Would appreciate some advice on what camera to get. I have at the moment i have a Nikon F75 and i am looking to move to a digital slr. I am thinking of a Nikon D40. Has anyone any views on them good or bad.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Advice needed
- Thread starter hiraeth
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
we just moved up to a D90 (just released) as our first DSLR and as a happy snapper its easy to use etc has liveview which my compact has etc so an easy move from there
from what ive read on the D40 its a lot cheaper as its an older model but is still capable of taking as good a shot as the more expensive ones just takes a little more work
and it dosnt enable all the features on some lenses not sure if thas cause its old or basic ????
ive been reading this site a lot for info this is the Nickon page of links
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm
ATB
Duncan
from what ive read on the D40 its a lot cheaper as its an older model but is still capable of taking as good a shot as the more expensive ones just takes a little more work
and it dosnt enable all the features on some lenses not sure if thas cause its old or basic ????
ive been reading this site a lot for info this is the Nickon page of links
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm
ATB
Duncan
Personally I'm not a fan of good ole ken, I know from experience most of what he talks about is utter clap trap. You are better off with dpreview.com
As for a DSLR, the Nikon D50 is excellent, the ISO is from 200-1600 and if you can afford some fast (1.8) glass you are sorted, plus the 50 is pretty cheap at the moment, and if you equip it with a 50mm f/1.8 it's small enough to be useful.
The problem with the D40 is that it has it's own dedicated flash, the SB400 which is a bit of a pain as if you wanted to use a SB600 or whatever, the ttl function goes out of the window I think.
Good Luck in finding your camera
PS, if you have older Nikon Lenses I know for a fact that they will go on the D50 (I've got one.. my first digital and the older lenses work well on it)
As for a DSLR, the Nikon D50 is excellent, the ISO is from 200-1600 and if you can afford some fast (1.8) glass you are sorted, plus the 50 is pretty cheap at the moment, and if you equip it with a 50mm f/1.8 it's small enough to be useful.
The problem with the D40 is that it has it's own dedicated flash, the SB400 which is a bit of a pain as if you wanted to use a SB600 or whatever, the ttl function goes out of the window I think.
Good Luck in finding your camera
PS, if you have older Nikon Lenses I know for a fact that they will go on the D50 (I've got one.. my first digital and the older lenses work well on it)
I have a D50 and been using it for years. It IS good, and compatible with any lense you slap on it (with a Nikon base, that is)
BUT!!!
It is old, and definately not the quickest of the bunch. Infact any camera of today outdoes the D50 (apart from the Olympus E520)
The sensors for light leave room for improvement aswell.
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't swap my D50 for anything, as it is very light and small. But i have reached a point where i want more.
D40's weren't compatible with any other lenses than Nikons own, nor does it have its own AF engine.
However Sigma has started making lenses for the D40 aswell, so one lack filled out.
My sister has the D40, and in direct comparison with my D50, its a very good camera. Infact i would say that it on many accounts is better, and cheaper. (And Nikon still supports this model. They do not support the D50 anymore!!)
Summary: The D50 can stand a whole lot of punishment and will take any lense you slap on it, but i wouldn't recommend you bought one. It simply is a outdated product with many lacks in comparison to what else is on the market for the price.
D40 is quite old, but also cheap and remarcably good.
Reccomandation: I'd go with a cheap D40 or pos. the D60, as kits with Nikons small kit-lense (its a decent lense for the price)
Then spend whats left of your cash on a medium zoom-lense with a large aperture from sigma, tamron or the like. Basically spend more money on lenses than camera.
When you have reached a point where you would wish for more, sell the camera and buy a new one, and keep your lenses. They WILL work on the next generation Nikon aswell.
Different makes of cameras with good capabilities would be Canon EOS350 or 400. Same recommendations for those.
Absolutely. But worth mentioning.I can see your point... Different strokes for different folkes
I think i would have to add that i mainly take pics of huntingtrials, scoutingtrials and the like. I don't do much landscaping, but would love to start that up.
Mostly Actionshots though, and for that, the D50 is not excactly the best buy anymore, for numerous reasons. (Not to mention that you would have to buy it secondhand)
Hmm. Well. Just my thoughts on the subject, for what its worth anyhow.
I've not used the D50 for sports, I tend to use it for landscapes and the kiddies, the D200 is for work
I've not used the D50 for sports, I tend to use it for landscapes and the kiddies, the D200 is for work
There you go. I have had the pleasure of trying a EOS400 standard zoom kit-lense equipped. For action-shooting the EOS performed much better than my own D50. (Until i bought the very best mediumrange szoom-lense i could get my hands on, that is)
The D50 is booringly slow to store the pictures, so action-sequence-shooting is almost unbearably a source of annoyment. The same goes for the sensors measuring light and the rest. When it was first released it was one hell of a good camera, especially for the price. But today i wouldn't even consider buying one, if it wasn't for the compatibility, the weight and the size. (And the rocksolid construction, as i really give cameras a beating when i'm out)
When i have the cash for it, i have thought of upgrading to D200 or D300, Any info on those in comparison to a D50 or equal? (as you use one of them
)(Ok Thread has been hijacked now
)Just a thought, but I know my local camera shop has some fantastic bundle deals on the outgoing D80 at the moment, worth considering. Worth looking out for similar where you are.
TBH, there isn't much difference between the 200 and 300, it depends on what you are using it for. At the moment I'm saving up for a 300 or I might even wait for the D3 because my work involves a lot of dark shooting, where my iso is over 600 and the d300/d3 have much cleaner/noiseless files than the d200. I would recommend the d200 if you are outside at iso 100-400 with landscapes and people.
However if you want to do sports photography for a living, think about a d3, or a d300 as a compromise. If you were really serious about speed and iso noise, then go for a d700, nice camera and quick too.
However if you want to do sports photography for a living, think about a d3, or a d300 as a compromise. If you were really serious about speed and iso noise, then go for a d700, nice camera and quick too.
I'd give you rep-points for that one, i fi could
Thanks.I don't do photography for a living, nor will i ever. But i still won't compromise on the gear though
Thanks for the info Cobweb.
Similar threads
