"Ooo, there's the REAL photographer!"

That is not false humility. It seems with every passing “serious job” I do, I realize how far I have to go. Sure, I took some pretty shots, but there were so many shots that I looked at and thought, “Hmph, that one was almost good.”

Funny, I knew so much when I did my first wedding. Maybe the good ones were lost or something, because when I looked back, all those killer shots just were not there. Strange. I certainly knew more when I started…or as some friends quoted to me recently from Bob Dylan, “Ah, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”

I think to sum up my thoughts about what is limiting me — yes, I am going to blame it on gear…well, and that blasted spotlight at the banquet — I would say a full frame camera would sure be nice for an extra stop of light or two. That really does make sense; I will explain. I want to go a little wider, but I lose a stop or two getting a wider lens so it ends up where I want it on my crop sensor camera.

Example: I am shooting a 35mm f/2, which is acting like a f/2 50mm. I just lost a stop of light from the 50mm f/1.4 basically because of my cropped sensor. You have to blame something. Then, if I wanted to shoot at 35mm, which I do, I would have to go for a 24mm f/2.8, and I have just lost another stop of light.

Maybe on Nikon’s (and now other companies) new high ISO, low noise cameras, this would not be an issue, but I will tell you what, on my decrepitly aged D100, you notice plenty of grain just moving from 200 to 400.

I think to really say it more clearly, I would not say it is just that I need new gear to fix all my problems. It would be more accurate to say this: I feel like my eye is seeing a full frame view, but that blasted sensor keeps cropping my vision…but a little less grain would be nice for an alternative solution. Seriously, any full frame camera with the Ai-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4…that would be great.

I give the biggest kudos possible to Nikon for “writing the peace treaty” in the megapixel wars by coming out with the 12MP D300, D700, and D3. As is seen by the number of pros using these cameras, many people are more concerned with other features like shooting speed and high ISO noise. Now, I can add Canon to the list of enlightened camera makers by making their new top of the line compact camera less megapixels than the last generation of the same camera! Sweet.

Now, I am not trying to say more megapixels is bad. It all depends on your needs. To some, more megapixels does not slow down their workflow at all, they have plenty of space to back up the larger files, and some just flat need the extra megapixels. For many, there is not a need for more megapixels, and fewer means they can gain speed in processing (shooting speed and editing on the computer) and lose noise at high ISOs. It all depends.

For the average Joe or amateur photographer, though, there is rarely a need for ultra high megapixels. They already haev all they need. My Mom has a 10 or 12MP camera, and I set it to a smaller setting for her, because it eats up space so fast. Regardless, I like the trend, which seems to be saying, “we camera makers are willing to work on other issues besides jump forcing more megapixels into the camera.” Bravo!

I am looking at getting a nice digital camera. I am looking at the Nikon D40 and the Nikon D60. I really like the price of the D40, but I want something that is going to be good and that I will enjoy for a while. I am not necessarily sold on Nikon, it just what I know. So, any thoughts on my purchase would be greatly appreciated.

You are looking at the D40 and D60, but are not even brand particular. What should you buy? Here is my simple answer: if the question is which of those two, I would go for the D40, any day (or maybe a Pentax…they have great, cheap cameras). I have shot the D40 myself and love it for just shooting around. You will probably never use all the features of the D40, so paying more for more features in the newer D60 really would not make much sense, unless there was one feature in particular which was important to you which only the D60 had. And as for the megapixel size, it does not really matter that much. The D40’s six megapixels are more than enough for your needs…my camera is only 6MP!

There is my simple answer. Maybe that answers your question. If you want to know more, here is my slightly longer answer.

Here are some questions and comments to confuse things a bit. Do you need a SLR (SLRs are the big cameras with changeable lenses like the D40 or D60) or just a point and shoot? One of the big questions that decides that issue for many people is this: do you want to be able to do video? For me personally, I am all about photographs and do not really do the video thing, so that question is a no-brainer for me, but for many people I have talked to about this, that is a key feature for them.

Here is a quick aside for more info on video-capable cameras, since that is really important to so many family oriented picture taking folks. The SLR cameras are just now starting to have video capability (and full HD video at that). So if, in your quest to find the right camera, you are thinking of a more amateur photographer kind of camera and want to do video as well, take a look at the Nikon D90…and I think the Canon 50D has video too (you will have to double check me on that).

So, back to the SLR or compact camera issue. Assume you bought a D40, if you are just going to use the automatic photo taking features anyway (i.e. press the button and let the camera decide how to take the photo for you), you might be better off just buying a nice point and shoot, because an SLR in auto mode is only a larger, clunkier point and shoot…or even a cheap point and shoot, for that matter. Summed up, the basic reasons to buy an SLR and not a compact (point and shoot) camera are these:

• you want control of the photo taking process
• you want to be able to switch lenses
• you want a faster response when you take the photo

That last one is a big deal for lots of everyday picture takers, but there is a simple trick to make compact cameras respond much faster when you press the shutter button…but I will not get into that here.

If those are not big issues to you and you just want to take better pictures, which is the same boat as many, many other folks out there, the answer (unfortunately) is not a bigger, nicer camera. I am basically writing all this because I just do not want you buy a nice camera, then realize the photos are not any better, then later, because it is big and clunky (compared to a little compact camera) you finally decide to buy a small camera that can take video and do your best with that and leave that cool camera sitting in a closet at home. I know lots of folks who have walked that road, and it is frustrating.

So, since I could gab on for quite a long time on this topic and all its tangents, I think I should stop now. I think I have answered the basic question, but that might make you rethink things and ask a slightly different question. Feel free to ask more, after thinking through all that, about which SLR or which compact camera to buy. It is really hard to dig through all the brand-centric, marketing hype out there, and I am more than willing to help in any way I can. [That goes for the rest of you readers out there, too...just write a comment below...I will see it.]