Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

Started Jan 14, 2007 | Discussions
JinE Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

Kananga wrote:

JinE wrote:

Yes I am fully aware there is one fast bright prime available for
the D40.

apart from.....(and I kept the larger list edited at max 2.8 to
keep it fast)

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

The 105 2.8 is a $900 lens... those others you listed are all over $4k. I'm sure the average D40 user will be all over those.

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC (the one you know about)
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

This still does not address my point that the viewfinder on the D40/D50/D70/D80 is still substandard for manual focus work.

-- hide signature --
 JinE's gear list:JinE's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

Of course you also have the focus correct LED in the VF and some of those who have ACTUALLY USED the D40 have successfully manually focused the Nikon 50mm F1.8

TNFergus Regular Member • Posts: 269
re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

Kananga wrote:

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

You forgot to mention the AF-S 600/f4 for $9,000 !

lol... how many of those lenses do you see a D40 owner actually buying ?

Kananga Forum Member • Posts: 74
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

JinE wrote:

Kananga wrote:

JinE wrote:

Yes I am fully aware there is one fast bright prime available for
the D40.

apart from.....(and I kept the larger list edited at max 2.8 to
keep it fast)

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

The 105 2.8 is a $900 lens... those others you listed are all over
$4k. I'm sure the average D40 user will be all over those.

Are they fast primes that will AF on the D40 or not? Or do you still stand by your statement that the Sigma is the ONLY prime that will Auto focus on the D40?

TNFergus wrote:

Kananga wrote:

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

You forgot to mention the AF-S 600/f4 for $9,000 !

lol... how many of those lenses do you see a D40 owner actually
buying ?

They are still fast prime lenses that work on the D40. I'm just highlighting them to another poster who didnt know they existed and was correcting his factually incorrect statement.

I'm assuming that if you don't think that D40 owners would purchase such lenses they would be happy with the kit lens, which I understand also works perfectly well with the D40. Or do all D40 owners not purchase expensive fast primes, but still have a dying need to take low light pictures of children indoors with a $130 50mm lensas that seems to be the example of choice for the D40s crippling limitations?

Did I mention the 10.5 DX fisheye by the way? I understand that also works perfectly well on the D40.

OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

TNFergus wrote:

Kananga wrote:

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

You forgot to mention the AF-S 600/f4 for $9,000 !
lol... how many of those lenses do you see a D40 owner actually
buying ?

How many of these do you see a D50 owner buying?
How about a D70s owner? How many will a D80 owners purchase???

GLP Veteran Member • Posts: 3,661
Re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

Good question Jim. Will be awaiting TNFergus's answer. Gary

jimr wrote:

TNFergus wrote:

Kananga wrote:

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

You forgot to mention the AF-S 600/f4 for $9,000 !
lol... how many of those lenses do you see a D40 owner actually
buying ?

How many of these do you see a D50 owner buying?
How about a D70s owner? How many will a D80 owners purchase???

-- hide signature --

Mofongo Forum Pro • Posts: 14,863
I noticed it also...

jimr wrote:

I knew how much better the D40 LCD panel would be compared to the
D50/D70, but what really surprised me was how very much brighter
and better the viewfinder on the D40 is.

Hi Jim,

I noticed this also when I tried a D40 in store. it was the first thing I noticed...

My wife has a D50 and I have a D70 and the D40 viewfinder is brighter and a tad larger than both...(not D80/D200 large but a tad larger then D50/D70)

Whether it will make manual focus easier is not the issue. It certainly will not hurt, right?

To bad all the anti-D40 people have to pi$$ on the parade of the happy D40 owners. Insecurity is a funny thing...

Anyways, congrats on your new camera and post some pictures when you get a chance...

Bob

-- hide signature --

People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to pick on rich women than biker gangs.

http://www.pbase.com/mofongo

Stujoe Veteran Member • Posts: 5,856
Re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

Probably not a lot of D50 buyers will get those lenses either because both the D50 and D40 are Nikon's 'budget' dSLRs and many people looking at them are going to be concerned with expense. More D80 users will probably look at those lenses and even more D200 users will look at them. And I think that may have been the poster's point.

I think it is good advice for buyers to look at overall cost of what they want to get especially if they are on a tighter budget. Many who are looking at a D50 or D40 are probably on a tighter budget than those looking at a D80 or D200.

Of course, the following will depend upon what kind of range and speed lenses you want but when I was trying to decide on a D40, 50 or 80, I looked at overall price of the type lenses I wanted in order to figure out what was in my budget range. For me, moving up from a super zoom PS, I wanted something that went up to 300mm to match my old camera but was also a bit wider. I also wanted something fast for low light.

My personal comparison turned out (B&H prices).

D50 with Nikon 18-55mm AFS, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, and Nikon 50mm f/1.8D - Total Price: $935

D80 with Nikon 18-55mm AFS, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, and Nikon 50mm f/1.8D - Total Price: $1385

D40 with Nikon 18-55mm AFS, Nikon 70-300mm AFS VR, and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM - Total Price: $1520

Now, if the kit lens is all someone is interested in or a fast lens is not of interest to them or they want a 200mm range or they don't want to do lens changes of they have a budget that allows more expensive lenses, their comparisons may well be quite different.

But, when looking at a dSLR on a budget, I think it is good advice to look at what lenses are available to meet your needs and the cost of those lenses.

-- hide signature --

Stujoe -
http://www.flickr.com/people/stujoe/

Nikon D50 (Nikon 18-55mm, Nikon 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro, Vivitar 2x Macro Teleconverter)
Panasonic FZ7

Hank Wolfe Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

If we are defining "inexpensive prime" as one costing significantly less than the Sigma 30mm, I guess the unnamed suspect is the Nikkor 50mm f1.8.

While I would love to be able to use this lens on my D40 (and would buy it in a second if it autofocused), it certainly would not be a lens that I would use for more than, say 5% of my photography. I think a lot of new DSLR users get the cheap 50mm offered by their camera maker and are fascinated by the novelty of taking candid indoor shots without flash. They see that the available light photos look better than P&S direct flash shots (many have never tried an external flash unit). They also are wowed by the out of focus background that they couldn't acheive with P&S.

For a lot of people, I suspect that the novelty may wear off after a while when they realize that 75 mm (with crop factor) is not a versitile focal length for indoor candids. The blurred background, too is a novelty that can wear off, and might hamper learning how to plan a portrait with an interesting or artificial background. In fact, for portraits, it seems like it is often a good idea to a have decent depth of field to keep subject's face sharp (especially with multiple subjects). The point? A good bounce flash (or other lighting options that are beyond my level of ambition) is what's really needed to for general purpose indoor shots- so the fast lens becomes less of an issue (image quality of the prime is better, but for my purposes, it's not a discernable or at least important difference, considering the decent quality of Nikon's cheap mid-range zooms).

Again, I qualify all this with the admission that I would buy a 50mm f1.8 for $100 if it would autofocus on my D40. I would use it in those situations where I couldn't use a flash, didn't have my SB-600, or really needed a blurred background. Probably about 5% (a guess).

JinE Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: Jin, why do you say this? ...

Kananga wrote:

They are still fast prime lenses that work on the D40. I'm just
highlighting them to another poster who didnt know they existed and
was correcting his factually incorrect statement.

You need a better sarcasm detector. I just find it humorous in all the threads about the D40 and primes people mention the Sigma 30mm f1.4 as some sort of messiah. Oh deliver us great 30mm 1.4 from the torment of the D40 detractors!!!

I'll go on record to say that I think the D40 is a fabulous camera and has a feature set that is perfect for the market segment that the camera is intended for. I seriously doubt the average D40 owner is concerend about FV lock, hard buttons, etc.

But back to the original premis of the thread, the viewfinder. Yes it is brighter then the D50/70. All things being equal we would all prefer a larger brighter viewfinder. I've not seen people complain about the older dSLR's viewfinder is so dark that they haven't been able to compose a shot, because really that's about all the viewfinder on the Nikon dSLR's are good for. Is the new D40 Viewfinder going to help someone manually focus a manual focus lens? Bigger helps to an extent but the viewfinder is still totally unacceptable to do real manual focus work, especially in low light. When you are using a large aperture and the DoF is literally inches deep there is not much room for error. I'm young, athletic, with good eyesite and a steady hand. I've not found a Nikon dSLR yet that I can consistently manual focus in low light at f1.8 and get acceptably sharp results, or I would own a lot more cheap manual focus lenses then I do. When I have decent light and can use small apertures and you have a pretty good DoF I can get acceptable results manually focusing a Nikon dSLR. I tried using the focus indicating light on the D80 to manually focus a manual focus only 105mm 1.8 @ f1.8 in low light and I just couldn't get repeatable results.

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the viewfinder on the F4.

-- hide signature --
 JinE's gear list:JinE's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
sweet molly malone Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: I noticed it also...

Mofongo wrote:

To bad all the anti-D40 people have to pi$$ on the parade of the
happy D40 owners. Insecurity is a funny thing...

Sure and it is but it works both ways. There are also plenty of anti D50 people on this forum happy to pee on the D50 & its owners.

The reality is that both are perfectly good entry level consumer DSLR's and within their design parameters you would have to try pretty hard to get poor results from either camera.

Each has its plus & minus points, which may or may not matter to individuals & its nice (for now) to have a choice.

90+ posts on individual perceptions about viwfinder brightness? God help us.

-- hide signature --

Molly

TNFergus Regular Member • Posts: 269
Re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

jimr wrote:

TNFergus wrote:

Kananga wrote:

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

You forgot to mention the AF-S 600/f4 for $9,000 !
lol... how many of those lenses do you see a D40 owner actually
buying ?

How many of these do you see a D50 owner buying?
How about a D70s owner? How many will a D80 owners purchase???

Exactly my point

Meanwhile, he explained he was only citing lenses that "worked" on the D40.

OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: I noticed it also...

It is funny how a simple statement about the VF has carried on and on!

I have never knocked the D50. It IS a wonderful camera. It has its pluses and the D40 has its pluses. You choose which assets are more important to YOU as an individual and go on from there. The nice thing is that we have two excellent choices!

An informed consumer with facts rather than a 'mine is better than yours attitude' helps. This is not about competition between the two, rather choices about which fits your needs best. To make that choice, you need to know the pluses and minuses of both. That was/is the intent of my OP. A simple statement about the VF with on observation of a demostrable difference that I had not read about and that others might benefit from knowing about. Hold both cameras to your eye and you'll see why I was surprised.

sweet molly malone wrote:

Mofongo wrote:

To bad all the anti-D40 people have to pi$$ on the parade of the
happy D40 owners. Insecurity is a funny thing...

Sure and it is but it works both ways. There are also plenty of
anti D50 people on this forum happy to pee on the D50 & its owners.

The reality is that both are perfectly good entry level consumer
DSLR's and within their design parameters you would have to try
pretty hard to get poor results from either camera.
Each has its plus & minus points, which may or may not matter to
individuals & its nice (for now) to have a choice.

90+ posts on individual perceptions about viwfinder brightness? God
help us.

TNFergus Regular Member • Posts: 269
Re: I noticed it also...

jimr wrote:

It is funny how a simple statement about the VF has carried on and on!

Thats what's so nice about forums in general. People have discussions. One point may lead to an example which leads to an opinion and another point, etc.

Better than giving "C&C" on someone's cat or car, I guess.

JinE Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

jimr wrote:

TNFergus wrote:

Kananga wrote:

Nikon
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G
AF-S VR 200mm 2.0G ED-IF
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8 ED-IF
AF-S II 400mm 2.8D ED-IF

Sigma
14mm 2.8 EX
30mm 1.4 DC
150mm 2.8 EX DG MAKRO
500mm 4.5 EX DG HSM APO

You forgot to mention the AF-S 600/f4 for $9,000 !
lol... how many of those lenses do you see a D40 owner actually
buying ?

How many of these do you see a D50 owner buying?
How about a D70s owner? How many will a D80 owners purchase???

The you are correct, the average D50/70/80 owner is probably more likely to purchase a 20-24-28-35-50-60-85 prime which can be had for less then $200-300 used or $300-400 new.
--
-Jin

http://www.pbase.com/deoredx

 JinE's gear list:JinE's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
OP jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Re: $500 camera / $5,000 lens

I believe that the average D40 and D50 owner will probably never purchase a prime at all. Of course that is just my guess.

I believe that given a choice the 18 to 200 VR or even more frequently the reasonably priced 55 to 200 would be added to many D40/D50 kit lenses.

larsbc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,678
Re: d40 better for me, not you

scott ian k wrote:

These threads are quite informative most of the time, but when
someone (as i did) states their personal preference is such and
such (eg. i find the viewfinder in the d40 superior to the d50,
better at viewing and thus manual focusing) and someone argues with
it, its kind of a waste of time, isnt it??

I agree. I didn't argue with the original poster who made the same observation. I just responded with an observation of my own and candidly mentioned that I hadn't looked through a D40, myself, and said that I would try to, to see for myself.

If the veiwfinder were
not in fact better than the d50 i suppose one could support it with
statistical evidence, but why argue when someone essentially states
their personal preferences? This is an observation, not really
needing a reply!

What I was responding to in YOUR post was this statement:

"Those who say the D40 viewfinder is not sufficiently better to assist with manual focus just are being silly. Anything that lets you see better will increase manual focus potential.Its not rocket science"

That's not your subjective opinion of the viewfinder. It's your opinion that anyone who doesn't agree that the D40 VF is better for MF is just being silly.

You're basically saying that any degree of VF improvement means that MF will be easier. And I'm saying that you should expect a minimum degree of improvement before making it part of your buying decision. eg: If you're comparing two items and there's, say, a .1% difference between them in one particular category, I would tend to view them as equal in that category and evaluate them on the other categories.

larsbc

JEGG Senior Member • Posts: 1,732
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

gmosc wrote:
What will you do better with the brighter viewfinder? Are you
implying anything? What is your point? I get a lot of eureka
moments in the week but I don't start a thread unless it relates to
how it could help someone.
When someone starts a thread here about bright viewfinders I
imagine that it is relative to manual focussing. I'm sure other
people will, too. That's my point.
As for the other poster who says that it helps in composition, hmmm
I don't think so but maybe a brighter viewfinder helps him/her
that's ok.
The only reason for a viewfinder on my D50 is for compostion. I
can't focus with it and I've tried. I've never thought "gee if
there was more light I would be able to compose this picture
better", not once. So I disagree with the concept that it would
help composition.
Brightrer is nicer but if if doesn't help for manual focus then it
isn't bright enough.
A more useful post would be to try to manual focus and give your
opinion about that.IS it possible? When and how did you do it? MANY
people want to hear about that. Go ahead and do that post. It will
be MUCH more helpful than this one. That's what people want to
hear, I guarantee it.

and better the viewfinder on the D40 is."

Mercy. I am a pro audio person and amateur photographer-meaning I don't sell my work. Audio boards get testy on occassion, but I'm a bit surprised at what goes on here.

With all due respect, g, I think you are making tons of assumptions. Not everyone uses the camera they way you do, and different things are important for different people. So you don't think the viewfinder helps with composition. Well, I do! I spend much of my time in very, very dark buildings. So dark, in fact, that I can't see ANYTHING through a vewfinder! But it's absolutly OK with me if you don't think it's important. What's wrong with people wanting different things?

The rest of your comments, too, while logical aren't necessarily true. No one can mind read. Accept the post for what it is, not for how you analyze it.

JEGG Senior Member • Posts: 1,732
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

Agreed, totally.

But I bought the bate and wrote a multi paragraph reply. Which I hope was nice enough.

JEGG Senior Member • Posts: 1,732
Re: Viewfinder D40/D50 Surprise

jimr wrote:

Did you see the entire listing of AFS lenses that are fully
compatable with the D40? Many of the DX lenses are not expensive.

True, much to my delight, I found this on my own!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads