Nikon D40 for first time dSLR?

ASAAR wrote:

The one big difference between the D40 and D50 is that the D40
doesn't have an internal motor used to focus older Nikkor lenses,
and if I didn't already own several old Nikkor AF lenses I would
have chosen the D40 over the D50. This means that with a D40 you'd
be limited to using the more modern lenses that have built-in
focusing motors. These lenses focus more quickly and silently that
the older lenses that are mechanically coupled to focusing motors
within the camera.

You can use non-AF-S lenses. You can even use old (AI or AIS) manual
focus lenses. You just don't get autofocus (and don't get auto-exposure
or metering with the AI[S] lenses).

The focusing screen isn't too good for manual focusing, but the AF
confirmation spot works fine (although it's inconveniently located).

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:26:54 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

The one big difference between the D40 and D50 is that the D40
doesn't have an internal motor used to focus older Nikkor lenses,
and if I didn't already own several old Nikkor AF lenses I would
have chosen the D40 over the D50. This means that with a D40 you'd
be limited to using the more modern lenses that have built-in
focusing motors. These lenses focus more quickly and silently that
the older lenses that are mechanically coupled to focusing motors
within the camera.

You can use non-AF-S lenses. You can even use old (AI or AIS) manual
focus lenses. You just don't get autofocus (and don't get auto-exposure
or metering with the AI[S] lenses).

Good point. There would still be limitations, but a D40 owner
wouldn't be limited by not being able to use the lenses. I imagine
that my old 60mm Micro Nikkor might be a reasonable lens on the D40,
but I wouldn't be too interested in using the old 75-300mm zoom on
it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that both of these lenses
(which are AF AiS lenses) meter and focus very nicely on the D50.


The focusing screen isn't too good for manual focusing, but the AF
confirmation spot works fine (although it's inconveniently located).

Coming from a Fuji S5100 that can manual focus albeit rather
abysmally, much worse than the S9000, the D50's manual focusing is a
pleasure to use, even in dim light and without looking at the
confirmation dot. I'm curious to know where a more convenient
location would be, since the green confirmation dot is easily seen
in the viewfinder. Superimposed over the image?

ASAAR wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:26:54 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

The one big difference between the D40 and D50 is that the D40
doesn't have an internal motor used to focus older Nikkor lenses,
and if I didn't already own several old Nikkor AF lenses I would
have chosen the D40 over the D50. This means that with a D40 you'd
be limited to using the more modern lenses that have built-in
focusing motors. These lenses focus more quickly and silently that
the older lenses that are mechanically coupled to focusing motors
within the camera.
You can use non-AF-S lenses. You can even use old (AI or AIS) manual
focus lenses. You just don't get autofocus (and don't get auto-exposure
or metering with the AI[S] lenses).

Good point. There would still be limitations, but a D40 owner
wouldn't be limited by not being able to use the lenses. I imagine
that my old 60mm Micro Nikkor might be a reasonable lens on the D40,
but I wouldn't be too interested in using the old 75-300mm zoom on
it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that both of these lenses
(which are AF AiS lenses) meter and focus very nicely on the D50.

And for some areas of photography, the auto-focus is extremely desirable
(I first typed "absolutely necessary", but people *did* take photos of
race cars, and birds in flight, and football games, and so on, before
auto-focus); but it bugs me when an incorrect statement, like that
camera can't use those lenses, gains currency.

The focusing screen isn't too good for manual focusing, but the AF
confirmation spot works fine (although it's inconveniently located).

Coming from a Fuji S5100 that can manual focus albeit rather
abysmally, much worse than the S9000, the D50's manual focusing is a
pleasure to use, even in dim light and without looking at the
confirmation dot. I'm curious to know where a more convenient
location would be, since the green confirmation dot is easily seen
in the viewfinder. Superimposed over the image?

Slightly off-center and superimposed, would be my ideal choice.
Off-center so it didn't interfere with any after-market screens with
focusing aids in the middle. It could be activated there by mounting a
manual focus lens, maybe. (Not sure exactly what the camera can tell
about the lens; it can certainly tell a non-cpu lens, and those are
manual focus, so that would be a start, anyway.)

When you're concentrating on the middle, the dot location is definitely
peripheral vision, or a long eye-track away. And if you wear glasses,
it may be obscured if you don't center your eye carefully behind the
viewfinder.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:04:36 -0400, "Yoshi"
wrote:


"Hal Lowe" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:51:44 -0400, wrote:

I am about to make the 'jump' from the 'point-and-
Definitely step up. You'll be glad you did. I have a D80 and
absolutely love it. You can use all of the features or use it as a
point-and-shoot. Either way, I don't think you'll be disappointed with
your pictures.

The great part for me was beging able to use all of my other lenses
and my SB600 flash.

Whatever you decide, best of luck and happy shooting!

Hal Lowe

The point is, with a D40 he won't be able to use all his other lenses in
autofocus mode, unless he has a collection of Nikon AF-S glass. The D40 will
only work in manual focus with non AF-S lenses. While this is not a
consideration for a new buyer who only intends to use the kit lens, it is a
serious point for anyone who intends to build a system.

Yoshi


Tell him don't tell me. I'm recommending the D80.

Hal Lowe

http://www.cafepress.com/halogos (unique logo t-shirts, mugs & more)
http://www.halowe-graphics.com/photo.html (digiPhoto)
http://www.halowe-graphics.com/music.html (Music Central)
http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=7391019 (web hosting)
http://www.halowe-graphics.com/tinc?...name=web_email

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:51:44 -0400, DznyNut wrote:

I am about to make the 'jump' from the 'point-and-shoot' Canon S3 IS
to the Nikon D40. Would you consider this entry-level dSLR a
'point-and-shoot' camera?

D40 is a great camera. Keep in mind though that after you get a
DSLR you will want more lenses and once you get a few you become
wedded to the brand. So by choosing the D40 you are almost certainly
choosing the Nikon path for years to come (and this, IMO, is not a
bad choice; just a piece of info to weigh before saying "I do").

And of course go to a local photo shop to try a camera before you
buy it, as you may find that the best choice on paper just does
not feel right in your hands.

Have fun! You will enjoy whatever DSLR you end up buying.

--
Alex

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:51:44 -0400, wrote:

I am about to make the 'jump' from the 'point-and-shoot' Canon S3 IS
to the Nikon D40. Would you consider this entry-level dSLR a
'point-and-shoot' camera?

I am concerned about blurry pictures I have had from other
'point-and-shoot' cameras. I would like to be able to let my wife (who
has no experience with cameras) take a picture with ease and have
great results. I have heard a great many things about this camera,
such as 'it's hard to not take a great picture with it'.

Would you buy it?

Yes.

But have you thought about waiting for the D40X ???

wrote in message
...
I am about to make the 'jump' from the 'point-and-shoot' Canon S3 IS
to the Nikon D40. Would you consider this entry-level dSLR a
'point-and-shoot' camera?

I am concerned about blurry pictures I have had from other
'point-and-shoot' cameras. I would like to be able to let my wife (who
has no experience with cameras) take a picture with ease and have
great results. I have heard a great many things about this camera,
such as 'it's hard to not take a great picture with it'.

Would you buy it?

Thanks
-John-

John,

Every mention of the D40 on this group brings up a number of posts about the
lenses it doesn't fully support. These are posted by folks who own those
other lenses, and for whom the D40 is therefore not a viable camera. In your
case, assuming you don't currently have any Nikkor SLR lenses, its a
non-issue.

Any of the AF-S lenses on this page should work just fine:
http://www.nikon.ca/lensesandspeedlights/

And I would guess you'll be quite satisfied with the 18-55 kit lens.

I bought one about 3 weeks ago, and thus far have been nothing but pleased
with it. It requires a little more effort than my P&S, but with that effort
returns significantly better images. I can now take low-light and other
difficult shots that were outside the capability of my previous camera, a
high-end P&S. But without that effort, it can also take significantly worse
shots.

If you want idiot-proof, stick with a P&S. If you want excellent images, buy
a dSLR, and learn to work with it. And the D40 is probably one of the
easiest dSLRs to learn to work with...

/M

"Moro Grubb of Little Delving" wrote:

Every mention of the D40 on this group brings up a number of posts about
the lenses it doesn't fully support. These are posted by folks who own
those other lenses, and for whom the D40 is therefore not a viable camera.
In your case, assuming you don't currently have any Nikkor SLR lenses, its
a non-issue.

Any of the AF-S lenses on this page should work just fine:
http://www.nikon.ca/lensesandspeedlights/

And I would guess you'll be quite satisfied with the 18-55 kit lens.

What f/2.0 or faster Nikon lens will AF with the D40?

(I can think of three f/1.8 lenses that will probably AF with the D40, but
they're not Nikon.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" writes:
What f/2.0 or faster Nikon lens will AF with the D40?

The Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm/2.0 G IF-ED is very popular with D40
users, I've always heard.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Moro Grubb of Little Delving" wrote:

Every mention of the D40 on this group brings up a number of posts about
the lenses it doesn't fully support. These are posted by folks who own
those other lenses, and for whom the D40 is therefore not a viable
camera. In your case, assuming you don't currently have any Nikkor SLR
lenses, its a non-issue.

Any of the AF-S lenses on this page should work just fine:
http://www.nikon.ca/lensesandspeedlights/

And I would guess you'll be quite satisfied with the 18-55 kit lens.

What f/2.0 or faster Nikon lens will AF with the D40?

(I can think of three f/1.8 lenses that will probably AF with the D40, but
they're not Nikon.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

We're talking about an entry-level DSLR. If you're in the market for F2.0
lenses, then the D40 probably isn't for you. (Yet. I wouldn't be surprised
to see some fast AF-S primes from Nikon some time). I don't see this as a
defect, it fits for the D40's demographic.

Today I bought the new 55-200 AF-S DX VR, which is f4-5.6. Sure, its not
"fast", but with VR (3 stops) and ISO 1600 (another 2 vs my P&S), I'm
streets ahead of the P&S for low-light. And I'm not planning on shooting
indoor sports. (And even if I did, the results would still be far better
than my P&S...).

Certainly the D80 or D200 are much more capable cameras. But they cost
significantly more than the D40, at rapidly diminishing returns in terms of
output quality for the average user.

John (the OP), if you want a very capable entry-level DSLR, I unreservedly
recommend the D40. But if you think you're going to get Serious about
photography, spend more. Much more.

/M