«

I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing dpreview
of
the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother with the
D40.

I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
towards the Canon S3 IS.

Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an average
slightly demanding amateur who believes that some post-processing is often
to the good anyway.

It's not the money that matters to me, I just can't see what the D40 can do
better or even what it has
in terms of nicer handling or overall luxury/quality/feel

It's not like i'm comparing a Punto with a BMW because they're both modest
cameras but the theory is that an slr is
superior even at this modest level...but where?

If the Nikon D40 is better, I can't see it in the samples, in fact the Canon
S3 IS samples on dpreview look way superior.

Any and all thoughts appreciated.

JB

Jackson Bryan wrote:
> I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing dpreview
> of
> the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother with the
> D40.
>
> I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
> towards the Canon S3 IS.
>
> Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an average
> slightly demanding amateur who believes that some post-processing is often
> to the good anyway.
>
> It's not the money that matters to me, I just can't see what the D40 can do
> better or even what it has
> in terms of nicer handling or overall luxury/quality/feel
>
> It's not like i'm comparing a Punto with a BMW because they're both modest
> cameras but the theory is that an slr is
> superior even at this modest level...but where?

Image quality, low light performance, range of lenses and accessories
(10.5mm fisheye? 12mm wideangle? f/1.4? Extension tubes or bellows?),
autofocus speed, shooting rate, general responsiveness. Oh, and flash;
to get much useful you need a flash with a tilt/swivel head and which
supports iTTL.

I've never had an S3, but from what see in general, and certainly from
the two P&S and two DSLRs I've owned, the image quality is night and day
in favor of the DSLR. The small sensors in the P&S simply can't compete.

"Jackson Bryan" <> wrote in message
news:f10av9$7r6$...
>I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing dpreview
>of
> the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother with
> the D40.
>
> I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
> towards the Canon S3 IS.
>
> Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an
> average
> slightly demanding amateur who believes that some post-processing is often
> to the good anyway.

Only you can answer this. DSLRs allow lens options and have larger sensors.

> It's not the money that matters to me, I just can't see what the D40 can
> do better or even what it has
> in terms of nicer handling or overall luxury/quality/feel

Generally, DSLRs are larger and do feel more robust and are much easier to
use when the user decides to take control of the shot.

> It's not like i'm comparing a Punto with a BMW because they're both
> modest cameras but the theory is that an slr is
> superior even at this modest level...but where?

Again, lens flexibility, user control, larger sensor.

> If the Nikon D40 is better, I can't see it in the samples, in fact the
> Canon
> S3 IS samples on dpreview look way superior.

I'd ignore the samples.

On Apr 28, 4:31 pm, "Jackson Bryan" <jaxnbr...@yahoo.ie> wrote:
> I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing dpreview
> of
> the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother with the
> D40.
>
> I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
> towards the Canon S3 IS.
>
> Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an average
> slightly demanding amateur who believes that some post-processing is often
> to the good anyway.
>
> It's not the money that matters to me, I just can't see what the D40 can do
> better or even what it has
> in terms of nicer handling or overall luxury/quality/feel
>
> It's not like i'm comparing a Punto with a BMW because they're both modest
> cameras but the theory is that an slr is
> superior even at this modest level...but where?
>
> If the Nikon D40 is better, I can't see it in the samples, in fact the Canon
> S3 IS samples on dpreview look way superior.
>
> Any and all thoughts appreciated.
>
> JB

In every aspect of image quality, it will stomp the Canon P&S.
Try them both at 800 ISO, it'll make you cry.

Jackson Bryan wrote:
> I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing
> dpreview of
> the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother
> with the D40.
>
> I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
> towards the Canon S3 IS.

If it meets _YOUR_ needs then by all means go for it.

> Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an
> average slightly demanding amateur who believes that some
> post-processing is often to the good anyway.

Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera?

jue

"Jürgen Exner" <> schreef in bericht
news:W7QYh.3026$Hd1.2202@trndny07...
> Jackson Bryan wrote:
>> I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing
>> dpreview of
>> the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother
>> with the D40.
>>
>> I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
>> towards the Canon S3 IS.
>
> If it meets _YOUR_ needs then by all means go for it.
>
>> Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an
>> average slightly demanding amateur who believes that some
>> post-processing is often to the good anyway.
>
> Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
> reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera?
>

I have never tried to mount a 400 mm tele with build-in tripod etc. etc.
Same as most DSLR owners have never tried this.

Although a DSLR does offer far greater expandibility than a point and shoot.
Most DSLR owners stick to the basics. (No 400 mm, no external flash etc.).

So although a DSLR has more options, if somebody doesn't plan to use them
than those options do not have value.

I own a DSLR and have handled an S3. And I must say I was quicker used
to the DSLR than I would get used to the S3. So I (that's me personaly) have
choosing for a DSLR. Because of the handling, quality and options.
(I did allready have lenses and a flash that even works on the DSLR).

But the S3 also has advantages over a DSLR, it's easier to take with you,
no lens changes, build in vibration reduction, large zoom. (no 28 mm
equivalent
though).

So, if you can't find a reason to buy a DSLR and like the S3 go with your
own
choice. All those people buying a point an shoot or an advanced camera
like the S3 can't be wrong about their choice.

ben





> jue
>

ben brugman wrote:
>
> "Jürgen Exner" <> schreef in bericht
> news:W7QYh.3026$Hd1.2202@trndny07...
>> Jackson Bryan wrote:
>>> I know the Nikon D40 is an slr but having read the almost glowing
>>> dpreview of
>>> the Canon S3 IS point & shoot I have to wonder just why I'd bother
>>> with the D40.
>>>
>>> I've wracked my limited brains to decide which is best and still lean
>>> towards the Canon S3 IS.
>>
>> If it meets _YOUR_ needs then by all means go for it.
>>
>>> Would someone tell me why the slr would be the better choice for an
>>> average slightly demanding amateur who believes that some
>>> post-processing is often to the good anyway.
>>
>> Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
>> reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera?
>>
>
> I have never tried to mount a 400 mm tele with build-in tripod etc. etc.
> Same as most DSLR owners have never tried this.
>
> Although a DSLR does offer far greater expandibility than a point and
> shoot.
> Most DSLR owners stick to the basics. (No 400 mm, no external flash etc.).

Okay, if you say so. But I've sure known a lot of people with lenses up
into the 400mm range. I first got one (for film) around 1973, I
believe. And I don't think I know *anybody* with SLR cameras that
doesn't have an external flash. I know *two* people with the Canon
100-400 L zoom (well, one just ordered it, the other actually has it),
neither one of whom has photography as a primary hobby.

> So although a DSLR has more options, if somebody doesn't plan to use them
> than those options do not have value.

Yes, exactly; people not using those options often don't choose to get
SLRs.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:10:44 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>> Although a DSLR does offer far greater expandibility than a point and
>> shoot.
>> Most DSLR owners stick to the basics. (No 400 mm, no external flash etc.).
>
> Okay, if you say so. But I've sure known a lot of people with lenses up
> into the 400mm range. I first got one (for film) around 1973, I
> believe. And I don't think I know *anybody* with SLR cameras that
> doesn't have an external flash. I know *two* people with the Canon
> 100-400 L zoom (well, one just ordered it, the other actually has it),
> neither one of whom has photography as a primary hobby.

I'm somewhere in the middle, here. Using SLRs for too many
decades to count, my longest lens was 300. On the other hand, it's
effectively 450mm on my DSLR body. I also had several external
flashes, from a tiny cheapy to a large Honeywell potato masher, and
eventually to the last one, an SB-26. I'll probably add one for the
DSLR eventually, but unlike SLRs, most DSLRs include a built-in
flash, so I wouldn't be surprised if a smaller percentage of DSLR
owners go the external flash route - but most of them would probably
be better off if they did.

Rich wrote:
[]
> In every aspect of image quality, it will stomp the Canon P&S.
> Try them both at 800 ISO, it'll make you cry.

... but try holding a 400 mm eq. image-stabilised lens on that D40 for any
period of time, or try shots where you need the swivel LCd, or try doing
movies. Getting good pictures isn't just about image quality.

David

Jürgen Exner wrote:
[]
> Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration
> reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S
> camera?
> jue

Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image
stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it
all day long is no problem....