I dropped my S5700 :(

[icanhazburger]

And it does not power on at all, even though externally there is only a tiny crack.

Question is, Nikon D40 Black + AF-S DX 18-55mm Lens or Olympus E410 + 14-42mm replacement.

30 quid back on the Nikon aswell.

[BUFF]

how about a Sony A200?

get down to a shop & handle the various cameras.

[Bobster]

Side by Side

[colmo]

In the UK, the best value budget dSLRs right now are the Sony A200 and Olympus E420:

Entry DSLR

The Nikon D40 and D60 have a serious limitation of no auto-focus screw drive, limiting you to newer and more expensive in-lens motor driven lenses. The older Oly E410 lacks a few tricks, such as wireless flash; the E420 is equipped with this relatively obscure but very cool and useful feature. The Sony has it too - Minolta first introduced it in their film cameras in the 90s, and now Olympus and Pentax/Samsung (not sure about Nikon, and I know Canon requires an additional accessory) include it in their latest models.

I totally agree with BUFF - the most important feature of a camera cannot be quantified by a list of specs, it's how it feels in your hand and how accessible the controls are.

[shiato storm]

olympus' film slrs were, and still are, excellent to use...but i would personally stay away from their current line of digital slr's. they are good and produce excellent results but the nature of the '4/3' system has rendered them pretty useless for wideangle shots unless you've got bags of money to spend. the glass in the lenses are good, like the rest of the olympus kit, but unfortunately cost a fortune. thats my take any how. I suspect when they move to full frame it'll all be ok again
do as others have suggested; get down to the shops for a fiddle. then order on line so you don't get ripped off by some spotty kid at jessops who hasn't a clue what he's selling

[colmo]

Originally Posted by shiato storm

[Olympus dSLRs] are good and produce excellent results but the nature of the '4/3' system has rendered them pretty useless for wideangle shots unless you've got bags of money to spend. the glass in the lenses are good, like the rest of the olympus kit, but unfortunately cost a fortune. thats my take any how. I suspect when they move to full frame it'll all be ok again

That's highly unlikely to happen - as Olympus created the 4/3 system from scratch, it is a 'full frame' format - just not a full 35mm frame... any increase in sensor size would mean they'd have to scrap the entire system and start again. The market for cameras with sensors bigger than APS-C is very, very small (and mostly consists of pros), and I doubt it provides adequate justification for Olympus to go to such drastic lengths. They are painted into a corner on this.

As far as lens costs go, the perceived lens cost is increased by lack of a legacy lens market (unless you mount old MF lenses using an adapter, which might appeal to some) and relative lack of support from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. Their own lenses seem reasonably enough priced, only getting scary at the stratospheric top end of the range, and at least their kit lenses aren't trash, unlike some.

It's always a good idea to price out a system - the camera(s), flash(es) and lenses you are likely to buy in the future. If you aren't intent on buying much kit, and as the OP is only buying a dSLR because he dropped his bridge camera, this may be the case, then a small, inexpensive system will likely not lead to buying pro-grade lenses and expensive full (35mm) frame bodies.

Originally Posted by shiato storm

do as others have suggested; get down to the shops for a fiddle. then order on line so you don't get ripped off by some spotty kid at jessops who hasn't a clue what he's selling

Whenever I need a laugh, I like to look at Jessops memory card prices...

[Bobster]

Originally Posted by colmo

it is a 'full frame' format - just not a full 35mm frame...

that is what is ment by full frame = 35mm (35.8 x 23.9 mm), the 4/3rds system the sensor is 17.3 x 13.0 mm

Originally Posted by colmo

The market for cameras with sensors bigger than APS-C is very, very small (and mostly consists of pros)

its funny you should mention Pro's, Olympus have gone out of their way each month to advertise their 4/3rds as a DPS in Pro Photographer (and the image quality is really bad).

i wouldn't bother taking a 2nd look at a 4/3rds camera as the sensor is way to small to produce a clean image at the resolution they push it to..

[colmo]

Originally Posted by Bobster

that is what is ment by full frame = 35mm (35.8 x 23.9 mm), the 4/3rds system the sensor is 17.3 x 13.0 mm

I could be a pedant and define full frame as any camera using the entire image circle of the lens rather than a crop in the centre (this goes for medium and large format cameras too), but the convention does appear to be the form you use it in.

Originally Posted by Bobster

i wouldn't bother taking a 2nd look at a 4/3rds camera as the sensor is way to small to produce a clean image at the resolution they push it to..

That's a value judgement only the OP can make. The Olympus does suffer a bit in dynamic range, especially highlights, and at higher ISOs, but that may not be an issue to him. He might like the relatively deep DOF the small sensor affords him, or the small size of the E-420, or the rather nice telecentric Olympus lenses, or the live-view.

If a bigger, brighter viewfinder and performance at ISO 800 (with sensor-shift anti-shake) is more important, then the Sony is the better camera, though I would recommend replacing the kit lens eventually.

[icanhazburger]

A friend who runs a model agency really rates the Olympus for image quality, he has it as his backup camera. I don't know how they manage to get 10 megapixels from a tiny sensor, but that just shows how much I know about the technology behind digital I guess.

The reason for getting a DSLR now is because of the untimely demise of my bridge camera, but I would of got one reasonably soon anyway, knowing me I probably will be getting every concievable gadget under the sun for it eventually

[colmo]

Originally Posted by icanhazburger

A friend who runs a model agency really rates the Olympus for image quality, he has it as his backup camera. I don't know how they manage to get 10 megapixels from a tiny sensor, but that just shows how much I know about the technology behind digital I guess.

The reason for getting a DSLR now is because of the untimely demise of my bridge camera, but I would of got one reasonably soon anyway, knowing me I probably will be getting every concievable gadget under the sun for it eventually

A gearhead and his cash are soon parted If you do think you will invest heavily in not just a camera, but a system, it's worth giving thought to what you ultimately want to shoot. All of the different dSLR systems have strengths and weaknesses, it's just a matter of matching them up with your own needs. Perhaps you could indicate what sort of things you like to shoot now, and what you hope to be able to shoot in the future with your new kit?

[icanhazburger]

I tend to photograph anything, but I do mostly wildlife, flora and fauna etc. But I want to do more landscapes aswell, including urban.

[colmo]

Originally Posted by icanhazburger

I tend to photograph anything, but I do mostly wildlife, flora and fauna etc. But I want to do more landscapes aswell, including urban.

If you want serious long telephotos for wildlife, it's hard to dismiss the large selection of lenses Canon and Nikon have. Olympus, Sony and especially Pentax have a lot of catching up to do in that area, though Sigma and Tamron have a number of long lenses priced quite affordably for most/all the mounts.

For macro work, all the mounts have some excellent own-brand and third-party options (notably the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 70mm), though if you want a ring-flash, Canon and Nikon are better equipped there too.

A special mention should go to the Sony 135mm STF lens - this lens is absolutely unique, designed to provide the best 'bokeh' (rendering of out-of-focus areas) bar none. This thread at Dyxum provides a selection of samples - you'll notice it looks great when shooting flowers. It's manual-focus only, so it's a bit of a one-trick pony, but it does what it does better than any other lens.

For landscape, in the wide and ultra-wide range, choice is relatively limited and costly on all the mounts, thanks to the difficulties of making a true wide-angle for smaller digital sensors. I've heard the Nikon 14-24mm is amazing (and amazingly expensive). Again, Tamron and Sigma do provide (Sigma have the 10-20mm on all mounts, and Tamron have a forthcoming 10-24mm), but a special note should go to the Tokina 12-24mm, which is closely related to the Pentax 12-24mm (Tokina and Pentax both belong to the Hoya group). Olympus have just announced what should be a relatively affordable 9-18mm lens.

Note that once you start buying lenses, the cost of the camera represents an increasingly small part of the investment - this is why you pick which system suits your needs.

[icanhazburger]

Yeah someone else just gave me same advice regarding buying it for the future lenses, I've opted for the D40, mainly because I'll already have a fair choice of lenses by half inching them off my parents. My stepdads been seriously into his photography for years (he is 75 now) and since getting his 1st Nikon DSLR thats the only make he has bought, he got my mum a D40 at Christmas.

I should hopefully have the camera by close of play tomorrow, lets hope its a nice evening after work

Thanks for the advice everyone.

[icanhazburger]

Well I got the D40 today.

What I'm loving -

The feel of it, its nice and solid.
The sound of the shutter, I swear it makes my photography just a teeny bit better.
The half price 4gb sandisk III I wangled out of it.
The lack of lag in comparison to a compact, being able to almost instantly capture a moment is great, especially at the river near work, I captured a goose in full fail, yes it was fail rather than flight, it flew into the walled embankment

What I'm not loving -

I want a 200mm lens

[Jay]

how much did it set you back?

[icanhazburger]

299 with kit lens and fairly decent bag, also got a sandisk extreme III 4gb at half price as I refused to pay town center prices for it even though the shop was almost high street, I guess the manager could charge silly prices for memory as people would pay that much, but if you ask him nicely he slash the price, he took it from 65 to 30 on the memory.

I probably could of got it a bit cheaper online, but I'm a firm believer in being able to just march back into the shop with faulty goods and talk to someone face to face, I prefer offline shopping, the cheapest I saw the camera was only about 20 quid difference and I'd have had to have bought a bag and stuff.