Nikon D40 Review

So far soo happy.

Allright thus far I've taken several thousand pictures with my new Nikon DSLR (digital SLR) and wanted to take this chance to make some comments.

Background (Skip if you're simply interested in why I like my camera):
(just a summary, go to Wikipedia for full articles about each)

Cameras come in all sizes and shapes. One way of classifying cameras is by how the light or image gets from the outside world onto the recording surface (either film or digital sensor). The original cameras were merely boxes with a bit of film stuck to the inside and a tiny pinhole on the opposite end of the box that allowed a tiny image to be "projected" onto the film. Because the hole was so small it took a long time to expose the film, but the image usually had equally crisp lines from the closest objects to the furthest (large depth of field). This was rather an unwieldy instrument though since you could only take one photo before having to change the film, and couldn't really preview what you aiming at.

Over time other camera designs sprang up including the twin lens reflex (TLR), the single lens reflex (SLR), and the point and shoot. The "reflex" in the SLR and TLR name is in reference to a surface that remains closed until you depress the shutter release at which point the surface moves out of the way to allow the light to hit the recording surface. A TLR uses two lenses, so the scene you are shooting is always visible though one lens that is dedicated to giving you a preview (often at the top of the camera and you look down onto a preview surface), and the light for the exposure is only let through the second lens when you depress the shutter release. The benefit of the TLR is that there is no point where the scene in the preview is blocked.

An SLR only has one lens, so when the shutter release isn't being triggered the light hits a mirror on the blocking surface and the image is directed to the eyepiece. When yhou press the shutter release on an SLR, the blocking surface and mirror (they are together) swing out of the way to allow the light to hit the recording surface, however this results in a temporary black out of the eye piece. This black out with the SLR is only for the time that the shutter is set for, most often less than 1/30th of a second. The advantage of the SLR is that the image you see in the eye piece is EXACTLY what is going to be recording, no paralax or offset view. Many SLRs even have an image preview that will show you what the depth of field will look like so you can predict very accurately what the scene will look like.

The other type of camera is a point and shoot. Like the TLR the view in the eye piece is slightly offset from the lens that makes the image, however there typically isn't a lens for the preview, simply a glass window from the front of the camera to the back where the photographer looks to see roughly where the camera is pointed. TLR and SLRs most often have interchangable lenses whereas point and shoot cameras usually have a single dedicated lens.

DSLR or Point and Shoot
If you primarily want a camera to take candid snap shoots where ever you might find yourself and do the occassional artistic photo, don't get a DSLR. They are still way bigger than the standard point and shoot, and absurdly larger than the smallest point and shoot. I always have my Canon digital Elph, SD400, with me. Well, anytime I'm with messenger bag. Because this camera is so small I can pack it anywhere and always have something to take decent pictures with. A picture you can take because you actually had your camera with you is always going to be better than one you couldn't take because you didn't have your huge DSLR with you.

Now that's a bit of an exageration to make a point, because I OFTEN have my DSLR in my messenger bag as well...just not as often as my Elph. And the fact that I carry my DSLR around in my messenger bag is probably the exception. However the reason I'm willing to carry around the larger DSLR is that it can take phenomenally better pictures. It has a wider range or zoom on the lens, the lens is faster (allows more light through it allowing quicker shutter times), has a better sensor that looks decent at higher ISO settings, is a higher megapixel sensor, and I'll some day be able to afford more or better lenses.

There are just some things you can't do with a point and shoot, such as crank the ISO up to 3200 and take photos in relative dark with no flash and relatively little camera shake. Also, I can put my DSLR in to fully manual mode and control literally every aspect of the camera from zoom to focus, to shutter speed, to aperature, to ISO, to white balance, and more. If none of that meant anything to you, then you probably want a good point and shoot camera, and they are certainly out there.

I can highly recommend the Canon Digital Elphs as I have one I love and know several other people who swear by them as well.

Hope that helped. If you have any specific questions about my experiences thus far feel free to holler at me in the comment section and I'll do my best to answer.

Mike

Megapixel Madness

DO NOT BUY A CAMERA JUST BECAUSE IT HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS THAN ANOTHER CAMERA!!!

I’ve been reading more and more articles lately saying that the number of Megapixels (how much information your digital camera captures when you snap a photo) is getting to the point where most people aren’t well served to simply look for the camera with more Megapixels.

Check out this link to West Coast Imaging for a fantastic (and colorful) chart illustrating how different megapixel ratings affect print quality at various sizes. (Hint: the number inside each little rectangle is the effective DPI. DPI is the dots per inch and is how you measure what quality a print is.)

200 DPI or higher is recommended for photographic quality prints.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t find myself printing out two foot by 3 foot prints that often. Ok, never. The largest I’ve ever printed out is 8x10, and that was in photography class in college. That means that for most people, the biggest concern is that they want to crop their picture down and only print part of it.

Let’s say you crop your picture down so that you’re only using the bottom left corner of the image (throwing away 75% of the image…seriously, shoot more discriminately). If you did this with a 4 megapixel image (2464 x 1632 pixels), the remaining image (after cropping) would be 1232 x 816 pixels. Tiny, right? Well that image could still be printed at roughly 204 DPI as a 4x6 image (remember over 200 is considered photo-quality). 4x6 is the standard size for prints from a photolab.

Bottom line…if you are going to be lazy and shoot pictures that have to be cropped to one quarter of their size, a 4 megapixel camera will still let you print photo quality images at the most common size. If you are going to print photos as 8x10s (without cropping) you only need 4 megapixels. Everything above that only serves to allow you to crop more and still print at the same size, or to print larger than 8x10 with minimal cropping.

This tells me that the most important thing in cameras, 4 megapixels and higher, is how well they capture color, sharpness, how good the lens is, how small or easy the camera is to use, and how much it costs.

Last thought. If you are only going to post your photos to your website then keep in mind that most photos get posted at a maximum of the screen resolution. Screen resolutions right now range from 1024x768 to 1920x1200. However, much more common is for images to be used on websites inline with the text at resolutions of less than 640x480. You could do this with less than 25% of a 2 megapixel image Please, please, please, do not spend a couple hundreds dollars extra JUST to move from 6 to 7, or even 6 to 9 megapixels. If the camera has other features,GREAT, if you absolutely know that you are going to crop most of your pictures, then consider it.

Welcome back STS-118

The crew of STS-118 is back on earth despite questions about whether the shuttle would be safe to re-enter the atmosphere with a damaged tile. I was listening to an interview with a science and technology public affairs professor who was discussing the change or lack of change in NASA's culture regarding safety issues.

It's a very intersting topic. NASA is our nations space agency; it is not a private corporation. It makes me wonder what kind of discussions would be taking place if we were talking about a private corporation. On the one hand, being a public organization I would IMAGINE it is subject to more inquiry and public openness. Maybe not. However, I have to think that with private space ventures there would be a POTENTIAL for a more dollar oriented approach.

If NASA has to jump through hurrdles to get people thinking safety over money...what will happen with private space ventures?

I hope and wish that private space travel will start as soon as Virgin Galactic seems to imply it will (first commercial sub orbital flights by as early as 2009). There's a part of me that worries about what sorts of risks may be taken to be the first, the highest, the longest, etc. There's also a part of me that thinks that my kids are going to be able to come up with some really awesome sports and games on their vacations to the Galactic (Insert Corporate Sponsor) Center located in Geosynchronous orbit above the Barrier Reef.