Obviously you have already made up your mind that you only have one choice. So now what do you want, approval you have made the right choice?

You are making a rather big leap in performance and capabilities, and I did not see any real compelling reasons to make the particular choices you have - there are many alternatives that might serve you as well, and even cost less for the performance you will attain.

So my thought is why this choice, and for what real reasons beyond minor rationalizations.

EFX raises some valid issues. I would only ask what you expect the new equipment to do for you that the p&s doesn't alreeady do?

Quote:
Obviously you have already made up your mind that you only have one choice. So now what do you want, approval you have made the right choice?

Ouch. Sarcastic much?

Quote:
You are making a rather big leap in performance and capabilities, and I did not see any real compelling reasons to make the particular choices you have - there are many alternatives that might serve you as well, and even cost less for the performance you will attain.

Right. That would be the kind of info I was looking for. I browsed the DSLRs at Best Buy (please don't mock). I tried the Cannons and the Nikons. I found the Nikon seemed to be more intuitive to me for ease of use. I pondered the D40, but since the D40x was only $200 more and 10MP > 6MP, I figured, what the hey. I pondered the D80 but since it came with a lens that topped out at 135 (effective ~202)(I do a lot of telephoto, wildlife & such) and it was still only 10MP, I didn't really see the advantage. I am not a professional, and take pictures mostly for my enjoyment and that of family and friends, so I probably won't get tons of lenses (I was pondering the 200-400, but it looks rather bulky and probably quite expensive. I may consider in the future some type of lens that will extend me out to 300 [effective 450] but that's probably about it.)

As to why I want to upgrade from DX6490:
1. 10MP >> 4MP
2. DSLR sensor > P&S sensor.
3. Manual focus. Or at least, smarter AF. I hate when I get a picture all composed and then press down to lock in the focus and the #&!@ camera decides I want to focus on the grass in the yard rather than the hummingbird/squirrel/whatnot that I'm really trying to get. Then I have to fiddle and fiddle and sometimes miss the shot. With the DSLR, I turn the zoom ring, turn the focus ring and snap away. No motors whirring, no camera second-guessing me. If there's a mistake, it's me not the camera.
4. Speed and fast "burst shots" The D40x (or any DSLR) does much better than a P&S at this.
5. Greater range of ISOs, Aperatures, and shutter speeds.
6. Ability to use external flash that can angle so I can get better shots of friends & family (ok, technically the DX6490 can use some type of ext flash, but the horseshoe mount looks much easier and better.)

Quote:
So my thought is why this choice, and for what real reasons beyond minor rationalizations.

I hope this expanded post is somewhat more informative.

If you shop around you will find that the D80 doesn't HAVE to come with the 135 kit lens. You could probably do better on the price at B&H ar Adorama or keh.com instead of Best Buy

Yes I was a bit sarcastic, but I am glad to learn you have considered the practical performance advantages and reasons for moving up to a dSLR.

And if you choose one with an APS sensor size, the 1.5X effective increase in lens focal length makes obtaining a decent long lens for getting nature close-ups more viable.

However, I think your assumption the Nikon is more intuitive and user friendly may be countered by even life-long Nikon pros I know - its the one thing I hear a couple of "Nikon" friends complain about most.

Finally just because a camera brand has a long-standing reputation among photographer, since the advent of digital, that may be more of a detriment than an advantage, and generally it surely is in terms of sensor MPX size and performance relative to cost. Of all the major old camera brands still around only one, Canon makes their own sensors chips. The rest buy their sensor chips from companies like Sony. So it is no wonder Sony offers a dSLR with a particular MPX at a more favorable price??? But what about Sony lenses? Well they recently purchased all of the photo assets of the #3 camera company, Minolta, and already had developed some lenses with one of the world most prestigious optical companies.

That is just an example of why not to assume because a camera company had a great reputation 20 years ago in film days it has earned the same status for digital today.

Panasonic never was a camera company in the film days, but now makes some of the most innovative and and best performing digital cameras and sports the most revered name in 35mm camera optics Leica.

Personally if I did not have a major lens and accessory commitment to one of the old line cameras, and I was just moving from a P&S to a dSLR, one brand most do not seem to consider but I found capable of exceptional digital image quality is Sigma's dSLR. I've not yet tried the SD-14 but the SD-10 produced exceptional fine color and sharpness, and the camera and lens kit is both affordable and comprehensive in capabilities.

Well, I looked at the Sigma on their website. There are a few things I didn't like though:
1. The image sensor. It says, basically, that there are 3 3.4MP sensors, one each for RGB, stacked on top of each other so that each pixel area on the sensor recieves info for all three colors. While this may technically produce 10.2 MP, it would seem unlikely that it would be the same in terms of ability to produce larger prints. In essence, it produces a very sharp, much improved 3.4 MP image. At least that is what I understand. At any rate, it makes me wary.
2. From what I understand from their site, the "kit" seems to include an 18-50 and 55-200. However, this leaves a gap of 5 mm (and with the 1.7 factor on the Sigma, this becomes a gap of 8.5). I know that's not much but it would bug me constantly. I'm anal like that. :P
3. Finally, and this is genuine considration for me, it takes CF, not SD. I have 2 perfectly good 1GB SD cards that I really have no other use for than photography and I'd hate to have them rendered useless.

Really, I guess the point of this post was not so much to see pros of other dSLRs as to see if there were any major cons of the D40x that I should know about. I am aware of the limited lens compatability but, again, I don't have an old stock of lenses and don't really plan on buying tons of them either.

As far as user friendly, I guess that's subjective to a degree but I found the Menus on the Nikon easier to understand than those on the Canon. Maybe they just resemble Kodak's more?. Do you have any specifics on how Nikons are not "user-friendly?"

Thanks for all your input so far.

1. There is no difference other than the way the sensors are arranged physically between the Foveon and CCD/CMOS sensor array chips. With a CCD or CMOS area array chip the sensors are arranged laterally, with the Foveon they are arranged in three layers. With either, each sensor site only records the information in one of the three RGB colors bands. With the typical lateral CCD/CMOS configuration to have each pixel in output produce RGB color, two of the colors are interpolated from adjacent pixels. When as in the Foveon the sensors are stacked on top of each other no lateral displacement through interpolation occurs, making the raw output sharper and the color cleaner.

In other words your doubts come from your not understanding how either type of chip functions.

2. If you have to accommodate technology products to your emotional inadequacies, you do have a problem.

3. What 1GB SD cards used are worth is far less than what you throw away in paying for the Nikon brand name in comparative pricing. If you can afford to be irrational, you have more money to waste than most of us.

As for menu friendliness there is as you suggest the aspect of of both individual human differences as well as the issue of familiarity neither of which can be addressed objectively. But when I had four different dSLR's at the same time doing comparative testing, of all the cameras involved Nikon had many more different menu items than the other three = greater complexity. For most photographers only a few of the menu items are essential to everyday shooting after the initial setup of your camera when new. In other words camera companies provide overkill to impress people who think more whether useful or not is better.

BTW this morning Sony announced a new 12.2MPX dSLR model that will compete with the mid-range Canon and Nikon cameras. It's on the web news, check it out - very interesting.

Quote:
1. There is no difference other than the way the sensors are arranged physically between the Foveon and CCD/CMOS sensor array chips. With a CCD or CMOS area array chip the sensors are arranged laterally, with the Foveon they are arranged in three layers. With either, each sensor site only records the information in one of the three RGB colors bands. With the typical lateral CCD/CMOS configuration to have each pixel in output produce RGB color, two of the colors are interpolated from adjacent pixels. When as in the Foveon the sensors are stacked on top of each other no lateral displacement through interpolation occurs, making the raw output sharper and the color cleaner.

In other words your doubts come from your not understanding how either type of chip functions.

Indeed. Thank you for the explanation. It sounds, therefore, that, at least in terms of the sensor, the Sigma is better.

Quote:
2. If you have to accommodate technology products to your emotional inadequacies, you do have a problem.

I know. Believe me, I know.

Quote:
3. What 1GB SD cards used are worth is far less than what you throw away in paying for the Nikon brand name in comparative pricing. If you can afford to be irrational, you have more money to waste than most of us.

My financial status will remain my concern. As far as the comparative pricing, I thought $1K for a decent dSLR with two lenses totaling 18-200 between them was a pretty good deal. Perhaps I am wrong? With such a large purchase, I prefer going to a store rather than internet purchasing, though I know that does add a little. As far as brand, perhaps it does not matter as much anymore, but I prefer to go with a known brand. Sigma may have good sensors, but what about the glass? Companies like Nikon and Canon have been making cameras for years and, at least in Nikon's case, I do believe that's all they make. Sony, otoh, makes just about everything electronic under the sun. As in the medical field, I tend to believe that a specalist is usually better for specific things than a general practitioner.

Quote:
As for menu friendliness there is as you suggest the aspect of of both individual human differences as well as the issue of familiarity neither of which can be addressed objectively. But when I had four different dSLR's at the same time doing comparative testing, of all the cameras involved Nikon had many more different menu items than the other three = greater complexity. For most photographers only a few of the menu items are essential to everyday shooting after the initial setup of your camera when new. In other words camera companies provide overkill to impress people who think more whether useful or not is better.

This con is actually a pro for me. I love to experiment and tweak things. The more things I can adjust manually, the better.

I may add that if you can afford 4 dSLRs, your financial status is probably a good deal better than mine.

Quote:
BTW this morning Sony announced a new 12.2MPX dSLR model that will compete with the mid-range Canon and Nikon cameras. It's on the web news, check it out - very interesting.

I probably will not be able to make the purchase until I get my tax return next year. Therefore, I will, of course, keep an eye on new developments over the ensuing months.

Once again, thanks for the input.

I would say The Foveon sensor has some image quality advantages over the typical lateral layout of most CCD/CMOS sensors. However, it would probably be well ahead of the competition if the Foveon design had the resources of a company like Sony to develop and refine the design more fully.

As far as Sigma camera design and construction, as well as software, it is not as advanced and refined as the leaders, but it is practically functional and reliable at least on par with the second tier SLR cameras like Olympus, Pentax and Sony/ex-Minolta.

The Sigma lenses on the other hand perform quite comparably to the top prime camera makers lenses of the same configuration, although the top of the line pro lenses really have no match in anything made by any independent. But lenses like a 400mm f/2.8 are so costly they are sold I am sure in small quantities, and are not made so much to bring a company a lot of revenue as much as the prestige of having a lot of professional sports shooters using the lens.

>>Perhaps I am wrong? With such a large purchase, I prefer going to a store rather than internet purchasing, though I know that does add a little. As far as brand, perhaps it does not matter as much anymore, but I prefer to go with a known brand. Sigma may have good sensors, but what about the glass? Companies like Nikon and Canon have been making cameras for years and, at least in Nikon's case, I do believe that's all they make. Sony, otoh, makes just about everything electronic under the sun. As in the medical field, I tend to believe that a specalist is usually better for specific things than a general practitioner.<<

Companies like Sigma and Tamron, although not as well known brands as Canon and Nikon can and do produce superb products. The best available pro graphics LCD in the consumer market today are made by Eizo a niche company most had not heard of 5 years ago but a company that's been in the monitor business for many years. Some of the brand-name middle line lenses sold with Canon and Nikon labels are not infrequently manufactured by smaller companies like Tamron and Sigma under contract. Sigma was one of the first optical companies to make long apochromatic telephoto lenses with superior optical performance, and I bought my first one about 30 years ago, and used it for at least 10 years.

Today when you purchase in a physical store a part of what you are paying for in price is the high cost of retail real estate, and that 'convenience" is about all you get other than being able to handle the product physically and interact usually with a clerk getting paid little more than minimum wage who knows less about the product then you may.

Big companies like Sony are just umbrellas like General Electric which are actually a conglomerate of relatively independent divisions dealing with one limited product category. Size or degree of specialization of a compny/manufacturer today is no indicator of product worth, and brand name may very well not provide the assurances the public generally and popularly assumes - a lot of brand name products are made by largely unknown sub-contracotrs not even in the country of the brand company.

BTW my remarks are based on over 30 years of testing and publishing product reports in national magazines, a profession I began after retiring after 20 years of commercial freelance photography.

Well let me just point blank ask then.

If you had about $1,000 to spend on a dSLR/dSLR kit and you were looking to replace a P&S that had a 38-380 equivalant range with a dSLR & lenses that would give a similar range of zoom, what would you buy & why?

I would not recommend any one, in part because a part of the choice is how a camera's handling and features fit with an individual - if you are not comfortable with the body, its not going to work for you..

The price tag however pretty well limits the choice to the entry-level dSLR's. And most of the dSLR cost is for the sensor chip. So the first consideration I would make based on my experience is to get the most megapixels for the cost. The more pixels the more image information and even if you never make a print larger than 8x10 the image quality potential is greater.

Other than the small short range kit lenses, which are usually as part of the kit package, so inexpensive and serve so well for most of the pictures made, I would probably add it. But I would not buy a major camera brand longer zoom, but select from Sigma or Tamron. But then I find I use a longer lens myself rarely, so in my book its a low priority. I would probably choose a 60-75 macro single focus lens as my second lens as one of my favorite subjects are nature closeups, like wildflowers.

As I have hinted I would if I did not have any SLR system camera lenses and accessories to consider, be looking at the just announced Sony A700 or the Sigma SD 14 most carefully although both are mid-level dSLR's and a bit more money and if I had to slow down for budget reasons and put a bit more into the camera and a cheap kit lens and add lenses later as I could afford them, that would be my strategy.

But as I said we are all individuals and our personal peculiarities have to be part of the mix to make a choice. My main concern in entering this discussion is some factors affecting the choice of most are of much less important than most believe - in other words there is not a real technology and pragmatic reason supporting what influences a lot of digital SLR camera choice as many photographers think, and most of it is carry-over of attitudes and concerns from the 35mm film era that don't apply to digital in the same way.

As it happens, some things have come up that will probably delay my purchase. (Some home repairs that need done.) Let me just ask one other question, as I have been second-guessing myself regarding lens acquisition. How far up the line would I have to go to get rid of the AF only lens issue? (i.e. would I have to go up to D80, D200, higher?)

Sorry but your question opens up a real can of worms. 30 some years ago when AutoFocus was introduced Nikon was afraid to alienate their established customer base and kept their old lens mount so older pre-AF lenses could be used on new camera bodies with AF. Everyone else in the industry designed new lens mounts to provide room and support for new technology developments including AF. The result of that as new lens function features have been developed, and to keep up Nikon has created a host of bodies and lenses that are not fully compatible with each other. So the simple answer is if you want to avoid Nikon lens compatibility issues, avoid Nikon entirely.

D200/D300. My superb manual primes work like a charm on my D200. On the D40-D80 series, there is no metering, while there is full metering on the D200. There is a menu item where you register each lens with focal length and maximum aperture. after that, you need to tell the camera which lens is mounted and it recalls the aperture.

The first series of lenses, produced between 1959 and 1973, generally referred to as "non-AI" need to be converted to AI to work. A few specific lenses such as my early preset 28mm PC-Nikkor don't work well, though later versions do. The manual can be downloaded from the Nikon site in .pdf format and the list is there. Mostly old or rather specialized lenses.

I find that it is easy to focus on the D200 focusing screen, but there is a third party screen available with micro-prisms. I find I don't need it. There is also an electronic rangefinder LED that blinks as you get close to perfect focus, and then holds steady once you are there. Very nice. I was happy to see that the 55mm MicroNikkor works fine with its extension tube. I also have a T-Mount 600mm mirror lens with fixed aperture that was produced by Perkin Elmer of Hubble Space Telescope fame and marketed by Vivitar, that also works perfectly.

Of course, all lenses are subject to the 1.5x cropping factor. My 35mm lens is now my normal and the 600mm becomes in effect, a 900mm. All in all, very satisfied with the D200 in this and all regards.

Well, I took a look at specs on both the D200 and the D300. The Lens acceptance on the D200 is very nice. "X, Y, Z lenses will work fully. Period." D300 otoh, has a list of exceptions and 1/2works not unakin to the D40/40x/80. Pity, since 12MP would have been nicer.

At this point, unless they release new one before I go to purchase them (which is likely at this point, as my purchase is now to be delayed somewhat [see earler posts]), I have my eye on either the D200 or the Canon 40D. I think I would probably go for a "body only" and try to get a good 18-200 VR Lens (or Canon's equivalant for the 40D). This probably means I won't be able to go with Best Buy, though, as they don't offer Body Only on those models. Guess I'll just cross my fingers, buy online, and hope the shippers don't decide to play football with the package.

Hmmm... Looking further, I see two new things:
1. Canon does not have an 18-200. What they do have is better: an 17-85 and a 70-300, both with IS (Canon's VR). Together apx $1000 - $1200
2. I believe a 30D would be overkill for me. The Rebel XTi seems the equivalant of Nikon's D40x.

Thus, I believe I will go with those two lenses and the latest iteration of the Rebel series when I go to buy.

So I will probably now depart this user group and go haunt the Canon User group.

Again, I thank everyone for all the help. Odd the the Nikon User Group actually talked me out of a Nikon.

I spent a great deal of time looking at possible purchases and also decided on the D40x but for the reason it felt the best in my hands and had a clear view. Too many of the cameras I looked at had controls that seemed hard to reach or out of place. I am well satisfied with my purchase.