well..here the research form CNET (Asia):
Here are camera price range that i aim:-
In CNET Asia's Rating (for S$1,000 - S$2,000 Range):
1: Nikon D70 (Editor's Choice) - S$1,888
2: Olympus E-500 (Editor's & Viewer's Choice) - S$1,599
3: Canon EOS 350D (Editor's & Viewer's Choice - S$1,399
4: Canon EOS 300D (Editor's Choice) - S$1,899
5: Canon EOS 400D (Viewer's Choice) - S$1,669
6: Nikon D70s (Viewer's Choice) - S$1,988
Here is just a preview to good cameras that cost ALOT:-
In CNET Asia's Rating (For S$2,000 and Above Range):
1: Canon EOS 1Ds (Editor's Choice) - S$14,999
2: Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II (Editor's Choice) - S$14,799
3: Canon EOS 30D (Editor's & Viewer's Choice) - S$2,699
4: Canon EOS-1D Mark II (Editor's Choice) - S$8,499
5: Nikon D300 (Editor's Choice) - S$2,999
6: Nikon D80 (Editor's & Viewer's Choice) - S$2,288
7: Nikon D200 (Editor's Choice) - S$3,288
8: Canon EOS 20D (Editor's Choice) - S$3,099
9: Canon EOS 40D (Editor's Choice) - S$2,099
10: Canon EOS 5D (Editor's Choice) - S$6,999
(Note: The Order is according to the Overall Ratings and only those marked with either Editor's or Viewer's Choice or both Choices are listed here in my research. So if you want to know what are the other Cameras listed, do view CNET Asia's website!
And there are no good dSLR camera that cost below S$1,000 so it is not listed)
Anyway, through the research, only Canon 400D is in the listing while Nikon d40x is not =\
anw..to more detailed analysis . . .
************************************************************************************
Nikon D40X
The good: Comfortable, compact body design; very low noise at higher ISOs; highly customizable menus; 10.2-megapixel CCD sensor.
The bad: Slow kit lenses; RAW editing software costs extra; controls can be awkward; occasionally slow to focus; no automatic sensor cleaning; RAW-plus-JPEG mode limited to basic instead of fine JPEG compression.
The bottom line: The Nikon D40x makes a very nice first dSLR, though experienced SLR shooters looking for a Nikon should spend the extra cash for the D80.
CNET Asia's Rating: 7.7 out of 10 (Very Good)
CNET Asia's Review:
When the Nikon D40 came out late last year, one of the chief complaints people had was that it only had a 6-megapixel imaging sensor. Not being the type to ignore its customers, Nikon has introduced the D40x, which is nearly identical to the D40, but includes a 10.2-megapixel CCD sensor. Of course that means you now have to choose between saving some money--and possibly buying another lens or accessory--and getting more megapixels. Plus, if you're a more experienced photographer, you'll also have to weigh the D40x against the 10.2-megapixel D80, which offers controls and features that are geared toward people who have used an SLR before.
Design:
Like its non-"x" sibling, the D40x includes the same processing engine as the Nikon D200 and the same 420-pixel-sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II system found in the D80. While the D40 can only be purchased in a kit with the 18mm-to-55mm F3.5-to-F5.6 lens, the D40x is available in four options: Body only; with the same 18mm to 55mm as the D40; as a two-lens kit with that 18mm to 55mm and a 55mm-to-200mm f/4-to-f/5.6 VR (Nikon's smallest, lightest, and least-expensive vibration-reduction lens to date); or with the same nice 18mm-to-135mm F3.5-to-F5.6 available with the D80.
Astute "Nikon-ians" will note that all these lenses bear the AF-S designation. That's because, like the D40, the D40x doesn't include an autofocus coupling pin, so if you want to use autofocus, you're limited to AF-S or AF-I lenses. In our field tests, among other lenses, we also used a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI-S and a 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor.
Both communicated flawlessly with the body, which successfully controlled the lens' aperture blades. The only drawback was we had to focus on our own, which was a relatively pleasurable experience, especially for an entry-level SLR, thanks to the D40x's fairly bright 0.8x viewfinder. However, if you have trouble keeping your horizon straight, you should note the finder lacks any sort of grid.
The camera body itself is on the small side, keeping in line with most of the entry-level dSLRs on the market. It has a well-formed grip, with a slight indentation on the inside that adds to its solid feel, though like the smaller Pentax models, your pinky finger will likely dangle below the camera. In a sacrifice to size (and possibly cost), you won't find a second status display, as you do on the tops of most mid- and pro-level dSLRs.
Features:
Instead, the 2.5-inch LCD does double duty, serving up camera settings, in addition to its normal role of menu access and image playback. Nikon's new graphic-based interface, introduced in the D40, lives on in the D40x. While it looks nice, and does a good job of showing users the effects of the camera's various controls, the new control scheme isn't particularly intuitive, so users who don't read their manuals may hit a few snags.
For example, while we did find it intuitive to press either the Info button near the shutter or the "i" button on the camera back to bring up the shooting information screen, we had to consult the manual to discover that a second press of the "i" button lets you navigate through that screen to change settings such as white balance, ISO, metering, AF mode, or image size and quality. We laud the simplicity of this approach, but the double-button-press process slowed us down during our field tests.
While Nikon's not alone in putting a 3-point autofocus system in its entry-level dSLRs (Olympus' E410 and E510 also use 3-point systems), some competitors, such as Pentax's K100D and K110D (11-point AF) include more sophisticated autofocus systems.
In our field tests, the D40x had occasional difficulty locking on subjects, sometimes choosing the wrong object, but more often was just a bit sluggish. In other areas, the D40x surpasses some of the competition. Its sensitivity settings range from ISO 100 to ISO 1,600, plus an H1 setting, which is essentially equivalent to ISO 3,200. By contrast, the D40's lowest sensitivity is ISO 200, as are the Pentaxes'. The two Olympuses start at ISO 100, but top out at ISO 1,600.
Shutter speeds on the D40x range from 30 seconds to 1/4,000 second, and exposure compensation covers a rather wide swath of plus or minus 5EV in third-stop increments. However, the scale used to show exposure compensation in the viewfinder and on the LCD screen only covers plus or minus 2EV, so beyond that, you need to pay attention to the tiny numerical indicator next to the scale. All other exposure controls also run in third-stop increments, as opposed to the more-coarse half-stop increments that some cameras, such as the Fujifilm S3 Pro, use.
As always, Nikon includes its barely useful Picture Project RAW processing software with the D40x and expects you to shell out an extra US$150 to purchase the company's Capture NX software if you want a more robust way to process RAW images. That means, if you plan on shooting in RAW, you need to add US$150 to the price of this camera when drawing comparisons with its competitors, all of which include decent RAW converters at no charge.
We have yet to meet a Nikon photographer who is not affiliated with the company who doesn't complain voraciously about Nikon's stance on this issue, but it doesn't seem as though the company will change its mind anytime soon. On the flip side, the Capture NX software is quite nice and includes some innovative image editing tools.
Performance:
In our lab tests, the D40x yielded impressive results. It took 0.15 second to start up and capture its first JPEG. Subsequent JPEGs took 0.48 second between shots with the flash turned off and 0.85 second between shots with the flash turned on. The time between capturing RAW images measured 0.75 second.
Shutter lag measured 0.4 second in our high-contrast test, which mimics bright shooting conditions, and 0.9 second in our low-contrast test, which mimics dim shooting conditions. In continuous shooting mode, we were able to capture JPEGs at an average of 2.97 frames per second, regardless of image size.
Image quality:
Image quality from the D40x is extremely good. Colors look very accurate and are well-saturated without being oversaturated. Images have a wide dynamic range, with plenty of detail in both shadows and highlights. We shot our lab test images with the 18mm-to-55mm kit lens, which produced admirably sharp images for an entry-level kit lens, though we did see a very minor amount of fringing with this lens around some extreme highlights.
The camera's automatic white balance produces slightly warm images when used with incandescent light sources, such as a living room lamp, but the tungsten preset serves up neutral images in those circumstances. We got the most neutral results when using the manual white balance setting. The D40x's built-in flash is rather powerful--Nikon rates it to be effective to 39 feet at ISO 100--and it did a nice job of balancing its fill flash with the ambient light of the lamp in our test scene.
Noise due to ISO is very low in the D40x. At ISO 100 and ISO 200, noise is almost nonexistent. At ISO 400, it begins to become noticeable on monitors and only ever-so-slightly softens the image, but doesn't appreciably detract from prints. Even at ISO 800, you can barely see noise in prints, and though it is apparent on monitors, it's still well under control and images are still very pleasing.
At ISO 1,600, noise is more pronounced still, but you should be able to get pleasing prints; images retain much of their shadow detail, and while finer details are softened, they aren't obliterated--text that was readable at ISO 100 will still likely be readable at ISO 1,600. At the camera's Hi1 setting, noise becomes very prominent, finer details become blurred away, and the overall dynamic range becomes truncated so you lose a fair amount of shadow detail. However, you should still be able to produce passable prints if you stick with smaller sizes.
Nikon's D40x is a very impressive camera. If you're considering the D40x with the 18mm-135mm kit lens, and you've shot with an SLR before, you'll probably prefer the control system of the D80, which also includes a coupling pin, so you can use it with older Nikon AF lenses and retain the autofocus capability. If you're stepping up to your first dSLR and don't have a stash of old lenses, the D40x is a good choice.
************************************************************************************
Canon EOS 400D
The good: Compact and lightweight; fast and responsive; intelligently designed with shooting-friendly layout.
The bad: Second status LCD has been eliminated; slow kit lens; no spot metering; poor exposure of backlit subjects.
The bottom line: The Canon EOS 400D remains a very good first dSLR, but ultimately a disappointing followup to the 350D, which cedes its lead to the Nikon D80.
CNET Asia's Rating: 7.8 out of 10 (Very Good)
CNET Asia's Review:
What's true for doctors applies equally to consumer electronics manufacturers: First, do no harm. Canon is usually pretty good at adhering to that philosophy, making only minor changes to successful products and saving the daring moves for the models that need it. Now, changing sensors isn't normally considered terribly daring when it comes to digital cameras. But when its predecessor--in this case, the EOS 350D--was renowned for producing excellent, low-noise photos at a more-than-adequate 8-megapixel resolution, it's risky to replace it with a higher-resolution but potentially lower-sensitivity chip as Canon did with the EOS 400D. Perhaps the Nikon D80 upped the stakes; perhaps Canon felt it was an inevitable necessity. Whatever the reason, it yields mixed results.
Design:
Sticking with similar sensor dimensions allowed Canon to keep the same moderately compact design for the EOS 400D, though it weighs 113g more than its 485g predecessor. With the small, exceptionally light kit lens, the camera felt well balanced in my hands. Attached to the substantially larger and heavier 16mm-to-35mm (25.6mm-to-56mm equivalent) lens or the Speedlite 580EX flash, however, makes the 400D feel a bit lopsided.
Although much of the design remains the same as the 350D's--it comes in either black or metallic-silver plastic--there are a couple of key changes. The LCD display grew from 1.8 to 2.5 inches, which essentially squeezed the status/info LCD into the ether. On one hand, using the main LCD allows for an exceptionally readable, in-your-face method of monitoring the settings. However, the paper-white background gets distracting, and the automatic sensor--which blanks it when you put your eye to the viewfinder--makes it even more so. You can turn it off altogether, but the info in the viewfinder doesn't include ISO speed, white balance, battery level, and other useful settings that generally display on a status LCD.
In most other respects, the control layout on the 400D mimics that of the 350D, which is pretty much how it's been on Canon dSLRs since the beginning. That's an unfoolish consistency I can get behind. It can also accept all the same accessories as the 350D does.
Features:
For better--or sometimes worse--the feature set of the Canon EOS 400D remains roughly the same as the 350D's. The kit version comes with the F3.5-to-F5.6, 18mm-to-55mm EF-S lens (28.8mm-to-88mm equivalent, thanks to the 400D's 1.6x conversion factor), which is a trifle too slow for frequent indoor shooters like me.
Most amateurs will find all the essentials: A handful of manual, semimanual, and automatic exposure modes; user-selectable nine-point autofocus, and AI Servo autofocus for moving subjects; and simultaneous RAW-plus-JPEG capture.
To keep up with the camera Joneses, the CMOS chip in the 400D is now self-cleaning. Similarly to many other dSLRs, the low-pass filter layer vibrates when the camera powers off or on in order to shake dust away from the sensor; plus, there's an antistatic coating on the filter that repels dust. Furthermore, a bit of adhesive surrounding the sensor is designed to grab the dust, keeping it from flying around inside the camera chassis.
In addition to dust control, Canon has split the low-pass filter into two parts, effectively placing whatever dust does settle beyond the range of focus.
Unfortunately, like the EOS 350D, the 400D lacks a spot meter; it supplies only evaluative, center-weighted average, and partial center-weighted metering. There is simply no substitute for a spot in tricky lighting situations. In fact, I couldn't avoid severe underexposures of a backlit subject with the available metering tools, which is inexcusable for a camera of this class.
Performance:
Though the CMOS imager used by the 400D is the same physical size as the version in the 350D, Canon crammed more pixels into the space to bump up the resolution and improved the design of the microlenses that sit atop each photosite--the microlenses gather indirect light and focus it back on the sensor--as well as increases the size of the photosites themselves. In practice, Canon has had to lower the top ISO speed of the EOS a full stop, from ISO 3,200 to ISO 1,600. Furthermore, while still relatively low for its class, the 400D's measured and visible image noise was significantly worse than that of the CCD-based Nikon D80 for any given ISO speed.
In general, the 400D's measured speed fell short of the D80's as well.
My experience bears that out:
Though it felt as if it were fast and responsive, I frequently found the shot was captured just a fraction of a second too late. Keep in mind that it takes a while to adjust to the pace of a camera and get a feel for its shooting rhythm--and I've been shooting with faster pro models such as the Canon 30D and Olympus E-1--and it's fast enough so that, in time, the number of missed shots would have dropped.
Continuous-shooting performance has been tweaked a bit. Though the speed remains the same as in the 350D, Canon rates the 400D to shoot as many as 27 frames of JPEG or 10 frames of RAW before the camera hits a bottleneck and slows. It fared slightly better in our testing, though the 7-second lag before you can continue shooting can be a bit frustrating. The 400D uses Canon's Digic II chipset rather than the newer Digic III, and I wonder if the company might have been able to eke out better performance and noise suppression with the latter.
I did most of my testing with the kit lens. I love how small and lightweight it is but still find it too slow--the maximum aperture of F3.5 simply doesn't let in enough light and doesn't allow for a shallow enough depth of field for my purposes. Furthermore, there's far more chromatic aberration--in this case, purple fringing--than I'm used to seeing in a dSLR. Even catchlights in eyes from the add-on flash had fringing. If you have the dough, I'd recommend the EF-S 17mm-to-55mm F2.8 IS USM instead. I didn't get a chance to try it with the 400D, but it should be lightweight enough to not overpower the body and fast enough to provide more exposure latitude. Plus, it has the advantage of optical image stabilization and a quieter motor.
Image Quality:
Despite my few complaints, the Canon EOS 400D still shoots some very nice photos, with good color rendition, broad dynamic range (when there's sufficient illumination), and accurate automatic white balance. Shots taken at ISO 100 and ISO 200 were very clean, but beyond that, the photos couldn't take much retouching without drawing attention to the noise.
Canon is not planning to do away with the EOS 350D, and the presence of a new model doesn't make that great model obsolete. If you don't change lenses that often, don't mind the smaller LCD, don't need the slight bump in continuous-shooting speed, and don't need the higher resolution, then you don't really need to pay extra for the Canon EOS 400D. Furthermore, if you don't yet have an investment in any particular manufacturer's lens system and want this year's best model for less than US$1,000, you might consider the Nikon D80.
TO BE CONTINUED . . .