Comparison Article- D40 vs. GF-1

Before everybody gets their undies wadded up in an indignant huff either one way or another, let me explain how these cameras fit in my grand photographic scheme. 

It's mostly this stuff, or at least this is the "acid test" for my criteria. Six Flags or environs like it. I'm the father of a 10 year old and a 7 year old. There's going to be several more years of this sort of stuff. Some years ago, while toting my D300, attendant super-zoom (18-200mm) and it's sling-style bag around Six Flags one Texas July, it occurred to me that; I didn't ever want to do that again in this or any other life. That'd be all fine and good..... if I was like most people who would be fine taking a nicer ($75-125) "point & shoot" and call it good. However, I'd still like to take some decent photographs to record the trip, which is really the issue here. If I don't want to carry a P&S or the big artillary, then what are my options?

Back in the old days, there was a whole class of cameras called "advanced compacts" that took the same 35mm film as full-on professional SLRs, thus ensuring the exact same resolution. The difference was that there was no mirror/mirror box, prism, interchangeable lens, motor drive, etc., etc.... As long as whatever little lens they were able to stuff into that tiny body was OK, optically up to snuff. Which meant that they just made them "slower" and a fix focal length (typically around 40mm give or take). 

What's the problem you say!?! There are any number of tiny little "compact digital" cameras ready to go for a decent price. The problem is that in today's world, for the most part, when they shrink the body, they do the same with the sensor. They don't want to talk about it, but those tiny sensor's in those cute, colorful cameras are the actual enemy of good pictures. This is all terribly exacerbated by stuff more megapixels on there than should be, but I don't want to go into that rant again. So if you really want to know about this issue, use your friend Google. Otherwise, just trust me on this. Within recent years though, manufacturers started putting larger sensors into some "in-between" sized bodies and lo, the EVIL (electronic view, interchangeable lens) cameras were born. Now we have everything from the micro-4/3rds standard, to APS-C (same as most DSLR cameras) out there. Well then, again; what's the problem? 

Funny you would mention that. That's exactly where I am right now. In case you haven't kept up with my machinations over the last year or so, I do (or have) owned, a Nikon D70s, D50 (Plastic Fantastic 1.0), Panasonic GF-1, and now the Nikon D40 (Plastic Fantastic 2.0). I also have a number of compact digitals; enough to know that those have their place, but they (with their sensor limitations) don't fit in my front-line arsenal. What I need is a small/light camera that isn't going to kill me a places like amusement parks, but have some image quality chops. So let's look at what I've got. We'll start with the physical; where, as you can see, the GF-1 gets off to a good start (although that's a D3000 next to the GF-1 which is a bit deeper than the D40). However, it isn't as cut and dried as it would appear. I've found that I use the VF-1 accessory electronic finder almost constantly. For me, the LCD is almost unusable outdoors. Although the controls are bigger and easier to use on the D40, they are actually similar in position and function, so that ends up being a wash. One thing that was unexpected though was the elimination of the handgrip/battery bulge on the GF-1 (although making it much more compact) has made it uncomfortable for me to use. Panasonic has recognized this mistake and corrected that in the current GX-1, but that camera is way outside my budget. One last point of comparison being that the GF-1 is a 12Mp camera whereas the D40 is 6Mp. Looks like a lot huh? In my usage, it never comes into play. The only time that I really need/want the extra resolution, are situations where I'm all too happy to take the D300 with it's extra capabilities anyway. 

As it turns out, which I wasn't really expecting (remember, the D40 wasn't supposed to replace the GF-1, but rather the D50), was how compact it was once I got that atrocious 18-55mm kit lens off of it! OK, it's not really fair since that lens is an adequate performer and designed to be cheap, before all else.... but still..... As soon as I put my 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor on it, it dawned on me that not only would it be the D50's replacement, but could be that of the GF-1 as well! 

 

In order for that GF-1 to reach it's potential in portability, I'd need to buy the 20mm f/1.7 pancake for it. That lens persists in stay between $300 and $400 used, which makes it outside my limits on such things. And, as you can see, add that VF-1 on there and it really does a number of the profile of that camera! 

When you compare that Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens side-by-side with even the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 (which is bigger than the "E Series" lenses), the size difference pretty much evaporates. If you are familiar with the used/older lens market, you also know that there's a ridiculous number of cheap, but optically excellent lenses out there to fit the Nikon mount. Many, like the Nikon "Es" are very compact as well. Even if you add the cost of mounting a Dandelion chip to each one at $30 apiece, anything that comes in at less than $70 would be sub-$100 glass! Yes, I'm aware that I'd have to focus manually, but I'm OK with that.

So, here's an example. The somewhat bigger "E Series" 28mm f/2.8 on a D40, you can see that this is a "dad-gum" compact little package. Is it "as small" as the GF-1? The answer is an emphatic, NO! Does it spec as well as the GF-1? Again the answer is, no as well. Is it small enough for me. Then, that answer is a yes. When that's combined with the fact that I'll be able to eliminate one entire system; it's going to turn out to be a nice fit for me.