Dilemma...

Dingleberry88

Dingleberry88

Dingleberry88

Soldato
Joined
26 Aug 2004
Posts
3,806
Location
Manchester
Ok, so I've been looking at getting myself a new camera for the past few weeks.

I'd pretty much decided on the Fuji S9600, which I get get for £225, but now I've noticed I can get a Nikon D40 for just under my £300 my limit.

Would I be stupid not to go for the Nikon? I'd need to buy some memory for the Fuji as I don't have any XD/CF, but I have plenty of SD cards (which the D40 takes).

Am I right in thinking that with DSLRs you have to use the viewfinder instead of the LCD when taking photos? How is this? I've found it really convenient using the LCD on my compact, would a viewfinder be hard to get used to?


I don't know if it matters, but I particularly like to take macros and long exposure night shots if one camera would be much better for this.



I could do with any advice ASAP, as I won't be able to get the D40 for that price after tomorrow.

Thanks in advance. :)
 
Last edited:
To be honest if you were getting a bridge camera I'd recommend something like the 6500 over the 9600, most of the features will be the same and you will be able to achieve similar results.

The problem with going for the D40 is that you wouldn't get the equivalent 10-12x zoom which may range from say 30 - 400mm you would probably end up with the kit lens which gives 18-55mm or so. Much superior performance though but it depends on your requirements.

You use the viewfinder instead of an LCD, it's a superior method, the only advantage with compacts is with the flip out ones where you can take difficult to get photos although saying that you can get an angle finder to fit onto the viewfinder of an SLR too. Trust me it's better all round with a viewfinder.

Macros it's a toughy, you can get excellent results with a compact/bridge because of the massive depth of field they have. E.g an SLR allows you to throw things out of focus like having a face in focus but a background out of focus but with a compact sensor usually everything is in focus so you don't need to fiddle about so much. Long exposures would be superior with the D40 but you could get good results with the Fuji also (you'd need a tripod).

One more point worth mentioning, with the D40 you will have to buy lenses of a specific type i.e. DX lenses otherwise you will have to manually focus the lens. Most of the DX lenses are pricey compared with older lenses so it's a possible concern.
 
Last edited:
Sol said:
One more point worth mentioning, with the D40 you will have to buy lenses of a specific type i.e. DX lenses otherwise you will have to manually focus the lens. Most of the DX lenses are pricey compared with older lenses so it's a possible concern.
Click to expand...

AF-S, not DX. There are DX lenses that aren't AF-S and vice versa: it's AF-S that's needed to autofocus on the D40.
 
Does the lens that comes with the D40 have autofocus?

I'm reading through a review at the moment and the D40 has really good image quality compared to the S9600...
 
Dingleberry88 said:
Does the lens that comes with the D40 have autofocus?

I'm reading through a review at the moment and the D40 has really good image quality compared to the S9600...
Click to expand...

Yep, along with the vast majority of newer lenses. Any lens that has "AF-S" in its name will work, along with any Sigma lens with "HSM" in its name.

Here's a list of most if not all Nikon AF-S lenses:

12-24/4 DX
17-55/2.8 DX
18-55/3.5-5.6 DX I
18-55/3.5-5.6 DX II
18-70 DX
18-135 DX
18-200 DX VR
55-200 DX
55-200 DX VR

17-35/2.8 AF-S
24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S
24-120 AF-S VR
28-70/2.8
70-200/2.8 VR
70-300 VR
105/2.8 VR
200/2 VR
200-400/4 VR
300/2.8 VR
300/4 AF-S
400/2.8 AF-S
500/4 AF-S
600/4 AF-S
Click to expand...

(The D40 kit lens is the 18-55mm mk II.)

If I were you, I'd look at a second-hand D50: it's pretty comparable in feature-set to the D40 but includes an AF motor and thus can autofocus on all Nikon AF, AF-I and AF-S lenses (which is pretty much all Nikon lenses from the last 30 years).
 
Last edited:
The D40 will undeniably produce better results if you get to grips with it. However, for a comparable zoom range you're going to need a telephoto zoom lens - something like the Sigma 70-300 APO DG (£150) or Nikon 70-300 VR (£330).

There are various options for getting decent macro results, but again probably the best route is a dedicated macro lens, such as the Tamron 90mm (£270) or Sigma 150mm (£330).

Buying a DSLR will almost certainly lead to considerable extra expense!

If you want decent macro results with a bridge camera you can buy adaptor lenses made by Raynox for as little as £40 which I have recently seen used to incredible effect with a Panasonic FZ8.
 
To be fair, an 18-55 and a 70-300 are going to give him a far superior focal range to a bridge camera. A fairer comparison would be an 18-55 and a 55-200, which gives him a slightly superior focal range to most bridge cameras (11x vs the 10x of most bridge cameras): the Nikon 55-200mm is ~£140.
 
Gah, decisions decisions...

Looking at sample D40 pictures they just look so much clearer, and high ISOs actually appear to be usable, unlike a lot of other (non-DSLR) cameras I've been looking at.

I can't see myself ever dropping £300 on a lens, and although the S9600 has 10x zoom, I'm not sure how useful it'd be with its lack of image stabilisation.

I'm thinking the D40, although £70 dearer, just seems like a much better more versatile option than the S9600.
 
It's more versatile in that it has the potential for greater versatility, but the D40 kit (i.e. the D40 and the 18-55) in and of itself will be less versatile than a bridge camera.

If you're not planning any further expenditure beyond your initial purchase, the D40 is probably a worse decision: one of its main virtues is that you can stick quality glass on it and get quality photos... for a price. If you're just going to stick with the relatively cheap 18-55 then you're not going to see a benefit worth the extra outlay, IMO.

So, IMO: get the D40 (although I'd recommend the D50) if you're prepared to buy more lenses; get a bridge camera if you're not.
 
robmiller said:
So, IMO: get the D40 (although I'd recommend the D50) if you're prepared to buy more lenses; get a bridge camera if you're not.
Click to expand...

Looks like the D40 is a bit much for me then - I just can't justify spending the same amount again on a lens.



Are opinions on the S9600 generally that it's a decent camera? The macro shots from it look really good.

Any other recommendations around the same price range?
 
Look second hand, might find affordable options going that route.

Sorry about the DX point, basically the D40 doesn't have an internal motor for focussing so you need the AF-S/HSM lenses. Never really been interested much on the D40 and would never personally recommend it over the likes of a D50.

Just get a 6500 and see if you like it, if you get into photography in a big way then look at a DSLR further down the line. I wouldn't bother with the 9600 for the price.

The only bridge camera that I have had a fair go on would be the Canon S3 IS, very nice camera with pretty good features. Might be able to pick one up cheaply with the S5 on the go now.
 
I think personally it would be a waste of money to go Fuji 65xx if you do have a thought in the back of your head saying a D40. I bought a Fuji S5600 and have had it for 6 months, and now I want a D40 ... wish I had gone for one in the first place. The Fuji is a great camera, but its really easy to outgrow it. Some may argue against this, although you are obviously looking at getting into photography hence going for a bridge camera over a simple point and click. The D40 even in its current state is a lovely piece of kit. I had my first play on one at the weekend and I have to say I was blown away. I was amazed at the level of control. It was really nice to be able to manual focus and adjust zoom to get the perfect DOF for what I wanted to shoot. Seriously, you will not look back ... get a D40.
 
mcwildcard said:
Dingleberry, check your mail re: the S9600 for some handy info :D
Click to expand...

Muchos gracias. :)


martinturner said:
although you are obviously looking at getting into photography hence going for a bridge camera over a simple point and click.
Click to expand...

I'd say I already am quite into photography (check my sister's DeviantArt gallery for proof - most of the photos are taken by me :)). I just don't think I can justify spending hundreds on a lens when bridge's can get such good results.
 
Bridge cameras will never get anywhere near the same results as an SLR, though, and remember that when you buy an SLR you're buying into a system. Spend money on glass now and it'll be usable for years; spend money on a bridge now and it'll become obsolete far quicker.
 
I was in the same situation 3 months ago and went for a DSLR (400D) over the exact same camera you mentioned (S9600).

Im very happy that i made this choice as its dragged me into photography more than i thought it would. I have just purchased my first lens other than the kit lens at a wopping £500. I never thought i would be doing that.

On the other side, the person i work with does not want to get too involved and would not be able to afford extra lenses so he has just got the S9600 about 2 months ago. We both went for a little shoot around town and i briefly used the S9600. I also saw the finished results side by side with my 400D.

The outcome for me was:
Buy a S9600 if you want a pretty good camera for most situations, and you are not looking into spending more money that the cost of the camera itself. It can and does produce some very nice images.
Buy a 400D if you think youll want to get into it in the near future. This was what i went for and im very pleased. The image quality is outstanding once you have learnt how it all works.
 
I was in a very similar situation this summer and in the end went for a 6500, it was a very cheap option that would let me learn about photography. DSLR is an expensive hobby as I'm sure many on here will admit there is pretty much always a temptation to get a better lense for that little bit more speed/sharpness so you've got to be convinced you can either resist or afford it!

For the record I think this time next year my Fuji will be on the bay and I'll be going DSLR but I didn't know that in advance and I may loose interest now the winters here and going out isn't so appealing.

If your 100% sure that photography is for you for the long(ish) haul then get enough monet together to get a DSLR and a couple of lenses if not get a bridge like the 6500 the number of practically brand new DSLR's on the bay is proof enough that a lot of people buy and then hardly use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom