1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by GJH0702, Jan 7, 2007.

  1. GJH0702

    GJH0702 Member

    Firstly Thank you to all who gave me guidance when I asked sought help.
    I have now narrowed my 'choice' to two - but different formats,Nikon D40(good report in this weeks AP) & Panasonic DMCFZ7.
    Panasonic- why- easy to use- Zoom / wide all in one.
    Nikon_ why quality, reputation, BUT bigger, costly & additional cost of buying a telephoto.
    Aims:_ quick to use, simple to use, good quality, easy to carry.
    BUT WHICH ONE? PLEASE CAN YOU HELP ME DECIDE- I know I have to handle both
  2. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    D40 - gives you much more flexibility and you will also have a good hobby (viz something to spend money on - lenses, gadget bags, filters etc etc).
    Picture quality will also be better, and wider ISO range, opportunity to use powerful flashguns, "B" setting (do I need to go on any more?)
  3. rsand

    rsand Well-Known Member

    I have had a bridge (KM dimage A200) and several Nikon/nikon based dslr's and if quality is paramount there is no comparison between a bridge and a dslr.
    The bridge was a backup camera and has/had a higher megapixel count than my first dslr (fuji s1pro 3mp) yet the images from it are inferior. Photography is all about light not megapixels, the larger the sensor the more light it gets the less noise/grain you get. The old s1's minimum ISO was 360 and there was not a trace of noise with top results even at ISO 1600 the KM bridge was useless over ISO200 and not that great at ISO100.
    The D40 (personally I would get a D50 as you have more lense options) will blow the bridge out of the water but will cost you more and be more cumbersome to carry. If size is an issue have you concidered a Canon d400 or one of tiny pentax/olypus 4 3rds cameras all smaller than the Nikon and all superior than any bridge camera.
  4. GJH0702

    GJH0702 Member

    cheers,would the D50 lenses be 'cheaper'?
  5. rsand

    rsand Well-Known Member

    It'll be available with the same 17-55 lense so no cheaper but you can use it with more lenses than the d40 which can use AFS only.

    So you could buy a cheaper lense from a third party like sigma/tamron/tokina.

    Also as the d50 is a run-out model you may get a deal on it making it cheaper than the d40, have you consided used or refurbished? There are some companies on ebay selling recon d50's at quite good prices freeing up ££ for lenses.
  6. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Not necessarily, but the D40 requires Nikon's AF-S lenses to autofocus (ie those with a Silent Wave motor in the lens) as it lacks the body AF motors. You can use manual focus of course, but modern AF screens are not best suited to this.

    The D50 (and other Nikon DSLRs) can use all Nikon-mount AF lenses without trouble.
  7. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    At the risk of adding confusion, the Olympus E-500 is going for a bargain price at the moment as a twin lens kit covering the equivalent of 28mm to 300mm. The body is reasonably small and light and like most digital slr's of quality, give outstanding results. Worth a look before you buy. Here are some sample shots:
  8. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    The E-500 is becoming harder to track down since Christmas - suppose many people have been out buying up stocks as a festive gift :-( Wish someone would buy me a gift with that sort of value !
  9. Robs1

    Robs1 Well-Known Member

    I had a Panasonic fz30 8mp bridge camera and used it for about 5 months before upgrading to a D50 with 18-70 kit lens. The Nikon actually cost less than the bridge.

    The Nikon takes sharper pictures, is easier to use and is more responsive as the shutter lag on the bridge camera drove me mad.

    The down side was no 35 to 420 equivelent zoom, but an 18 - 200 (27-300)vr lens has helped with that. Then again the lens cost more than the camera.... so you gets what you pays for. If you photography is more to you than just snapping (the fact your on this forum says it probably is) then an SLR is the way to go. Or be like me who was persueded the bridge was as good and had better specs than a dslr and ended up trading up within months for a camera that on paper had less but just takes better pictures.
  10. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    I hate those electronic viewfinders on bridge cameras!

Share This Page