Can someone help me with "spec" confusion.

gibbon

gibbon

Messages
346
Name
Andy Gilbert
Edit My Images
Yes
Edit: Sorry for the 'conmfusion' in the title!

Ok, ive been into photography now for a year or so, i started with a fuji s5600, and wanted to upgrade i wanted a dslr but went with a fuji s9600 that i currently use.

I do it as a hobby, i am graphic designer / web programmer full time so nice and creative and always wanted to get the best capture and get the best out of my camera / picture.

I mostly take photos of motorsport (as i do it), so track days, nurburgring ETC. Aswell as portrait photography, thats just somthing i like doing.

And as for now, the s5600 taught me all the modes and how to use them properly and effectivly, and my s9600 does it all fine, i have a small home studio setup for portaits and to me my s9600 does a good job of it. But i keep saying to my self its time to get a dslr.

Now, as it is a hobby, unfotunatly so is motorsport and everything else, and so i dont want to spend alot of money but maybe if i sell my s9600 i could have £300 maybe a bit more to buy somthing.

And so i was looking at second hand nikon d40's. They seem a popular choice and plenty about within budget (on ebay).

But this is my confusion. Spec, just to compare a few.

Megapixels : D40 = 6.0 / s9600 = 9
iso rating : D40 = 200 to 1600 / s9600 = 80 to 1600
min / max shutter : Both same (30s to 1/4000)
Both have hot shoe

Infact... i cant go name them all, but i have both open and i cant see any reason to change? (this is my confusion)

Ok, so the d40 i can change the lenses... It comes with a 50mm f1.4.

So, for my motor sport ill have to buy a new lens, and i suspect one to 300mm (like my s9600) will cost a bit.

The s9600 goes from 28mm - 300mm / f2.8 to f11.

Im not in anyway trying to convince anyone the s9600 bridge camera is better.


Im just still newish to this, and getting confused with if i will benefit from upgrading to a DSLR within my budget. (maybe thats the key, my budget).

Anyways, would it be worth it?

Thanks
Andy
 
Image quality is not all about megapixels. What is important is the size of the sensor, and the quality of the glass in front of it, and both will be better on the D40 than on the compact.

Speed is also important, with a DSLR there is virtually no delay between pressing the shutter and the picture being taken, something that can be a problem on many compact or 'bridge' cameras.
 
Very true.. a goood reminder to why i asked now!

As i shoot in RAW, i have many times taken a photo, then even a few seconds later gone to take another to find its still processing the last one.

And sensor size and glass is somthing i will now starting taking note of.

Thanks
Andy
 
Another thing is that a zoom lens, by its very nature is a compromise and ones which cover a huge focal length is a bigger compromise than those that cover a shorter focal length, which is why the vast majority of pro lenses cover a fairly narrow band - eg 16-35, 17-40.

At longer lengths the design becomes easier and so there are 70-200, 100-300, but very few hyperzooms, and Canons 28-300L is a heavy and expensive beast that is still flawed, but its a tool that press photographers like for convenience as they need to get the shot that pays their wages.
 
Personally I'd just broaden the serach slightly and get the D40x - 10mp in the same body and probably not much difference in price now they're a few seasons old.

As above, a DSLR will be quicker all-round when pressing that shutter. You'll get no lag, which is fine ina studio, but a nightmare when action is the subject.

Something like one of the Sigma 70-300mm versions or even the Nikon 70-300mm (non-VR one) would be a good starting point for motorsport. Okay, they're not on par wth with lenses press toggers use so don't expect that kind of image quality but they're good enough for hobbyists on a budget; I used to have an EOS-fit 70-300mm APO Sigma that was absolutely brilliant - fast AF and pin-shapr at 300mm and it costs next to nothing.

One thing you have to be aware of with the D40 is that it doesn't have a built-in autofocus motor in the body (to keep the size and weight down) so you need to buy a lens with a motor inside. This is where buying for the small DSLR bodies can be confusing. The AF-S nikon lenses have these but you pay a premium. I'm not sure what Tamron, Tokina and Sigma do in this respect - anyone care to shed some light on this for the OP?...
 
Don't forget that even though both cameras have an aperture of f2.8 it doesn't actually give the same end result. Smaller sensors change depth of field and noise sensitivity to name just a couple.

Also you need to consider the crop factor when comparing lenses.. a 200mm lens on the D40 will be slightly longer in practice.
 
specialman said:
Personally I'd just broaden the serach slightly and get the D40x - 10mp in the same body and probably not much difference in price now they're a few seasons old.
Click to expand...

:thinking:

I could be wrong, but on Ian (Kerso)'s last list did he not have new D40x to clear at something like £180 :shrug:
 
gibbon said:
Thanks for all the advise. Has helped alot and understand more.

Seems a very good price flash? Is this a guy on here that sells them?

Also, does the d40x still not have a AF motor?

Thanks
Andy
Click to expand...

No it doesn't but it's newer spec, which is always good:) The 10.2mp sensor is basically the same one found in the D200, which is probably one fo the best-loved Nikon DSLRs ever produced. I used to use one before the D2X and have to say that the IQ was exceptional.

Full-spec for D40x here

This might be a good buy for you
 
Are you completely sold on Nikon? I only ask because Canon have cameras that have AF motors in the body at all levels.

You can get some decent deals on them too. I picked up a canon 1000d for £300 just before xmas, and I've not been disappointed. Not sure about Sony/Pentax/Panasonic, maybe others can offer advice here?
 
well e.g. a Sony A200 has the same sensor as the D40x (it's a Sony sensor), better AF & an in-body AF motor as well as in-body IS & should cost ~£200 or maybe less s/h.
 
I think all entry level DSLRs will be an order of magnitude above that Fuji despite the fact that it's one of the better bridge cameras available. Don't bank on getting £300 for it though.
Each DSLR make will have its own set of enthusiasts on this forum, and we are all biased towards our own brands because they're what drew us to them in the first place, and we've got used to their strengths and weaknesses and their particular way of doing things since then.

Once you buy into a particular brand you'll most likely want to add more lenses, which will effectively lock you into that brand as it'd cost too much to swap the whole kit and start again. I would therefore recommend popping down to your favourite camera store and playing with DSLR offerings from several of the top manufacturers before making a final choice. Big hands or small hands, left handed or right handed, wearer of glasses, sight with left or right eye, all these things may affect your choice. The handling of each make is different.

Have a look at the next models up from your initial choice while at the shop as well because if the bug really bites then you may be looking at an upgrade in a couple of years.

HTH, Mike.
 
Cheers all, for the advise again.

Know more towards what im after now.

And eccles, i deffo dont expect anywhere near £300 for it. lol. I meant with putting some towards what ever i get for the s9600.

I could spend more, but like i said, i have other priorities at the moment.

Thanks anyways.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top