PDA

View Full Version : d40 vs d40x vs d80



crum
09-30-2007, 01:52 PM
am considering buying a digicam. having previously played with compacts, i would am exploring the idea of moving up to dslr. what i was wondering was, would i necessarily get better picture quality with a dslr compared to a compact straight from box? (while i hone my skills)

i would like a simple model but no to the point where i might outgrow it quite rapidly and require a more advance body there by wasting $$$ when i could spend a lil more and keep it longer. this is the reason i am cautious at picking up the d40/x and also the limited number of afs lens in their range (for af).

i read that there is negligible point getting the d40x over the d40 for the megapixels, therefore i was wondering if this applies to the d80? would it be a better choice in terms of output (obviously comparing like for like in terms of lens etc).

which brings me to the point which lens to pair it up with? i would have preferred to get an all-in-one as i am a beginner and to keep costs reasonable at the mo but not at the expense of picture quality. there are the main culprits to look at, after many reviews, 18-70, 18-135 and 18-200vr seem to have advantages and disadvantages. i am a lil a put off by sharpness/vignetting/chromatic abberration/geomtric issues etc. i was wondering do these problems also occur in compacts? would it be more advantageous to obtain the range over 2 lens to improve IQ as i was considering getting the 55-200vr as it seems kinda cheap.....or is it a case of you get wat yo pay for? i know that reviews on lens tend to push them to the limits so i was wondering would it be obvious to beginners of their image limitations?

is there likely to be a successsor for the d80 in the near future and push prices down or a better value model to come into the line-up??

sorry for the long post, but i dun wan to make a big mistake....

thx

Gintaras
09-30-2007, 02:59 PM
i am not Nikonian but hope others do not mind.

before buying my camera i researched for long time and read all possible reviews, touched cameras in different shops, tested... etc.

IMO either D40 D40x or D80 will not disappoint you and apart from prime lenses i am not sure you will miss much if you stick with D40/D40x...

however if you believe you will grow rapidly into DSLR and you do not mind ponying a bit more money then D80 + 18-70 kit can be a nice combo. i was actually considering D80 before i went Canon.

Nikon might replace D80 with D90 in not distant future i guess, but i am not sure you will lack much if you jump to D80 today and i am sure D80 will manage things for you... but this is up to you to decide if wait or not for D90.

for lenses you must ask Nikonians. i just have heard 18-200VR is good all rounder but not stellar. of kit lenses i heard people like 18-70 more than 18-55.
check www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html which has really good testing of lenses for Nikon and Canon. also see other lens links in my signature.

HOWEVER i can tell you many trash XTi 18-55 kit lens and many say XTi kit lens is worse than Nikon but... you can check out Canon thread for my kit lens photos and see this can take nice images too no matter common mistreatment this little lens usually receives. :D

e_dawg
09-30-2007, 03:03 PM
would i necessarily get better picture quality with a dslr compared to a compact straight from box? (while i hone my skills)

Yes, especially with flash / indoor pics in low-light and sports/action.


i read that there is negligible point getting the d40x over the d40 for the megapixels,

That's not true, because if you need the extra megapixels for cropping/enlarging, you will appreciate it. Similarly, the D40x has a bit more dynamic range than the D40. But not everyone needs those things, and with the difference in price going from a D40 to a D40x, you're half way to a D80 by now.


therefore i was wondering if this applies to the d80? would it be a better choice in terms of output (obviously comparing like for like in terms of lens etc).

The output wouldn't be any better. In fact, some tests have shown the D40x to have slightly greater dynamic range than the D80 due to the newer design. The difference will be in the greater lens options and features like advanced flash commander functions, bracketing, more direct controls, larger viewfinder, better grip (better balance and easier to grip with bigger lenses), and 11-point AF module.


which brings me to the point which lens to pair it up with?

It depends if you really want a single-lens only solution for travel, etc. or if you don't mind carrying 2-3 lenses with you. If it's the former, your only choice is basically an 18-200/VR. If it's the latter, you have many choices, at least with the D80.


is there likely to be a successsor for the d80 in the near future and push prices down or a better value model to come into the line-up??

Yes, by spring 2008, Nikon will probably launch the D90, the successor to the D80. I'm betting on a 12 MP CMOS sensor with 12-bit A/D conversion, 11-point AF sensor, EXPEED IP with active D-lighting & scene recognition, and the 3" LCD screen. Don't think it will have Live View in there at this point unless we hear that Canon will put it into the next Rebel.

fionndruinne
09-30-2007, 03:15 PM
I'm thinking your decision should be over the D40 or D80, for the D40x is, as you hinted at, just a D40 with D80 megapixels, which just ain't worth a couple hundred dollars more.

If you want a walkaround lens, rather than a prime, I don't see you being affected too much by D40 limitations. The 18-70mm and 18-135mm kit lenses are both AF-S, I believe, and so is the famed 18-200mm VR. These are all alright - not super, but hey, super lenses cost a lot more than these do (in the case of the 18-200mm, it's pretty much impossible to get a stellar lens with this broad a zoom range, in one package, which is why a two-lens solution, while more complicated, will yield better results - if they're good lenses that is).

The D40 is a great tool to learn with, as well as a darn good performer in a small package. If you're soon to go more serious, though, you may find it has a few limitations, such as lack of automatic exposure bracketing (coveted by those who take HDR images, and sometimes handy in other situations as well). As well, there is only one affordable low-light prime available right now, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (a very low-light lens, and actually a pretty good deal at $400).

The D80 is a bigger, badder version of camera, with the same excellent menu and help system as the D40, so it's good for learning with as well. Plus you have the option of older Nikkor lenses (some very good, some not so much), like the famous 50mm f/1.8 prime (ridiculously cheap) autofocusing for you. They're both great choices, really. Just evaluate which is more in line with what you want to do.

Tony_V
09-30-2007, 03:32 PM
In my opinion the bottom line when picking between a D40x or the D80 would be the features you would use VS the cost. You are the only one that can make that decision. However, when comparing if you find yourself saying "I probably wouldn't use that" at some point you probably could. It's hard to guess what you might use once you get something but I can say from my experience that I purchased the D80 and sometimes wish it was a D200. You should read this thread: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34305
The D40x may actually give better performance in some situations especially if you come from point and shoot.

I disagree about the pixel difference between the D40 and the D40x. If nothing else the extra pixel depth gives you added flexibility for cropping and enlarging.

The D80 will give you greater flexibility with lens selection but AF-S lenses are the future and unless you have a need for a specific older lens I wouldn't hold this against the D40x.

As far as lenses; it again depends on cost VS benefit. The 18-55 paired with a 55-200 VR is a nice combo. But an 18-200 VR is a great one size fits all at a higher price. For my money the combo is the way to go. If you get a D80 kit with the 18-135 you might want to consider the 70-300 VR. Of course the cost just went up too...

Will the D80 be replaced? Absolutely, but if you wait for its replacement you might find yourself waiting for the D40x's replacement after that.

Either way, I will be looking forward to your posts on the picture of the day thread.

Hope that helped.
Tony

XaiLo
09-30-2007, 04:02 PM
Hi Crum,

And welcome to dcresource, don't worry about the long post, you've have made it really easy to answer your question. No one can tell you how quickly the limitations of any camera will effect you. That really depends on how, what, and where and conditions. I'd suggest getting the D80 to hedge your bet. It will allow you to expand in any direction you want to go in. Though ... Lenses are not a big issue when considering the D40 unless you have a specific desire or need for an affordable prime lens (50-mm 1.4) and or a 85mm. If money is not a consideration then get the D80. The D40/x has plenty of good lens options. As has already been suggested take them for a test drive Image IQ wise none of them will leave you wanting especially in this price range.

Gintaras I don't mind but...

I sense a CR2 in the force, or did I just misread the OPs options (d40 vs d40x vs d80) I thought those were all Nikon Cameras???

SpecialK
09-30-2007, 08:50 PM
Of the three bodies you mention, I would choose the D80. The 18-135 that frequently comes with it would cover most of your basic needs, though it is (I read) only average in performance at some focal lengths. However, you can always sell it and salvage some investment, when you determine what the optimal lens is for you.

Rooz
09-30-2007, 09:13 PM
i'd go for a d40 over a d80 and buy better glass. once you learn dslr well enuf and feel the need to upgrade then you can pick up a "d90" or even a d300 down the road when their prices come down a little.

the d40 is half the cost...thats $500. you can by a very good lens for that money and then transfer your lens to your new body in 12-18mnths.

if i had my time again thats exactly what i'd do.

jcon
09-30-2007, 11:23 PM
I would eliminate the D40X from the equation. I have mentioned in other threads here that it really doesnt have any point in the market. Its a D40 with extra pixels.

Pick between the D40 and the D80 and forget the D40X... ofcourse.. jsut my own personal suggestion.;)

BTW... I agree with X's last comment in his post.;)

crum
10-01-2007, 02:42 AM
thx guys :-)


before buying my camera i researched for long time and read all possible reviews, touched cameras in different shops, tested... etc.

have and feel the nikons to be more comfortable and sturdy, not to say other brands are not but it just feels right holding it.


Nikon might replace D80 with D90 in not distant future i guess, but i am not sure you will lack much if you jump to D80 today and i am sure D80 will manage things for you... but this is up to you to decide if wait or not for D90.

wouldn't have thought that the replacement will provide additional must have features for me but if a extra month of waiting say, i could get a discount cuz of the knock on effect, it ain't a big sacrifice waiting but i dun wan to be on the waiting game forever....


That's not true, because if you need the extra megapixels for cropping/enlarging, you will appreciate it.

i thought that. would xtra pixels be an cheap/alternative way of gaining a lil zoom? if so, wat kinda crop will result in iq loss?


But not everyone needs those things, and with the difference in price going from a D40 to a D40x, you're half way to a D80 by now.

exactly my sentiments....was wondering if it was better to budget for better range (-200mm @ 35mm) with the d40 or stick with the d80 and either 70/135mm


The difference will be in the greater lens options and features like advanced flash commander functions, bracketing, more direct controls, larger viewfinder, better grip (better balance and easier to grip with bigger lenses), and 11-point AF module.

lens support is obviously an issue as that is a big part of IQ. bracketing is something that i like using. the viewfinder just seems much nicer to see thru (than the d40/x)


It depends if you really want a single-lens only solution for travel, etc. or if you don't mind carrying 2-3 lenses with you. If it's the former, your only choice is basically an 18-200/VR. If it's the latter, you have many choices, at least with the D80.

ideally i would prefer single solution as that reduces contamination to the sensor and wear to the mount by constantly changing. however i would rather split in 2 lens if IQ would be affected. last thing i wan is to spend $$$ and be disappointed.


Yes, by spring 2008, Nikon will probably launch the D90, the successor to the D80. I'm betting on a 12 MP CMOS sensor with 12-bit A/D conversion, 11-point AF sensor, EXPEED IP with active D-lighting & scene recognition, and the 3" LCD screen. Don't think it will have Live View in there at this point unless we hear that Canon will put it into the next Rebel.

more pixels on aps-c size sensor??? more noise??? any particular reason why dslr aren't fan of live view?


These are all alright - not super, but hey, super lenses cost a lot more than these do (in the case of the 18-200mm, it's pretty much impossible to get a stellar lens with this broad a zoom range, in one package, which is why a two-lens solution, while more complicated, will yield better results - if they're good lenses that is).

i know...you get wat you pay for......but will i notice their limitations thru the range in day to day use?


The 18-55 paired with a 55-200 VR is a nice combo. But an 18-200 VR is a great one size fits all at a higher price. For my money the combo is the way to go. If you get a D80 kit with the 18-135 you might want to consider the 70-300 VR. Of course the cost just went up too...

like the 18-55 from reviews, not fantasic but does a reasonable job but a lil put off by the range as i might end up having to swap between wide a tele a lil to often if i need to go beyond 55. the 55-200 seems like a nice solution but it is reviewed as budget and light along with both being plastic and prolly not good to keep changing? dun think i need to go to 300mmm......not yet anyway

btw love "If the results don't agree with the theory, believe the results and invent a new theory..."


No one can tell you how quickly the limitations of any camera will effect you. That really depends on how, what, and where and conditions.

yah i understand but i thought feedback from ppl's experience would help in the decision.


I'd suggest getting the D80 to hedge your bet.

thought so too, a bit more now could save me a rather sooner than later...


As has already been suggested take them for a test drive Image IQ wise none of them will leave you wanting especially in this price range.

i am concerned about IQ and geometric distortion as i think that will be the most obvious issue....but for a high end compact would they suffer from distortion/abberration etc?


The 18-135 that frequently comes with it would cover most of your basic needs, though it is (I read) only average in performance at some focal lengths.

yah i heard that too, tho the range seems reasonable IQ seems to be sacrificed as a result


i'd go for a d40 over a d80 and buy better glass. once you learn dslr well enuf and feel the need to upgrade then you can pick up a "d90" or even a d300 down the road when their prices come down a little.

not particularly keen on chopping and changing as usually means $$$, though i suppose adding more glass to cater for different situation would be ok.


I would eliminate the D40X from the equation. I have mentioned in other threads here that it really doesnt have any point in the market. Its a D40 with extra pixels.

most ppls views have confirmed my suspicions abt the x not really worthy option in terms of value to d40/80.

Gintaras
10-01-2007, 02:48 AM
Gintaras I don't mind but...

I sense a CR2 in the force, or did I just misread the OPs options (d40 vs d40x vs d80) I thought those were all Nikon Cameras???

X, i remember how much time i spent reading and testing when selecting my DSLR and still i cannot say if my choice was perfect (go imagine i get 30D instead?). mind you but i think the one who went through the process of picking his first DSLR is welcome to share his experience and findings. i know how this is difficult and just wanted to offer some help.

and D40 or D80 is really not trivial Q. if me i would pick D40 probably because as you grow in the newer models also hit the shelves while D40 can become a nice back up camera in case you upgrade to more serious gear. i just cannot see D80 being back up if only for D3.

NB: look, if the issue to be able to post here is all about having Nikon then i may get D40, especially when prices on this are falling right now.:p:p:p

Rooz
10-01-2007, 03:22 AM
not particularly keen on chopping and changing as usually means $$$, though i suppose adding more glass to cater for different situation would be ok.

lol trust me at some point you will be changing. a dslr's lifespan appears to be around 2-3 years. whether thats due to shutter life or consumer tendancy to upgrade far more than old film days. glass on the other hand should last you 10 times that long.

what you need to decide is what features are important to you. if the d80's extra features are things that you feel you need then by all means go for the d80. without knowing what your budget is though...$500 is $500. if you can afford it great, its certainly a more complete dslr. if funds are limited though, invest in glass over body.

crum
10-01-2007, 03:44 AM
lol trust me at some point you will be changing. a dslr's lifespan appears to be around 2-3 years. whether thats due to shutter life or consumer tendancy to upgrade far more than old film days. glass on the other hand should last you 10 times that long.

what you need to decide is what features are important to you. if the d80's extra features are things that you feel you need then by all means go for the d80. without knowing what your budget is though...$500 is $500. if you can afford it great, its certainly a more complete dslr. if funds are limited though, invest in glass over body.


upgrades are not always necessary if the product still serves it purpose but companies dun make money that way or they have to overprice to account for low sales......

budget is ideally below 700

personally i feel that the functions cater more my current and likely needs for the forseeable future but then i think that glass is more important so i guess i could sacrifce some functionality for better IQ. I dun need ott IQ but enough for me to look a see this is great and better than any equivelent compact shot.

K1W1
10-01-2007, 03:51 AM
Sorry in advance for the O/T reply.

I really hate it when I see these "I'm new, should I buy A or B or C?" threads on forums (that's any forum not just cameras).
All that tends to happen is that personal prejudices get expressed arguments ensue and often the original poster is left with 20 or 30 completely conflicting and contradictory replies.
I grew up in a place an and age where adult humans took responsibility for their own decisions and made those decisions usually after evaluating things for themselves rather than relying on the advice of complete strangers who may or may not have any real expertise anyway. I understand that the Internet was not available in earlier times but to me I use the factual parts (reviews, tech information) rather than the subjective parts (threads like this) for helping me decide on things.

Rant over and I suggest that if people want to reply, criticise or comment a new thread would be a good place.

I'm going back to motorcycle forums now. :)

Gintaras
10-01-2007, 05:26 AM
kIwI, come on, how else do you come to the conclusion and be self responsible? or you like selecting blind and then blame yourself out of masochistic feeling?:p

and how else you know about first hand experience? renting cam? ok, but it costs... testing in shop? come on, this is just a joke... then asking a sales man? i met plenty sales at shops whose IQ was little better than of a chimp... and i could tell them much more about the gear they were selling. so what's use of them besides willing to take a wrong advice?

i find it wise when someone willing DSLR goes to reviews, gathers info, asks others who USE that gear, weights pros and cons and THEN takes RESPONSIBLE decision. i also heard cries from those quick jumpers who bought L lenses and later complained about quality. SOOOO it pays off to ask others a question.

K1W1
10-01-2007, 06:38 AM
A person who does not even own any of the cameras in question replying not once but three times in a thread, offering no relevant comments and probably just confusing the OP.
Thanks for proving my point.

crum
10-01-2007, 08:32 AM
isn't a msg board to discuss personal opinion and experience in a mature manner? is there anything wrong in making use of information from other ppl which i might not have known?

if you have a better way of exploring all the choices out there can you care to share? u can only do so much in the shop and unless you know someone who can lend you, you gotta take the plunge and buy before you know if it is any good.

tcadwall
10-01-2007, 09:02 AM
Well, I find that these topics are quite useful. The OP must not be lazy. The op must do separate research, but hands-on users' experience is a good thing to understand and credible reviews don't cover opinions too often. Everyone uses a camera differently, and most of us WILL or have upgraded our camera bodies. I believe in the theory of purchasing for the future to an extent. I am not typically one of the people in the "early adopters" category, but I am not a person that very often settles for the cheapest solution either.

I have never been a fan of the D40. I had my D70s and Nikkor 18-200mm before the D40 (or even the D80) was announced. As a newbie in the DSLR world, and never owning a film SLR, I still recognized the usefulness of the dual dials for exposure. The D50 at the time, and D40 now are lacking that feature. If you can recognize the features of the D80 over the D40 you might want to consider how easy it is to utilize the capability of the cameras. On top of the fact that you do have more options regarding prime lenses (which you very likely will need), and you do have more options on great alternative used optics that you could purchase that won't AUTO-focus on the D40 body, the flexibility of the D80 is better than the D40 when it comes to quickly dialing in the exposure, you have more autofocus points which will come in handy especially when framing something in portrait mode, and you will have more capabilities with off-camera flash control, etc....

If you like to get the most out of your gear, and aren't simply looking for a "better quality but just as easy to use" alternative for a point and shoot then go with the D80. The D40x in my opinion is a higher res option for a D40 and can be useful for cropping as mentioned. If you aren't cropping and you aren't printing larger than a poster (which most of us dont) then you don't need the D40x. But you can crop a lot with a D40 and still print a 5x7. You can even crop a decent amount and still print a good 8x10.

e_dawg
10-01-2007, 11:09 AM
i thought that. would xtra pixels be an cheap/alternative way of gaining a lil zoom? if so, wat kinda crop will result in iq loss?

You can crop 30% more from a 10 MP image vs a 6 MP image to get to the same end resolution.


exactly my sentiments....was wondering if it was better to budget for better range (-200mm @ 35mm) with the d40 or stick with the d80 and either 70/135mm

It really depends on what you think you need. I started off thinking I would only ever need 6 MP and that my 18-200/VR lens would give me all the range I needed. Now, i realize that I need 10-12 MP for better cropping and bought a 70-300/VR and a 10-20 to get extra reach at both ends of the range. You'll figure it out after shooting for a year.


ideally i would prefer single solution as that reduces contamination to the sensor and wear to the mount by constantly changing. however i would rather split in 2 lens if IQ would be affected. last thing i wan is to spend $$$ and be disappointed.

I wouldn't worry about sensor contamination and wear to the mount; it's more about convenience IMO. If you can go with 2 lenses, go with 2 lenses. But sometimes you need an all-in-one.

For example, I took the 10-20 and 70-300/VR lenses on vacation to NYC so I could use the 10-20 for cityscapes and the 70-300 at the US Open. But usually, when I go out on the town for social events, I have to use the 18-200 or 18-55 only because it's just not practical to carry around all these lenses and keep switching them.


more pixels on aps-c size sensor??? more noise??? any particular reason why dslr aren't fan of live view?

The new 12 MP cameras are fine wrt noise. They have their A/D converters on-chip, which is one technique for reducing noise.

Live view is difficult and costly to implement because you cannot use the typical phase detection AF with the mirror up, as is required for live view. They have to get around this by using a secondary contrast detection AF system, which is not as fast or reliable as phase detection.

Gintaras
10-01-2007, 12:25 PM
i got ejected? ok ok ok, do not cross my property line??? :p
PS: what CRP stands for?

erichlund
10-01-2007, 12:56 PM
Let me weigh in on a couple of things. No D90 has been announced, and Nikon generally announces new cameras about 6 months before they hit the shelves. D90 doesn't even hold the status of vaporware yet. So, back to D40, D40x and D80.

The D40 is the cheapest, but also has the fewest capabilities. However, it has very good image quality, partially because there's only 6mp on that APS-C sensor.

The D40x is Nikon's reaction to the market demanding more megapixels, but considering cost, doesn't make much sense against the much more capable D80.

The D80 gives you the ability to use all Nikon's autofocus lenses as AF lenses. You can use them on the D40(x), but you will have to manually focus lenses that are not AF-S. It has quite a few other advantages aimed toward more advanced useability, so if you are planning on using those features, it may be a better choice.

Bottom line, ignore cameras that don't currently exist. The D3 and D300 are not yet available, but they soon will be. However, they are well outside your stated budget. Nothing else exists on the horizon. So, what it comes down to is what you want the camera to do. If you are satisfied with a simple camera that works best with AF-S lenses, then maybe the D40 will give you a better starting lens kit. OTOH, if you want to have front and rear command dials (trust me, I strongly prefer this), and more functionality to grow into, and a wider lens selection that works to full capability, then the D80 makes more sense, even it it's a bit tight on your budget.

As far as a starting lens kit, the 18-55 and 55-200VR is good for either camera. The 18-70 and 70-300VR is an upgrade.

The 18-200VR is a nice walk around lens, but since I've moved up to the 17-55dx and 70-300VR, I haven't had much use for it. Of course the 17-55 is a constant f2.8, pro quality lens, so perhaps that's understantable.

I have no real opinion of the 18-135, since I've not used and it doesn't mesh well with your other choices. However, if you decide to get the D80, and can only get one lens, it might be a better choice, since it gives more range than the 18-70.

XaiLo
10-01-2007, 12:58 PM
A person who does not even own any of the cameras in question replying not once but three times in a thread, offering no relevant comments and probably just confusing the OP.
Thanks for proving my point.

That's funny. lol but true!

In leiu of experience, we are left having to make educated guesses and then we still tend to make mistakes. In short, there is no substitute for experience. We live in a world where everything falls short of ideal, except for the toy company. lol While we may gleam semi-meaningful tidbits from the experiences of others, they are still that, "someone else's experience". There's a thing called "life" and it's best enjoyed one day at a time. everybody have a great day. :)

fionndruinne
10-01-2007, 04:12 PM
Some of the objections popping up here have been a little silly. Guys, if you don't like these kinds of threads, then don't read them or reply to them. It's still an important part of the research process leading up to an expensive purchase like this. The OP has read up, and handled cameras in the store as well.

Personally I'm quite fond of the idea of two Nikon bodies, a small D40 and a big-gun D300, sometimes in the future when I can afford the like. Quality in-lens-focus-motor glass will function just as well on either, and there are plenty of options out there.

As to needing prime lenses like tcadwall mentioned... that's not really true per se. Maybe the OP will need a prime or two, but with the affordable large-aperture zooms out there, primes are becoming less practical unless you absolutely need them.

And e_dawg, I disagree with the concept that cropping a 10MP image by 30% will end up with the same IQ as a 6MP image. It's not that simple! Cropping the 10MP image will accentuate any imperfections like motion blur, CA's and such, and will not be as clear as the 6MP image because it's the same size capture area, receiving the same picture from the lens, just being blown up larger in the 10MP image. That results in less IQ. Better zoom lenses are always better than cropping more MP.

Crum, I know it sounds a lot easier and smarter to use a walkaround lens than to change lenses, but I think once you get used to it, you'll find that the better image quality is worth the hassle. And there are some really nice options out there. Like Sigma's 50-150mm f/2.8 for $600. Very inexpensive for a fast aperture zoom, and a lot more compact than the more common 70-200mm's. Obviously you can't use that focal range all the time; you'll just have to switch lenses for wider angle... but there's no "walkaround" solution for large aperture telephoto, and the bokeh and light-gathering capability is just priceless sometimes.

e_dawg
10-01-2007, 09:20 PM
And e_dawg, I disagree with the concept that cropping a 10MP image by 30% will end up with the same IQ as a 6MP image. It's not that simple! Cropping the 10MP image will accentuate any imperfections like motion blur, CA's and such, and will not be as clear as the 6MP image because it's the same size capture area, receiving the same picture from the lens, just being blown up larger in the 10MP image. That results in less IQ. Better zoom lenses are always better than cropping more MP.

True, cropping will show imperfections more clearly if significant ones exist. But 30% is not like you're pixel peeping here. You won't always be stuck with an image rife with imperfections just waiting to be revealed by cropping 30%. IQ is worst in the corners at the widest apertures, so if your subject is closer to the centre and you're shooting at a medium aperture, you should be okay. Also, CA, distortion, and a small amount of motion blur or misfocus can be corrected for in PP.

It may not always give you that extra 30% more crop with perfect clarity, but you won't always have the reach you need, or there's times when one doesn't compose properly... that's when those extra MPs come in handy. Maybe you can only crop 20-25% without a drop in quality? Hey, I'll still take it. Bottom line is that I'd rather have it in case I need it than rather not have it at all.

Why is extra resolution considered to be so useless... something you wouldn't pay extra for when people do this kind of thing all the time for other features or functionality. For example:

Why pay extra to have a fast 30 or 50 mm f/1.4 lens to use in low light, because the IQ at f/1.4 wouldn't be that great, especially in the corners?

Or what about ISO? Say for argument's sake that one of the features Nikon locked out of the D40 was the ability to shoot at 1600 ISO. 800 ISO tops. You have to pay extra to get 1600 ISO. But I supposed people would say "why would anyone pay extra for 1600 ISO because you usually get more noise and lower colour saturation anyways"?

Extra megapixels is like another feature or bit of functionality that helps you make your shots. It gives you more resolution when you want to print big. It gives you room to crop a bit more than if you didn't have enough MP. That's something I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for.

tcadwall
10-01-2007, 09:33 PM
Well fionnd...

Lots of good info from your perspective.

However, there are times when a prime is the best solution. And truthfully, in my experience, it is a great option to have. To not have that option would be seriously limiting to me. People get it in their heads that a prime is a pain, and that they are expensive. While I don't see myself shooting primes only, there are a ton of very good reasons to have one or two primes in your bag. For one, they are relatively small, generally have higher IQ, and generally are faster than a zoom lens that would cover the same range. Even the best zoom lens out there that covers the 50mm range doesn't beat the f/1.4 or f/1.8 speed that you get with one of the two very good Nikkor 50mm primes for instance. A f/2.8 for instance is one whole stop slower and will have a larger DOF (if Short focal plane is what you are going for in a shot for instance)

I also think that the 40x cropping thing is actually interesting to entertain. I could see where some might actually find that the results would suprise them if they really had to compare a print that was cropped from 10MP vs zoomed at 6MP.

I still think that for the price differences we are looking at from D40 - D40x - D80 the D40x really doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think that the D40x is ridiculously priced, I just don't think that there was much of a hole to fill between the D40 and D80. IMO - Nikon would have been better to add a D40x with the same 6MP but with a focus motor for $200 more. You KNOW that the dang little motor wouldn't cost them $200 to stick in there, and that puppy would sell like crazy. The would still sell D40 to people that are the "keeping the kit lens forever, don't need to spend $200 more". IMO though, they would have sold more cameras between the two models if they would have done it that way.

Gintaras
10-02-2007, 02:41 AM
Guys, sorry, will not post anymore. the reason for my postings before was that i researched D40 a lot for my wife and so i decided i have some knowledge on this.

Crum, here are links which can help you to choose:

Camera tests
http://www.imaging-resource.com/

http://www.dcviews.com/

http://www.dcresource.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/


Lenses tests
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Finding camera bag that fits (click your model and see left hand thread)
http://www.cambags.com/camera_mainpage.htm


Tutorials & other
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/

http://www.shortcourses.com/using/index.htm

http://www.spotmetering.com/spcrexti/xtitech.htm

http://www.photonhead.com/simcam/shutteraperture.php

crum
10-02-2007, 03:19 AM
The OP must not be lazy.

is that me? what deos OP mean?


The op must do separate research, but hands-on users' experience is a good thing to understand and credible reviews don't cover opinions too often.

just trying to make use of all sources of information to make a more informed choice.


If you can recognize the features of the D80 over the D40 you might want to consider how easy it is to utilize the capability of the cameras. On top of the fact that you do have more options regarding prime lenses (which you very likely will need), and you do have more options on great alternative used optics that you could purchase that won't AUTO-focus on the D40 body, the flexibility of the D80 is better than the D40 when it comes to quickly dialing in the exposure, you have more autofocus points which will come in handy especially when framing something in portrait mode, and you will have more capabilities with off-camera flash control, etc....

believe that short to middle-term the d80 is more ideal but i dun wan to sacrifice IQ especially as i am new to this and go OTT (with glass and ca$h)


As far as a starting lens kit, the 18-55 and 55-200VR is good for either camera.

i had considered the 18-55 & 55-200 but thought that the 18-200 would be better as there is VR over the full range and panning capabilities. reviews have mentioned that the two lens solutions are more budget and lower quality whereas the 18-200 is marked as more professional. having read contradictrary reviews about the range of kit lens, i am not sure if their deficiencies will materialise. more of a halfway solution now i think would be to get the 18-135 then as necessary get more wide and tele glass. this is meant to be very sharp but suffers from alot of geometric distortion, how prevelent would they be? would it be obvious if put on the tv?


Crum, I know it sounds a lot easier and smarter to use a walkaround lens than to change lenses, but I think once you get used to it, you'll find that the better image quality is worth the hassle. And there are some really nice options out there. Like Sigma's 50-150mm f/2.8 for $600.

how do third party lens compare to nikkor in real life? i know that sigma and tamron tend to be cheaper that nikkors but is there any IQ lost? pity they don't implement VR......


It may not always give you that extra 30% more crop with perfect clarity, but you won't always have the reach you need, or there's times when one doesn't compose properly... that's when those extra MPs come in handy. Maybe you can only crop 20-25% without a drop in quality? Hey, I'll still take it. Bottom line is that I'd rather have it in case I need it than rather not have it at all.

amen to that!


IMO - Nikon would have been better to add a D40x with the same 6MP but with a focus motor for $200 more. You KNOW that the dang little motor wouldn't cost them $200 to stick in there, and that puppy would sell like crazy. The would still sell D40 to people that are the "keeping the kit lens forever, don't need to spend $200 more".

motor wouldn't sell as well as pixels i guess and also they would have needed to rejig the case rather than put a new label on ;-)


Guys, sorry, will not post anymore. the reason for my postings before was that i researched D40 a lot for my wife and so i decided i have some knowledge on this.

this is a msgboard for ppl to share their opinions and experiences of cameras etc. as long as they aren't offensive or personal there shouldn't be a problem. thx for the links, been to some but will look at th others.

e dawg: how does the 18-55 compare with the 18-200VR over the same range? fionndruinne mentionned the sigma 50-150/2.8, much difference to the 18-200VR over the relavent range? also at fully wide with the 50-150/2.8, is there any IQ diff to the prime 50/2.8?

Rooz
10-02-2007, 03:30 AM
e dawg: how does the 18-55 compare with the 18-200VR over the same range? fionndruinne mentionned the sigma 50-150/2.8, much difference to the 18-200VR over the relavent range? also at fully wide with the 50-150/2.8, is there any IQ diff to the prime 50/2.8?

all those lens are here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Jason25
10-02-2007, 05:57 AM
I'm going to suggest the D80 for the simple reason that I see a LOT of D40/D40x cameras up for sale, with the owner saying they want to upgrade after only a couple months or so.

Personal reasons (feel free to ignore): The inability to AF with non AF-S lenses is a killer in my book. Two command dials is a huge deal on a Nikon body, in my opinion. I also use CLS frequently. There are other reasons, but they go into why I bought the D200 over the D80, which is not part of this discussion.

crum
10-02-2007, 08:05 AM
thx jason.

think i'll get the d80.

just which lens now.....18-55 lacks range but IQ is meant to be reasonable tho plasticky/not sturdy. next up is 18-70 which is more expensive and more solid but no real difference in range, but it is faster. lastly the 18-135 which is more flexible but suffers distortion but almost identical in price to the 18-70. in real world pics, how noticeable is the distortion of the 18-135?

tcadwall
10-02-2007, 08:11 AM
Hope you didn't mis-read me. I was implying that there is value to discussing user experience as long as it is in addition to further research by the OP (original poster).

The 18-200mm is not "professional" but it handles better than the two lens combination that you are looking at, and also means that you don't have to be switching lenses to cover the same focal lengths. One of the bigger handling benefits to the 18-200mm VR is that it does have an automatic focus override. This means that while everything is in AutoFocus mode, you can still grab the focus ring and override the focus point. As soon as you move the focus ring the autofocus disables until you let your finger off the shutter. The two lens combination will need to be switched to manual focus to change this. Another thing, is that VR is better on the 18-200mm it has the active / normal switch in addition to just on/off.

However, as mentioned you do pay quite a premium for the lens. It still is a great deal when you consider what it does. Comparing it to the 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 is comparing a $700ish lens to almost $3k worth of lenses. Of course it doesn't perform like that pair would.

Another important thing to think about, is that if you do get the 18-200mm and realize later that 90% of your shooting is in one range or the other and you want to sell off your lens, it will sell easily, and quickly, and possibly close to the same price you paid for it, since it still isn't the easiest lens to find in stock. Used demand is still pretty high.

Jason25
10-02-2007, 09:01 AM
thx jason.

think i'll get the d80.

just which lens now.....18-55 lacks range but IQ is meant to be reasonable tho plasticky/not sturdy. next up is 18-70 which is more expensive and more solid but no real difference in range, but it is faster. lastly the 18-135 which is more flexible but suffers distortion but almost identical in price to the 18-70. in real world pics, how noticeable is the distortion of the 18-135?

For what it's worth, I LOVE my 18-70 DX, and have had a difficult time choosing its replacement. In the end, I think the only thing I'll replace it with is the 17-55 DX.

erichlund
10-02-2007, 10:33 AM
thx jason.

think i'll get the d80.

just which lens now.....18-55 lacks range but IQ is meant to be reasonable tho plasticky/not sturdy. next up is 18-70 which is more expensive and more solid but no real difference in range, but it is faster. lastly the 18-135 which is more flexible but suffers distortion but almost identical in price to the 18-70. in real world pics, how noticeable is the distortion of the 18-135?

I'm not too familiar with the 18-135, so let me use the 18-200 as an example. It has significant barrel distortion at 18mm. Doors look like they belong on a Hobbit hole. However, if you are not shooting architecture, or other subjects with strong vertical lines, you may not notice the distortion at all. Also, you can correct a good deal of it in post processing. By 24mm the distortion is gone.

truflip
10-02-2007, 11:41 AM
i'd go for a d40 over a d80 and buy better glass. once you learn dslr well enuf and feel the need to upgrade then you can pick up a "d90" or even a d300 down the road when their prices come down a little.

the d40 is half the cost...thats $500. you can by a very good lens for that money and then transfer your lens to your new body in 12-18mnths.

if i had my time again thats exactly what i'd do.

Thanks! I am following your advice ;)

Tony_V
10-02-2007, 12:41 PM
thx jason.

think i'll get the d80.

just which lens now.....18-55 lacks range but IQ is meant to be reasonable tho plasticky/not sturdy. next up is 18-70 which is more expensive and more solid but no real difference in range, but it is faster. lastly the 18-135 which is more flexible but suffers distortion but almost identical in price to the 18-70. in real world pics, how noticeable is the distortion of the 18-135?

I have the 18-135 kit lens. Overall I am happy with it. It is not a pro-grade lens but it feels better than the 18-55 to me. I rarely use it at 18mm where most of the distortion would be. Check out this link:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18135_3556/index.htm

Tony

fionndruinne
10-02-2007, 01:36 PM
Personal reasons (feel free to ignore): The inability to AF with non AF-S lenses is a killer in my book. Two command dials is a huge deal on a Nikon body, in my opinion. I also use CLS frequently. There are other reasons, but they go into why I bought the D200 over the D80, which is not part of this discussion.

While I agree that two command dials would be nice to have, I think some folks don't realize that the D40 command dial works for both aperture and shutter speed, with the addition of the EV+/- button. In Aperture Priority mode, the dial changes aperture, while holding down the EV button + using the dial changes shutter speed (actually it changes the EV in +/- 1/3 increments, but since it only varies shutter speed, it's pretty much the same thing). In Manual mode, dial changes shutter speed, while EV button + dial changes aperture. It's pretty simple, and when the only added thing you have to do is hold down a button next to the shutter release, I don't find it worth quibbling over.

Crum, a Sigma lens is not going to be as good as a pro Nikkor. But look at the price point - they're often a third of the cost. A high-quality Sigma EX (like the 18-50mm f/2.8 or the 50-150mm f/2.8) will significantly outperform the Nikkor kit lenses you're looking at, and the 18-200mm. In my opinion, the flexibility of a f/2.8 lens is worth it in itself, because it will allow you that narrow depth-of-field effect that blurs the background, allowing your subject to stand out and draw the eye. It's highly worth having!

And considering you could apprehend one of those f/2.8 lenses plus a D40 with 18-55mm kit lens for the price of a D80 + kit lens, I think it's definitely worth it. But, as you said, you like to use auto exposure bracketing (I think I recall that right?), which is a point in the D80's favor.

e_dawg
10-03-2007, 11:49 AM
e dawg: how does the 18-55 compare with the 18-200VR over the same range? fionndruinne mentionned the sigma 50-150/2.8, much difference to the 18-200VR over the relavent range? also at fully wide with the 50-150/2.8, is there any IQ diff to the prime 50/2.8?

Over the same range, the 18-55 in general has a bit lower contrast. Not sharpness, but contrast. The 18-55 is actually pretty sharp once you stop it down a bit from 18-40 mm.

The 50-150/2.8 is generally a bit sharper and more contrasty than the 18-200 over the same range. Both get softer at their long ends. The 50-150 starts getting a bit soft above 120, and the 18-200 starts getting a bit soft above 135.

Wide-open, the 50-150/2.8 is similar to the 50/2.8 wide-open -- good, but not great. A bit blurry in the corners, but barely noticeable unless you blow it up.

The 50-150 is actually very good overall except for a bit of softness wide open at the long end. And it's a bit big and heavy if you're used to the kit lens, for example. Something like 800 grams and 5.5" long. I think of it as a 50-120/2.8 or a 50-150/2.8-4

Jalva22
10-03-2007, 05:43 PM
Just to let the OP know, I've been researching and battling the D40 v D80 v 30D/40D for some months now. I finally decided on the D80 (mainly due to the Nikon flash system as all else seemed roughly the same between the brands). I'm at the point now of deciding what lens to go with it. I've pretty well decided on the 18-70 which can be had used or refurbished in the $250 range. So, if that's an option for the OP, I thought it would be helpful if some of you chimed in on how you would feel about buying an 18-70 from BH graded as 9 or 9+ or buying from keh graded as LN-. It would definitely help me, and thought it might be helpful for the OP as well.

e_dawg
10-03-2007, 09:37 PM
Not a big fan of the 18-70. Could be sharper. Not the best wide open either. Competition seems to be as good or better optically for less $. The Nikkor 18-135 is noticeably sharper, although it has a bit more CA and distortion. Strangely, the 18-70 is more expensive than the 18-135, despite being a bit worse optically and having less range. IMO, the only reason to get the 18-70 is if you get a good deal on it as a kit lens or if you can get a good deal used.

So, to answer your question directly, buying used is a great idea, but $250 seems a little expensive, given that you can get a brand new one for $289 at B&H.

Jalva22
10-04-2007, 06:28 AM
So, to answer your question directly, buying used is a great idea, but $250 seems a little expensive, given that you can get a brand new one for $289 at B&H.

The $289 would be for gray market at B&H. Any reason to shy away from that, or would that be fine? The US version new is $350 there.

K1W1
10-04-2007, 06:52 AM
The $289 would be for gray market at B&H. Any reason to shy away from that, or would that be fine? The US version new is $350 there.

B&H seem to have a good reputation in the USA and Nikon lenses (as opposed to bodies) have a world wide warranty anyway so there is no reason not to go for the grey market version after all it's identical in every way to the US version except price.

tcadwall
10-04-2007, 07:13 AM
I'm not too familiar with the 18-135, so let me use the 18-200 as an example. It has significant barrel distortion at 18mm. Doors look like they belong on a Hobbit hole.

Either you have used/seen a bad version of the lens, or you are exaggerating a bit. I have been shooting with this lens for 1.5yrs and haven't found any hobbit hole doors. I have rarely noticed enough barrel distortion in a shot to merit correction, which in Bibble is a click of a button to repair. The only real complaint I have (and I have verbalized it before) is that sometimes shots appear a tad soft at the long end. Sometimes I am surprised by the sharpness though. It is not a pro-grade lens, but it is no fun-house lens either.

K1W1
10-04-2007, 04:59 PM
I've seen a few indoor Hobbit hole door photos from the 18-200. I think it's generally agreed as stated that there is significant barrel distortion at 18mm but also as stated it can be corrected so you are probably both correct.

erichlund
10-04-2007, 05:11 PM
Either you have used/seen a bad version of the lens, or you are exaggerating a bit. I have been shooting with this lens for 1.5yrs and haven't found any hobbit hole doors. I have rarely noticed enough barrel distortion in a shot to merit correction, which in Bibble is a click of a button to repair. The only real complaint I have (and I have verbalized it before) is that sometimes shots appear a tad soft at the long end. Sometimes I am surprised by the sharpness though. It is not a pro-grade lens, but it is no fun-house lens either.

OK, a poor hobbit that cannot afford a truly round door...

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/51579592-L.jpg

Taken at 18mm

In an ultra-wide, that's acceptable distortion. In a wide, not so much. It is correctable, and I've said that in the past. Here's a corrected version, with the caveat that I didn't waste a lot of time on this...

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/59718326-L.jpg

tcadwall
10-05-2007, 06:31 AM
Sucks... I can't see these images through the firewall here. I will have to check again when I am not behind a firewall. - and I'll try to reproduce it as well.

crum
10-22-2007, 06:06 AM
Finally took the plunge and got the D80/18-135kit. it is a learning curve at the moment.

got 2*2gb toshiba class 6 cards thinking that i would escape the compatibility issue with card readers for sdhc cards (>=4gb). however both hang the computer yet another sd card that is 512mb works fine. am i correct that cards signified by the "class x" are sdhc whilst any cards that by "---X" would have been universally compatible?

my lady also seems to like the pictmotion slideshow, can that be burnt to disc?

erichlund
10-22-2007, 08:35 AM
Just one more reason I'm glad my camera uses CF cards. Some are not as fast as others, but I've never seen a basic compatibility issue.

XaiLo
10-22-2007, 02:11 PM
Congrats :)

tim11
10-22-2007, 05:00 PM
Finally took the plunge and got the D80/18-135kit.-----

my lady also seems to like the pictmotion slideshow, can that be burnt to disc?

Any digital photos can be made onto a DVD with background music and titles but that can wait; can't it?

Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy the camera.

Welcome aboard CRUM.

fionndruinne
10-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Tim, how's the 50-150mm doing for you?

tim11
10-22-2007, 09:52 PM
It's very fast outdoors. Indoors (inside the house) where light is very low, the lens motor makes clicking sound that gets on my nerves at time. It doesn't affect the image quality though. It great for DOF. Since it's only my 2nd DSLR lens I can't really give much expert comment on it though.
One thing for certain, it will make an ideal lens for concert shot.

fionndruinne
10-22-2007, 10:02 PM
I don't know whether or not I'll get into concert shoots, but it sounds fun, and I'll bet that lens would be great for it.

So is low-light focusing actually very slow? I've read about the clicking, which seems to oddly happen even when the focus is pretty much locked.

It's still very high on my wish list.

tim11
10-22-2007, 10:15 PM
I don't know whether or not I'll get into concert shoots, but it sounds fun, and I'll bet that lens would be great for it.

So is low-light focusing actually very slow? I've read about the clicking, which seems to oddly happen even when the focus is pretty much locked.

It's still very high on my wish list.


Sorry about the lens hijack Crum. :)
No. fionndruinne. It's hard for me to say how much faster it is than a slower lens; it being my 2nd lens. However, I think the sound is annoying more than anything else. It's not that slow and even I click when the sound is still on, I still get a sharp image. R3g and I discussed this sound on the Sigma 50-150 thread here.
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34613&page=4
Let's go there for any more discussion, shall we?

fionndruinne
10-22-2007, 10:23 PM
My thread-hijacking scruples allow for temporary commandeering of threads whose original topics are pretty much taken care of.:p

You can certainly call me Andrew, too, and avoid my unwieldy username.:cool:

crum
10-23-2007, 03:34 AM
Sorry about the lens hijack Crum. :)



My thread-hijacking scruples allow for temporary commandeering of threads whose original topics are pretty much taken care of.

that is fine guys, the forum is the place to share experiences and opinions

just wondering still, are 2gb cards sdhc and may pose a compatibility issue?

can the pictmotion be directly burnt or do i need to manually configure the music and panning/zooming?

tim11
10-23-2007, 06:23 AM
---
can the pictmotion be directly burnt or do i need to manually configure the music and panning/zooming?

Pictmotion? hmm..... sorry I misread your original question and might not answer quite correctly.
I was thinking of some other video editing software like Ulead, Pinnacle, Adobe Premiere; etc. Personally, I don't even install the bundled software and don't know what Pictmotion can do. Let's see if anyone come up with a direct answer for you.
Even if the bundled software doesn't do what you want to do there are many others that can; and even Windows has a simple software that makes sliding picture show.

crum
10-23-2007, 01:41 PM
Pictmotion? hmm..... sorry I misread your original question and might not answer quite correctly.
I was thinking of some other video editing software like Ulead, Pinnacle, Adobe Premiere; etc. Personally, I don't even install the bundled software and don't know what Pictmotion can do. Let's see if anyone come up with a direct answer for you.
Even if the bundled software doesn't do what you want to do there are many others that can; and even Windows has a simple software that makes sliding picture show.

you have the d80 as well....when you play the slideshow with zoom/pan and the lil melody with av connection.

Rooz
10-23-2007, 02:14 PM
that is fine guys, the forum is the place to share experiences and opinions

just wondering still, are 2gb cards sdhc and may pose a compatibility issue?

can the pictmotion be directly burnt or do i need to manually configure the music and panning/zooming?

i have 3 SD cards, all different brands and one of them is a real cheapie. i've never had an issue with any of them. i didn't even know there WAS a compatibility issue.

RE: picmotion, i have no idea if you can burnt directly. does it actually make a file when you run the slide show ? if not, i can;t see how you can download it to your PC let alone burn it.

crum
10-24-2007, 04:12 AM
i have 3 SD cards, all different brands and one of them is a real cheapie. i've never had an issue with any of them. i didn't even know there WAS a compatibility issue.

yah the strange thing is that the card reads in other cameras as well just not this card read......thought it might be built to new sdhc architure as it is give the new class X rating...


RE: picmotion, i have no idea if you can burnt directly. does it actually make a file when you run the slide show ? if not, i can;t see how you can download it to your PC let alone burn it.

on the manual it implies that it can be transfer from the camera but there is no file saved to the sd card when ran from camera. u can apparently configure a similar thing in pictureproject under the same name but she apparently liked the soothing classical tune.

tim11
10-24-2007, 08:05 PM
I don't use the camera for anything else but taking the photos and then upload the images with a card reader. I don't connect it to TV or even use USB cable to the computer.
I doubt you can capture PictMotion directly to the computer. Nothing mentioned in the user manual. However, if you have a DVD recorder you might be able to.
I mentioned earlier you can make slide show from any photos. This can be done with any basic video editing program. Even though it is not all straight forward, the end result will be worth it once you master the technique.

crum
10-25-2007, 11:23 AM
I don't use the camera for anything else but taking the photos and then upload the images with a card reader. I don't connect it to TV or even use USB cable to the computer.
I doubt you can capture PictMotion directly to the computer. Nothing mentioned in the user manual. However, if you have a DVD recorder you might be able to.
I mentioned earlier you can make slide show from any photos. This can be done with any basic video editing program. Even though it is not all straight forward, the end result will be worth it once you master the technique.

yah i guess i'll figure out that later.....better get some decent pix first