CA/PF: compare Fuji s602 and Nikon D40

In the 1960s I purchased a Zeiss Ikon SLR and after a while I began to wonder about the quality of my photos. They just lacked the quality and sharpness of my Argus C3. Finally, in the 1970s I purchased a good range finder camera. Wow, what a difference in the quality of the photos. And I didn’t have to lug all the SLR weight, to boot!

In the late 1990s I began to experiment with digital photography, but the quality in many ways was poor and the cameras were very clumsy. By the early 2000s there was a significant improvement in the quality of the digital images and cameras. So I purchased a Fuji s602z and later a Fuji E550. The 602 was not a disappointment and to this day it provides some of my best shot.

Since I’ve read a lot on the DPR Fuji Talk Forum about how dSLRs are so superior to bridge, compact, and point and shoot cameras in every way, I began to think that I should buy a dSLR. I began to read the dSLR reviews more carefully. Then, this spring a friend purchased a Nikon D300. I’ve borrowed it on several occasions to shoot experimental shots of trees and sky. It had fading and PF. But I liked the way it handled, especially the “zoom”—the lens is a Tamron f2.8 17-50. So, I began to consider even more seriously purchasing a dSLR. I was able to borrow a Nikon D40 with the two kit lenses. (I had narrowed my camera choices down to Pentax and Nikon—the more I read the D40 seemed right, even though it produced 6 MP photos, which to me has many advantages.) Anyhow, I went out and shot with both the D40 and the s602z. I brought the images home and began to compare them. There are some differences, but they are trade-offs.

Then, I came upon the last series of shots, which I took just for the heck of it. Wow! The Nikon had CA/PF and it was pronounced. So did the Fuji, as was to be expected. I now went back and began to examine the shots more carefully. Sure enough in many of the Nikon shots there was purple fringing. So, I’m very disappointed by those on this forum using dSLR making all those claims and constantly criticizing the Fujis.

Here are the examples: they are paired as closely as I could: F1 and N1; F2 and N2; etc. F = Fuji s602z and N = Nikon D40. The EXIFs were with the images when I uploaded them. They seem to have disappeared.

You should be able to enlarge them on you own computers and see the details, even though I reduced the images to about 1600 x 1200 pixels.

You can see the PF on the trunk of the tree on the right
1st comparison
Fuji



Nikon



2nd comparison
Fuji



Nikon



3rd comparison
Fuji



Nikon



4th comparison
Fuji



Nikon



5th comparison
Fuji



Nikon



I hope that I haven’t messed anything up.

--
vsteffel

Kit lens... That is the difference with a dslr, you dont have to use the lens that has some PF.. I am not familiar with the kit on the Nikon, but usually they are just glass to get a beginner into the dlsr and are fairly cheap. You dont have to buy the kit lens with a dslr, you can buy the body only and get a better lens at the start. My tamron 28-75 is a lens that I have not had real PF issues with.

The difference is you are stuck with the lens on a P&S or Ultra bridge, and fuji's have all had issues with PF...

I have a tamron 70-300 for the dslr that is as bad and worse than what I have seen from the S100, it was 149 dollars new, and now sits on the shelf a lot. We all make mistakes and in my case it was an informed mistake. Having said that, some of my favorite shots have been with that lens. I just has to be in the right conditions... Same with the S100... you can work around the limitations as many have shown...

But like I said, it was an informed decision I made to buy that 70-300, I knew it had PF. I just did not realize how much it would bug me until I was needing to PP it all the time....

On this forum with many saying they do not see it, or it is not a big deal... some people may buy the camera thinking it is not there. That would not be an informed decision at all IMO...
--
Gus --- Master of the Obvious

v steffel said:

Then, I came upon the last series of shots, which I took just for the
heck of it. Wow! The Nikon had CA/PF and it was pronounced. So did
the Fuji, as was to be expected. I now went back and began to
examine the shots more carefully. Sure enough in many of the Nikon
shots there was purple fringing. So, I’m very disappointed by those
on this forum using dSLR making all those claims and constantly
criticizing the Fujis.

Click to expand...

If you actually read what gets written instead of filling all the blanks like so many on here do, you will note that no one has ever said that dSLRs do not generate CA/PF.

Hot (as in over) exposures like you are showing here are quite prone to showing wicked CA, as are the cheapest of kit lenses. No denying it. Wouldn't try.

The reason it gets mentioned so often with the S100fs specifically is that it is noticeably worse than on any previous camera that DPReview had tested ... that's all ... they mention it, the other major review sites mention it, and anyone who looks at the images finds truly remarkable levels of it in certain kinds of images .

So what exactly is it that disappoints you so?

v steffel said:

Here are the examples: they are paired as closely as I could: F1
and N1; F2 and N2; etc. F = Fuji s602z and N = Nikon D40. The EXIFs
were with the images when I uploaded them. They seem to have
disappeared.

Click to expand...

Too bad we can't tell what aperture you used in each case etc ... the mystical loss of EXIF really breeds confidence in the results ...

v steffel said:

I hope that I haven’t messed anything up.

Click to expand...

Besides the absence of EXIF and the very hot exposures, it's great.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

... A friend had the 602 many years back (2001 ?) and it was an impressive camera. It was my first exposure to a Fuji and it was a pleasant one.

Having owned DSLR's, and many different lenses, I know that CA and PF can be experienced across many different combinations. Whilst kit lenses are normally not wonderful, even expensive glass can have some issues.

This makes it very difficult for a purchaser to make correct decisions as it is difficult to know of any issues before purchase. Best to scour the web for examples.

It is not just an issue confined to compacts or 'bridge' cameras.

I've spent a bit of time recently looking at images from my friends D300 - Nice camera. CA and PF seem quite controlled with it. Maybe soon, all cameras will have some form of CA control ?

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

CA/PF is mainly a matter of lenses (though some cameras do in-camera processing to deal with it).

The Fuji s602z has a 6x zoom. The s100fs has a 14x zoom. The more zoom, the more likely you are to have problems with CA/PF and that seems to be borne out with the s100fs.

You can certainly pair a cheapish lens with a DSLR body and not see any great advantage in CA/PF in comparison with one of the lower zoom P&S cameras.

--
john carson

On Cheung Chau Island, Hong Kong, I took a photo with my Fuji E550. I was taken aback by how blown out the highlights were and the unbelievable amount of purple fringing. This set me on a quest to try to save this photo and understand more about purple fringing. I can only say that I am a little smarter, but not much. I did learn how to save such a photo. I also tried shooting sites at home with similar high contrast using both raw and jpeg. I found that raw did nothing or at least to my eyes nothing to reduce CA/PF. But I will add that I am now sensitive to the purple fringing issue.

As to dSLRs: Over and over as issues came up on this Fuji forum many of the solutions were that one should get a dSLR. That is why I began to read reviews of dSLR cameras. Many of the reviews rated the Nikon D40 highly for those beginning with dSLR cameras. Thom Hogan is positive about the Nikon kit lenses as are other reviewers. So, when I found the strong purple fringing I was surprised. In further reading about the lenses there some reservation hedges buried in the reviews.

I compared the sharpness of the Fuji with the Nikon and the Nikon shots are sharper.

What disappoints me is the praise for dSLRs over bridge cameras and then to discover that the dSLRs have the frailties of the bridge cameras.

On another issue raised in the messages responding to my message, I don’t see how the photos are over exposed. I used Program and Auto modes on both camera—you may disapprove of this, but they work very well in most situations, especially Program on the Fujis. Moreover, I don’t grasp the meaning of HOT as applied to these photos.

I do like to shoot scenes with contrast. I am used to using Kodachrome 64.

I don’t know why the EXIFs were stripped when I uploaded the files to Flickr. Maybe I did something wrong. Anyhow, I willing to provide you with the originals so that you can analyze them and further explicate.

Thanks for each and everyone’s comments thus far.

--
vsteffel

v steffel said:

As to dSLRs: Over and over as issues came up on this Fuji forum many
of the solutions were that one should get a dSLR.

Click to expand...

You are still not reading carefully enough. No one has really suggested that the solution to CA is to get a dSLR.

On the other hand ... people have suggested a dSLR for these issues:

-- low light photography where detail retention is important
-- sports (action), especially indoors
-- wildlife during the morning and evening (best lighting)
-- birds in flight

And so on ...

A bridge cam can be used in all these instances with varying success and keeper rates ... but if you want reliable results, you need a camera and lense designed for the task.

v steffel said:

That is why I
began to read reviews of dSLR cameras. Many of the reviews rated the
Nikon D40 highly for those beginning with dSLR cameras. Thom Hogan
is positive about the Nikon kit lenses as are other reviewers. So,
when I found the strong purple fringing I was surprised.

Click to expand...

If you use only the cheapest of lenses ... you should not be surprised by the appearance of CA. As someone else pointed out ... all lenses create CA under certain circumstances. The issue is always a matter of degree ...

v steffel said:

In further
reading about the lenses there some reservation hedges buried in the
reviews.

Click to expand...

That's why you have to read carefully ...

v steffel said:

I compared the sharpness of the Fuji with the Nikon and the Nikon
shots are sharper.

Click to expand...

Interesting ... did you evaluate them correctly? ... all Fujis are extremely sharp, in the center at least.

v steffel said:

What disappoints me is the praise for dSLRs over bridge cameras and
then to discover that the dSLRs have the frailties of the bridge
cameras.

Click to expand...

All cameras have frailties, which are actually just limitations. All limitations can be somewhat mitigated ... the better the camera for your specific goals, the fewer the limitations.

v steffel said:

On another issue raised in the messages responding to my message, I
don’t see how the photos are over exposed.

Click to expand...

They are ... can you not tell just by looking at them?

v steffel said:

I used Program and Auto
modes on both camera—you may disapprove of this, but they work very
well in most situations, especially Program on the Fujis.

Click to expand...

So you are extremely early in the learning curve ... you have not yet learned how meters work and you do not seem to know how to compensate your meter.

My suggestion is always to start with the book "Field Guide to Nature Photography" by John Shaw. It has an excellent section on metering and a simplified zone system.

v steffel said:

Moreover,
I don’t grasp the meaning of HOT as applied to these photos.

Click to expand...

Hot ... as in high key. As in over exposed.

v steffel said:

I do like to shoot scenes with contrast. I am used to using
Kodachrome 64.

Click to expand...

Great ... then mid-day shooting on full auto is just your thing. But that does not make it good light, nor does it help the images coming out of such a session to minimize CA.

v steffel said:

I don’t know why the EXIFs were stripped when I uploaded the files to
Flickr. Maybe I did something wrong. Anyhow, I willing to provide
you with the originals so that you can analyze them and further
explicate.

Click to expand...

It is a given that shooting the way you do with the cheapest of kit lenses will create CA. No need to post further examples ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

v steffel said:

On Cheung Chau Island, Hong Kong, I took a photo with my Fuji E550.
I was taken aback by how blown out the highlights were and the
unbelievable amount of purple fringing. This set me on a quest to
try to save this photo and understand more about purple fringing. I
can only say that I am a little smarter, but not much. I did learn
how to save such a photo. I also tried shooting sites at home with
similar high contrast using both raw and jpeg. I found that raw did
nothing or at least to my eyes nothing to reduce CA/PF. But I will
add that I am now sensitive to the purple fringing issue.

As to dSLRs: Over and over as issues came up on this Fuji forum many
of the solutions were that one should get a dSLR. That is why I
began to read reviews of dSLR cameras. Many of the reviews rated the
Nikon D40 highly for those beginning with dSLR cameras. Thom Hogan
is positive about the Nikon kit lenses as are other reviewers. So,
when I found the strong purple fringing I was surprised. In further
reading about the lenses there some reservation hedges buried in the
reviews.

I compared the sharpness of the Fuji with the Nikon and the Nikon
shots are sharper.

What disappoints me is the praise for dSLRs over bridge cameras and
then to discover that the dSLRs have the frailties of the bridge
cameras.

Click to expand...

All cameras have their weaknesses and their will always be those who will praise one over another. I went down the DSLR path several years back believing they would deliver better images for my type of work at the time. This consisted of product shoots, studio portraits and scene images. I found my humble Sony's excelled in product and portrait shoots but the DSLR's certainly could produce good scene and general images. Better than the Sony's ? In low light certainly.

It can be a little baffling when folk push the DSLR message. I certainly also understand that it can be frustrating that it is touted as the pinnacle solution as there are many excellent other choices available.

The DSLR world has such a mind boggling range of bodies, lenses, accessories that it can be very difficult to understand what to purchase. One thing I learned from my foray into DSLR's was that buying cheaper non-manufacturers lenses was, pretty much, a waste of time.

Most manufacturers have some excellent lenses. this does not mean that if it has the 'brand' on it that it will be good. Quite a bit of research is required. Often the best way is to experiment with someone else's kit to see if it behaves the way you desire.

As an example, a friend had a 16-35 mm and a 17-35 mm and I was able to shoot with them both before I decided which to buy.

You would think there would be little difference yet there was.

v steffel said:

On another issue raised in the messages responding to my message, I
don’t see how the photos are over exposed. I used Program and Auto
modes on both camera—you may disapprove of this, but they work very
well in most situations, especially Program on the Fujis. Moreover,
I don’t grasp the meaning of HOT as applied to these photos.

Click to expand...

Hot means 'over exposed'. I certainly did not see them as that and I think you did a very good job in presenting them 'as shot'. I saw them as 'light' - Meaning they were not over contrasty. I also think it was very good that you used Auto as this helps eliminate 'enhancements' from the camera. Many people do just shoot on Auto.

v steffel said:

I do like to shoot scenes with contrast. I am used to using
Kodachrome 64.

Click to expand...

One thing that excites me about the new generation cameras is their dynamic range control. My S100fs has DR (dynamic range) control and it is excellent. In post processing, I can certainly get a good 'film' look. I was also bought up on K64, E100g, E100vs, FP4, HP5, etc.

v steffel said:

I don’t know why the EXIFs were stripped when I uploaded the files to
Flickr. Maybe I did something wrong. Anyhow, I willing to provide
you with the originals so that you can analyze them and further
explicate.

Click to expand...

Many sites strip off Exifs. Doesn't really matter that they are not there. No-one is questioning your statements.

v steffel said:

Thanks for each and everyone’s comments thus far.

Click to expand...

Hope you get some useful information from it all. Good luck.

v steffel said:

--
vsteffel

Click to expand...

--
Rgds, Dave.
Have fun - take lotsa pix.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/pixplanet

S100fs Examples - http://www.pixplanet.biz/Posting-stuff_5.htm

Again, I appreciate your taking time to provide me with more insights into photography.

I think that I read the reviews reasonably to narrow my choice. I covered the Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax reviews. At that time the CA/PF issue wasn’t the most important issue. I wanted a dSLR with a 17-125 mm digital lens. This would surpass most of my needs since with a 35 mm rangefinder 90 mm was sufficient. Moreover, this would match the long distance range of the Fuji s602z. However, the costs of such a camera and lens were at least $1000 just to start.

It’s only when I borrowed the Nikon D300 with Tamron f2.8 17-50 mm that I began to see and appreciate the problems with dSLR photography. I will be borrowing my friends’ cameras to understand better what I should expect. (I would prefer Fuji because the Super CCD HP sensor performs so well, but it doesn’t seem to be in the foreseeable future. Also, the weight of the Fuji bridge cameras seems to be getting out of hand.)

And yes I was surprised to find these CA/PF using the two kit lenses with the D40. The reviews suggested that the Nikon kit lenses were adequate to start.
Here’s what I read in Tom Hogan’s review:
Sharp and Light Lens Kit

• Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX. It's sharp, it's small, it focuses fast, it's inexpensive, with the primary flaw being that it vignettes wide open.

• Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR. It's sharp, it's small, it has very useful VR, it is very inexpensive, with the primary flaw being that the AF-S focusing is a bit slower than normal and not overridable.

For US$600 you cover wide angle to telephoto with two excellent lenses that won't cause you much grief. You will need a step-up ring for the 55-200mm to use the same filters as the 18-70mm (67mm filters are what you should get). This set weighs a total of 27 ounces ( 730g), which is about as light as you're going to get with decent lenses on the Nikon DSLRs. Your primary limitation is that you're not set for low light work (see Top of the Line Lens Kit, below). If you have the 18-55mm DX, don't worry about replacing it: it isn't much behind the 18-70mm, so just add the telephoto zoom and you're done; you'll even avoid the filter size problem. What do you give up? A tiny bit of acuity and the 55-70mm range. Oh yes, and you also have less vignetting. Still, I like the 18-70mm better, and that little bit of extra focal length range means that you switch lenses less often.
http://www.bythom.com/DigRecs.htm

Here’s what I read in SLRGear: Chromatic Aberration

The lens shows good resistance to chromatic aberration, much improved over the previous version of the 18-55mm. This is noteworthy as Nikon removed the ED glass element, in favor of an improved lens coating. Chromatic aberration is present at the wide angle (18mm), consistently in the corners and overall as the aperture is stopped down, but as the focal length increases chromatic aberration all but disappears by 35mm. Nikon is definitely ahead of the game when it comes to dealing with CA.
CONCLUSION

The chances are, if you bought a Nikon D40x or D60 in 2008, you already have this lens. I can't see a compelling reason to buy this lens separately unless you're really strapped for cash; there might be some on the used market as people upgrade to the more capable 18-200mm or 16-85mm VR lenses. Optically it's alright, maybe even better than alright if you get a good copy, but to get the best results you have to stop down to ƒ 8. Fortunately, the addition of VR does make that possible. In the final analysis it's a good lens, not a great lens, excellent for the beginning photographer.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1154/cat/13

And from Imaging Resource, which sent me to SLR Gear:

This refers to the first Nikkor 18-55, since they haven’t tested the new version.

The 18-55 on the D50 was a fairly typical kit lens, with so-so optical performance wide open, but capable of very good sharpness if you stopped it down one or two f-stops. Kit lenses work well enough for most consumers, and serve their purpose of getting you started without breaking the bank, but a big part of the attraction with SLRs is that you can easily trade up to a better lens when your finances improve, and extend your reach to wider angle, telephoto, or macro photography just by adding to your lens collection.

Chromatic aberration is low at both wide angle and telephoto settings with the 18-55mm kit lens. At wide angle, there's about 3-4 pixels of bright coloration on either side of the target lines. However, at telephoto, the pixels aren't nearly as bright. (This distortion is visible as a very slight colored fringe around the objects at the edges of the field of view on the resolution target.)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ND40/ND40A4.HTM

Use of Metering: I learned how to use light meters in film days and also learned rules of thumb on setting shutter speed and aperature. I try to apply these rules when the circumstances seem appropriate.

Also, I don’t like shooting around noon. I do so only when that’s the only opportunity to get the shot. I prefer to shoot later in the afternoons or earlier in the mornings. I don’t think that I shoot from the hip.

As to the shots in the samples provided in the original post, they were taken around 4:00 pm.

That’s why I offered to send you the original so that you could really examine them for yourself and provide conclusions.

Thanks again for your time and advice.

--
vsteffel

v steffel said:

At that time the CA/PF issue wasn’t the most important issue.

Click to expand...

It never is ... the only reason it has come to prominence on this forum is that the latest camera has a lot of it. So much so that every major review mentions it. The arguments on this forum make one think that this is all there is to the camera ... and that's far from the truth.

v steffel said:

It’s only when I borrowed the Nikon D300 with Tamron f2.8 17-50 mm
that I began to see and appreciate the problems with dSLR
photography.

Click to expand...

What problems you are referencing?

v steffel said:

And yes I was surprised to find these CA/PF using the two kit lenses
with the D40. The reviews suggested that the Nikon kit lenses were
adequate to start.

Click to expand...

They are perfectly adequate ... for the same reason that the S100fs is perfectly adequate. One fairly minor issue does not sink a ship ...

v steffel said:

Here’s what I read in Tom Hogan’s review:
Sharp and Light Lens Kit
• Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX. It's sharp, it's small, it
focuses fast, it's inexpensive, with the primary flaw being that it
vignettes wide open.
• Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR. It's sharp, it's small, it has
very useful VR, it is very inexpensive, with the primary flaw being
that the AF-S focusing is a bit slower than normal and not
overridable.

Click to expand...

Yes ... this is an excellent pair of lenses ... the former is often available cheaply since it is no longer sold in kits. The latter is well respected ... especially for its value.

v steffel said:

For US$600 you cover wide angle to telephoto with two excellent
lenses that won't cause you much grief.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I clipped out a ton of review excerpts ... basically, if you get the cheapest glass you are getting a decent lense with some CA issues. But you can always upgrade ... and it's not even that expensive in many cases.

v steffel said:

Use of Metering: I learned how to use light meters in film days and
also learned rules of thumb on setting shutter speed and aperature.
I try to apply these rules when the circumstances seem appropriate.

Click to expand...

I still suggest that you read John Shaw's book ... exposure accuracy is far more critical these days as digital cameras tend to hit the wall early and harshly ...

v steffel said:

Also, I don’t like shooting around noon. I do so only when that’s
the only opportunity to get the shot. I prefer to shoot later in the
afternoons or earlier in the mornings. I don’t think that I shoot
from the hip.

Click to expand...

Don't remember anyone saying that you shoot from the hip ...

You like to analyze things pretty much to death ... which is fine. But you are taking the CA thing far too seriously ... ignore it and consider the features, cost, size and weight of the system and whether you are willing to carry more around. Consider whether lense swapping will be acceptable. Consider what you can afford. Consider what you like to shoot ... do you need a faster AF cam ... better detail retention at high ISO ...

These issues are miles ahead of CA in importance ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Hi All,

My problem isn't CA/PF, it's taking shots I consider to be worthwhile only to find they are too dark or light, in focus or out. (inexperience).

Am going to take Kim's advice and have a look at the book He suggest's by John Shaw, hopefully from the local library (small village, East of Scotland) if not order it online.

From a beginners point of view it doesn't help having all these flame wars going on!

Regards to All: David

Perhaps many are looking for the perfect camera and lens with 'all singing, all dancing' features and performance: And maybe a camera for all seasons and every possible job. However, there has never been, and probably never will be such a wonderful thing.

Since the very first two cameras one has always been better than another for a particular use. Who ever rushed about with a 10"x8" large format monorail camera with a super wideangle lens to cover a sports event or used a 35mm miniature camera with a 1000mm lens for scientific work and for producing the highest quality prints the size of a door? Or, undertook landscape photography with a portrait lens?

Decide what you want a camera for then evaluate the range on offer, go for it, use it, enjoy it and when needs change repeat the process.

It's horses for courses. Some horses are best for flat racing while jumpers are best 'over the sticks.

David G

ctrlphoto said:

Some horses are best for flat racing while
jumpers are best 'over the sticks.

Click to expand...

Quite true. Then again, some flat racers are faster than other flat racers.

--
john carson

John Carson said:

ctrlphoto said:

Some horses are best for flat racing while
jumpers are best 'over the sticks.

Click to expand...

Quite true. Then again, some flat racers are faster than other flat
racers.

Click to expand...

And one presumes that you can find certain blood lines that can do anything well ... I doubt that there is anything in life that doesn't have this kind of variation in capability. Generally speaking, you always get pretty much what you are willing to pay for ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Thanks for the John Shaw Nature “Photography Field Guide” suggestion. I agree that issues of metering are critical even with bridge cameras. I’m placing a library request.

I appreciate your views on chromatic aberration.

Your evaluations of photo images may get us to reassess what is important for different photographers and to be more tolerant of others views and interests.

Thanks again for your interest.

--
vsteffel

Fantastic camera.

Have a D40...not even in the same league.....Way faster (focus, shot-to-shot, start up). The focus speed in low light isn't even in the same universe. Much better high iso IQ.

I still think the S6500 is one of the best around, but it's not a dslr.

Darin

Great to see you post again.. Still have the D40? Are you interested in the D90? I would hate to sell all of my glass just to jump another boat, but.....

How are the girls?
--
Gus --- Master of the Obvious

Britney Elvis said:

Great to see you post again.. Still have the D40? Are you
interested in the D90? I would hate to sell all of my glass just to
jump another boat, but.....

How are the girls?
--
Gus --- Master of the Obvious

Click to expand...

The girls are great, if not a bit of a handfull at times.

Yes I still have the D40...at the moment.

Yes the D90 looks fantastic. Cmos chip from the D300, 4.5fps, uprated AF and metering systems, better lens compatabilty (it will AF my 50mm). Even has HD video (manual focus only) with DOF control. Fantastic high res 3" LCD..............

Have I talked myself into it yet

Cheers Darin