[drpullockaran]

This advice is for any one out there inclined to buy a digital camera whether it is a point and shoot or dSLR.

1)Fix up your max budget.

2)Go to the link mentioned below and in the check box tick the one that has the lowest pixel density.( I am not talking about megapixels but about pixel density) All other features are secondary and to your liking. If you are serious about your camera the pixel density should be less than 5 but be ready to shell out a bomb as the pixel density goes down and megapixels go up. For an average photographer 6 megapixels is much more than enough and only professionals need more than 10megapixels and above. With these criteria in mind I would suggest you go for the 6 megapixels Nikon D40(Not 10 megapixels D40X which is costlier but no comparison to the D40) Getting the D40 may be a tad difficult but you won't regret it. No camera in the market comes even remotely(remotely) close to it for the price it sells for.
Buying Guide: Features Search: Digital Photography Review

For a review of the D40 click the link below.
Recommended Cameras

Please do not be fooled into the megapixel race and read the above link by Ken Rockwell as if it was the Bible of dSLR cameras. You will not regret it.

If you are bent upon buying a point and shoot check out the Fuji F31FD

Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


and if the above is out of your budget do not settle for anything other than the Canon A590is.

Canon Powershot A590 IS digital camera specifications: Digital Photography Review

If you cannot get atleast the canon mentioned above forget buying a camera for the moment. Not joking.

[deetee]

I am now using Canon A720IS and have been enjoying it very well.Had explored its limits many times and am confident I can handle a DSLR .
As to my requirements:

Photography ,for me, is a refreshing hobby more than an enthusiastic pursuit.I am serious while shooting photographs but not too serious about shooting itself. (partly owing to limited time available for it)

Even while buying the A720, my heart pulled towards a DSLR leap straight away. But , for some reason I choose to follow my brain which persuaded me to practice first on an advanced P&S before deciding if I truly need a DSLR.
And, I now realise I need one , truly- but not very urgently.
Because,
1.) I don't have much time to play with the shutter except on weekends.That too for a couple of hours only.But I do it regularly.
2.)My shooting consists of 40% outdoor+40% indoor under lighting +20% in poor lighting. So, for 80% of time I can still manage with A720IS.
3.)Even if I buy a dslr,(the Nikon D40 ) I may still need the P&S for some exclusive purposes-- HDR s and Timelapses(possible with CHDK hack). And,the D40 couldn't do exposure bracketing automatically.

But there is one good reason why I thought I should hurry:
If I keep waiting , newer and advanced DSLR s may come , but something with low pixel density as in D40 might be hard to find.
This one reason alone is torturing me to immediately go for it.

But, due to some demanding domestic needs, spending a 20k on D40 is not feasible till Jan end. However,one way I could satisfy myself immediately is by selling my lovely A720IS to fund D40 partly.(I can get a P&S latter.)

So, what say folks, should I wait till I can afford it(D40 ) and will it be available then? Or, should I somehow take a leap now?
Please suggest.

[SkyWalker]

dont sell the 720. You will need a P&S even if you have a DSLR.

D40 is not going away anytime soon. Its one of the top sellers for Nikon and they wont have anything in thae 400$ range. Maybe sometime later D40x will move into that.

[deetee]

Originally Posted by SkyWalker

D40 is not going away anytime soon. Its one of the top sellers for Nikon and they wont have anything in thae 400$ range. Maybe sometime later D40x will move into that.

How does the 2.7MP/cm2 of D60 stand against D40's 1.6MP/cm2.
If D40 gets phased out , then between D60 and canon's 1000d ,which could be better?
I remember like D40, D60 too doesn't have DOF preview.

[redrage]

Canon 1000D is a good choice, additional features such as live view etc. It depends on which camera you are comfortable with and what exactly you want to shoot. If you are going to shoot nature,wildlife etc, canon would be the way to go with a wide array of lenses and the primes are quite cheaper compared to the Nikon's. Even Nikon too has a good range, just depends on exactly what combo you are looking for.

[SkyWalker]

Originally Posted by redrage

If you are going to shoot nature,wildlife etc, canon would be the way to go with a wide array of lenses and the primes are quite cheaper compared to the Nikon's.

This would be opening a can of worms

Lets not get into any Canon vs Nikon debate here. Both are good camera makers and both have fantastic lens support. Saying Canon is better with lenses (or the other way around) is as accurate as saying Mercedes is better than BMW.

And as a matter of fact Nikon is currently the largest DSLR maker.

Originally Posted by deetee

How does the 2.7MP/cm2 of D60 stand against D40's 1.6MP/cm2.
If D40 gets phased out , then between D60 and canon's 1000d ,which could be better?
I remember like D40, D60 too doesn't have DOF preview.

D60 is a 10MP & D40 is a 6MP. Megapixels are largely a myth unless you are into professional publishing,wants to crop a lot, or take very very large prints.

Canon 1000d is a very capable camera. My advise would be to take both cameras, hold them in your hand, take some snaps and see the result. Take the one you like. You cant just go wrong with either.

If you scroll to some of the previous posts Samurai mentions a basic checklist which you can fill to check which camera suits you better. Check that out and see what comes out

[redrage]

Originally Posted by SkyWalker

This would be opening a can of worms

Lets not get into any Canon vs Nikon debate here. Both are good camera makers and both have fantastic lens support. Saying Canon is better with lenses (or the other way around) is as accurate as saying Mercedes is better than BMW.

And as a matter of fact Nikon is currently the largest DSLR maker.

I dint get into a debate skywalker, I never said anything being"better", I gave "my" opinion and never generalized, As wildlife seems to be picking up quickly with fellow bhpian's i said with a matter of fact the for a person investing in a DSLR's what he would be looking to shoot, No doubt both are good. As i said it just depends on the combination of body and lens the user is looking for! For wildlife i feel that lens for price is reasonably less in Primes and some extent the medium telephoto as well. Where did i ever say "one is better".

Nikon definitely is but again the sales tell a differnt story. So lets not get into that debate as i am not putting down any manufacturer and just gave an opinion.

Edit: D40 is a brilliant cam for the price and if someone is on a tight budget and would have a lot of time to explore, this is a great buy. If you find some limitations of the features like to autofocus on most lenses (lens need to be af-s),live view, burst shooting than canon 1000D would be a sensible buy.

[reignofchaos]

I'd not buy either a D40 or a D60. Its a very very limited camera. The AF system sucks. It can't autofocus 80% of the lenses that exist in the Nikon range. So if the only lens you are gonna buy is the kit lens and a few more digital only lenses, its okay. However a camera that can't autofocus a 50mm prime is a write off in my book. To add to that the ISO performance of the Nikon low end compared to canon is absolutely pathetic.

Nikon only gets interesting from the D80 onwards. D40/D40x/D60 are merely toys.

[given2fly]

Just what I was about to write. Thanks, RoC!

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

I'd not buy either a D40 or a D60. Its a very very limited camera. The AF system sucks. It can't autofocus 80% of the lenses that exist in the Nikon range. So if the only lens you are gonna buy is the kit lens and a few more digital only lenses, its okay. However a camera that can't autofocus a 50mm prime is a write off in my book. To add to that the ISO performance of the Nikon low end compared to canon is absolutely pathetic.

Nikon only gets interesting from the D80 onwards. D40/D40x/D60 are merely toys.

[SkyWalker]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

I'd not buy either a D40 or a D60. Its a very very limited camera. The AF system sucks. It can't autofocus 80% of the lenses that exist in the Nikon range. So if the only lens you are gonna buy is the kit lens and a few more digital only lenses, its okay. However a camera that can't autofocus a 50mm prime is a write off in my book. To add to that the ISO performance of the Nikon low end compared to canon is absolutely pathetic.

Nikon only gets interesting from the D80 onwards. D40/D40x/D60 are merely toys.

While i agree D40/60 has limitations - but i do think its brilliant value for the money. ISO works pretty well up to 800 and even 1600 under bright circumstances. It's a 2006 model and you should not compare it with latest canons - for that there's D90.

And as for not working on prime's and some older lenses - let me say - anyone who ever plans to pick up a prime lens are definitely better off with D80 upwards. Most newer lenses have a motor so they wont be affected.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by SkyWalker

While i agree D40/60 has limitations - but i do think its brilliant value for the money. ISO works pretty well up to 800 and even 1600 under bright circumstances. It's a 2006 model and you should not compare it with latest canons - for that there's D90.

And as for not working on prime's and some older lenses - let me say - anyone who ever plans to pick up a prime lens are definitely better off with D80 upwards. Most newer lenses have a motor so they wont be affected.

Well you should check the high ISO capabilities of the canons in a similar price range. Even a Canon 350D which is a late 2005/early 2006 camera hands both the D40 and D60 its rear end at ISO 800. I'm not comparing it to any new canons.

Its not just older lenses - any full frame lens - which essentially means most of the better lenses can't be autofocussed.

[tsk1979]

Older canons like 350D are actually better than the newer ones when it comes to high ISO

[jkdas]

Originally Posted by deetee

How does the 2.7MP/cm2 of D60 stand against D40's 1.6MP/cm2.
If D40 gets phased out , then between D60 and canon's 1000d ,which could be better?
I remember like D40, D60 too doesn't have DOF preview.

Dont think this would happen any time soon. Even 40x didnt kill it

[deetee]

Well, took a few quick rounds of local camera stores to have a feel of D40 and 1000 D. Being evening , vendors are very busy, so I managed to fiddle with D40 only.
Grey market price now is 19.5K ; no idea about b/w.
Didn't get to see 1000 D.
Meanwhile I bought a tripod VELBON CX-480 fluid head for my night shots.
Though I don't knew anything about fluid heads, I got sold for fit and finish of it.
Moreover it seemed to pan smoothly as well.
After coming home when i searched for it ,I learned that fluid heads are meant for Video cameras specifically; so is that going to be some disadvantage for still cameras?
velbon website:
Velbon Tripods

[deetee]

Hmm..here is an 8 sec shot putting my tripod into action:
btw time then was 00.30 am.