s-40 or d40 problem.

Hi all. I know that this question has been asked many times but I don't think it has been truely finalized. Please help me. The s40 is great for the constructions, better imaging, compact flash media but has a poorer lcd than the d40 and battery life is not as good as the d-40. It is great that the s40 can use microdrive but that uses more power and because of the poor battery life on the s40, that positive is negated. The lcd is better on the d40 and I think that is how all of us really take pictures especially since the the optical viewfinder for the s-40 obscures 25% of the image. What should I do. Which the positives for each camera make it the better one. Help me decide now and we can put this debate to rest. Thank you in advance. Yugon

yugon said:

Hi all. I know that this question has been asked many times but I
don't think it has been truely finalized. Please help me. The s40
is great for the constructions, better imaging, compact flash media
but has a poorer lcd than the d40 and battery life is not as good
as the d-40. It is great that the s40 can use microdrive but that
uses more power and because of the poor battery life on the s40,
that positive is negated. The lcd is better on the d40 and I think
that is how all of us really take pictures especially since the the
optical viewfinder for the s-40 obscures 25% of the image. What
should I do. Which the positives for each camera make it the better
one. Help me decide now and we can put this debate to rest. Thank
you in advance. Yugon

Click to expand...

We are all agreed both are very good cameras, being basically smaller verions of their respective companys better/best prosumer models. Either camera will make most people more than happy. I chose the D/C40 because it was a smaller version of my then current camera, the C3030. I was more than happy with my C3030 and the pictures that it produced, except that due to its size and 'oddish' shape when in its dedicated case (I couldn't fit it in my cycling jersey pocket with out ripping the stiching) I found that I was unables to take picture of the places I was cycling to/through because it got left at home. I watched Olyumpus continue down the road that originally started with the C2000 shape but what I wanted/needed was a camera with all the feature of my C3030 with the additional features of the C3040 and C4040 ie the noise reduction and pixel mapping but in a far more compact shape. I had lots of Smartmedia cards from my Fuji MX2700 and C3030 days so really wanted to avoid the Compact Flash based cameras to save money. Then out of nowhere it was announced they had come up with the C40, my prayers were answered.

I didn't compare the C40 to any other rival because it has everything I need, in a camera that seemed very familiar, that will fit in my jersey pocket with space for more than enough batteries, mini tripod and all my cycling spares and stuff. I read the reviews, I was happy with the sample pictures, I enterpreted their 'cons' in my own terms and decided to buy it. It was as easy as that.

Some people are obviously looking at buying their first camera (are you?) and so the above is of no use. They both do pretty much the same thing with a few obvious differences (ie power supply and memory card) and a few subtle ones. I have had experience of AA power and Li-ION power and they have both have things going for them as descibed elsewhere, its not going to swing my decision one way or the other and neither is the type of memory (so long as its SM or CF).

The subtle differences are things like, the zoom range;

Canon is 35-105 Oly is I think 38-96.

the shutter range;

Canon is 15 to 1/1500, Oly is 16-1/1000

Metering modes;

Canon has 3 (centre weighted,spot and matrix) Oly has 2 (spot or ESP which depending on who you believe is matrix OR centreweighted!)

ISO range;

Canon has 50 as well as the 100,200 and 400 of the Oly.

White balance;

Oly has manually tuneable WB as well as all the levels of the Canon.

Flash;

The Oly has 2 mode slow synch in addition to the options offered by the Canon.

Remote shutter.

The Oly has the VERY useful remote control, the Canon has PC connection shooting instead.

'User Interface'

Oly has a very customizerble menu system that you can use to create shortcuts to the functions YOU want. The Canon doesn't. Though both can be made to make noises/start up logos of your choice.

Other little things, the Canon has histogram, the Oly has Pixel Mapping, the Canon's tripod socket is directly under the centre of the lens, the Oly's isn't.
Body material.

The Oly is made of plastic with 'metal paint' covering that will eventually rub off to reveal its likely real light grey colour (like the battery door of my MDplayer did), the Canon is made of aluminium.

I think that covers it ;-)

Rob S wrote (regarding the D-40:
[...]

Rob S said:

Body material.
The Oly is made of plastic with 'metal paint' covering that will
eventually rub off to reveal its likely real light grey colour
(like the battery door of my MDplayer did), the Canon is made of
aluminium.

Click to expand...

Phil says: "The front of the camera, including the lens cover, is metal, the center 'band' and rear are moulded plastic (although a fairly robust variety). "

In the US model, the metal is aluminum. In the UK model, it is aluminium, which contains one additional peppermint-flavored quark per atom that makes the C-40 just a little heavier, but more fragrant, than the D-40.--Mike Wright