Hi, Patrick. It will cope WAY better than the Fuji in low light and have much faster shot-to-shot processing speed. You'll cleaner images but their ultimate quality will depend on the standard of the lenses you attach..

The downside will be no live preview and having to change lenses unless you may be happy with an 18-200 zoom Tamron or Sigma which may be too 'dark'..

I see no good reason - other than lack of image stabilisation - not to go for the Canon. If you must have IS then look at the Pentax K100 and Sony Alpha 100, but definitely handle them before making your decision, working out which has the best control layout for you..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

I followed your earlier thread. Are you ready to spend the time needed to photoprocess your photos? Bridge cameras do it for you. Basically, they apply "average" sharpening, levels, and the like so that you don't need to do anything. With a dslr, the photographer is expected to do this. Therefore, photos taken with a bridge or P&S may actually look as good or better than totally unprocessed photos from a dslr. However, dslr photos can be made to look much better than the "average" processed photos coming from a lesser camera.



Jerry..

Jerry,.

Ofcourse, in RAW one needs to process the images. But isn't it so that for basic photography a dSLR in JPEG mode produces better quality pics than a point and shoot, even without any processing. I want to have to option to shoot in RAW on some occassions but mostly will be taking JPEG shots. They don't need that much processing do they?.

And how about a Nikon D40? We currently have a Nikon cashback in the Netherlands, making the D40 dual zoom kit (18-55 + 50-200) very attractive.....

You can set a dslr to sharpen and you can adjust contrast, etc., and then shoot jpegs. The result is a best guess as to the photoprocessing that would need to be applied to get really good photos. In my experience, levels still should be adjusted in Photoshop, and sharpness typically still needs tweeking. So, the pictures you get are good, but they can be made better..

Jerry..

Generally speaking I wouldn't want to go and process every picture. I want to point and shoot with a dSLR most of the time. Will this get me better results then with a superzoom like the Fuji?Example:The Fuji S6500fd would cost me 350 euros with batteries, charger and memoryA Nikon D40 dual zoom kit would kost me 650 euros with memory.

Is it worth the extra 300 euros (400 dollars) when it comes down to shooting manually but not going beyond adjusting shutter time, ISO, and diafragma (F)..

Agreed, in due time I will most likely experiment and use more settings, but out of the box with just a couple of settings what would give better instant results?.

Not that this result determines what Im gonna buy, but it is important to make a judgement call...

DSLR's deliver better Jpegs than any other camera. you just got adjust settings slightly.

Bottom Line, those awesomely terrific Kpegs that you get from a Digtial P&S are poroccessed by the camera. How much better do you think a DSLR is goign to proccess, when it is the more expensive body?.

Biggest thing is a DSLR gives you more options than a Digital P&S. It will also serve you better as a P&S, once the cameras settings have been tweaked fo such usage..

As for shooting RAW, I owudl stil do that and batch procees the RAW files to Jpgusing a RAW convertor. I use RSP and it takes no tiem at all..

I adjsut my settings for same light situations, then batch proccess all of my RAW shots..

I end up with superior jpgs than what the camera can deliver and it take all of about 10 minutes, of my time, on my 4 gig memory card with boat loads of raw files..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Ok so it will probably be a dSLR then. Main question remains, which one. The Canon will set me back 600 with one kitlens, the Nikon D40 does the same with 2 kitlenses. However, the Canon has ISO 100 and 10MP whilst the Nikon has ISO 200 and 6MP. Battery life for the Canon is only 360 shots, Nikon does 470. Canon uses more expensive CF cards where the NIkon uses SD(hc) cards...

JiggyNL wrote:.

I will most likely not be someone to buy all sorts of lenses etcetc. I will however shoot alot in manual settings. I mostlyphotograph static car shows indoors and outdoors, and sometimesmoving cars on a racetrack..

Have a look here:http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1221891.

Next to that, I will be taking pictures of my girlfriend's dancingcompetitions. That's mostly in dimly lit indoor situations.Especially a dSLR being ready for the next shot alot faster ismaking this worth thinking about. Since the Fuji takes about 6seconds in RAW with flash....

Ouch... Yeah, that's annoying..

I have done some research in the past which has led me to believethe Canon EOS 400D would be the nr1 choice. However, as far asreviews go, the Sony Alpha 100 seems to score about equal.Availability of add-ons is why most people go for the Canon. But asI said, I'm not one to go and buy all sorts of extras. I want abody with a kitlens and an extra kitlens or entry level aftermarketlens to zoom (-200 or -300). Maybe an extra flash sometime but thatshouldn't be a problem with either one..

Nikon D40 is now down to 398 at mediamarkt..

I already have a tripod.For the sake or arguement, which would be the best choice when itcomes to entry level dSLR's?.

And, even as important maybe, are there more advantages exceptadding lenses and faster response? Does an entry level dSLR reallymake better pictures or can it really cope with low lightsituations better than the Fuji (considering I will use basiclenses)..

Personally I make better pics with my Nikon DSLR than with anything else because my nikon is more versatile than any point and shoot I've ever handled..

Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..

When I bought my DSLR, I chose a model with in-body stabilization. Why?1/ I am suffering from essential tremor, so IS is most welcome.

2/Every single lens I have, even old M42 screw type lenses (and some are real jewels for bargain prices), is stabilized..

You mention low light shooting. Then, you must choose a model with a good viewfinder. Some of them are incredibly bad and dark: go to the shop, and compare, you will be surprised. This would exclude one of your choices. Canon has an appalling dark tunnel viewfinder..

One lens, or two kit lenses are not going to satisfy you a long time if you are serious about image quality. I thought so when I bought my Sigma 18-200, but one year later, I find myself shooting more with fast prime lenses (the zoom is nearly 3 stops slower at 50mm, for example). That excludes the other one of your choices. No primes on Nikon D40..

Go to a shop where you can handle all the entry DSLR, bring a couple of cards, actually take shots with them, print them at home and see by yourself.Or, if you only want to LOOK professional, dont bother, buy a Canon or a Nikon.Just a few thoughts.

Just passing by.....

Why not the Pentax K100D, it may be only 6mp but that is enough for very good A4 and reasonably good A3 prints and it is cheap with features that neither the 400D or D40(x) have. They can be had from $550 USD with lens.'No sir, I don't like it'-Mr Horse.

GMT +9.5.

Pentax SLR talk FAQhttp://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072..

Either way you go I'd recommend the 50mm f1.8 lens, you mention you do indoor car shows, etc. The extra amount of light this lens will let in will allow you to use a higher shutter speed and get some decent pictures..

Also it is a relatively cheap lens.Photography and Graphic DesignPortfolio - http://www.atlanticexpressinc.comPrints - http://www.atlanticexpressions.com..

The single most expensive thing about DSLR's is not the camera, batteries cards, etc.

It's the Lenses you buy to put on it..

Oh, I'm sure you're thinking,"but I'm only going to buy one lens!".

Guess what, you have already shown you are a more discerning photographer than most, simply by buying a DSLR..

That move is goign to cause you to study more about photography, so you can get more out of your gear. Which, in turn, is going to cause you to desire yet another lens, then another..

As your photographical knowledge & skill levels increase, so too will your desire for increasingly better glass, not to mention glass that will allow you to shoot in more demanding situations..

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, when the single biggest reason for this downward spiral into Photography addicition.all the praise you get from everyone who sees your imagery..

It's addicitve. Be Warned..

So, getting back to elsnes being the most expensive option..

Nikon D40 does not have an internal motor, with which to focus the lens. This means that you are stuck buying Nikon lenses which have the focusing motor in them..

You cannot use, say, the superb Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 (Costs about $300). if you want a Nikon lens in that range and focal length, prepare to offer up your First Born child..

Or, you could always sell your car and buy it too..

The Canon XTi is the clear winner in among those two choices.Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Sony A100 or Alpha, is a better choice than the Nikon D40. Though not as good a selection as the canon XTi, IMHO..

I shoot Minolta for decades and do belive that Sony can satisfy the casual user, but as your skills increase, Sony just will not deliver the goods..

Thast is not to say that Sony will not make the changes they need to, in order to be really competitive with Canon & Nikon. I think they very well may, it is just goign to take a few years to do it..

Bottom Line, right now, the superior choice is Canon.

Tell you what, do not take it from me..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/.../forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hiixixidhliu.

Click on the above link to a fellow named Gary Friedman.

He is a die hard Minolta(Sony) shooter but he did just write a terrific book about the Canon XTi. Ask him what he recommends and get that camera..

Simply reply to one of his posts at the above link and go with his suggestion..

He has intergrity and will not steer wrong..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

I see you came to the same conclusion as me only a lot sooner. I use pentax equipment and it does very well, but I won't tell you to get one because each camera has a different feel and function to it. See what suits you best. Any dslr is a major step forward. Whatever you get remember to enjoy it...

Thank you so much for your judgment about my integrity... 80P.

And, BTW, I do not have a Canon, or a Nikon, or even a Sony, and I have no fancy book to sell about the Canon... ;o)Just passing by.....

Before you choose a brand simply because someone says it's better than the rest you should go to a store and get a feel for them. They will all take nice pictures and have more bells and whistles than you'll probably ever need. I tried many different models and the brand that felt most solid, best viewfinder, best laid out controls was the Nikon. You may feel differently but don't look at Canon because someone else said they're the best. If a professional took five photos from five different models you'd never tell them apart so go with what feels right.Good luck!..

Why not the Pentax K100D, it may be only 6mp but that is enough forvery good A4 and reasonably good A3 prints and it is cheap withfeatures that neither the 400D or D40(x) have. They can be had from$550 USD with lens..

I'll second that. I am wary of recommending a camera that I have myself without having had much experience of others (too much of that around)... but an important objective advantage of the Pentax K100D is that you get in-camera image stabilisation which works with all lenses. I have just taken some pics inside Dublin castle - a beautiful place - using ISO800 and exposures of 1/8 - 1/15 second (and no flash of course in those very large rooms) with a wide-angle lens. I switched on the image stabilisation and most of the pix (I'd say about 70%) are nice and sharp. For the price, this is a huge advantage compared to other entry level DSLRs which dont have this feature built into the body..

Best wishesMike..

I have been playing around with some of the camera's today and decided to opt for a Canon because personally I feel the controls are the nicest. Also, I decided to go for an aftermarket zoom lens instead of the kitlens, which is easiest to get for Canon. Also, the F1.8 50mm is high on my wishlist which is quite an affordable lens for the Canon. Last but not least, two collegues have a 400D and another has a 20D which all are willing to lend me stuff like lenses and flashes..

I will most likely go with a Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 or 55-200 F4-5.6. Or would it be better to spend a little more on a Sigma ASO model?..

A short list of possible lenses:- Sigma AF 70-300 F4-5.6 DG @ 144 euro's- Sigma AF 55-200 F4-5.6 DG @ 147 euro's- Sigma AF 28-200 F3.5-5.6 DG @ 218 euro's- Sigma AF 70-300 F4-5.6 APO DG @ 218 euro's.

- Tamron AF 55-200 F/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro @ 109 euro's- Tamron AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 @ 139 euro's- Tamron AF 75-300 F/4-5.6 LD Macro @ 156- Tamron AF 28-200 F/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical [IF] Macro @ 234 euro's.

In the near future I will buy the Canon 50mm F1.8 lens for low light up-close situations. With the above zoom lenses I want to be able to shoot everything from indoor car shows to cars moving around a track, to dancing people on dimly lit dancefloors...

Well the order has been placed. After browsing through all kinds of review sites I decided to go for the cheapest Tamron 55-200 which seems to be one of the best. The rest of my new setup will contain a Canon EOS 400D with kit lens, an extra battery (no grip) and a Extreme III 4GB compact flashcard. In total, after the Canon cashback, this has set me back around 800 euros (around 1000-1100 dollar).In a day or two I can start having fun!Thanks all for thinking along!..

And be patient: there is a learning curve...Just passing by.....

Jpp wrote:.

Thank you so much for your judgment about my integrity... 80P.

Never questioned your Integrity, simply stated that another person happens to have it. One who also shoots Sony\Minolta and has for decades, but who in addition to that one mount, has become reasonably intimate with Canon as well..

You discount Canon rather off-handly. have you ever actually owned a Canon DSLR and more than just a couple of lenses?.

Gary has, as well as just about every piece of Minolta glass built..

And, BTW, I do not have a Canon, or a Nikon, or even a Sony, and Ihave no fancy book to sell about the Canon... ;o).

I do not have a fancy book to sell either. But, isn't it nice that one who knows, also posts his knowledge for free as well..

Just passing by....

Be sure to take your obvious personal insecurities with you..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

JiggyNL wrote:.

A short list of possible lenses:- Sigma AF 70-300 F4-5.6 APO DG @ 218 euro's.

Got this one for my kids camera kit. Nice little lens. No, it's not goign to replace my 70-200mm 2.8IS - - B U T - - for the money, it;s a good buy..

- Tamron AF 55-200 F/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro @ 109 euro's- Tamron AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 @ 139 euro's- Tamron AF 75-300 F/4-5.6 LD Macro @ 156- Tamron AF 28-200 F/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical [IF] Macro @ 234 euro's.

Don't know much about any of these but, should you go with the Sigma 70-300mm, I';d definitely recommend the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8..

I own it and think so highly of it, that I cannot bring myself ot get Canon's 28-70mm 2.8 to replace. Not into spending money, just for the sake of big impressive lenses. Yes, the 28-70mm 2.8 will deliver better image but not enough to justify the huge price difference. At least, not for me..

I really like my little Tammy 28-75mm 2.8.

In the near future I will buy the Canon 50mm F1.8 lens for lowlight up-close situations. With the above zoom lenses I want to beable to shoot everything from indoor car shows to cars movingaround a track, to dancing people on dimly lit dancefloors..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Glad to know I feel insecure!!!Since you asked: I used a Canon F1 system for a lot of years..

When I wanted an entry level DSLR, I first went to Canon, and I was put off by the "Fisher Price" look and feel of the Canon, by it's small grip and very dark viewfinder.Just my opinion, which, I suppose, I am allowed to share?Just passing by.....