Finally decided... (I think!)

robertgilbert86 · 14 Feb 2008 at 13:09

Sure the D40 is fine if you're going to spend £££s on AF-S lenses but it just seems like such a waste in the long term. Especially as it's not that comfortable and harder to use than the alternatives.

Sure it's fine...but an upgrade will be wanted much sooner.

I wasn't pushing Cavallino into getting a pro-sumer DSLR, just anything but a D40. Jesus, I'd rather he bought a Canon than a D40.

Oh if you do choose the D40 over the D40x, you have no reason not to get a second hand D50, which is properly featured.

martinturner · 14 Feb 2008 at 13:37

So as a person coming into the realm of DSLR photography, what lenses are must haves that are not AF-S? My point is that the standard zoom lens is not that expensive and most other lenses of choice have actually got the motors built in. Go figure?!? I cannot understand your reasoning which is why I am defending my trustworthy D40. What would your benefits of having the D80 over a D40/D40x as a beginner. Sure, he may grow out of it sooner, but I would prefer to grow with some experience with wide-angle/macro/zoom etc and be within budget than be a beginner with a fancy camera and no money for extra stuff.

The comfort point is totally personal preference and very arguable.

As for D50, the viewfinder is noticably better on the D40. Only restriction on the D40 where the D50 is better would be for IR work. Although not unacheivable on the D40. D50 is a nice camera all the same.

robertgilbert86 · 14 Feb 2008 at 14:53

Primes?
Cheap zooms? As we're not all on big budgets.
Cheap fast zooms (Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, but Sigma have brought out a HSM version of their equivalent).
Even some of the fantastic Nikon 80-200s are just AF.

I was a beginner when I started. I am not a beginner now. They only reason I need a body upgrade is for resolution and ease of changing settings.

The D50 is just an all-round better camera than the D40. I will defend that until someone can prove otherwise.

Save yourself some cash and buy a used D50 and you'll have access to some great cheap lenses:
-Nikon 50 mm f1.8 ~£70 (and all Nikon primes)
-Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 ~£100
-Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ~£200

If you're not on a budget then a D40X might be an idea if you're getting nice pricey lenses. But if you're not on a budget get a D80 or used D200?

Also included in the D50 is bracketing!
Also included in the D50 is a proper settings screen!

Rationality:
Fundamentally it doesn't matter what camera you buy. Great pictures can be had from almost anything on the market.
The point I'm arguing is that your life will be easier if you buy a D50 over a D40 because future decisions regarding lenses will be no-brainers.
-We also don't end up with even more 'will this lens focus on a D40?' etc etc threads.

colinuk · 14 Feb 2008 at 15:27

Lens i have to use or have in my bag at 90% of the times are, 19-35mm, nikon 50mm prime [best sharp lens] and now a 17-55mm nikon...

Use to have the 70-200, but never used it, just sat in the bag weighing me down.

If your doing portraits or studio work, look at a 2nd hand S2.

Cavallino · 14 Feb 2008 at 15:29

Hmm bit of a disagreement here.

Ok so robert you're saying to go for the D50 due to better selection of lenses available for it?
I thought all lenses were interchangeable since D40 and D50 are the same manufacturer? (Or have I missed the pont here?)

And why do you prefer Canons over D40?

robertgilbert86 · 14 Feb 2008 at 16:01

I certainly do not perfer Canons! I think they are stingy with lens caps and badly design cameras (but that's getting off-topic). The point I was making was that even a die-hard Nikon fan like myself would choose a 400/450D over the D40.

All Nikon lenses (bar a couple of ancient ones) will fit the D40, but not all of them will auto-focus.
Go look at some lenses now, the ones with 'AF-S' in the title will auto-focus on the D40. The ones with just 'AF' in the title will not auto-focus on the D40.

Both AF and AF-S will auto-focus on any Nikon DSLR camera EXCEPT the D40, D40X and D60.

Cavallino · 14 Feb 2008 at 16:18

robertgilbert86 said:
I certainly do not perfer Canons! I think they are stingy with lens caps and badly design cameras (but that's getting off-topic). The point I was making was that even a die-hard Nikon fan like myself would choose a 400/450D over the D40.

All Nikon lenses (bar a couple of ancient ones) will fit the D40, but not all of them will auto-focus.
Go look at some lenses now, the ones with 'AF-S' in the title will auto-focus on the D40. The ones with just 'AF' in the title will not auto-focus on the D40.

Both AF and AF-S will auto-focus on any Nikon DSLR camera EXCEPT the D40, D40X and D60.

Oh I see!

So presumably 'AF' lenses do not have motors in them and they need a motorised camera body?

Can I just clarify robert - This is my first EVER SLR camera (Digital or negative). I know I wont be going crazy with it initially. I will start off with the bog standard lense and perhaps go up to a 200+ or 300mm lense to do some wildlife shots.

But bearing in mind Im not looking for the cutting edge ultra high tech options. Just something which is discernably better than standard "point and shoot" box digital cameras.

robmiller · 14 Feb 2008 at 16:30

Cavallino said:
So presumably 'AF' lenses do not have motors in them and they need a motorised camera body?

Yep. As a budget user, there are quite a few good-value Nikon and Sigma lenses that you're missing out on; most of Nikon's prime lenses, for example (prime lenses are ones with a fixed focal length, i.e. ones that don't zoom) and some good Sigma bargains like the 24-70 f/2.8.

It's not a huge problem, though. Certainly Sigma are conscious of it; they've recently released HSM versions of loads of their bargain lenses (the 18-50, 18-200, 55-200 etc.). It's up to you whether you can live without those lenses, or whether you want to spend a bit more to be able to use them.

Cavallino · 14 Feb 2008 at 16:44

robmiller said:
Yep. As a budget user, there are quite a few good-value Nikon and Sigma lenses that you're missing out on; most of Nikon's prime lenses, for example (prime lenses are ones with a fixed focal length, i.e. ones that don't zoom) and some good Sigma bargains like the 24-70 f/2.8.

It's not a huge problem, though. Certainly Sigma are conscious of it; they've recently released HSM versions of loads of their bargain lenses (the 18-50, 18-200, 55-200 etc.). It's up to you whether you can live without those lenses, or whether you want to spend a bit more to be able to use them.

Hmm I see rob. Cheers for your explanation.

So generally prime lenses (i.e. fixed focal length - no zooming?)
And what is the significance of HSM lenses? self motorised?

robmiller · 14 Feb 2008 at 16:55

Cavallino said:
Hmm I see rob. Cheers for your explanation.

So generally prime lenses (i.e. fixed focal length - no zooming?)
And what is the significance of HSM lenses? self motorised?

HSM is Sigma's AF-S.

It's not necessarily all primes, but since primes (apart from exotic teles) are nice and cheap and nice and fast they tend to be the place where a lack of a focus motor hurts the budget user the most.

Cavallino · 15 Feb 2008 at 08:33

Seems Im back to square one again lol.
It seems that if I go with a body that is not motorised, I will be losing out on potentially good and cheap lenses.

Ugh.

robertgilbert86 · 15 Feb 2008 at 09:18

Just get a second hand D50, that is pretty much as low spec as you can get and it does me just fine.

Cavallino · 15 Feb 2008 at 11:47

robertgilbert86 said:
Just get a second hand D50, that is pretty much as low spec as you can get and it does me just fine.

Just saw your website robert, noticed you're studying at Warwick!
Im also studying for an MBA at Warwick!

Ill pop into *OOPS* over the weekend and have another look and assess my choices...

Messiah Khan · 15 Feb 2008 at 12:00

*snip*

Please remove the competitor name

Cavallino · 15 Feb 2008 at 12:09

Messiah Khan said:
*snip*

Please remove the competitor name

Woah! Cant believe I did that!

Edited! Sorry about that

robertgilbert86 · 15 Feb 2008 at 12:18

Cavallino said:
Just saw your website robert, noticed you're studying at Warwick!
Im also studying for an MBA at Warwick!

Ill pop into *OOPS* over the weekend and have another look and assess my choices...

Join PhotoSoc and borrow our D50 or 400D for the weekend perhaps?
Search facebook for 'Warwick Photo Soc'

PsiFox · 15 Feb 2008 at 16:48

Have you seen this

http://www.nikon.co.uk/sites/cashback/d40x_default.html

Cavallino · 16 Feb 2008 at 20:06

PsiFox said:
Have you seen this

http://www.nikon.co.uk/sites/cashback/d40x_default.html

Yep cheers Fox!

On another note...

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

Is what this guy is saying true?

And also, are VR lenses compatible with D40/D40X?

Went to a local camera shop this morning and the guy behind the counter mentioned that the D60 could be a decent buy, but it is a bit on the pricey side considering the alternatives.

Sol · 17 Feb 2008 at 01:46

VR lenses will be compatible with the D40 as long as they are AF-S. Don't listen to Ken Rockwell generally, he's a muppet. Love what he says about the D60 here: "half the light sensitivity (base ISO is only ISO 100, not the faster ISO 200 of the D40)" - surely ISO 100 is better to have when 200 is also selectable. That's like saying the D200 is crap because it has base ISO 100. Also you'll notice he repeats himself every 2 sentences.

Go for a D40 or a D50 if you're 100% set on Nikon, wouldn't really bother with the D40X or the D60. A guy from my work recently bought a D40 for his first venture into SLR land and he loves it. D50 would probably be my choice but that's just me.

BUFF · 17 Feb 2008 at 09:56

Sol said:
surely ISO 100 is better to have when 200 is also selectable.

thing is that that CCD is actually at it's best at ISO 200.
Imo the D60 isn't much of an advance on the D40X & lags behind other competing new models in terms of features but it will still be a fine camera.