lily
I'm really considering getting a new camera- I love photography and i want to improve. I currently have a high end point and shoot- and its not working well anymore- the macro settings are busted, as well as the ISO ranges. I want to get a dSLR- as I said, I want to improve my photography, and I feel I need to take a step up to do that.
I'm considering the Nikon D40- it's in my price range and it seems like a really good camera, especially for someone that's fairly new to dSLRs.
Any advice about this camera? Or any other cameras that would suit me well?
- keep in mind I'm 15 so my budget wouldn't be huge :)
thanks!!
I'm probably just going to get a Nikon- my mom is a photographer and she has a lot of really old Nikon Lenses I can use.
Would a Nikon d40 be a good choice?
Answer
I would say the Nikon D40 Its an entry level DSLR. A digital SLR will give you a much larger sensor than any point and shoot camera. Larger sensor = more light to each pixel = clearer, crisper photo with better color saturation. DSLR will also let you grow and take more control as you learn more and you can change lenses when you have a need to. The sensor on the olympus is smaller than on Nikon or Canon
I am a nikon person and have had nikons since the 70's I personally think the nikon D40 give you more for the dollar than any DSLR today. There are some that do more but you pay a good bit more. Do not let the lower megapixels concern you if you do not do very very large prints you will never notice the lower DSLR. My brother recently needs a DSLR for a class and I recommended the D40 to him So I would also say get the D40 not the D40X. The Nikon D40 does not have limited functions compared with other entry DSLR. Yes it has fewer funtioncas than a 1500 dollar camera body would. It is not a a cut down version its equal or above most any entry level DSLR.
There is a great article in this months Digital Photopro Magazine that is titled "Megapixels how much is enough" EVERYONE looking at buying a new digital camera can profit by reading this article. Its here
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/studio/megapixels-how-much-is-enough.html
I have a d300 and a d40 and when I am shooting for fun I grab the d40. Its weightless, a joy to use and gives good results
Since you have a bit more money the D60 give you a number of things you want. It has newer firmware and image processors, designed for the 10 mp sensor. It has an "Active Dust Reduction System with Airflow Control ". Nikon not putting a system on the D40 to deal with dust is one of the biggest drawbacks I see to the D40 ( though I think its still a great camera for the money) If you change lenses dust will get in and the camera needs a system to deal with it. With the D60 you get a VR lens. That will help with low light situations ( they may offer that now with the D40 but originally it was not) . The D60 has Adaptive Dynamic Range. Nikon calls it "Active D-Lighting," it lets you save some highlights that my otherwise be lost. It has a newer better metering system than the D40. So you can get the D40 not the D40 x and spend the other money on lenses or a flash
Some people will want to make a big issue out of the fact that there are some nikon lenses that will not autofocus on these cameras. Right now there are "only" about 39 lenses that autofocus on these cameras. They cover the range of focal lengths. I doubt any photographer would be seriously limited with "only" this many lenses to choose from. If you want to manually focus you can more than double this and do so at a low cost. Manual focusing is easy and how we did things for decades before the advent of autofocus.
Cannon and Nikon chose to put the vibration reduction in the lens rather than the body. Somefolks put it in the camera and make of that. Yes that means you get stabilization only on lenses with that feature built in. In the body in theory it would work on every lens. But in fact image stbilization in the lens has proved to work faster and smoother with a lower impact on focus times than image stabilization in the body/ One problem with in body stabilization comes from the fact that the sensor would have to move different amounts for different focal lengths. A canon white paper says an in body system would have to move the sensor 1/4 inch to account for movement on a 300 mm lens.
Now a comment on liveview. Have you ever tried to hold several pounds of digital camera and lens steady at arms length while you look at an LCD screen. It not at all the same as holding a few ounces of point and shoot camera steady in the same position. One of the things we preach to new photogrpahers is to learn to hold the camera properly so the body mechanics give you a steady shot. You can't really do that looking at the LCD. So liveview is really something that will have very limited applications in a DSLR. Usually only when its on a tripod. I have liveview on my D300 and have never used it. This is how a DSLR should be held
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFQRy4Rr7as&feature=related
Nikon also has great service. I was just reading the other day on eyefetch in the Nikon forum where someone posted that they had dropped thier lens and broken it. It was not a fault of the company they messed up. The sent it to Nikon and Nikon could not fix it. Nikon offered them a brand new identical lens at half the price. They did not have to
In closing all major camera manufactures make good cameras get out and compare the features and how they feel in your hand. Go to places like kenRockwell.com and DPreview.com to compare them. Nikon and Canon have the largest market share and I personally think there is a very good reason they do. Not bashing other brands but photographers tend to be very very demanding folks and they then tend to be loyal to what has worked for them well and consistently. That is not a pavlovian response anymore than it is a pavlovian response in my work at the fire department when I trust the brands of turnout gear and airpacks that have worked for me time and time again. Sometimes even going beyond the published specs. People in ANY demanding profession gain loyalty and trust from thier experiences. And if the product did not perform it would not be favored for long.
Add to this that your mom already has lenses for you to use if you go Nikon
Added: You can use any AF lens of nikons on the D40 but only AF-S or AF-I lenses will autofocus. You can use AI and AI-sNikon lenses as well but some will not meter or autofocus. Nikon started using AF lenses in 1986 so the moms lenses will probably meter and may or may not autofocus, Focusing manually is not a terribly difficult skill to master. In fact we focussed manually for decades before there was an autofocus camera.
I would say the Nikon D40 Its an entry level DSLR. A digital SLR will give you a much larger sensor than any point and shoot camera. Larger sensor = more light to each pixel = clearer, crisper photo with better color saturation. DSLR will also let you grow and take more control as you learn more and you can change lenses when you have a need to. The sensor on the olympus is smaller than on Nikon or Canon
I am a nikon person and have had nikons since the 70's I personally think the nikon D40 give you more for the dollar than any DSLR today. There are some that do more but you pay a good bit more. Do not let the lower megapixels concern you if you do not do very very large prints you will never notice the lower DSLR. My brother recently needs a DSLR for a class and I recommended the D40 to him So I would also say get the D40 not the D40X. The Nikon D40 does not have limited functions compared with other entry DSLR. Yes it has fewer funtioncas than a 1500 dollar camera body would. It is not a a cut down version its equal or above most any entry level DSLR.
There is a great article in this months Digital Photopro Magazine that is titled "Megapixels how much is enough" EVERYONE looking at buying a new digital camera can profit by reading this article. Its here
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/studio/megapixels-how-much-is-enough.html
I have a d300 and a d40 and when I am shooting for fun I grab the d40. Its weightless, a joy to use and gives good results
Since you have a bit more money the D60 give you a number of things you want. It has newer firmware and image processors, designed for the 10 mp sensor. It has an "Active Dust Reduction System with Airflow Control ". Nikon not putting a system on the D40 to deal with dust is one of the biggest drawbacks I see to the D40 ( though I think its still a great camera for the money) If you change lenses dust will get in and the camera needs a system to deal with it. With the D60 you get a VR lens. That will help with low light situations ( they may offer that now with the D40 but originally it was not) . The D60 has Adaptive Dynamic Range. Nikon calls it "Active D-Lighting," it lets you save some highlights that my otherwise be lost. It has a newer better metering system than the D40. So you can get the D40 not the D40 x and spend the other money on lenses or a flash
Some people will want to make a big issue out of the fact that there are some nikon lenses that will not autofocus on these cameras. Right now there are "only" about 39 lenses that autofocus on these cameras. They cover the range of focal lengths. I doubt any photographer would be seriously limited with "only" this many lenses to choose from. If you want to manually focus you can more than double this and do so at a low cost. Manual focusing is easy and how we did things for decades before the advent of autofocus.
Cannon and Nikon chose to put the vibration reduction in the lens rather than the body. Somefolks put it in the camera and make of that. Yes that means you get stabilization only on lenses with that feature built in. In the body in theory it would work on every lens. But in fact image stbilization in the lens has proved to work faster and smoother with a lower impact on focus times than image stabilization in the body/ One problem with in body stabilization comes from the fact that the sensor would have to move different amounts for different focal lengths. A canon white paper says an in body system would have to move the sensor 1/4 inch to account for movement on a 300 mm lens.
Now a comment on liveview. Have you ever tried to hold several pounds of digital camera and lens steady at arms length while you look at an LCD screen. It not at all the same as holding a few ounces of point and shoot camera steady in the same position. One of the things we preach to new photogrpahers is to learn to hold the camera properly so the body mechanics give you a steady shot. You can't really do that looking at the LCD. So liveview is really something that will have very limited applications in a DSLR. Usually only when its on a tripod. I have liveview on my D300 and have never used it. This is how a DSLR should be held
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFQRy4Rr7as&feature=related
Nikon also has great service. I was just reading the other day on eyefetch in the Nikon forum where someone posted that they had dropped thier lens and broken it. It was not a fault of the company they messed up. The sent it to Nikon and Nikon could not fix it. Nikon offered them a brand new identical lens at half the price. They did not have to
In closing all major camera manufactures make good cameras get out and compare the features and how they feel in your hand. Go to places like kenRockwell.com and DPreview.com to compare them. Nikon and Canon have the largest market share and I personally think there is a very good reason they do. Not bashing other brands but photographers tend to be very very demanding folks and they then tend to be loyal to what has worked for them well and consistently. That is not a pavlovian response anymore than it is a pavlovian response in my work at the fire department when I trust the brands of turnout gear and airpacks that have worked for me time and time again. Sometimes even going beyond the published specs. People in ANY demanding profession gain loyalty and trust from thier experiences. And if the product did not perform it would not be favored for long.
Add to this that your mom already has lenses for you to use if you go Nikon
Added: You can use any AF lens of nikons on the D40 but only AF-S or AF-I lenses will autofocus. You can use AI and AI-sNikon lenses as well but some will not meter or autofocus. Nikon started using AF lenses in 1986 so the moms lenses will probably meter and may or may not autofocus, Focusing manually is not a terribly difficult skill to master. In fact we focussed manually for decades before there was an autofocus camera.
Comparing bridge and 3 DSLR cameras?
Mckenzie
I LOVE photography. I have an Olympus SP-610uz bridge camera right now. I found 3 DSLR cameras on craigslist all under $400. I was just wondering how they compare to my current camera.
Nikon D3000 w/ Nikkor 18-55mm lens - $325
NIKON D60 DSLR - $300
Nikon D40 DSLR with a 18-55mm VR lens - $250
And then my Olympus SP-610uz camera.
Which one has the best quality, and which is the best deal?
Jim A, I wouldn't buy any equipment before getting the full information on it and checking it out. If it needs anything replaced, if something isn't working correctly, if it's dirty, or broken, that kind of thing. But thanks for the advice.
Answer
Don't mean to hurt feelings, so here it is. First I can't stand the term bridge camera. It implies that it is somehow different from a cheap compact. added controls, maybe a bigger lens, it still uses a tiny, poor quality image sensor. I don't blame you, it's camera companies and their marketing. It's just like the thing with megapixels. They shove more and more onto tiny image sensors and quality is going down not up.
OK so enough of the rant. So I understand you are on a budget, and you are on the right track. Buying used is great, and getting a dSLR with a truly large image sensor will net you amazing image quality in good light at low ISO, and images that are actually usable at high ISO, where a small image sensor camera would deliver complete garbage over ISO 800.
The dSLRs you listed are pretty good, prices aren't bad, but I'll give you some really good advice for your first dSLR. Get the best image sensor you can within your budget. Anything else you can work around. This gives you more time to settle in with your camera, and you won't be looking for a better one right off the bat because your first choice wasn't the best.
If you can swing it, look a little more, within your budget, you could score a Nikon D3100. My advice is to go for that body because the image sensor performance jump is significant over all the bodies listed, and it's very similar in price to the 3000 now that the D3200 is here.
You'll most likely end up getting an entry level dSLR with the kit lens it came with, the 18-55. It's not a stunning lens, not great for low light. The one thing it has going for it is that 18mm on the wide end, you can get some wide shots that can look very dramatic of action like sports or a rock band if you get VERY close to the subject.
Your first lens, the one most photographers recommend, and I will too, the 50mm 1.8 for low light, for sharper images, and for the ability to defocus backgrounds, but you'll need to take control of if, you can't throw the camera in auto mode and expect results. If forced between only the dSLRs you listed, take the D3000.
for noise reduction in low light, use lightroom 4. If you can't afford it, check out NeatImage or Noise Ninja, be gentle with noise reduction, if you get crazy with it, detail can be smeared away. best of luck.
Don't mean to hurt feelings, so here it is. First I can't stand the term bridge camera. It implies that it is somehow different from a cheap compact. added controls, maybe a bigger lens, it still uses a tiny, poor quality image sensor. I don't blame you, it's camera companies and their marketing. It's just like the thing with megapixels. They shove more and more onto tiny image sensors and quality is going down not up.
OK so enough of the rant. So I understand you are on a budget, and you are on the right track. Buying used is great, and getting a dSLR with a truly large image sensor will net you amazing image quality in good light at low ISO, and images that are actually usable at high ISO, where a small image sensor camera would deliver complete garbage over ISO 800.
The dSLRs you listed are pretty good, prices aren't bad, but I'll give you some really good advice for your first dSLR. Get the best image sensor you can within your budget. Anything else you can work around. This gives you more time to settle in with your camera, and you won't be looking for a better one right off the bat because your first choice wasn't the best.
If you can swing it, look a little more, within your budget, you could score a Nikon D3100. My advice is to go for that body because the image sensor performance jump is significant over all the bodies listed, and it's very similar in price to the 3000 now that the D3200 is here.
You'll most likely end up getting an entry level dSLR with the kit lens it came with, the 18-55. It's not a stunning lens, not great for low light. The one thing it has going for it is that 18mm on the wide end, you can get some wide shots that can look very dramatic of action like sports or a rock band if you get VERY close to the subject.
Your first lens, the one most photographers recommend, and I will too, the 50mm 1.8 for low light, for sharper images, and for the ability to defocus backgrounds, but you'll need to take control of if, you can't throw the camera in auto mode and expect results. If forced between only the dSLRs you listed, take the D3000.
for noise reduction in low light, use lightroom 4. If you can't afford it, check out NeatImage or Noise Ninja, be gentle with noise reduction, if you get crazy with it, detail can be smeared away. best of luck.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
