New to D-SLR - How Nikon D40 handles Anti shake (or VR if you call it)?

nickleback · Apr 15, 2008

techmine said:
Amazon has 323 ratings for this camera and out of that 265 gave 5
stars ( )
If I have to believe what most people think about a product on the
biggest online retailer, I cannot get go wrong with this.

Depends on your needs and use.

techmine said:
My
requirement was to take child pics and capture all the funny moments.

A fast zoom (f/2.8) or prime (f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4) is be much better at this than kit lens plus built-in flash. Kit lens + external flash is OK, but you could find that the kid moves faster than the flash recycles.

Fast zooms are expensive, which is way outside your budget, I think.

Fast primes in 28-50mm range are usually inexpensive. Unfortunately with this camera only two will autofocus. These are relatively expensive, and one of them isn't available yet.

techmine said:
Its hard to blv that most of the people who rate this camera as top
notch, never took child pictures or ignored the results that they got
(even with the kit lens).

Lots of people seem to not notice pictures have the deer-in-the-headlight quality that you get with built-in flash, or wonder why their pictures are blurry. That is, until they see pictures that aren't blurry and aren't deer-in-the-headlights.

techmine said:
Alternatives for me right now are: Olympus E-510, Canon XT and XTi .
Pentax 100D (very cheap lenses for future), Sony Alpha A200K. All of
them have the same average ratings. Any suggestion, viz-a-viz D40?

XT is very cheap right now as it is being closed out and it will autofocus with all EF and EF-S lenses, including the EF 50mm f/1.8, which is $75. XTi is a better camera, but it costs more and you are trying to keep cost low. There's nothing wrong with the XT.

The E-510 doesn't have a cheap fast prime option, and high ISO isn't as good. So you'll be stuck with slower zooms and flash. Similar situation to D40.

The K100D is quite good, will autofocus everything, and has lots of inexpensive lenses available for it, although for fast inexpensive primes you'll need to buy used. They do have a good selection of mid-price fast primes, though.

The Sony A200 has no cheap fast primes. You can buy them used, but they can get quite expensive as supply doesn't meet demand. Again, similar to D40 situation.

Taking into consideration all the above, I recommended the Canon Rebel XT. The Pentax K100D is second, only because for cheap primes you'll have to buy used. There's nothing wrong with the Nikon D40, but there are other cameras in the same price range that will do what you want better.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

chuxter · Apr 15, 2008

You have some good replies and some really stupid ones. I hope you are smart enough to figure out the difference.

1. Don't ever trust anybody who is brand-centric.
2. Don't ever trust anybody who wants you to buy what they bought.
3. Trust me...

I don't have a D40. But I know that I could take it and get good pix of your child. To do this, I'd have to:

a) Increase the indoor lighting a bit (all the lights on...bigger bulbs...etc)
b) Select a relatively high sensitivity (ISO) setting

c) Use a FL with as big an aperture (low F#) as possible...ie, use WA zoom setting
d) Set the camera to Aperture priority mode
e) Hold the camera steady...squeeze the trigger, er shutter button
f) Process the pix with a good NR program (NN, NW, or NI)

If you'd allow me to, I'd get a flash and bounce it off the ceiling.

Be aware that this is the same thing I would do with any camera!

The D40 has a bit of an advantage over the other choices, as it has a reasonable number of pixels, thus low noise, thus you can use higher ISO settings successfully.

If you don't mind a used camera, I'd look at the D50. It will allow you to use a cheap lens, like the 50mm f1.8, which will help a bunch!

There are LOTS of good cameras you can get. Don't limit yourself to Nikon!

I'd recommend you HOLD any camera on your short list. Also, take some pix with it and use the controls and menus. If it fits, buy it!

In case you don't know, there are a couple of good stores close to you. Try Arlington Camera and Ft Worth Camera Supply. At FWCS, ask for Jeffrey...explain what you want to do and he can advise you.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'

Sir Stick · Apr 15, 2008

You won't have any problems outside, in daylight with the kit lenses. If you add enough lamps to your house, it would be ok too. The D40 is a fine camera for you if you can live without the cheaper fast lenses. The other cameras you listed from Canon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus are all able to use those cheaper lenses. It's because af the competition that people here might sound like they're against the D40. The Rebel XT and K100D just are a better deal now.

With any of the other cameras (I'm not so sure about Olympus because I've never owned one), fast lenses can easily be found for $100 or even cheaper. With the D40, you'll have to buy a new one with a built-in motor for $400 and up.

techmine · Apr 15, 2008

thanks so much for advice. You made me feel better about D40 which I almost fell in love with

I would most probably go with D40 with additional VR LENS. I think it would cost me somewhere close to 650 the whole package.

chuxter said:
You have some good replies and some really stupid ones. I hope you
are smart enough to figure out the difference.

1. Don't ever trust anybody who is brand-centric.
2. Don't ever trust anybody who wants you to buy what they bought.
3. Trust me...

I don't have a D40. But I know that I could take it and get good pix
of your child. To do this, I'd have to:

a) Increase the indoor lighting a bit (all the lights on...bigger
bulbs...etc)
b) Select a relatively high sensitivity (ISO) setting
c) Use a FL with as big an aperture (low F#) as possible...ie, use WA
zoom setting
d) Set the camera to Aperture priority mode
e) Hold the camera steady...squeeze the trigger, er shutter button
f) Process the pix with a good NR program (NN, NW, or NI)

If you'd allow me to, I'd get a flash and bounce it off the ceiling.

Be aware that this is the same thing I would do with any camera!

The D40 has a bit of an advantage over the other choices, as it has a
reasonable number of pixels, thus low noise, thus you can use higher
ISO settings successfully.

If you don't mind a used camera, I'd look at the D50. It will allow
you to use a cheap lens, like the 50mm f1.8, which will help a bunch!

There are LOTS of good cameras you can get. Don't limit yourself to
Nikon!

I'd recommend you HOLD any camera on your short list. Also, take some
pix with it and use the controls and menus. If it fits, buy it!

In case you don't know, there are a couple of good stores close to
you. Try Arlington Camera and Ft Worth Camera Supply. At FWCS, ask
for Jeffrey...explain what you want to do and he can advise you.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'

nickleback · Apr 15, 2008

chuxter said:
I don't have a D40. But I know that I could take it and get good pix
of your child.

Sure. I could as well. But...

chuxter said:
a) Increase the indoor lighting a bit (all the lights on...bigger
bulbs...etc)

Helps somewhat. You've got to throw a lot of lights on. Indoor lighting is typically about 1/500 as bright as sunlight.

chuxter said:
b) Select a relatively high sensitivity (ISO) setting

Yes.

chuxter said:
c) Use a FL with as big an aperture (low F#) as possible...ie, use WA
zoom setting

Pretty unusual to shoot individuals, especially little ones, with wide angle. Sometimes you want the look and that's fine, but usually you'll want around 35mm to 50mm. At these focal lengths with the kit lens you are at f/5.6. 3 stops (i.e. 8 times slower shutter speed) than you cold get with an f/2 lens.

chuxter said:
d) Set the camera to Aperture priority mode
e) Hold the camera steady...squeeze the trigger, er shutter button
f) Process the pix with a good NR program (NN, NW, or NI)

OK. Too bad you are at 1/15 and the kid is a blur.

chuxter said:
If you'd allow me to, I'd get a flash and bounce it off the ceiling.

That would make the kit lens shot more palatable. Except flash isn't always handy if you are chasing a kid around. You've got to swivel it back and forth when you change orientations, wait for it to recycle or cool down, turn it off if the kid hides under a table, etc.

But for this camera, since inexpensive fast lenses aren't available, it's the least expensive good option.

chuxter said:
Be aware that this is the same thing I would do with any camera!

Except that you have a camera with clean ISO 3200, and presumably faster lenses and better flash(es).

chuxter said:
The D40 has a bit of an advantage over the other choices, as it has a
reasonable number of pixels, thus low noise, thus you can use higher
ISO settings successfully.

So then why does your D300, with twice as many pixels, have lower high ISO noise? All the other cameras mentioned are fine. And if you are using external bounce flash, there's very little reason to go above ISO 800 anyway.

chuxter said:
If you don't mind a used camera, I'd look at the D50. It will allow
you to use a cheap lens, like the 50mm f1.8, which will help a bunch!

Exactly what I was saying. A cheap fast prime will help a bunch. For this application, the D50 is better than the D40. They both have the same sensor.

chuxter said:
There are LOTS of good cameras you can get. Don't limit yourself to
Nikon!

Completely agree. Although there are lots of good Nikons too. The D80 is a killer deal right now, but at $750 is probably above what the OP wants to spend.

chuxter said:
I'd recommend you HOLD any camera on your short list. Also, take some
pix with it and use the controls and menus. If it fits, buy it!

Yes.

chuxter said:
In case you don't know, there are a couple of good stores close to
you. Try Arlington Camera and Ft Worth Camera Supply. At FWCS, ask
for Jeffrey...explain what you want to do and he can advise you.

Sounds like real camera shops, which should offer good advice. Don't trust Best Buy/Circuit City/Ritz for good advice.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

Anom · Apr 16, 2008

There are shortcomings on the D40, this is clear. It's the least expensive DSLR in the Nikon lineup.

I wouldn't encourage you to spend more than you have to, though. A D40 can take extraordinary photos of children and movement. You say you just want to use the kit lens. With focal lengths of 18-55, VR is not mandatory. The shake will be minimal.

My advice to you is buy yourself a D40 and an SB-400. An SB-400 can be had for $100. It will allow you to take pictures inside at sufficiently high speeds that camera shake and the movement of your child will be negated. Believe me, the extra $100 will be better spent on a flash that is bounced off the ceiling than any of the things these other posters are suggesting.

Chris Elliott104343 · Apr 16, 2008

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

nickleback said:

c) Use a FL with as big an aperture (low F#) as possible...ie, use WA

Click to expand...

zoom setting

Click to expand...

Pretty unusual to shoot individuals, especially little ones, with
wide angle. Sometimes you want the look and that's fine, but usually
you'll want around 35mm to 50mm. At these focal lengths with the kit
lens you are at f/5.6. 3 stops (i.e. 8 times slower shutter speed)
than you cold get with an f/2 lens.

Its called making the best of what you have got. Wild exaggeration will not help your case. At 35mm the kit lens is at f/4.5. As you know very well nobody, but nobody makes an affordable f/2 zoom. So at 35mm the kit lens is 4/3rds stop slower than an f/2.8 zoom. So that means putting ISO up from say 200 to 400 and suffering a slight loss of speed 1/180th down to 1/140th or whatever.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

d) Set the camera to Aperture priority mode
e) Hold the camera steady...squeeze the trigger, er shutter button
f) Process the pix with a good NR program (NN, NW, or NI)

Click to expand...

OK. Too bad you are at 1/15 and the kid is a blur.

At ISO 200 maybe. Just put the ISO up if you have to. Nothing wrong with the D40 output at ISO 800.

nickleback said:
But for this camera, since inexpensive fast lenses aren't available,
it's the least expensive good option.

There is very little wrong with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Granted no inexpensive AF primes but they are enthusiasts lenses.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

Be aware that this is the same thing I would do with any camera!

Click to expand...

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

If you don't mind a used camera, I'd look at the D50. It will allow
you to use a cheap lens, like the 50mm f1.8, which will help a bunch!

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was saying. A cheap fast prime will help a bunch.
For this application, the D50 is better than the D40. They both have
the same sensor.

Except that a prime is not always handy if you are chasing a kid (your words) around you won't able to keep up if the kid hides under a table, etc. (Now where have I head that before?!!)

--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile

http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/

nickleback · Apr 16, 2008

Anom said:
There are shortcomings on the D40, this is clear. It's the least
expensive DSLR in the Nikon lineup.

As are the Canon Rebel XT and Pentax K100D. Both cost less than the D40, as they are both on closeout.

Anom said:
I wouldn't encourage you to spend more than you have to, though.

Me neither.

Anom said:
A
D40 can take extraordinary photos of children and movement. You say
you just want to use the kit lens. With focal lengths of 18-55, VR
is not mandatory. The shake will be minimal.

And besides, the shake in this case will be the subject, VR won't help. A higher shutter speed will.

Anom said:
My advice to you is buy yourself a D40 and an SB-400. An SB-400 can
be had for $100. It will allow you to take pictures inside at
sufficiently high speeds that camera shake and the movement of your
child will be negated. Believe me, the extra $100 will be better
spent on a flash that is bounced off the ceiling than any of the
things these other posters are suggesting.

A fast 50mm lens will cost about the same or less. The SB-400 will not bounce off the ceiling if you shoot in portrait orientation, which is what you often do when shooting people. An SB-600 will be better, but it costs around $200.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

chuxter · Apr 16, 2008

nickleback said:
chuxter said:

I don't have a D40. But I know that I could take it and get good pix
of your child.

Click to expand...

Sure. I could as well. But...

nickleback said:

a) Increase the indoor lighting a bit (all the lights on...bigger
bulbs...etc)

Click to expand...

Helps somewhat. You've got to throw a lot of lights on. Indoor
lighting is typically about 1/500 as bright as sunlight.

I forgot to mention to open all the window blinds (in the daytime). Every little bit helps.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

b) Select a relatively high sensitivity (ISO) setting

Click to expand...

Yes.

nickleback said:

c) Use a FL with as big an aperture (low F#) as possible...ie, use WA
zoom setting

Click to expand...

Pretty unusual to shoot individuals, especially little ones, with
wide angle. Sometimes you want the look and that's fine, but usually
you'll want around 35mm to 50mm. At these focal lengths with the kit
lens you are at f/5.6. 3 stops (i.e. 8 times slower shutter speed)
than you cold get with an f/2 lens.

I agree that the perspective of WA is not ideal, but it's better than a blur. Solve one problem at a time...

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

d) Set the camera to Aperture priority mode
e) Hold the camera steady...squeeze the trigger, er shutter button
f) Process the pix with a good NR program (NN, NW, or NI)

Click to expand...

OK. Too bad you are at 1/15 and the kid is a blur.

I think you are exaggerating. I have so-so lighting in my office...one window (it's cloudy outside and not sunny). I grabbed the R1 and set it on ISO 800, 1/30 sec, and f3.5. Some white objects were blown.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

If you'd allow me to, I'd get a flash and bounce it off the ceiling.

Click to expand...

nickleback said:
That would make the kit lens shot more palatable. Except flash isn't
always handy if you are chasing a kid around. You've got to swivel
it back and forth when you change orientations, wait for it to
recycle or cool down, turn it off if the kid hides under a table, etc.

Don't change orientations! I have never had to wait for my flash to cool down! Take pix in the other room...you know, the one w/o a table. You are making it sound harder than it is.

nickleback said:
But for this camera, since inexpensive fast lenses aren't available,
it's the least expensive good option.

nickleback said:

Be aware that this is the same thing I would do with any camera!

Click to expand...

Except that you have a camera with clean ISO 3200, and presumably
faster lenses and better flash(es).

I also have other cameras that don't have clean ISO 3200. I can take pix with any of them, but you are right that in dim light, the D300 is my choice.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

The D40 has a bit of an advantage over the other choices, as it has a
reasonable number of pixels, thus low noise, thus you can use higher
ISO settings successfully.

Click to expand...

So then why does your D300, with twice as many pixels, have lower
high ISO noise?

Because of NR in the camera. Duh! One of the common complaints about the D300 is that it has a bit of noise at ISO 200, because Nikon doesn't do much/any NR below ISO 800.

nickleback said:
All the other cameras mentioned are fine. And if you
are using external bounce flash, there's very little reason to go
above ISO 800 anyway.

With bounce flash, I'd probably use ISO 200.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

If you don't mind a used camera, I'd look at the D50. It will allow
you to use a cheap lens, like the 50mm f1.8, which will help a bunch!

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was saying. A cheap fast prime will help a bunch.
For this application, the D50 is better than the D40. They both have
the same sensor.

Yep. But the OP fell in love with the D40...

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

There are LOTS of good cameras you can get. Don't limit yourself to
Nikon!

Click to expand...

Completely agree. Although there are lots of good Nikons too. The
D80 is a killer deal right now, but at $750 is probably above what
the OP wants to spend.

nickleback said:

I'd recommend you HOLD any camera on your short list. Also, take some
pix with it and use the controls and menus. If it fits, buy it!

Click to expand...

Yes.

nickleback said:

In case you don't know, there are a couple of good stores close to
you. Try Arlington Camera and Ft Worth Camera Supply. At FWCS, ask
for Jeffrey...explain what you want to do and he can advise you.

Click to expand...

Sounds like real camera shops, which should offer good advice. Don't
trust Best Buy/Circuit City/Ritz for good advice.

Yep. Unfortunately, at Arlington Camera there are some good and some bad advisors. There is one old guy (been there 30 years) that is super, but I don't remember his name.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'

chuxter · Apr 16, 2008

nickleback said:
An SB-600 will be better, but it costs around $200.

Nah...I bought mine at Ft Worth Camera Supply for about $160. Could have been bought for less on line...

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'

nickleback · Apr 16, 2008

Chris Elliott said:
nickleback wrote:
Its called making the best of what you have got. Wild exaggeration
will not help your case. At 35mm the kit lens is at f/4.5.

I'm sorry, you are correct. So that's 2 1/3 stop slower than f/2, and not 3 stops as I wrote. For what this will do for the OP, see below.

Chris Elliott104343 said:
As you
know very well nobody, but nobody makes an affordable f/2 zoom.

Et tu, brute? That's much more of an exaggeration than my mistake. I never said f/2 zoom, I said f/2 prime. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (which is 1/3 stop faster than f/2) costs about $100. Too bad it won't autofocus on the D40.

Chris Elliott104343 said:
So at 35mm the kit lens is 4/3rds stop slower than an f/2.8 zoom.

Again, I recommended a cheap fast prime.

Chris Elliott104343 said:
So that
means putting ISO up from say 200 to 400 and suffering a slight loss
of speed 1/180th down to 1/140th or whatever.

Sure, in good light. 1/180th and 1/140 aren't typical 1/3 stops, so I'll give you 1/160 and 1/125. That's EV 10, 3 stops faster (i.e 8 times the light) than even the brightest home interior lighting.

Home interior lighting is typically around EV 7 at best, but often EV 5 or 6. At ISO 200 f/2.8 your shutter speed will be anywhere from 1/8 (EV 5) to 1/30 (EV 7). At ISO 400 f/4.5 shutter speed will be 1/6 to 1/25. To get 1/60 at f/4.5 you need ISO 1000 to 4000.

Chris Elliott104343 said:
Chris Elliott104343 said:

Chris Elliott104343 said:

d) Set the camera to Aperture priority mode
e) Hold the camera steady...squeeze the trigger, er shutter button
f) Process the pix with a good NR program (NN, NW, or NI)

Click to expand...

OK. Too bad you are at 1/15 and the kid is a blur.

Click to expand...

At ISO 200 maybe. Just put the ISO up if you have to. Nothing wrong
with the D40 output at ISO 800.

Another nice exaggeration. See above, ISO 1000 to 4000. The D40 max iso is 1600, which means you better have at least EV 6, and you'll still be a bit underexposed.

Chris Elliott104343 said:
Chris Elliott104343 said:

But for this camera, since inexpensive fast lenses aren't available,
it's the least expensive good option.

Click to expand...

There is very little wrong with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50
f/2.8. Granted no inexpensive AF primes but they are enthusiasts
lenses.

These are $400 lenses. Much more "enthusiast" than a $100 fast 50mm.

Chris Elliott104343 said:
Chris Elliott104343 said:

Exactly what I was saying. A cheap fast prime will help a bunch.
For this application, the D50 is better than the D40. They both have
the same sensor.

Click to expand...

Except that a prime is not always handy if you are chasing a kid
(your words) around you won't able to keep up if the kid hides under
a table, etc. (Now where have I head that before?!!)

A f/2 prime will keep up even better than a f/2.8 zoom, as under a table you are typically losing 2 stops. Instead of 1/60 at the settings given way above, you are at 1/15. You need every stop you can get.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

nickleback · Apr 16, 2008

chuxter said:
I forgot to mention to open all the window blinds (in the daytime).
Every little bit helps.

Absolutely.

chuxter said:
I agree that the perspective of WA is not ideal, but it's better than
a blur. Solve one problem at a time...

Or solve 2 problems with a $100 lens.

chuxter said:
You are making it sound harder than it is.

I'm trying to be realistic.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

Except that you have a camera with clean ISO 3200, and presumably
faster lenses and better flash(es).

Click to expand...

I also have other cameras that don't have clean ISO 3200. I can take
pix with any of them, but you are right that in dim light, the D300
is my choice.

Your "higher MP means worse high ISO performance" argument just flew out the window.

chuxter said:
With bounce flash, I'd probably use ISO 200.

I'd pick ISO 400, but whatever.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

Exactly what I was saying. A cheap fast prime will help a bunch.
For this application, the D50 is better than the D40. They both have
the same sensor.

Click to expand...

Yep. But the OP fell in love with the D40...

If the OP fell in love with a Mustang but had 5 kids to haul around, would you say "just buy the mustang!", or would you recommend a minivan?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

nickleback · Apr 16, 2008

chuxter said:
nickleback said:

An SB-600 will be better, but it costs around $200.

Click to expand...

Nah...I bought mine at Ft Worth Camera Supply for about $160. Could
have been bought for less on line...

SB-600? Typically $180 online. $160 at a local camera store is a screaming deal. Local price around here is $230.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

techmine · Apr 16, 2008

Great replies. Some of them are too technical but I am sure I will come back to those posts once I get my camera and feel the heat. I am sure it will be lot of fun customizing lot of things. Sounds like freedom.

chuxter · Apr 16, 2008

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

I agree that the perspective of WA is not ideal, but it's better than
a blur. Solve one problem at a time...

Click to expand...

Or solve 2 problems with a $100 lens.

But the OP was trying to use a D40 with the kit lens. I was trying to be realistic and not divert him to something else.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

You are making it sound harder than it is.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to be realistic.

Hmmm...

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

nickleback said:

Except that you have a camera with clean ISO 3200, and presumably
faster lenses and better flash(es).

Click to expand...

I also have other cameras that don't have clean ISO 3200. I can take
pix with any of them, but you are right that in dim light, the D300
is my choice.

Click to expand...

Your "higher MP means worse high ISO performance" argument just flew
out the window.

Not at all. All 3 of my cameras have different size sensors (as you know) and different size photosites. Although we haven't mentioned photosites by name (yet), it's the size of the photosites that affect IQ. The 5700 has a photosite area of about 10 u^2...the R1 and D300 have photosite areas about 31 u^2. The D300 has much better in-camera NR than the R1 does. At ISO 200, the R1 and D300 noise level is much the same, but at ISO 800+, the D300 does much better.

nickleback said:
nickleback said:

nickleback said:

Exactly what I was saying. A cheap fast prime will help a bunch.
For this application, the D50 is better than the D40. They both have
the same sensor.

Click to expand...

Yep. But the OP fell in love with the D40...

Click to expand...

If the OP fell in love with a Mustang but had 5 kids to haul around,
would you say "just buy the mustang!", or would you recommend a
minivan?

It depends on how big the kids are! The Mustang won't last long, but it's more fun that a minivan. It also depends on where the OP lives...in some states it's illegal to carry that many kids in anything.

Soon, the solution will be to get a draft horse and a buggy... :-(

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'

nickleback · Apr 16, 2008

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

Your "higher MP means worse high ISO performance" argument just flew
out the window.

Click to expand...

Not at all. All 3 of my cameras have different size sensors (as you know)

D300 vs D40. Same size sensor, very comparable high ISO performance, in both noise and detail. D300 is even a little better. Smaller pixel argument is still out on the grass.

chuxter said:
Soon, the solution will be to get a draft horse and a buggy... :-(

Come now, I wasn't recommending a film camera.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

Gregory King · Apr 16, 2008

nickleback said:
The Sony A200 has no cheap fast primes. You can buy them used, but
they can get quite expensive as supply doesn't meet demand. Again,
similar to D40 situation.

Everything NB said is entirely correct, except this one. There are plenty of Minolta 50mm 1.7 lenses around for under $100....AND they give you image stabilization in a fast prime...something you can't get with Canon and Nikon for ANY price. (With Oly, you can...but it's pricey).

The 28mm prime is also about $100, the 24mm is a bit worse (but cheap in the Sigma mount). Sony's lenses are a bit overpriced.

After that, you're into pricey territory for a fast prime on ANY mount....except for the 100mm f/3.5 "Plastic Fantastic" Vivitar/Cosina/Promaster.

Greg

neil holmes · Apr 16, 2008

Gregory King said:
nickleback said:

The Sony A200 has no cheap fast primes. You can buy them used, but
they can get quite expensive as supply doesn't meet demand. Again,
similar to D40 situation.

Click to expand...

Everything NB said is entirely correct, except this one. There are
plenty of Minolta 50mm 1.7 lenses around for under $100....AND they
give you image stabilization in a fast prime...something you can't
get with Canon and Nikon for ANY price. (With Oly, you can...but
it's pricey).

The 28mm prime is also about $100, the 24mm is a bit worse (but cheap
in the Sigma mount). Sony's lenses are a bit overpriced.

After that, you're into pricey territory for a fast prime on ANY
mount....except for the 100mm f/3.5 "Plastic Fantastic"
Vivitar/Cosina/Promaster.

Greg

For my Pentax dslrs

K mount 55mm 1.7 topcon lens $15 Australian manual focus but stabilised on the K100d not a bad lens at all.

Nikon 85 1.8 manual focus lens ...mounts and meters with stabilisation on the k100d ...just under $100...just over including postage....EXCELLENT lens...absolutely love it. This lens is very rough externally, but the glass is great.

Tamron 80-250 4.5 manual focus adaptall lens ...has a decent macro otherwise not bad...$27 Australian.

Ok the second last buy was actually when I paid $10 Australian for a 300 5.6 mirror lens but that was an experiment...it was a Yashica mount lens I remounted as k mount but the lens was a mess, the experiment worked but I tossed the lens.

neil

Gregory King · Apr 16, 2008

neil holmes said:
For my Pentax dslrs
K mount 55mm 1.7 topcon lens $15 Australian manual focus but
stabilised on the K100d not a bad lens at all.

Nikon 85 1.8 manual focus lens ...mounts and meters with
stabilisation on the k100d ...just under $100...just over including
postage....EXCELLENT lens...absolutely love it. This lens is very
rough externally, but the glass is great.

Tamron 80-250 4.5 manual focus adaptall lens ...has a decent macro
otherwise not bad...$27 Australian.

Member said:
neil

Neil,

Oops, forgot the Pentax has IS....I always do that. My bad.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend manual focus lenses for noobies. ;-) You get focus confirmation, I suppose? Do you have to set focal length in the camera to help calibrate the IS? The common argument is whether or not the focal length is required for proper function.

I just picked up a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 to try a home hack mod to mount to Maxxum AF mount for that same capability. Not as cheap as yours, though. ;-)

Greg

techmine · Apr 18, 2008

I decided to buy D40. Actually I was always gonna buy that. May be. I gave a serious thought about XTi too but finally settled down with D40. There were major differences in photos at Cameralabs.com. Ken Rockwell also inspired me to buy D40. Also one of friends bought it and he was telling me that D40 is super for beginners. Its best value for me. Amazon is carrying it for 477 and circuitcity.com just showed 503 including tax. I will buy it from there and take a protection plan too. Thank you all for your help and clearing out my basic doubts about DSLR.
See you on Nikon D40 users group.

Oh yeah. Of all the big stores in my area like CircuitCity, BestBuy and Fry's, Walmart had D40 on display. Flash wasn't working though But still I could snap some pics of my son and boy, they looked just perfect.

New to D-SLR - How Nikon D40 handles Anti shake (or VR if you call it)?

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Forum Pro

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

neil holmes

Guest

Veteran Member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts