maybe u should ask these kind of questions in a more appropriate forum...

nevermind i decided to get it regardless after seeing this.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujiS2Pro/S...CF0277.jpg

im not fond of the chromatic abboration in the hair
what lens was this photo taken with? 50mm? 85mm?

blahblah blah. you don't need an expensive slr unless you're a serious hardcore photography nerd who isn't going to be shooting everything on automatic. be more concerned about what lens you get

not true at all. a SLR means you will be using proper lenses, something which is very noticable even for a complete beginer.

I'd recommend the D40 for anyone who's not bothered by carrying around a bigger camera, since the results always are better.

And I'd recommend a newer SLR over an older model, since there has been so much progress in this field the last few years.

i mean the difference between a relatively cheap slr and an expensive one is not really noticable to someone who is just using the automatic settings. aside from the obvious like weight etc but i mean really, cmon.

ah,I misunderstood you. I thought you meant he'd be well of with a compact camera instead of a slr.

in that case I agree with you fully.

Any slr was super expensive 6 years ago. Fuji would have been the only brand I wouldn't recommend on buying but oh well, too late now.

not got it yet. I hate buying stuff I'm not sure about, so might put it on ice or get the d40 instead as its new and probably as good if not better than the best digital camera so should do me fine.

My only thing about the fuji is its 2nd hand and only retailing at 50 poundcheaper than the d40 which was released in 2006, so either their pricing is way off (which is probably unlikely) or its just a pretty good cam.

As price is usually a good indication, not always but mostly.

Price really isn't a very good indication when it comes to cameras. You can by a $ 25,000 Hasselblad which will take stunning studio pics at iso 50 but is pretty much useless for everything else.

In dslrs, a higher price usually means better ergonomics/build quality/features. Image quality has reached a point where the differences between cameras are pretty much unnoticable in prints up to A3 unless you shoot under very adverse conditions or pixel peep. Hell, if you shoot in broad daylight you'd be hard pressed to see a difference between a good point and shoot and a medium format.

This goes for the current and last generation of cameras btw. The older ones, even high end ones, will show a significant difference in iq to current models. Which is why i wouldn't by the fuji.

Either way there are basically two ways of buying a dslr. If all you want to do is to take snap shots but are fed up with the image quality of point and shoots and/or dof control, you can buy any entrance level dslr (canon 1000d, nikon d40, pentax k-m) with the kit lense (or maybe one decent replacement lense) and are set for life. If that's the case, you can just take the best deal.

If you want to do photography as a more serious hobby though, buying a dslr means buying into a system where the price of the camera body often ends up being the least bit of your problems. And that's where it gets complicated and nothing but a good amount of reading will help you.

1. No

2. No

3. Depends, I've got a D70 and there are no video modes on those, and I'm pretty sure this is the case for the D40 aswell. But I've heard that never Nikon models (probarbly more high-end stuff I guess) have the ability to capture higher quality videos as well.

don't always think that more megapixels means better image quality
as more photosites get crammed on a sensor, unless the sensor gets bigger, that means the signal to noise ratio is higher
ie, you'll see chromatic abborations(red/blue halos around mid tone/bright objects in images), noise in darker areas, less detail in images(even if the images themselves are larger)
just a few things to keep in mind.