Just bought a Nikon D40! Now what?

Ken Rockwell convinced me to buy the D40. After a week of playing with it I
can see why. It does everything I want plus wash my socks, feed the dog and
tell the wife I need more camera gear.

 

I bought a D40 this time last year. I also bought the 55-200mm VR lens and
SB400 flash.
I have had a bunch of P&S cameras over the years and decided to move the
DSLR.
Its a great camera and good value for money. The only problem I find is that
if you take a lot of pictures you will find that you will grow out of it. I
am looking to move up to the D90 I need more of the features that the D90
offers.
The price I paid for the D40 was so reasonable that I will keep it for a
chuck around camera.


Ken Rockwell convinced me to buy the D40. After a week of playing with it I
can see why. It does everything I want plus wash my socks, feed the dog and
tell the wife I need more camera gear.

 

I paid $650 for my D50 in 2006 and $409 for the D40 from Amazon.com and I'm
really liking it a lot. I told my wife I found it in the back seat of a
Greyhound bus that was about to be crushed in a wrecking yard. It's a
completely different animal compared to the D50. And yeah, I really wanted a
D90 but with the money I saved I bought some new shoes a nifty fedora for
noggin.

http://artofmanliness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/fedora.jpg

 

You're kidding me! My backup is a D60, and if it will do my socks I've
never seen that feature; they *dropped* it between the D40 and the D60?
What menu is it in?

 

Yeah, mine tells the wife I need more gear all the time but she's
developed a deaf ear to it ... says she can't hear it over the din the
Land Rover is making about new tyres, respray, replacement engine


Regards

Steve G

 

How does the D40 compare with the D50?
I've still got my D50 with 18-55 & 55-200 and can see no reason to
change just yet.....

 

A Nerf football is cheaper. And more aerodynamic.

 

But provides much less incentive to make those tough catches.

 

How does the D40 compare with the D50?
I've still got my D50 with 18-55 & 55-200 and can see no reason to
change just yet.....

Change? I still have my D50, got my telephoto hanging off it for quick
shots of the 600 foot triangle shaped UFO with all the blinking and buzzing
lights. Sometimes it doesn't work but neither does the toaster, electric
toothbrush or talking Barbie for that matter.

 

Like what?

 

What's a like what??

news:[email protected][199.45.49.11]...

Like what?

 

Like what features does the D90 have that are not on the D40 that people
taking a lot of pictures must have? I don't have a D90. I'd like to
know.

 

Like What?
CMOS sensor, More accurate meter, multi focus points, wireless flash, movie
mode, live view, face recognition dust reduction. Just to name a few. The
D90 is designed for an advanced serious photographer. For more information?
Nikon website.
Enough said.

Bigger better viewfinder, focus screw drive for older AF lenses, mirror
lockup, depth of field preview.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

More megapixels *and* higher ISO (less noise in low light). It sounds
like a nice camera to me, my first DSLR was a D70 which is in the same
class and the D90 is way way better.

D50, D40, D40x, D60 -entry level
D70, D80, D90 -advanced
D200, D300, D700(FX) -semi-pro
D2, D3, D3x -pro

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Is that really a plus for the user, or it it cost-saving by the
manufacturer?

 

Thanks, Paul. The viewfinder on the D40 is adequate for my needs. DOF
preview is something I could use. I don't have older lenses (I switched
from Canon.) and I have never needed mirror lockup, although I know when
it could be useful to have it.

I'm not sure DOF is worth the extra money. After over 20 years, I have
a pretty good idea what kind of DOF I am going to get with the kinds of
lenses I am using.

 

I don't know what kind of sensor the D40 uses, so I can't evaluate the
importance of a CMOS sensor. For me the critical thing is the kind of
prints you can make. I only print to 12x18, and the D40 has the
capability to make beautiful prints at that size.

I doubt the meter is more accurate, although it may be different. The
meter in the D40 is pretty darn good. I have not used my spot meter
since I got it. It is way better than my old Canons. Maybe I haven't
gotten over that yet!

Multi focus points would be good; I shoot a lot of sports, mostly
automobiles at high speed. The D40 has a feature where it selects from
three focus points and that works pretty well in my experience, but it
isn't the best solution.

Wireless flash would be great for studio work.

Never had a problem with skin tones or dust.

 

Megapixels are only critical when they are critical. If I was shooting
wall sized murals I would want a lot of megapixels, except I would use
my view camera. For prints up to 12x18, the D40 is fantastic. It may
be possible to go larger but I never have the need.

I don't know about ISO. I shot the lunar eclipse last summer and it was
noisy as could be. Normally, it hasn't been an issue. I think if I
were planning to do a lot of low light photography, I would buy the new
50mm f/1.4 lens before buying a new camera body.

That raises another point for me. Camera bodies are like computers a
few years back. Every time you turn round there is a hot new item on
the market, and they aren't cheap! My first cameras used film and they
lasted forever. The new cameras cost way more, don't seem to be as well
built, and are replaced by something better every 6-18 months.

I would rather buy lenses. Especially with Nikon, they seem always to
be useable. I had a 50mm f/1.2 for my old Canon, and it was a champ in
low light situations. Unfortunately, Canon has gone through two or
three generations of incompatible lenses since then.

The D40 was cheap and I can throw it away or give it to my grandkids if
I ever decide I need more. It is also so much better than my old Canon
cameras that I still haven't gotten over it. Maybe that is the real
reason I can't get enthusiastic over more expensive cameras.

 

I don't use DOF preview or MLU hardly at all, I do appreciate better
viewfinders very much though because I focus manually often, and high
ISO performance. And I would actually find the movie mode valuable, I do
a lot of time lapse video and it would be useful to add real time clips.
And I definitely use the added manual knobs & such on the more advanced
bodies, I'm not sure what the difference would be there between D40/D90,
probably 2 wheels instead of one & a couple things easier to change
without menu diving, maybe not significant.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Just a thought....if you're capturing that many images, and are in
need of features, consider skipping a step. Rather than spend more
intermediary cash on D90, take careful stock of what you really want
to do with your photography, and move up to a professional
camera...something you can grow into, but not out of. If you're
committed to the DX format, a D300. But it sounds like you're a
candidate for a full frame. A D700 is an excellent choice.

Pricey? You betcha. But in the long run, as you advance your
photographic technique, you'll end up with a pro iron anyway. The
intermediary steps will just be money spent along the way. Wait
until you can afford a pro iron, and you'll not only save money in
the long run, but you'll be well prepared for it when the time comes.

I still shoot my D70, but my D300 and D700 offer the opportunity
to meet challenges that D70 cannot quite take on. And with the money
I saved not taking intermediary steps, I bought some high end glass
to take the best advantage of the hardware.