BwatchGRUNT

To update an earlier posters error - don't you just hate it when people guess!!

The D40X did not replace the D40 as the D40 is still current. The D60 replaces the D40x.

The new D90 replaces the D80

mixture

Sorry to be pedantic, but .....

If you take a cursory glance at the Nikon catalogue, you will find the D60 being presented alongside the D40x.


Nikon UK - Products - Catalogue - Digital Cameras - SLR - Consumer


The eventual plan may be to kill off the D40 series, but for the time being, you should see them side by side in the shops.


Whether anyone wants a D40 is another matter ....

Bushfiva

Come on guys, get a grip on reality.

1) In any market I can find, the D60 kit is cheaper than the D40x kit.

2) The D60 body is better than the D40x body.

3) The D60 kit lens is better than the D40x kit lens.

The only reason the D40x is listed is because there's unsold stock. So now tell Gingernut why he should buy a D40x.

Out Of Trim

mixture wrote

To be pedantic;

Now, take a look in any Shop or On-line outlet and find a D40X.

You won't find it, as earlier stated correctly; it was replaced by the D60 using the same sensor. Any D40x stock has long since been sold.

You will find in the consumer range the D40, D60, D80 (until all stock is sold), and the D90 (The replacement for the D80).

You said earlier, it's not worth arguing over!

Agreed, I'm not here to argue; I made a valid point that you misconstrued for some reason best known to yourself. Many people after buying a new camera with kit lens; look at what other lenses they would like to own.

Quite often they go for the nice cheap Nikkor 50mm F1.8D lens that is widely available for around £79.00 and guess what, it's not AF-S!

So my reason for pointing out the AF motor issue was valid and something a potential buyer might want to know.

You appear to be on some kind of mission? Not sure why you're getting so upset about others posting their responses here.

To the OP, I think the D40 is a great introductory DSLR and I have seen some wonderful images produced by it. It is however, fairly basic just 6MP and getting a bit long in the tooth. However it's not all about the Megapixels. The D60 introduces some more features and is 10.2MP. I'm sure you would be happy with either camera.

As for lenses, the 18-55 VR is quite good I believe.
Although, I've not tried that one myself. I have the 18-70 and 16-85 VR - both are really sharp and I would recommend those. The 18-135 is pretty good but has a plastic mount, so not as sturdy. The 18-105 D90 Kit lens is also now available and seems to be good too.

The 18-200 is OK especially for travelling with only one lens say.

The 70-200 F2.8 is in another league and is pro quality. If you want more range than 200mm the 70-300 VR is probably a good option

cheers OOT.

Bushfiva

There's certainly a lot of bang for the buck in that lens. I'm unhappy with my own sample, though. Historically, people were told that it's pretty tough to go far beyond 200mm hand-held, and here we are offering 450mm (equivalent) lenses telling people that the VR will automagically fix things up. Well, VR is indeed great, but it's not magical.

Sharpest lens I've got at the moment appears to be my old 20-35mm f/2.8, which is scary if true, because it never reviewed well on chromatic aberration. 18-200 is a great "one lens fits all" thing. My 12-24 is pretty good. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is wonderful at night but you have to think a bit.

Ginge, if you're still reading this thread, you have an E7600 and you like taking pics of bosoms. If you're going from an E7600 to a DSLR because you think your pictures will get automagically better with some mysterious aspect of manual control, think on this: the best camera is the one that you always have with you, and the one others aren't concerned about. I'm a Nikon guy, but my pocket camera is currently a Ricoh GX200. You should check it out: all the manual controls you want, and it slips into a pocket. You don't have to get a DSLR to take very acceptable pictures with as much control as you want.

Loose rivets

As I've cried into by beer on many occasion. Stunning spring morning out of Norwich. Coltishall says, "XX look to your left." There above the Norfolk countryside was a Spitfire that had formated on me. One of many fine pics -that I didn't get.

gingernut

Guess I deservedthat!

I will look at the Ricoh.

Bushfiva

I don't necessarily mean that's the right camera for you, I mean it's representative of cameras that give you far more control over the image than your current E7600. Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 are another class of camera that might attract you. Anyway, have fun searching for your new toy :-)

gingernut

Thanks for the advice.

I do agree, the best camera is the one which is with you.

Indeed my firsr camera was a "Kodak Retinette" bought by the 'eld fella when he was a soldier. Was an old thing, but took great shots.

I have had some experience with an slr (I own a film slr, but now "enjoy" the advantages of digital).

I'm not a great photographer, but the slr allowed me more creativity, which the compact doesn't allow-eg there used to be a way of increasing the sharpness of everything in the shot, by selecting a small aperture and sliding the infinity point on the lens to the edge of the focus limits for that aperture. Invariably, I needed a tripod, but the results were good.

There's other stuff where it's hard to fool the compact, like shooting into light, or long exposure night shots. And focusing on one point exactly. (Sometimes possible by half holding down the shutter button-but fiddly).

Cheers again.

bnt

Pentax has a cashback offer going at the moment that includes the K200D. This is one of their cameras newer that has image stabilization in the body, which means that you don't need special lenses.

I have one of their older DSLR bodies (*ist DS), with a mix of old and new lenses, and I like how Pentax makes a point of lens compatibility. It works with every lens they've ever made, even "dumb lumps of glass" from the 70s, though it doesn't add automatic focus or exposure to manual lenses that don't have those.

mixture

Pleanty of new ones available on Amazon .... no doubt other places too.

On the other stuff.... I'm not going to bite, sorry.. .... I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, just trying to correct some incorrectness.

Perhaps I could have worded slightly differently, yes, but forum postings are not really meant to be mulled over like letter writing ......

Loose rivets

So many of the new Nikons look kind of ‘plasticy'...just haven't got that solid feel of the older ones. Am I right in thinking this and can someone give me a quick comparison to try to get this overall quality issue sorted?

When I started with digital, for most people that wanted Nikon SLR, it was the D70. It was quite expensive and used prices were very high, given that it was a 6.1 Mp. (as against Canon's XT at 8 mp)

The D50, I thought, was a down-graded version at a more user-friendly price, and I chose one of these because - A, I couldn't detect a significant difference between the 8 and the 6, ( I borrowed the Canon for a couple of days from the Uni. ) But I could detect a difference in the build quality compared to Canon.

Also, I allowed myself to be influenced by a well known reviewer, who said that he was unbiased and paid for all his own kit, but it was Nilon or Nikon. And never mind the Mp.

Well, that was then, and the difference was ‘only' 2mp. Now 10 is the base line I would think.

Now that we have a whole new range of Model numbers, is there a 10 Mp equivalent to the split between the 50 and the 70 above?

And as importantly, how does the build quality and general functionality of this new range, compare with the old D70?

Out Of Trim

Try picking up a D200, D2X, D300 or D700 - Along with the D3 and the New D3X - all are made of magnesium alloy and feel very solid indeed!

The D70 was a nice chunky size but a little lighter than one might expect; as it was made of polycarbonate on top of a metal chassis.

I still think if feels nice in the hands, compared to much of its competition though!

Try comparing with the Canon 350D, 400D, 450D etc.

Loose rivets

Yes, I tried picking up one of the hi-end ones, but they told me to put it down again 'till I'd paid.


So, at 10mp What feels chunky at under $750 ?

Jofm5

As mentioned previously after some disappointing pics from Biggin Hill with my trusty £50 Benq point and click I took some advice from people on here and invested in a second hand Nikkon D100 body.

Its a fantastic camera and I have been playing with it for a month or so now with a 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens - which is giving me some good results.

I wish to get some more lenses and maybe some filters - I feel I stand out as a bit of a perv taking pics of my 9mth old on the swings with such a big lens lol - so I was looking for a lens a tad more appropriate in size for the family type pics where no zoom is required - any ideas, suggestions and best places to purchase.

Another question is I shoot in RAW generally and convert to JPG on the PC, apart from the reduction in speed are there any other pitfalls in doing this (storage is not a problem as have 2x4gb flash cards). I am thinking of purchasing some filters to play with but are they much better than using something like photoshop to apply the filters ?

Any hints would be gratefully received.

Cheers

Loose rivets

I've got an 18-70 67MM wide angle. No AV, but a very good all rounder.

I would have thought it would have complimented your existing lens well.

It has very good write-ups below, and one bloke had got the lens that I want, the famed 18- 200 and he repurchased the 18 - 70 again cos he missed it so much. Word to that effect.


Nikon | 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens | 2149


They had one used for $ 179 tother day.

Bushfiva

Re filters, you can do most effects in Photoshop. I'd suggest simply a UV filter partly to, well, filter UV and partly to protect the lens, plus a circular polarizer to control reflections, water, cloud contrast etc.

bnt

re shooting in Raw and converting on computer - that's pretty much the standard "workflow". A friendly program for doing this is Google's Picasa, which is free, while for more Pro work you'd look at something like Adobe Camera Raw. Both do non-destructive editing, so your Raw files remain unchanged, like film negatives, and the JPEGs you create are the "prints".

Historically, a good Portrait lens has been a prime (non-zoom) lens in the 85 - 110 mm range, but with the smaller APS-C sensors in these cameras, the equivalent is 50 - 80mm. (I don't know what Nikon has in that range, though, or whether that camera can handle old lenses.)

Filters: there are things some filters can do that you can't replicate on the computer. One is a Polarising filter, to reduce glare from e.g. water. Another is to use a graduated filter to e.g. darken a bright sky. In both cases it's not just an effect, it prevents part of the image "blowing out" and lets you capture more detail from darker areas of the frame.

Jofm5

Cheers for that - will look into picasa etc.

Best price I have found on the 18-70 lens so far is £175 (new or 150 seond hand) so far. I am not expecting something for nothing but trying to go a little cheaper as I am by no means any expert or professional lol so if a lesser quality option is availble pls let me know. I do appreciate I have moved towards the higher end of photgraphy so must pay the price as the lens are expensive but.......... damn its expensive lol.

Now if you could just let me know where to get all the lens' for around £20 each that would be just fine ! hehe - just kidding of course, I will pay what I need to pay (with bitching and cursing) of course.

green granite

I've just brought a Canon 400D body on E-Bay for £220, and after some research ended up paying the same again for a refurbished 29-135mm IS Canon lens. If when you think you have settled on a lens, read the reviews at: Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests

Filter wise, yes a good UV filter will protect the front lens element from dirt and scratches, don't buy a cheap one as they cause reflection problems, a lens hood is a good thing as it also helps reduce reflections, a rubber one is fine as you can peel it back out of the way at wide angles to prevent vignetting. The only other filter I have bothered with is an infra-red one but that's just for experimentation really.

As for RAW, it's the best for quality, but do all your adjustments of the image in that format and then make a copy of it as a jpg etc keeping the original RAW so that you can re-work it at any time.