TR Forums

blitzy wrote:

The d40 is getting quite old now but seems ideal for someone like me. Especially since more motorised lenses have finally appeared, there aren't many valid arguments against Nikons entry level cameras anymore. If a person can afford a variety of lenses they can surely afford a more expensive camera body, these motorless bodies are for people like me who would just use one or two lenses for everything (e.g. 18-200mm, personally for my uses I couldn't see the need for anything more than that. Even that is questionable since you can just get closer to your subject in many cases. A nice prime might be cool for DOF and low light, but 50mm on DX seems a bit long? I don't know.)

Well, the "one lens" that you list, assuming you're talking about the Nikon version, sure is a spendy one - close to $700! For about that same price I picked up an 18-70 (200 used) 50/1.8 (100ish, screwdriver) and old 80-200/2.8 (400, used screwdriver). The AF-S equivalents of the screwdriver glass cost a lot more than I paid. I can't imagine (for my much-different-than-your needs) having a non-screwdriver body. It would get expensive fast! Realistically though, the biggest thing missing is a fast and cheap AF-S prime. Yes the 50 is a bit awkward for a lot of things on DX, but it still lets in 4x the light of any kit zoom (at its best-aperture focal length) which is occasionally useful. I might swap mine out for a 35/2 at some point, though, since that's a more normal focal length and a nicer lens. The 50/1.8 is overrated, but still easy to recommend for someone in need of cheap low light capabilities.

blitzy wrote:

I wonder how long it'll take for the video recording feature to trickle down to Nikon and Canons entry level DSLRs, probably a while since it has only just appeared on the higher tier of semi-pro cameras.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was in every model they release going forward. Implementation is cheap, the expense is more in the development. Nikon already has it in a sub-thousand dollar body (which i wouldn't really quite class as "higher tier of semi-pro").

blitzy wrote:

If I could find a d40 cheap enough here in NZ I think it'd be a pretty good place to start, I don't really see the point in paying 2x the cost just to get a few more megapixels and I think maybe Live View on the latest entry level cams (not on d60, but on 1000D and 450D). Then it's probably at least 3x the cost to step up to d90 to get video, and the 5D MKII would be overkilled-overkill for someone like me.

D90 body price is only 999 USD. I doubt you'd find a new d40 for 333. If all you want from it is video it's not worth it, but it is a much nicer camera in a lot of ways, and opens up the screwdriver lenses if your priorities change.

blitzy wrote:

Hah. I must be the only person who doesn't even have a camera who reads about this stuff. Video recording is such a sweet feature though, for someone like me who isn't a photography purist and likes the little extras that compact cameras have been able to do for a while now. Oh well just a matter of time, trickleeeeeeeeeeeeee downnnn plz!

Nah, tough to be a knowledgable consumer without doing research before buying!

blitzy wrote:

The main thing I'd be missing would be video recording (great at parties), and live view which is just nice to have IMO. I wonder how long it'll take for the video recording feature to trickle down to Nikon and Canons entry level DSLRs, probably a while since it has only just appeared on the higher tier of semi-pro cameras. If I could find a d40 cheap enough here in NZ I think it'd be a pretty good place to start, I don't really see the point in paying 2x the cost just to get a few more megapixels and I think maybe Live View on the latest entry level cams (not on d60, but on 1000D and 450D). Then it's probably at least 3x the cost to step up to d90 to get video, and the 5D MKII would be overkilled-overkill for someone like me.

I actually expect Nikon to update the D60 with live view and video functionality in the not too distant future. Keeping up with the Jones et al. The similarly priced Sony A300 and Canon Rebel XS both have live view already. Once live view is implemented I imagine adding video functionality is (relatively) trivial. Considering the checkbox friendliness of something like video I expect if will be on the budget bodies in no time. Depending on when it comes out it might get a bump to Sony's 14Mpixel CCD or the 12Mpixel CMOS sensor if we're lucky. In any event I think the D40 will remain a budget favourite for a while yet.

blitzy wrote:

Hah. I must be the only person who doesn't even have a camera who reads about this stuff. Video recording is such a sweet feature though, for someone like me who isn't a photography purist and likes the little extras that compact cameras have been able to do for a while now. Oh well just a matter of time, trickleeeeeeeeeeeeee downnnn plz!

Well you're not the only one sans SLR at the moment. In my case it's textbooks winning out .

mattsteg wrote:

D90 body price is only 999 USD. I doubt you'd find a new d40 for 333. If all you want from it is video it's not worth it, but it is a much nicer camera in a lot of ways, and opens up the screwdriver lenses if your priorities change.

The D40 goes for $450 new last time I checked. If you consider the kit lens has a ~$80 used / $120 new value it's not far from that cost for a D40 body.

crazybus wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

D90 body price is only 999 USD. I doubt you'd find a new d40 for 333. If all you want from it is video it's not worth it, but it is a much nicer camera in a lot of ways, and opens up the screwdriver lenses if your priorities change.

The D40 goes for $450 new last time I checked. If you consider the kit lens has a ~$80 used / $120 new value it's not far from that cost for a D40 body.

Yeah, you can't really buy it without the lens though.

Yeah you're right about the prices, it shouldn't be 3x the cost to get the video feature. It's just that over here we get fleeced a bit harder by price markups.

Approx NZ prices;
Nikon D40 $431 USD (w/ 18-55 kit lense)
Canon 450D $960 USD (w/ 18-55 kit lense)
Nikon D90 $1302 USD (body only, but w/ kit lense it only costs a little more)


That 18-200mm would be quite pricey to slap on a d40, I didn't realise it was quite that steep when I was thinking about it. A lense with such a massive range of use isn't really the be all and end all either. Like you say primes are great for low light and for the shortish focal lengths i think you can usually afford a bit of movement towards/away from your subject to get the composition right. It's a pity there aren't a few more nice affordable primes to choose from, something like a 35mm 1.8 would be pretty cool i think. There's probably quite a few nice screw-driven lenses I'm not aware of though.

Not having the cash to take the first step towards buying a DSLR without hesitation may be a good thing in my case, because lense lust would probably destroy me.

blitzy wrote:

It's a pity there aren't a few more nice affordable primes to choose from, something like a 35mm 1.8 would be pretty cool i think.

For the D40? There's the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM.

Did I read properly that the D40 doesn't get focus distance from the lens to adjust the flash? Do you really have to go up to the D80/D90 to get that capability?

JustAnEngineer wrote:

blitzy wrote:

It's a pity there aren't a few more nice affordable primes to choose from, something like a 35mm 1.8 would be pretty cool i think.

For the D40? There's the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM.

Did I read properly that the D40 doesn't get focus distance from the lens to adjust the flash?

No.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Do you really have to go up to the D80/D90 to get that capability?

No.

You really, really need to learn how to STFU when you're ignorant. Your apparent life's mission to spread FUD and lies regarding Nikon cameras is rather comical, but really have no place here.

On a side note, just how long did it take Canon to implement distance information into their flash system?

Sorry. Please translate this for me:
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imagi ... sary.htm#d

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Sorry. Please translate this for me:
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imagi ... sary.htm#d

That page doesn't appear to have been updated since before canon's flash system knew about distance or a bit after!

Where did you get any idea regarding the D80/90 from that page? They're not listed either, after all.

I followed that link from the latest Nikkor lens announcement on the Nikon site. It lists the D70. I believe that the D80 and D90 have the same interface capabilities as the D70. The Nikon glossary for "D" lens capability does not list the D40, D50 or D60.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I followed that link from the page from the latest Nikkor lens announcement. It lists the D70. I believe that the D80 and D90 have the same interface capabilities as the D70. It does not list the D40, D50 or D60.

Nor does it list the D200, D3, D300, D700, D80, D90. Like I said, it hasn't been updated since the dark ages. It doesn't list the 40, 50, or 60 because they didn't exist when the page was last edited.

Is this coming down to what you believe rather than any actual source?

JAE, your anti-Nikon is getting a bit lame. If you would take the time to look around, you'd see that Canon and Nikon are very different, yet very similar in performance.

I'm not anti-Nikon. I do believe that the D40 is lame.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I'm not anti-Nikon. I do believe that the D40 is lame.

The D40 made DSLRs affordable to people who couldn't afford or justify the cost. The fact that it doesn't come with a screw motor doesn't really matter to someone who is buying one as if they are buying a D40 odds are they don't have a bunch of non-AFS lens lying around.

So what do you think is lame about the D40?

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I'm not anti-Nikon. I do believe that the D40 is lame.

That doesn't really excuse you spewing inaccurate FUD about it and the rest of Nikon's lineup.

The D40, like the Canon rebel line, isn't for people with money invested in lenses. It is a 2 year old body though, so I guess it is pretty lame.

SpotTheCat wrote:

The D40, like the Canon rebel line, isn't for people with money invested in lenses. It is a 2 year old body though, so I guess it is pretty lame.

Hey now, I just bought a 2 year old body!

I don't think the d40 is lame, for the price it is a good camera. The most important factor is what a persons needs are and how they will be using the camera, for Spots purposes I don't think the d40 would be too bad. It's really a question of whether or not he would want to use non AF-S lenses. There are a few primes to choose from that are AF-S now but they're a little pricier than the excellent value 50mm 1.8 that is so popular. I would have suggested going for a Canon 450D since they're not too pricey and it would eliminate the lens issue, but as has been mentioned the grip may not be quite as good and it does alter the selection of lenses to choose from.

I think people get a little too caught up with jonesing when it comes to photography, always got to have the latest and greatest like it will make them a better photographer. If you will use the features of a more up-market body then by all means go for it but don't get something just because it's the newest. A lot of the photos I see posted on other photography sites could be achieved using quite basic gear, most of the photography seems to be situations where there is plenty of time to change settings and get the right composition, or even take multiple shots. Also a lot of people go for overkill on their camera body without even getting a decent flash!

There is definitely a place for the high end cameras with extra controls and greater FPS, some people need the features and for some it's just nice to have the flexibility to be able to adjust settings to get a shot quickly. You do pay for the features though and you'll end up with a larger camera to carry around, there's no right or wrong in how much you want to pay for and carry around. Even though some peoples choices of gear given what they are predominantly shooting can be somewhat peculiar.

One thing I wonder is why there aren't more cheap prime lenses, I mentioned this earlier but when I say cheap I mean cheap as in <$200 like the 50mm 1.8's that go for around $110. Is 50mm the sweet spot for easy to produce focal length? Would it really be that hard to have cheap 30/40/60mm? There are some around like the Sigma that was mentioned, but they're quite pricey. Canon has had their 50mm with motor in lense for quite some time so surely that can't be what's holding them back.

I have no doubt a D40 would a good camera for me. There is one feature that I want... and it isn't a screwdriver. I want whatever they call their high dynamic range thing. So many times I've taken pictures with both underexposed and overexposed areas that a flash wouldn't fix. I'm not really in a rush, so I'm willing to wait to see what they replace the D40 with.

I imagine the D40 will be "replaced" by the D60, once Nikon comes out with a new budget model sporting live view and a larger screen. Nikon likes to keep older models around to plug gaps in their product line.

SpotTheCat wrote:

I have no doubt a D40 would a good camera for me. There is one feature that I want... and it isn't a screwdriver. I want whatever they call their high dynamic range thing. So many times I've taken pictures with both underexposed and overexposed areas that a flash wouldn't fix. I'm not really in a rush, so I'm willing to wait to see what they replace the D40 with.

I believe you refer to the ADR.
Yes that feature is something that Canon is still trying to do. They can do either the shadows or the highlights but not both that nikons ADR can do. The D90 even has Auto ADR now.

When I was in Hawaii on my honeymoon a week ago, I couldn't figure out how to get the beautiful landscapes, my wife and me, and the perfect sky to all be about right, even though humans can easily see all three at once. I suspect with ADR and a good flash it could be done. Oh well, at least with the handheld I can give it to a stranger and at least get my wife and me right. 1/3 ain't awful.

SpotTheCat wrote:

When I was in Hawaii on my honeymoon a week ago, I couldn't figure out how to get the beautiful landscapes, my wife and me, and the perfect sky to all be about right, even though humans can easily see all three at once. I suspect with ADR and a good flash it could be done. Oh well, at least with the handheld I can give it to a stranger and at least get my wife and me right. 1/3 ain't awful.

Yeah, that would do it. Getting you and her right is "trivial". Getting her and you and either the sky or the land right is, with a good flash, trivial (well, as long as you and her are the dim part, not the bright part, of the scene). Just compose and expose like you aren't there, then add flash to bring you to the proper exposure. Much of the time the sky will be just fine, and all of this can happen automatically. Auto D-lighting (nikon's branding) should address the last problem, that of possibly overbright sky. Nothing will work miracles and put the land and sky in balance at sunset, though.

mattsteg wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

When I was in Hawaii on my honeymoon a week ago, I couldn't figure out how to get the beautiful landscapes, my wife and me, and the perfect sky to all be about right, even though humans can easily see all three at once. I suspect with ADR and a good flash it could be done. Oh well, at least with the handheld I can give it to a stranger and at least get my wife and me right. 1/3 ain't awful.

Yeah, that would do it. Getting you and her right is "trivial". Getting her and you and either the sky or the land right is, with a good flash, trivial (well, as long as you and her are the dim part, not the bright part, of the scene). Just compose and expose like you aren't there, then add flash to bring you to the proper exposure. Much of the time the sky will be just fine, and all of this can happen automatically. Auto D-lighting (nikon's branding) should address the last problem, that of possibly overbright sky. Nothing will work miracles and put the land and sky in balance at sunset, though.

The problem was generally the detail in the clouds (which was amazing looking in the mountains of Kauai) was completely lost in overexposure. Any DSLR would have helped with the flash bit, but handhelds don't have very smart or bright flashes.

SpotTheCat wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

When I was in Hawaii on my honeymoon a week ago, I couldn't figure out how to get the beautiful landscapes, my wife and me, and the perfect sky to all be about right, even though humans can easily see all three at once. I suspect with ADR and a good flash it could be done. Oh well, at least with the handheld I can give it to a stranger and at least get my wife and me right. 1/3 ain't awful.

Yeah, that would do it. Getting you and her right is "trivial". Getting her and you and either the sky or the land right is, with a good flash, trivial (well, as long as you and her are the dim part, not the bright part, of the scene). Just compose and expose like you aren't there, then add flash to bring you to the proper exposure. Much of the time the sky will be just fine, and all of this can happen automatically. Auto D-lighting (nikon's branding) should address the last problem, that of possibly overbright sky. Nothing will work miracles and put the land and sky in balance at sunset, though.

The problem was generally the detail in the clouds (which was amazing looking in the mountains of Kauai) was completely lost in overexposure. Any DSLR would have helped with the flash bit, but handhelds don't have very smart or bright flashes.

Yeah, and I have point and shoot shots from when I was in Kauai that have terribly white skies.

I didn't know you went to Kauai, did you not have a decent DSLR when you went, or was it just too cumbersome to carry around everywhere?

SpotTheCat wrote:

I didn't know you went to Kauai, did you not have a decent DSLR when you went, or was it just too cumbersome to carry around everywhere?

This was several years ago, well before I had any sort of DSLR, back when the only "affordable" DSLR in existence was the original digital Rebel.