Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   Which Cameras should suit me. (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/cameras-should-suit-me-151062/)

fiscalbong Jan 12, 2009 11:02 PM

Hi everybody,

I'm new around and just have developed interest in photography when my sister gave us a Fujifilm Finefix J150w. As I shoot pictures by pictures, my interest grew warmer and warmer and then realized that a digicam could not cater to my curiousity on the subject and my creativity. So I'm now planning to buy a DSLR camera. I went to the local store and this Nikon D40 attracted my attention. Of course, I have read all about it in the net and aware that it is one camera that's good for beginners. Do you agree with that? Here's what's snatching my attention - an Olympus E 420 and a Canon 1000D. Could anyone advice me on this matter?

Thanks and hope to enjoy your companionship as I grow with this new found interest.

JohnG Jan 13, 2009 9:54 AM

fiscalbong wrote:
Quote:

and then realized that a digicam could not cater to my curiousity on the subject and my creativity. So I'm now planning to buy a DSLR camera.
What precisely is it about the digicam that is hampering your curiosity and creativity? By identifying what aspects of your current setup are lacking it's easier to identify a solution.

TCav Jan 13, 2009 10:05 AM

I want to second what JohnG said, but I also want to provide a quick note of caution:

The Nikon D40 and Olympus E-420 are better than most P&S Digicams, but they are poor examples of dSLRs.

elliotm00 Jan 13, 2009 10:13 PM

TCav wrote:
Quote:

I want to second what JohnG said, but I also want to provide a quick note of caution:

The Nikon D40 and Olympus E-420 are better than most P&S Digicams, but they are poor examples of dSLRs.
May I ask how you would respond to this person's high recommendation of the D40? I'm considering this for myself. Thanks.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm


StevieDgpt Jan 13, 2009 11:38 PM

elliotm00 wrote:
Quote:

TCav wrote:
Quote:

I want to second what JohnG said, but I also want to provide a quick note of caution:

The Nikon D40 and Olympus E-420 are better than most P&S Digicams, but they are poor examples of dSLRs.
May I ask how you would respond to this person's high recommendation of the D40? I'm considering this for myself. Thanks.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Ken is what we can loosely define as a Nikon advocate. Others would call him a Nikonfanboy or even aShill for Nikon.

To say Ken is biased would be a slight understatement.

Not that he is always wrong per se. The D-40 was a good camera and would do just about anybody a reasonable job. Key word is WAS. Off the top of my head the D-40 has been on the market for 3 or 4 years. In camera body technology life span a 2 year old camera is way past its prime. The D-40 is most definitely past its prime in terms of technology.

(Hey, before anybody gets bitchy I am shooting with a KM-5D that I purchased in the summer of 2005.... a good camera but just about any camera on the market can run rings around my KM-5D in at least one specificationif not more)









fiscalbong Jan 14, 2009 8:33 PM

:-)
Hi, thanks for responding.

My Fujifilm Digicam is pretty good for a digicam. However, when I realized what a dslr could do, that was the time I began craving for more. For instance, I could not make any adjustment for the desired depth of field. The ISO setting is automatic thus depriving me of choice as to what setting I would wish to shoot my picture. Of course, there are settings for different kinds of situation, such night, natural light, fireworks, text, etc., but experimenting, I could not come up with the result I expect. There is also this image quality that is keeping a question mark in my thought. What is the significance of image quality? What image quality is proper or best for a given situation?

I would be very glad if you can give me more pointers regarding this matter of digicams.

Thanks a lot.

fiscalbong Jan 14, 2009 8:42 PM

As far as I have read, the only downside of the D40 is in the megapixels. It has only 6.1. and the pixel size of camera is not what really makes one. That is, the outcome still lies on personal skill and talent of the one using the cam. Of course, this is only true when you do not intend to make a very huge copy of your pictures. What therefore makes a D40 an inferior dslr camera, aside from its age? In terms of image quality? :?

JohnG Jan 14, 2009 9:13 PM

The real knock on the D40 was the stripped down focus system. Nikon removed the focus motor from the body and reduced the number of focus points and potentially the focus algorithms driving it. The loss of the focus motor had the impact of rendering most short prime lenses in Nikon's arsenal manual focus on the camera as well as many third party lenses which for Nikon mount did not include a focus motor. Slowly other manufacturers are adding focus motors to Nikon mount cameras (for example NONE of canon's dslrs have in-camera focus motors so third party lens makers have had focus motors in canon lenses for years but in Nikon they could take advantage of the in-camera focus motors and not include them in the lenses). For certain sensor and image processing technology has advanced since the D40. But I would never go to the extreme TCAV did in saying it is a poor example of a DSLR. I would say, however, that focus limitation can severely limit certain types of photography. The D60 has newer processing but still has the same crippled AF system. And note, the only reason I say "crippled" is that prior to the d40, the entry level Nikon DSLRs had a better focus system so Nikon deliberately "crippled" it. I'm sure part of it was just cost reduction but I think another part is a hook to force an upgrade. So, if the types of photography a person wants to do aren't hampered by the scaled back focus system and the loss of autofocus on a wide selection of lenses then the camera can still be a good selection for a person.

StevieDgpt Jan 14, 2009 9:30 PM

[align=left]Taken direct from Ken's website[/align]
[align=left]" MyD40 only autofocuses with the latest AF-S lenses....[/align]
[align=left]You'll have to focus manually with traditional AF lenses which means forget about older lenses except macros ... "[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]This also means many3rd party lenses are not going to work on the Nikon D-40[/align]
[align=left]6.1megapixel is not an issue. I am shooting with a 6.1megapixel camera.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Also from Ken's website:[/align]
[align=left]3 AF points.[/align]
[align=left]2.5 fps[/align]
[align=left]2.5″ 230,000 pixel LCD[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Bottom line: solid performance specs that are no longer state of the art for the price point. Products from Canon and others is a generation improved.[/align]
[align=left][/align]

fiscalbong Jan 14, 2009 10:06 PM

The real knock on the D40 was the stripped down focus system. Nikon removed the focus motor from the body and reduced the number of focus points and potentially the focus algorithms driving it. The loss of the focus motor had the impact of rendering most short prime lenses in Nikon's arsenal manual focus on the camera as well as many third party lenses which for Nikon mount did not include a focus motor. Slowly other manufacturers are adding focus motors to Nikon mount cameras (for example NONE of canon's dslrs have in-camera focus motors so third party lens makers have had focus motors in canon lenses for years but in Nikon they could take advantage of the in-camera focus motors and not include them in the lenses). For certain sensor and image processing technology has advanced since the D40. But I would never go to the extreme TCAV did in saying it is a poor example of a DSLR. I would say, however, that focus limitation can severely limit certain types of photography. The D60 has newer processing but still has the same crippled AF system. And note, the only reason I say "crippled" is that prior to the d40, the entry level Nikon DSLRs had a better focus system so Nikon deliberately "crippled" it. I'm sure part of it was just cost reduction but I think another part is a hook to force an upgrade. So, if the types of photography a person wants to do aren't hampered by the scaled back focus system and the loss of autofocus on a wide selection of lenses then the camera can still be a good selection for a person.

Gee! Nicely said!

I was hesitant for while if will still have a D40. I'm now decided, I will get one. After all, I'm just a beginner and still in the learning process. What matters is getting good and quality pictures as go on with this new-found hobby. Adjusting focus on some lenses would be a very welcome experience, sort of going back a little on the mechanics of early versions of cameras. Thanks a lot!:-)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.