Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 21, 2006, 6:58 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
ReneB3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 193
Default

I looked at one a Ritz yesterday when I was buying a second battery for my D80. I liked it with the exception of the missing little info screen at the top. I guess I could get used to not looking at it. But that screen on the back is awsome and the whole camera seemed well built and even the size was good. I can see why they will sell a bunch of them, I thought about getting one for my daughter so I can get more grand children pictures that I could print.
ReneB3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 11:04 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

Will the D40 be able to support the sigma:

APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM

APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM

Will the auto focus work with these lenses? And what is the differance b/w the two.

The Nikon compatible is just under $1,700 at an authorized dealer, I cant justify that amount for night and indoor sporting events.

Any help will be appreciated.


Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 11:28 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

Another?

Will this lens be able to perform in normal home and vacation shooting, in addition to night and indoor sports.

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

Just noticed F3.5 I think I need F2.5?
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 3:19 PM   #34
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Angel L. wrote:
Quote:
Will the D40 be able to support the sigma:

APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM

APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM

Will the auto focus work with these lenses? And what is the differance b/w the two.
In theory, they should work on the D40. I have not seen anyone report using one yet. So, it would be a good idea to try them to make sure that there isn' t anything impacting compatibility.

The difference between them is focus distance. You can focus as close as 39.4 inches with the newer Macro version. The Macro version has 1:3.8 Macro ability. That means that you can fill the frame with a subject approximately 4 times the size of the film or sensor.

A dedicated macro lens is typically rated at 1:1, which means that you can fill the frame with a subject the same size as the film or sensor. But, use of the word macro is relatively common with zooms when you can get within a 1:4 rating.

The non-Macro version can only focus as close as 70.9 inches, and as a result, as a macro magnification rating of 1:7.8 (meaning that the smallest subject it could fill the frame with would be about 8 times as large as the sensor or film the lens is being used with).

Quote:
Will this lens be able to perform in normal home and vacation shooting, in addition to night and indoor sports.

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

Just noticed F3.5 I think I need F2.5?
It's got a largest available aperture of f/3.5 on it's wide end (least apparent magnification). Your largest available aperture (smallest available f/stop number) will become smaller as you zoom in more.

That lens is not bright enough for low light sports use. It's down to a largest available aperture of only f/5.6 on it's long end.

To put things into perspective, the lens on your Sony DSC-F717 has a largest available aperture of f/2.4 on it's long end. f/2.4 is 6 times as bright as f/5.6. That means you could get shutter speeds 6 times as fast with your Sony compared to this lens when zoomed in for the same lighting conditions and ISO speed.

IOW, even if you used ISO 3200 on the D40, your shutter speeds would still be slower than you'd have with the Sony at ISO 800 for the same exposure (brightness) when zoomed in much in low light.

Most sports shooters are going to want a lens with f/2.8 available throughout the zoom range for night sports in a stadium.

For indoor sports, even f/2.8 may not be bright enough. If you look through some of the basketball photos taken by JohnG, you'll find that he uses primes (non-zoom lenses) for basketball indoors (and he has some Sigma /2.8 zooms for other sports use, and prefers the brighter primes for low light sports indoors).

For one thing, you can get primes that are brighter than zooms. For example, if you shot with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 or135mm f/2 at around f/2, you'd get shutter speeds twice as fast as an f/2.8 zoom for the same lighting and ISO speed (f/2 is exactly twice as bright as f/2.8 ).

Unfortunately, the D40 won't use these brighter primes unless you want to try getting away with manual focus (which would be pretty tough to do shooting sports with the shallow Depth of Field you'd have on a DSLR at wider apertures using a small viewfinder).

You focus needs to be spot on. It's not going to be like trying to shoot with the aperture wide open on your Sony. You'll have a much shallower depth of field at wider apertures shooting with a DSLR (you'd have to shoot at around f/8 with a DSLR to get the same Depth of Field you'd have with the aperture at around f/2 on your Sony), and Nikon doesn't make these brighter lenses with AF-S yet. So, focus accuracy is going to be critical using a DSLR with a brighter lens.

Now, if you have a gym with very good lighting, you might be able to get away with f/2.8, depending on your expectation of quality (how much blur/noise is acceptable), viewing sizes needed, etc. But, in some gyms, I've seen f/2 and ISO 3200 needed for optimum results from photos I've seen displayed. You won't be able to do that with a Nikon D40 or D50 with Autofocus (since the D40 won't use the brighter lenses if you want AF, and the D50 doesn't have ISO 3200). You could "push" the exposure a stop with the D50. But, that will increase your noise levels (but, so would shooting at ISO 3200 using a D40). You really don't want to use it unless you have to.

I'd be inclined to go with a different camera than the D40 if you plan on taking lots of existing light photos. You'd be able to use more lenses on other models, and if you're on a tight budget, go used for lenses and save even more money.

Heck, you can pick up a used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF lens for under $500 for the non-D version if you shop around. It wouldn't focus quite a fast as the AF-S lenses. But, it's a pretty darn fast focusing lens without it from most reports. Then, buy a 1.4x teleconverter for much reach for daytime sports (which will cost you one stop of light), and get a couple of primes for indoor sports. Look at http://www.keh.com for great prices on used gear.

You can pick up a brand new Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF lens for around $100 that would get you some shots from the sidelines indoors, and if money permitted, pick up a little longer prime at the same time (new or used).

Unfortunately, the D50 is limited to ISO 1600 (whereas the D40 goes to ISO 3200). But, you really don't want to use ISO 3200 unless you have to. So, I'd be inclined to go with a D50 instead if my primary use was sports, and push it a stop (underexpose and brighten to simulate higher ISO speeds) if absolutely necessary (which could get nasty).

But, the ability to use a brighter lens would help reduce that need, since you could use lower ISO speeds with a prime shooting at f/2 and get the same shutter speeds you'd need to use higher ISO speeds to achieve with an f/2.8 zoom.

There are always tradeoffs, and if light permitted, you may want to use f/2.8 for a bit more depth of field, even with a brighter prime. You can always stop down (set it to use a smaller aperture/higher f/stop number) using a brighter lens when light permits, and you'd be stuck with a widest available aperture of f/2.8 using a brighter zoom. Most lenses are sharper when the aperture is stopped down some anyway (most lenses are softest at their wide open aperture position).

A lot boils down to your expectations of quality. Also, viewing size will enter the equation as to what is an acceptable level of blur or noise in an image.

You sometimes see this debated a bit, too. But, one gym may not be as bright as another. Here is one thread discussing it:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=82

There are pros and cons to any solution.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2006, 5:38 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
O.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 139
Default

a buddy of mine bought a d40... he was trying to decide which P&S to get for two month when I showed him some pics I took with my old Canon 300d .. he was blown away ... went out and got the d40. He loves it so much and he says that he can not thank me enough.

d40 is a true entry level DSLR, that does very well out of the box.

all the settings are burried in the menus ... but who cares? this is not for photo professionals this is for people who need to get better pictures then they can with P&S ... try taking a pic of a 2-3 year old running arround with any P&S .... forget about it bu the time it focuses and shutter releases ... the kid is not even in the frame ....

now today when I was testing a d200 in a store next to me a guy was looking through different P&Ss ... for probably 40 minutes ... I told him why does not he try a DSLR ... he say - but it is for real photographers ... and the salesman brought him a d40 .... you know what he told us after taking a few snapshots? ... he said ... WOW look at the picture quality ... and how fast the focus is and how fast the shutter is ...THIS IS A REAL CAMERA! he said.

and that's who d40 isfor ... for people who can not tell the difference between apperture and exposure because those words mean nothing to them... and yet they can still take great pics with their camera


O.S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2006, 4:23 PM   #36
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

from OS

"THIS IS A REAL CAMERA! he said.

and that's who d40 isfor ... for people who can not tell the difference between apperture and exposure because those words mean nothing to them... and yet they can still take great pics with their camera "

Just bought the d40, as every1 that ownes it, i'd love to scream, its the best camera in the world but, nah, it isnt, havent tried any of the nikon dslrs before this 1 ,, but when u say that d40 is for ppl that cant the differances btw app. and exp. I gotta give u a point for that one,

as its an entry level camera, this the dslr people can make great use of to learn the more "advance" settings then just pointing and shooting. for the guy in the photostore, guess he probably just dont know what lies before the d40 in the rankings, as a matter of fact, i dont know either because ive knever tested a better one, except for theEOS 400D, the 350D is better, i wouldnt dare to say ,,

yes, i take great pictures with my d40 even though i dont know everything on the LCD

clue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2006, 11:38 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

The D40 is the ultimate snapshot camera. If your expectations are to have a camera capable of excellent image quality but, you are not planning on pushing the limits it will be fine. If you are looking at fast zooms and have desires to shoot sports than the D50 is probably a better choice since it allows you to choose older used lenses. If you have the cash needed to buy very expensivenew fast Nikonlenses with built in focus motors thenyou may want a D80 to exploitthem to the fullest.

D40 owners will get excellent pictures, most will never take the camera out of auto mode, and the majority will probably only own one lens (or two at most). This is a very viable market which needs to be filled and Nikon has done that with a high quality camera.

JimC has covered the limitations of such a design, and the reasons why a D50 would offer more optical flexibility since it still has the internal focus motor.

The Pentax ME was a very big success back in the late 1970s although it offered very few features, but it was automatic, light and simple to use. The Nikon EM from the same era was also a big success, although neither of these cameras offered the features many serious photographers demanded. Serious photographers are not the majority, snapshooters who want quality and brand recognition are far more plentiful. These people will buy the D40, enjoy it and possibly even develop more interest in photography because of it. In two years they will go back to Nikon for a more full featured model and thus Nikon benefits. Serious photographers on a tight budget will buy this camera and push it to its limits, which is still potentially well beyond most point and shoot models (except a small number that probably cost much more than the D40 anyway). Congratulations Nikon for offering a low cost camera for those who just want a "good" camera.

It fills a very important market niche.

Ira

Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 10:45 PM   #38
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6
Default

zygh wrote:
Quote:
let's face it: the d40 is nothing more than nikon's new gimmick to draw in the people looking for their first dslr.
Yeah right, the D40 is just a gimmick. Shame on Nikon for doing something different. I bet that they are rethinking this introduction now that they know that zygh doesn't approve.
bugeyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 6:37 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
zygh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 531
Default

bugeyed wrote:
Quote:
zygh wrote:
Quote:
let's face it: the d40 is nothing more than nikon's new gimmick to draw in the people looking for their first dslr.
Yeah right, the D40 is just a gimmick.* Shame on Nikon for doing something different. I bet that they are rethinking this introduction now that they know that zygh doesn't approve.
No, shame on Nikon for crippling their entry-level model just because most first-time dSLR owners are uninformed and, by this, they can make loads more dough than they already do.
Yo, bugeyed, in case you own the D40, I wish you all the best of luck playing with your AFS kit lenses. When and if the time comes and you outgrow those mediocre kit lenses, come back and talk to me about manual focusing and all that for the lenses you really desire. Look, mate, the D40 is infact a very smart gimmick on Nikon's part for one reason only: this lovely cam will draw in crowds but it will also insure much greater profit margins on lenses than other Nikon SLRs; all this by screwing you for not knowing any better. The reason is, I believe, obvious.
One thing I think most people hate is being tide-up by the hands. Lack of in-body AF motor is Nikon's second serious restriction on its dSLR line. The first being the infamous coding on their NEF files making the Nikon RAW files only fully usable with Nikon software.

Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam so no reason in continuing this here.
zygh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 6:36 AM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default

sounds like most of the people here thinks they know what will happen during the next few monthes or these next years to come.

the lack of built in auto motor makes the camera smaller and the lenses comes in very small variations but what if the next nikon dslr's coming got the same small-no auto zoom-house and nikon starts producing new lenses with a built in motor,

who knows (?)
clue is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:55 AM.