 'NEF Plugin.8bi' and copied this into the Photoshop 'FileFormat' folder - and yes it still doesn't work. I get a message saying I have a disc error...

I know I could install the Nikon 'PictureProject' software I received with the camera and convert the files to TIFF prior to opening in Photoshop, but I really would prefer to work only with Adobe.

Any ideas?

Did you delete the old camera raw .8bi file from that folder per the instructions? Take a look around Adobe's help pages - you'll find the answers there.

I find it a little flakey - one of the auto-updates changed something, and now I can't double-click a .NEF file from Bridge to auto-open in potatoshop. OTOH, if I right click and select 'open in camera raw' it's fine.

With respect Adobe Photoshop elements will have just about as much functionality as photoshop six, costs about 40 quid and comes with camera raw plugin.

Your main loss with elements is the curves tool. If this does not bother you then you will be happy with the new features. Photoshop 6 is a bit like talking WordPerfect.