To SLR or not to SLR

Okay... I have, right now, a Fujifilm S5700. It's a great camera, and I love the long zoom range, but it seems it only likes outdoor daytime photos. 90% of what I take indoors comes out blurry, whether because the shutter was open for a long time or (more common) the camera couldn't autofocus in the first place. It has a manual focus but it's slow and awkward.

I've been looking at a Nikon D40 for quite some time now. I have the money to get it and the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens (and there's nothing else I'd spend the money on). The question, though, is would it be worth it.

I would really like the ability to focus manually, better indoor performance, and instantaneous shutter response (so I can do faces and capture non-posing expressions... I like to do a lot of candids). Photography is a fairly serious interest for me.

As much as I've read about the camera not making the image, I've read a lot of good things about the D40.

So... do you think an upgrade to an SLR is justified for a budding photographer?

Since you've found the limitations of your compact camera, yes: you are ready to move up to a dSLR. What you have to do now is figure out which dSLR. Since low light is a problem, you have to figure out what ISO you'll need to get steady shots. Absolutely, you want image stabilization, but that doesn't totally help with moving subjects like people.

You need a combination of IS and high ISO - but which high ISO? Others will chime in saying "don't worry, you can do just fine with 1600 ISO" or whatever. Look at your past shots and see what is the slowest shutter speed you can trust to give you consistently sharp images. That's your starting point. Given the light levels you need to work in, what ISO will keep you at or above that shutter speed? It's your money and effort at stake here, so make sure you know what you're doing before you spend it.

superuser2 said:

I would really like the ability to focus manually

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment here. The finders on DX (APS-C) dSLRs are just too small to allow precision manual focus, and that's especially true in low light. What you can do, however, is use the manual focus ring to focus but check the focus "light" in the finder to determine when you're got a lock.

BTW: don't be afraid to make your money go farther by buying second hand if you can trust the source.
--
Dale Cotton, Canada
http://daystarvisions.com

Huh. I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying about focus.

The light isn't really all that low (most of the time) - it's just not bright. Ordinary indoors. If I can see it comfortably with my naked eye, won't I be able to see it (and therefore focus) through the viewfinder?

There aren't any for sale in Milwaukee, and to buy used online really isn't any kind of savings (Adorama will sell me the D40 and the 55-200mm VR for $615 including shipping, new. I couldn't find a better deal anywhere).

KenRockwell.com has been very helpful and I think I'm going to trust it in terms of hardware. The D40 seems like a great camera and the price is just about right.

Thanks for the reassurance.

More feedback/response are welcome!

To have an advantage shooting in low light without a flash, you really need a lens with a large aperture, such a f/1.4. The 55-200 VR begins at f/4 and f/5.6 (and probably moves up to f/5 around the 70mm range - but this is a guess). so with this lens it could be a struggle to obtain the indoor images you want.

Yes, the ability to dial in higher ISO helps shooting in low light, but that leaves open the possibility of introducing noise into the image. You may or may not find such noise objectionable.

The beauty of the D40 is that it accepts older Nikon lenses without difficulty. You might find yourself better off with a vintage Nikon 50mm f/1.2 or f1.4 manual lens for low light indoor shots.

If the scene is sufficiently lit such that you can see it, then you'll also see it in the viewfinder. If not, the D40 has a focus assist lamp. However, the earlier poster was accurate - DSLR viewfinders are not ideal for manual focusing.

If your budget is around the $600 range, then I might suggest getting a used D2H. Then for less than 100, you can get a 50mm 1.8: works wonders in low light, very, very, (did I say VERY?) cheap, and a wonderful lens. (IMO, the best lens for less than $100).

Do not get me wrong, I have owned, used, had a great experience with the D40. But $600 for it is asking too much. Check your local craigslist or ebay. D40's go for $350 to 450 with some extras. (I sold mine couple of months back for $400 I think).

Another suggestion would be to get a used D40 body only (I've seen these go for around 300ish) and get a cheap constant 2.8 zoom. There are a lot of good ones out there from Sigma/Tamron for around another 300. Or if you want to stick with Nikon, the 35-70mm 2.8 is a great lens for the price range.

I hope this helps. THe prices are just ballpark numbers.

Good Luck!

Respects,

Doni

P.S. --> I have taken very usable photos shot at ISO 1600 with the D40, D1H, and the D2H (although I don't own a d2h, I have a bit of experience from my friend's camera). All I can say is that the high ISO of these cameras are very usable for my purposes.
--

...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde

superuser2 said:

So... do you think an upgrade to an SLR is justified for a budding
photographer?

Click to expand...

Here's the profile for poster "usapatriot" - a college student in Miami who recently switched from a Fuji S9100 to a Pentax K200D and got the shot below in his first week:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hgimiiixhmig



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=27886624

--

Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

I'm sorry but a D2H is just too much. I do want this to be small and light. Milwaukee Craigslist has been coming up dry, and I don't trust eBay. (Especially because I want this for my trip to New York next week).

I'll shoot at higher ISOs with low light until I can afford an f/2.8 or f/1.4 lens. A long zoom is really important to me.

I think I'm okay with the equipment I picked out. I just want to get a feel for whether or not I'm going overboard.

By the way. It's $500 for the camera. I'm actually getting a good deal on the (ordainarily $200) 55-200mm VR when it's packaged with the D40 (it's only $100).

So the $600 is for the camera and a nice zoom lens.

I must say, that I find your post most interesting. You mention “manual focus”. And I have to say, that manual focus is the mark of the photographer. So you are in the right track, you already know more about photography than most.

You ask if you need a dSLR, well let me explain so you can take my advice with a pinch of salt. I own a magnificent compact camera, that has all. Shutter and aperture priorities and all sort of nice goodies and allows me to be quite creative, even has some sort of manual focus. Totally unsuseable, must be a joke!

I don't own a dSLR, but I have and still own a few SLR of the manual focus era. In these days the capacity to frame and focus accurately and as desired was a must. So when you bought a camera you made sure the vision though the eyehole was good, and you had a good focusing help, split screen, and a prism circle at least. Now here comes the not so good news. I'm 99.99% sure that no compact is capable of any sort of half decent manual focus. Now as far as dSLR I have tried a couple, but they belonged to profesionals, small newspaper, ID card, wedding, school, and in this side of photography auto-focus is mostly a plus. So the cameras didn't seem to be so good at focusing manualy, basicaly because the visor didn't seem to be prepared. I did ask them about this and I was informed that you needed to purchase this as an extra. So you should ask when you buy the camera. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus shouldn't pose a problem. Less traditional brands may not bother.

Would have to see samples of your images w/EXIF info to comment on the problems you've been encountering and what solutions might be possible. Perhaps you should try this on the Fuji forum and see what feedback you get. I looked up the S5700; on paper it looks like a pretty neat little camera. I see that you can shoot at ISO 800 and 1600 with it. At ISO 1600 full crop images look both noisy and stripped of detail by the in-camera noise reduction. This might account for some of the lack of sharpness you describe.

What will the Nikon do for you (besides be bulkier, heavier, cost more, and require lens changes to cover the same range that your Fuji covers with one)?

You can expect better looking high ISO images. You'll need the high ISO settings because the lenses you want, the kit and the 55-200, are slower than the one that the Fuji is equipped with. You can, of course, buy faster lenses for the Nikon, that will pass more light through to the sensor, rather than less, and so improve your ability to shoot in low light conditions. This will cost you.

The VR capability of the longer lens will allow you to handhold the camera and get acceptably sharp images at longer exposure settings. Figure two, maybe three stops. You should note that the ability to handhold a telephoto at 1/50 or, with skill, at 1/20 does not do much for you in the world of candid photography. Shake is controlled but if the subjects are moving they will be blurred. The cure for that is faster shutter speed which requires some combination of more light, faster lenses, and higher usable ISO settings.

I don't think that you will find manual focus a practical option given the type of photography you want to do and the equipment you are considering. Old-school 35mm SLR's had large viewfinders with built-in focusing aids (split image, microprism). The lenses in the normal to short telephoto range were fast, so the image in that large viewfinder was bright. You will be looking at a comparatively small and dim image and attempting to pull focus without any optical aid. Except, of course, for the little autofocus lock light, but if that's working, then why not just use autofocus to begin with? Manual focus is good when used with a live view screen, relatively new to DSLR's. I can't remember if the D40 has this feature. My DSLR and your Fuji do. I use it to focus manually sometimes; it is very precise. It is also very "slow and awkward" and I would never consider using it when shooting candids or events. The Nikon will probably autofocus more reliably than the Fuji in low light once the subject is beyond the effective range of the Fuji's autofocus assist lamp.

The D40 will allow you to attach an external flash. Nikon makes some very nice ones. These can be used to bounce light off of ceilings or walls, giving a very different quality to the light than direct flash. Not so candid, if you don't want your subjects to know that you are photographing them though. If they do know, however, the flash can greatly improve the quality of your shots.

Take your Fuji shopping with you. Find someone who is selling Nikon d40's with the lenses you would be getting. Buy a cheap low capacity memory card & make some test photos in less lit areas. Try focusing on a series of different objects. Run your Fuji through the same paces, see how the handling compares. Take the memory card home and look at the images. Decide if you think the investment addresses your need.

Regards, John.

You are absolutely correct, the camera is irrelevant to a good photographer. But the right tool for certain jobs sure makes photography more fun.

I hate auto-focus. It always seems a bit 'off' to me. But my Olympus E500 is great at manual focus in moderately good light. Not so great in poor light, (but auto-focus is practically useless in poor light unless your camera has one of those focus assist lights.

Another great feature of the DSLR is the lack of shutter lag. Another great frustration for me whe I ws using a P&S/

The D40 is a nice little step up camera, I think though if you want to really get into photography, you might want to go directly to the next level of Nikon. It is my understanding that not all Nikon lenses work with the D40, so you might find it a bit limiting in the future. (Hey I'm an Oly guy who used to be a Canon guy - so confirm this with some Nikon users!) I bet if you shop around, you might find some good deals on one of their more advanced cameras. I think you'll be happier in the long run.

--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

And my non Photo blog:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Qe0Iq3g2d6ML3IynXl.Q2i5CPe6UaA--?cq=1

I just had about the same question.

After some research and some good recommendations from the forum I bought the Olympus Evolt E-510. It is fully loaded with much more features compared to the Nikon D40/D60 with a much better price/value.

I own the E-510 since three days now and the first impression is pretty good. I bought the two-lens-kit.

Thanks, John.

Basically I want the ability to still get the shot if the camera can't focus automatically. In handling it at Ritz Camera, I've been able to use the focus ring and get a decent shot.

I'd really like to try it with low lighting, but there's not a single dark corner in Ritz Camera, and while they will let you take it outside you're in broad daylight. Not sure what to do here, besides trust DP Review's tests showing that ISO is pretty much usable up to 800.

AGAIN: I'm happy with the equipment I've picked out. All I'm looking for is whether or not I should be getting an SLR.

KenRockwell.com has said with a lot of authority that there's no point in any camera between the D40 and the D3. I'm not spending multiple thousands of dollars. I can't seem to find a used higher-end camera for any less. I think I'll be fine with the D40.

Thanks again. More is definitely welcome.

superuser2 said:

KenRockwell.com has said with a lot of authority that there's no
point in any camera between the D40 and the D3. I'm not spending
multiple thousands of dollars. I can't seem to find a used higher-end
camera for any less. I think I'll be fine with the D40.

Thanks again. More is definitely welcome.

Click to expand...

Very important to remember that KenRockwell is often speaking in very GENERAL terms, which is not to be taken as gospel (which is why Ken makes many photographers groan). I like the guy! Especially his view on education, etc.

... Just to give you an idea, if you start shooting rapidly in RAW (which gives you more post processing latitude than shooting jpg), you're only going to be able to get off a 6 or so shots before a D40, D50, D70, D100, D40x, D60 starts to shoot VERY, VERY, VERY S L O W L Y. However, if you're shooting the D200, D2H, D2hs, D2x, D2xs, or D300, then you can shoot far faster under the same conditions.

If you're shooting birds, would you rather have 3 shots at a Golden Eagle spreading its wings and taking off with a D40... or 6 shots with a D300, having more focus points and a better focus system at your disposal, etc..

I think the D40 is a MUCH better by than a point-n-shoot... however, I don't know of too many seasoned photographers that would agree with Ken Rockwell, if he said there is no reason to get a camera between the D40 and D3. Gotta make sure that you're listening to Ken in the right context

Such a statement would be very true for someone like my mother who likes to take snap shots of family, grandchildren, etc..

Such a statement is utterly ridiculous for someone who, say is wanting to shoot raw most of the time, while seriously shooting fashion, or sports photography just to name several areas of photography.

I highly recommend the D40 (and SB800) for general use.

Before purchasing any camera, lens, or flash:

1. Assess what you usually shoot, and what you're likely to want to shoot in the future. You want to be able to grow with your camera purchase. Buying equipment only for 'today' is often foolhardy in the long run.

2. Assess what camera will best fit your needs today, and likely 3 years from now. Will you want to take photos of high school sports and sell the prints to parents? Will you want to shoot a wedding occasionally? Will you want to shoot your kids or grandchildren paying in the park, later to be made into really large prints? Perhaps you want to shoot horse races, horse jumping or other equestrian events? Or maybe you want to do mostly indoor portraiture, where resolution and image quality may matter to you above all else?

You get the idea...

Best of luck to you with your purchase decision!

Cordially

Teila K. Day

I was in the same boat a couple months ago. I love my Olympus P&S, but it has limitations. I got a Sony A-300 and am very happy with it. It (and probably any SLR) has taken me to a new level of creative control. Of course the 300mm zoom I got with it was a big change too. I found the tilting LCD helps make it an easy transition from P&S, and the bigger viewfinder allows me to use that much more now too. I find the LCD brighter than the viewfinder in low light. My P&S didn't have image stabilization, so that's a big improvement too. The A-300 has the option to use the flash as a focus assist light. I wear glasses so I'm not great at manual focusing.

If photography is your hobby, get a digital SLR. If not, get a SLR and it will become your hobby. The extra weight is a pain when traveling, but when you go to the Statue of Liberty (or a hundred other places in NYC) you'll want all the camera you can get to capture it.

Hmm...

The D300 might be the next stop on my upgrade track, but it's just way too much right now. I simply don't have that kind of money, and photography isn't a big enough hobby for me to justify it (I can barely justify the D40, hence the thread...) From what I gather, though, you can sell used cameras.

I think I'd probably want to get (a) faster lens(es) (f/2.8) and/or the 18-200mm VR before I go to a more expensive body. Small and light is important to me.

I was wondering whether somebody would say that about Ken Rockwell... interesting.

I think I'm going to get the D40 before I move up. Advice I've gotten from multiple places says to get a cheap body and expensive lenses.

Thanks, everyone. More is still welcome.

I ordered the D40 / 55-20mm VR kit from Adorama.

Thanks everyone!