Off Topic DiscussionDiscuss anything that pleases you here.
Welcome to Fit Freak!
Welcome to Fit Freak,
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Yeah, it's not a big enough jump to warrant the outlay at that point.
Probably the best cost/performance value in Nikon right now, aside from the D700, is the D5000 -- same sensor as D90 and D300, very close to to D90 in specs, reasonably priced, and has the flip LCD which can be useful in some situations.
A bit higher up the ladder, I would expect the D300 to start dropping in price soon as the D300s starts hitting the shelves. Don't know if they'll blow it out like the Best Buy D200's a few months back, but you never know. That was a hell of a deal -- at one point they were under $500, for a $1600 camera only a year or so back.
And Nikon STILL failed, the D5000 doesn't have the af motor in body either :ugh:
yeah, but MP isn't everything. I went through the d40/d60 debate too. I decided it wasn't worth the extra $100 for a camera that offers an image that's only 800 pixels wider.
Do NOT get the D60, IMO there is no reason that it should even exist. You also won't need those extra MP because at full resolution, your shots with the D60 won't even be that sharp, and most cameras aren't.
Also, sorry for all these different posts, I can't multiquote on the iPhone.
Is it better to buy a used D40 or just get a new one? I really want one, but it's too much $$$.
Depends on how many actuations are on the camera.
__________________ '09 Milano Red MT Ge8 w/ Navi '98 Milano Red Ej8 Squad #226, retired. Thieves :thumbdown: Honda, The Power of Dreams Nikon User: D80, D700 MyFlickR
Well haha, just go check out my flickr and look at the 'more properties', about 8/10 of my shots are way faster than 1/250. Even some are f/11 1/800. Also a lot of times I shoot mid day and I have to kill a lot of ambient, so it really does make that big of a difference.
Looks like you answered yourself just fine there then. If you've got the capability in the body might as well use it, nothing wrong with that at all.
Thing is though, go take a look at some of the pros who are shooting the kind of stuff you want to get into, like Zack Arias, and ask yourself how are they getting their results without ever getting close to the speeds you're using. In Zack's case, he's only ever that high usually shooting natural light, and all his lit stuff is 1/250 and under b/c he shoots a D3 and 5D2. And in a lot of cases, he's down as low as 1/30 or slower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything -- there's no right or wrong; you use what ya got to get the job done, it's just that you're not going to be in a D40 always, and for certain there's a lot of benefit to eventually move up at some point, so maybe it's wise to also consider other ways of managing the light to get the same results under the same conditions w/o the super-high shutter speeds. It's just something to think about and experiment with.
Quote:
I also think that glass > body.
Oh, don't even get me started on that myth, we'll leave that for another day.
Quote:
The only other lense I want is the 50 1.4, and that will af with my d40.
Yup, that's a good one -- on a crop camera it's a nice focal length for portraits and such. I've heard there's some problems w/ CA on it that some people have issues with, but probably depends on your useage. YMMV
A lot of people say the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM is excellent too, maybe even better, and it's HSM so your D40 will have no problems with af. Just another option to check out.
__________________
'07 Vivid Blue Pearl Sport w/stuff attached in useful places
And Nikon STILL failed, the D5000 doesn't have the af motor in body either :ugh:
Nah, they didn't fail, they just kept to the status quo of keeping their two bottom end bodies minus the af motor. I'm sure part of that is to get you to pony up for at least a D90 if you really need/want that capability, but probably also to do with the fact they want to keep those bodies very small and you can't easily do that with the af motor needing extra space.
I remember reading once a bit back that a good part of the design ideal behind those bodies (D40, D60, etc) is to tailor them for women. The idea being women tend to take the most pics in a typical household (kids etc.), and they don't want the bulk/weight, but do want the image capability. That's a very Japanese way of thinking about product design, and you see it in other items as well all the time over there.
__________________
'07 Vivid Blue Pearl Sport w/stuff attached in useful places
Looks like you answered yourself just fine there then. If you've got the capability in the body might as well use it, nothing wrong with that at all.
Thing is though, go take a look at some of the pros who are shooting the kind of stuff you want to get into, like Zack Arias, and ask yourself how are they getting their results without ever getting close to the speeds you're using. In Zack's case, he's only ever that high usually shooting natural light, and all his lit stuff is 1/250 and under b/c he shoots a D3 and 5D2. And in a lot of cases, he's down as low as 1/30 or slower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything -- there's no right or wrong; you use what ya got to get the job done, it's just that you're not going to be in a D40 always, and for certain there's a lot of benefit to eventually move up at some point, so maybe it's wise to also consider other ways of managing the light to get the same results under the same conditions w/o the super-high shutter speeds. It's just something to think about and experiment with.
Oh, don't even get me started on that myth, we'll leave that for another day.
Yup, that's a good one -- on a crop camera it's a nice focal length for portraits and such. I've heard there's some problems w/ CA on it that some people have issues with, but probably depends on your useage. YMMV
A lot of people say the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM is excellent too, maybe even better, and it's HSM so your D40 will have no problems with af. Just another option to check out.
Yes, you are right about that, all the pros get it done with 1/250 or slower, but they have the B1600, and I only have the B800, so they have the extra light to be able to bump up the flash power to compensate for the smaller aperture.
And yes, I know you're not trying to "start anything" or something haha, no worries :hugs:
Well the story is, I was actually going to get a Canon Rebel XT/XS, but I decided late, and my mom already had purchased the D40 (graduation present)
I'll definitely check out the Sigma 50 1.4, and it will definitely be a while before I purchase it haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chikubi
Nah, they didn't fail, they just kept to the status quo of keeping their two bottom end bodies minus the af motor. I'm sure part of that is to get you to pony up for at least a D90 if you really need/want that capability, but probably also to do with the fact they want to keep those bodies very small and you can't easily do that with the af motor needing extra space.
I remember reading once a bit back that a good part of the design ideal behind those bodies (D40, D60, etc) is to tailor them for women. The idea being women tend to take the most pics in a typical household (kids etc.), and they don't want the bulk/weight, but do want the image capability. That's a very Japanese way of thinking about product design, and you see it in other items as well all the time over there.
What are you trying to say!?!?
Hahaha jk.
But yes, I guess it makes sense, but I still wish the D5000 would have had the AF motor.
I forgot why it does that, but if you google it, there's a fix. It's something about converting it to sRGB colors or something. I can't really remember.
You know one of those days where you just want to take pictures of something but youve already taken pictures of every thing in your house? This was all I came up with out of my boredom...
My dog was all pissed off cause I was in her face with the camera
This one I took out last night came out OK minus the shadow I couldnt get rid of.
Shot all of them in auto mode again. I tried that aperture priority thing Kyle suggested but didnt really see a difference in the pictures.
Shot all of them in auto mode again. I tried that aperture priority thing Kyle suggested but didnt really see a difference in the pictures.
Okay, here's something I know you'll love:
Zoom in all the way (to 55mm)
then put it in aperture priority, and put the aperture at 5.6 (lowest it will go)
Then get real close to stuff and take pictures, you will have a really shallow depth of field. DON'T use the flash either!
You might need a tripod unless you're outside (for low light purposes)
I'd keep your ISO around 100-200. You have it at 1600 for those pictures and it tend to put a lot of noise in them thus making them not smooth.
The max for ISO before any grain shows is 800.
__________________ '09 Milano Red MT Ge8 w/ Navi '98 Milano Red Ej8 Squad #226, retired. Thieves :thumbdown: Honda, The Power of Dreams Nikon User: D80, D700 MyFlickR
What do you think of these? I think they came out decent, it was night time by the time I got home so I couldnt get any outdoor pics.
All shot at 70mm f/4.5
You've got the right idea per what Kyle said, but they're very soft due to the low shutter speed. Can't be helped in the light you had - 1/5th, wideopen, @1600iso means not much to work with. Get a tripod for times like this and you'll be all set. And don't fire the camera with your finger when it's on the tripod, use the self timer to eliminate any shake. They should come out real nice then, like something along these lines:
That was 70mm, 1/250@f2.8, 640iso.
__________________
'07 Vivid Blue Pearl Sport w/stuff attached in useful places
Thanks for all the tips. Do you recommend I lower the ISO? I need to do some reading and figure out at what times would I change the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, etc. A tripod is the next purchase on my list. still trying to learn all these settings. Its overwhelming
If you've got the capability in the body might as well use it, nothing wrong with that at all. 
Linear Mode
