Buy or not buy

I want to buy a camera and first thought about getting an old Nikon F2, then I opted for an old

Hasselblad. However, I need the camera urgently so I thought about getting a cheap digital SLR and

postponing the 'blad. Also, that would give me flexibility and save the costs of getting film developed

and scanned.

What do I need it for? For communicating me & my projects (early music, please have a look at my

homepage for my earnest attempts at promotion myself - I AM a musician, after all!.)

After reading the "Building a digital SLR system" choices boiled down to the Nikon D40 or the Olympus

E1 Review (that's 2004 - is the E-420 the follow-up?).

I liked the Olympus pictures better, but the night pictures looked very dark.

I'd be glad for any opinions.

I shoot Canon, but if the choices were limited to the D40 or E-1, I'd opt for the D40. The smaller and older sensor of the E-1 produces more digital noise in the image, and this is especially seen in low light (high ISO) pics. I suspect most musicians would be using high ISO in low light situations quite a bit, so the D40 ought to do better for you.

This is not really a fair fight though, the E-1 is an old design, and the D40 several years newer. Digital imaging is still progressing at a fairly rapid pace.

The E-420 is newer, but in a different (lower) class than the E-1. Actually, the E-420 is probably a better competitor to the D40.

Well thanks for the answer. I got the D40X and am quite content - it's what I thought a

"point and shot" would be like (I had been very disappointed when I'd used one). I now

have to learn to use it - although I suspect the automatic mode will be best in most

situations. I couldn't see there's so much use in manually setting aperture - the

difference doesn't compare to what I'm used to with an analog SLR. Using ISO 400 and

800 seems to come in handy for portraits in the shade. I'm working on it!