Nikon D40 or Nikon P90?

firedrago9

Nikon D40 is an SLR. It does not have Live View and cannot take videos. It has 6.1 MegaPixels
The Nikon P90 is an Advance Point-and-Shoot. It has Live View. It can take videos. It has 12.1 MegaPixels. It has 24x optical zoom with a wide angle. It has a 3 in. tilting screen.

Nikon D40 and Nikon P90 comparison:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_cpp90%2Cnikon_d40&show=all


Which is better?

Answer
The D40 is a much better camera period. There is not a point and shoot out there that can beat a DSLR in terms of image quality. This is because DSLR's have much better optics, much larger sensors, full manual control, better faster processors, faster auto focus, and no shutter lag to name just a few things.
The P90 may have more features but it is a point and shoot and suffers from all the drawbacks of them. These include tiny sensors. Which deliver high noise and less detail. The lens may be a 20x zoom but it no way compares to a high quality SLR lens. There is a reason good SLR lenses can easily cost triple what the P90 costs. Also all point and shoots cameras sufferer from shutter lag. This is the time it takes to actually take the picture after you press the shutter release. Shutter lag can vary from maybe a quarter of second to several seconds but they all have it to one degree or another. DSLR's do not really have this problem. The shutter lag of DSLR's is measured in milliseconds. It is almost instantaneous.

Now that is not to say that the P90 may not be a better camera for you. It is a great point and shoot camera. If you want something that is easy to use and offers you the features that you want then it may be the best choice for you. If on the other hand you are willing to learn how to use an SLR effectively then you will notice how much better an SLR can be.

Canon or Nikon?

Nikki B

So I had this GREAT idea,since I like photography and I love going to concerts and get these pictures for these bands I thought why not start it as like a small business,I wouldn't be getting money just something I do for fun.But anyways.I have a Canon PowerShot A560,7.1 megapixels,it takes decent pictures when it wants to and it frustrates me cause when im close to getting the perfect shot,my camera does something to mess it all up.
So now I need to find a good camera that will work with the different lightings that they have at concerts,one that has good quality,and one that won't mess up the perfect shot! if you can reccomend me a camera either Canon or Nikon doesn't matter,as long as it has what I need.and maybe give me it's pros and cons? and links to see the cameras.thanks!
oh and something with high megapixels!
that is a must :)
Ok so the concerts I go to aren't major.
There usually like for bands like All Time Low,Forever The Sickest Kids,The Rocket Summer,Pierce The Veil,30H!3.
and they play at venues that let you have camera but not the pro ones unless yes you have the press pass,which I have no clue how to get.You can have your normal camera like the one I have now,So I mean if I can get a camera like that but with the things I need then it would work for me since im always at the baracade anyways so it makes no difference with me

Answer
First of all, high megapixels is NOT a necessity unless you plan to make large prints. But for an average 4x6 print, you will not even notice the difference. Poor image quality is due to photographer error, and not camera error about 99% of the time (see Ken Rockwells site for more info on that theory). Plus, as it was mentioned, unless you have a press badge, you will not even get in the door with a camera for most - if not all major shows. The closest you will come to a concert with a camera in hand will be at a town, or state fair or something along those lines. But, a MAJOR venue with top of the line bands? Not a chance unless security is doing a very poor job that night.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Who makes the highest megapixel camera for HQ photographs out there ?

Lena

looking for the best out there.

Answer
I am going to do my best to answer this question in terms of reality. Basically, it doesn't matter how many megapixels your camera has! Too many of us are falling for the hype put out by camera companies wanting to sell newer, "better," bigger....and stress that "bigger is better." This may be true in some areas, but not in cameras.

Let's go back a bit to film....when we all used film, we knew that the film was all the same that we put into a camera.... Kodachrome, PanX, Ectachrome, Kodacolor, Agfa, etc....all the same film, with the ability to give all the same results...BUT ability and results were two very differnet things. The best of film ...the very best available to all of us...was the equivalent of 6 Megapixels !!!!!! BUT, using the same film in different cameras gave very different results! Why? Because of the camera (actually)... the LENS and how the shutters, light sensors, etc. worked. In those days, the ideal 35mm was considered the Nikon due to superior lens crafting and mechanics. Larger format film would give better results for enlargements (2X2" film would give better large prints because the pics had to be enlarged less for the same size print. 4X5" format was considered the Portrait camera .... no matter what the enlargement, grain would not be seen IF you were looking for grain. AND the 4X5" camera was used for news services, for its negative size was easy and fast to handle for news services. BUT, no matter how you looked at it, the FILM was the SAME....
Now we have digital, with up to 20+ megapixel ability...for what? I see cheap cameras out there advertising 12 Megapixels as if that is all that counts in your selection...NOT TRUE today as it was not true in the days of film....No one expected a professional finish from a Kodak Pony camera! The lenses were cheap.
Today, you cannot judge a camera by Megapixels, period! You have to consider what the lens is, who makes the camera (reputation), and how they make the camera.
In today's market, very few are willing to pay 5,000.00 for a camera body...other than professionals, and even then, the professionals will tell you it ain't the camera that takes the picture, it is the photographer. IF the photographer has a very fine tool, then the pictures will be very fine.
As in the past, probably Nikon stands out from the pack, followed closely with Canon (Canon has improved their lenses greatly, but they still are not Nikons. Nikon, to stay in business, produces cameras (SLR for the better photographers) from abut 500.00 to 6000.00 or so. Obviously there is going to be differences, but what do those differences mean to you? Probably nothing. A professional photographer can make a Nikon D40 sing! An amateur cannot take a really fine picture with the best of cameras...so it comes down to experience, finesse, what have you. Once you pass that 6 megapixel mark, it is the lens, the machine, and the user that makes the difference.
I suggest you go into a camera shop, try out camers...you will soon find that I am correct.
I own a Nikon D90 (superb camera), a Nikon D300S (over the top with features, and ability to handle difficult lighting) and a Canon point and shoot G-10 (they don't come finer than this little camera for what it is!

I hope this helps in what you are looking for. I hope Fotoace chimes in on this one. I suspect he will agree with me. I do not list a bunch of links here, for I doubt that anyone asking is going to check things out...and even then, it is opinion. I am comparing today's cameras with the finest of film, used for almost 1/2 century in its finest form.

What is the best digital camera with the highest megapixels?

Brock

You can name expensive one. Money isn't a problem. Thanks!

Answer
Hasselblad H4D-200MS. 50 megapixels! It's on special for $31k, body only. Lenses start around $2500, and average about $5000. It's a lot of camera to lug about, weighing in at 5.4 pounds. Lenses will add a few more pounds.

If you want something more pocket sized, the Leica S2 series is $23k to $28k. 37 megapixels. Expect to pay about $5000, and up, for lenses. The S2 gets rave reviews.

Then, there's the toy cameras like the Nikon D4 which is only $6000. 16 megapixels. Lenses are anywhere from $100 to $10k.

If number of pixels are a driving factor, then Nikon D800 for $2800. 36 megapixels. The D4 will give better quality images, but the D800 sure has a lot of pixels.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

What is the best digital camera with the highest megapixels?

Brock

You can name expensive one. Money isn't a problem. Thanks!

Answer
Hasselblad H4D-200MS. 50 megapixels! It's on special for $31k, body only. Lenses start around $2500, and average about $5000. It's a lot of camera to lug about, weighing in at 5.4 pounds. Lenses will add a few more pounds.

If you want something more pocket sized, the Leica S2 series is $23k to $28k. 37 megapixels. Expect to pay about $5000, and up, for lenses. The S2 gets rave reviews.

Then, there's the toy cameras like the Nikon D4 which is only $6000. 16 megapixels. Lenses are anywhere from $100 to $10k.

If number of pixels are a driving factor, then Nikon D800 for $2800. 36 megapixels. The D4 will give better quality images, but the D800 sure has a lot of pixels.

Whats the highest megapixel camera available ?

Lily

please tell me if you know I am looking to spend a lot of money a camera. How much does this camera cost ?

Answer
The LSST has not been built yet, but will be 3.2 gigapixels, you can have one built for approximately 500 million US$.

Or you can walk into any high-end camera shop and for $20,000 to $40,000 (US$) walk out with a Hasselblad with 40mp or more.

Or you can walk into a camera shop or electronics store and walk out with a Canon 1D or a Nikon D3X (both about 24 mp) for about $7000

Powered by Yahoo! Answers