Digital photography

I wouldn't recommend film photography to anyone....it's like recommending clps and straps when everyone really knows clipless are best....

Digital has been an absolute revelation to me, because ultimately it's cheaper, you can experiment to your hearts delight without ever having to pay for developing and printing...therfore the learning process is much quicker too.

and buy Tom Ang's book.

Does Nikon D40 have auto focus lens as standard as this could be big cost and limited choice?

Sony Alpha DSLR –A200 gets good reviews at sub £250

Digital review website is good starting point

Yes the D40 kit comes with an AF-S lens, so it will autofocus with the kit lens.
Good website linked above too, great resource for in depth testing.

Good, wasn't sure about D40 focus must have misread about it

I may also consider selling my AF-S DX 18-135mm kit lens that came with my D80. Not a great lens I'm not gonna lie, but a useful lens for walkabout daylight shooting. Only reason I don't use it more is because at a minimm aperture of f/3.5 at minimum focal length, I don't get very far in low light (bear in mind I generally hate to use flash). If you find a great body-only deal feel free to give me a PM!

D40 D40 D40 D40 D40 D40

that is all

and buy Tom Ang's book.

Private Album: How to Take Your Own Nude Photographs

This one?

If it's a Canon you want consider their refurbished eBay store:
http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Outlet__W0QQ_armrsZ1

I bought a 400D for a very good price (from them) over a year ago and have been very happy with it.
It comes with warranty too.
I was hasty at first but decided to go for it and haven't regretted it.

They have G9's and G10's too if you want something which takes awesome pics and isn't bulky like an SLR. Bit more point and shoot.

I know nothing about real photography.

In that case, a bridge camera will suit you, as Guerillaphoto says below.

STOP
from what you describe you know little about photography, a DSLR is wrong for you. Buy a bridge camera such as a canon G10, Fuji S7000 etc... this will serve your needs.

Good, honest advice.

Get a DSLR over a bridge camera. Sure, if you're talking 'true' 1:1 macro photography then lenses are pricey but, as a learner, you can get good close-up results with most kit lenses.

It depends what your ambitions are. And yes, it is true, that you can grow more with a DSLR than a bridge camera. But the most important question is, what types of photography will you do with a camera, that won't be done well with a bridge camera? If the answer is "akmost nothing", then the bridge camera is perfect. If you wish to gravitate to studio work, and the full monty macro-work, the a DSLR will be better.

buy a Nikon FM2 for £50 on ebay.

Excellent suggestion. Though I preferred the Olympus OM-1n, I concur that the Nikon FM2 is the superior camera. All mechanical shutter speeds and a fast flash-sync, and the largest of all lens ranges, means that its an absolute winner. However, its not for someone that just wants to point and shoot, immediately as they buy the camera,. and of course, film processing can be relatively pricey. Yet, for learning about photography, a fully manual camera (film), and a camera with a full manual setting, is the way to learn about exposure. Composition can be learned by reading the Rule Of Thirds, then leatning how to break that rule (pyramid composition for example). I learnt photography in a day, when I bought a Pentax K1000 and loaded it with slide film. I think I only got 2 useable shots from that roll, but I studied each failure, and knew what to do differently the next time (wider aperture, faster/slower shutter speed).

^I was actually considering suggesting film SLR...but the learning curve is slooooow.

It is much slower than digital, which is instant. Anything else is therefore slower.

if people want to learn photography, start again with film, learning curve can be quick once you get used to it.

as for just taking photos, just get a cheap DSLR, as they're good enough as it is for the normal individual.

Too right.

I wouldn't recommend film photography to anyone....it's like recommending clps and straps when everyone really knows clipless are best....

Digital has been an absolute revelation to me, because ultimately it's cheaper, you can experiment to your hearts delight without ever having to pay for developing and printing...therfore the learning process is much quicker too.

I would argue, that those that learn photography on film cameras, have a much greater understanding of photography than those who learn on digital cameras. And I do believe that the chasm in knowledge is huge.

I have met so-called "pros", that have learnt their trade on digital cameras, and were confused when I asked them what flash-ratio they used.

Digital review website is good starting point

Excellent.

What do people think of the Lumix G1? I'm quite attracted by it, since I have a Lumix FZ8 already and like the software but would like a better sensor and the possibility of changing lenses.

"I learnt photography in a day"

and to think i wasted 5 years at art college and several years assisting other photographers.
i could have been out riding my bike instead.

;)

Obviously not the whole gamut in a day Mr.Smith. But I did learn what I was doing wrong, and that rapidly taught me the basics....of photography.

EDIT:
It took me many years to be satisfied with my knowledge of flash usage.

Thanks again to everyones input, some good advice. I must admit I am kinda sold on this deal:

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5606416/Trail/searchtext%3ENIKON+D40.htm

For the money, that looks dead on

Good choice!

out of stock thugh actually...meh

Also voting for a DSLR. If this were the days of film, people here wouldn't hesitate to suggest an SLR over anything else and yes, bridge versions did exist at that time. In reality, the same principles apply.

You say you know nothing about real photography but that evidently isn't true. You have at least recognised an absence of quality in your own work and wish to improve on that and understanding the end result is potentially the most important thing to learn when it comes to photography. If you were happy with pictures of silhouettes of your gurning friends as pinpoints in front of the cropped Eiffel Tower or the arse of that seagull that flew kind of close, you wouldn't be asking for help.

If you go for a bridge camera and want to go further, you'll have a bridge camera that you'll have to sell at a dismal fraction of the price. If you have even a cheap DSLR from a manufacturer with a large range, you can upgrade the body whilst retaining the lense or, more importantly, upgrade the lense while retaining the body. At the end of the day you may not get into it, but at least you won't be put off by the limitations of the equipment and you'll still have a decent piece of kit for the times you do want to take pictures. You've already wasted money on worse things than this.

Give it an honest go though. Read a book and be your own harsh critic. Take advice and experiment.

My girlfriend is a professional photography (with paper to prove it, not from buying that 'pro' account from Flickr), and her equipment is simply this;

Canon 20D

stock lens.

That's it, her entire photography career base on just those equipment (okay and some medium format but that's beside the point), if she can take great photos with it, no doubt a cheap DSLR is more than enough for your average individual (not that you're average of course).

Nikon D60, D40, Canon 1000D, Pentax K-m, Olympus E-420, etc. those are perfectly more than ok for anyone who want to take a snap (and DSLR does not mean it limited for those who want to learn or practise photography).

Thanks again to everyones input, some good advice. I must admit I am kinda sold on this deal:

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5606416/Trail/searchtext%3ENIKON+D40.htm

For the money, that looks dead on

out of stock thugh actually...meh

Get it from Amazon for the same price. Seriously, you will not be disappointed. Do not be put off by the AF-S lens requirement. Nikkor lenses - particularly fast lenses - *are *expensive but Sigma do lots of very good HSM lenses which will work with this body, and Tamron are making an increasing number of motorised lenses. And get an SB-600 speedlight or better as soon as you can afford it.

Even so I doubt you'd go further than stock lens, hell I have a cheap 28-80mm lens I got from ebay for £50 on my Canon 5D.

Since thats a 6MP camera (Nikon D40), can I suggest that the Olympus E-1 might then fit your bill better? Its a few years old, but at 5MP is close in ultimate image size, but have a read of the reviews for that camera. Now available on fleabay, at a similar price. Those who are Nikon fans will think me mad, but I'm talking about performance versus price.

Review 1
Review 2
Review 3

The processor on later cameras are faster, but the E-1 IS a pro quality camera, and you can grow with it. Output quality is excellent.

Even so I doubt you'd go further than stock lens

What makes you say that?

Because quite simply, there's nothing wrong with the stock lens, for your average individual, they don't tend to spend more on other lens when the current one that came with the camera already doing exactly what they wanted it to do.

unless they believe in the silly notion that better lens = better photography.

^^^Although I don't disagree with what your saying, I do think there are limitations to a stock lens. For example I'm a big fan of narrow depth of fields and bokeh so I wanted/needed a fast piece of glass. Not trying to argue but just stating a point! :)

it's cheaper using a film camera with a run-of-the-mill 50mm prime lens than getting an 30mm F/1.4 for your DSLR!

ed, wtf?