Nikon D50 good buy right now? Former P&Ser, noob dSLRer :-)

[Veritas&Equitas]

Hey guys...like the title reads, I've always been a P&S guy with nice Sony cameras. Yet, I travel quite a bit, and love taking nature shots and shots of my family. I guess I have a *tad* of an eye for decent shots/composition, but P&S cameras aren't the best for the photos I want.

After checking out a few camera stores and reading weeks worth of information on the net, I've fallen in love with the Nikon D50 at the current price. I know it's being discontinued, but it's features, performance, compatibility with cheaper lens (non-AF-S) make it a great camera at it's price point.

Based on my situation, would you say it's a good camera for me to dive into? I'm getting a used one (around 1000 actuations) with the stock 18-55mm lens with a bag and 1 gb card for around $465. Should I pull the trigger? Is there anything else I should know/worry about? Thanks guys!

P.S. Should I also try to find a decent 55-200mm lens? Or just learn first with the stock one?
P.P.S. Another reason I'm getting the D50 is for the exposure bracketing, b/c I want to get into a lil' HDR as well. And yes, I know I'll need a tripod:)

[b0tt094]

Amazing camera, I use it for everything, from landscapes, to my favorite sports. Right now im useing the old 55-200 lense. I have nothing wrong with it... little slow for sports and alitle bit of lense vigger(I belive its called) but I heard the new one is better.

Also this is an amazing entry level camera... I've had it for 5 months and Im still woking on accessing all the features

[techster85]

I agree, I have two D50s and i love them. The stock lense is a great lense to work on, but eventually you'll get an itch for some sort of telephoto and maybe even a faster wide angle zoom, but...for the price, I'd say jump on that used body (1,000 actuations is not that much in reality, both of my cameras go through that much use in a single wedding day...)

[xtopher]

Its a great camera. get a Nikon VR 80-400F4.5-5.6 D ED AF lens its awesome!!!:p

[shieldyoureyes]

A D50 is a great deal...I absolutely love mine. Try looking for an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens and a D50 body. Its a bit better, optically and built, than the D50 kits lens and you'll have a little more zoom. They go for about $200 used, but in mint shape.

[Curren~Sea]

I bought a D50 just before Christmas 2006 and I love it. I was a p&S guy before also and I wish I would have bought this camera much sooner.

My opinion is that unless you're a serious hobbyist or pro, this camera is perfect for you. Why spend hundreds of dollars more for features you would rarely, if ever, use?

[EastCoastFlyer]

I have used my D50 to shoot everything posted on my Flickr page (see link below. You really can't go wrong.

[Abstract]

Based on my situation, would you say it's a good camera for me to dive into? I'm getting a used one (around 1000 actuations) with the stock 18-55mm lens with a bag and 1 gb card for around $465. Should I pull the trigger? Is there anything else I should know/worry about? Thanks guys!

P.S. Should I also try to find a decent 55-200mm lens? Or just learn first with the stock one?

Firstly, I'm not sure about US pricing, so forgive me, but from what I've read here in the past, is $465 really a good price? Can't you get a brand new D50 + kit lens for around $500?? Yes, the D50 you're looking at isn't very used, but it's still used and yet only $30-40 cheaper. Lexar makes a card equivalent to this.

What type of 1 GB SD card does it come with? What speed? If it's the slowest speed, then forget it. Don't expect to shoot a huge burst of photos in continuous mode. At least get a decent speed. Sandisk sells Ultra II, which is middle of the range (in terms of speed) and is the fastest you'll need.

Also, what do you mean by "It comes with a bag." Does it come with a flimsy, unusable bag or one of those small but very nice Lowepro AW (all-weather) bags that have a cube shape?

[OwlsAndApples]

I also got the D50 for Chrismukka and I have enjoyed every moment with it :)
I thought before I got it (my first proper SLR) I would be put off by the size of this type of camera, but I take it everywhere...
The D50 is perfect for its price category, and will be becoming rare to get hold of new now - I have asked in local stores, only D40's goin' around.

[JeffTL]

I've been very happy with mine; it's a lot more responsive than any P&S I've used, and also I find it actually easier to use than recent P&S cameras.

[compuwar]

Its a great camera. get a Nikon VR 80-400F4.5-5.6 D ED AF lens its awesome!!!:p

The Sigma 50-500 is a better lens IMO. While the Nikon is a little contrastier, the Sigma is sharper and covers a wider range- an oddity. I own both, other than having VR, the Nikon really doesn't have too much going for it. Both lenses are slow to focus though, being "screwdriver focus."



Based on my situation, would you say it's a good camera for me to dive into? I'm getting a used one (around 1000 actuations) with the stock 18-55mm lens with a bag and 1 gb card for around $465. Should I pull the trigger? Is there anything else I should know/worry about? Thanks guys!

P.S. Should I also try to find a decent 55-200mm lens? Or just learn first with the stock one?
P.P.S. Another reason I'm getting the D50 is for the exposure bracketing, b/c I want to get into a lil' HDR as well. And yes, I know I'll need a tripod:)

That looks like a fair price, KEH has a brand new kit for $800. You'll want to spend a fair bit on a tripod and head; I'd shoot with the included lens for 2-3 months first, and see where you like to be zoom-wise and what sort of photography you do the most prior to looking at other lenses.

Avoid the "need" to "cover" the complete zoom range- you'll often find better lenses with "gaps" in coverage. With the ability to use AF-D lenses, you'll have a good range of lenses available on the used market- but figure out what you like to shoot first and get the tripod/head purchase out of the way.

[ChrisA]

P.S. Should I also try to find a decent 55-200mm lens? Or just learn first with the stock one?
P.P.S. Another reason I'm getting the D50 is for the exposure bracketing, b/c I want to get into a lil' HDR as well. And yes, I know I'll need a tripod:)

Take a few thousand frames THEN buy a second lens. Maybe you will find you want a wide angle or a "fast" f/1.4 lens rather then a cheap telephoto. Keep track of the shots you can't get with the 18-55 then buy the lens that would have gotten those shots. After my 18-70 I use my 50mm and 85mm primes the most. Those low price 200mm f/5.6 zooms are not as useful as you might think

Automatic bracketing is a gimmick. Just as easy to turn a dial with thumb to do the same thing Don't base decision on such a trivial feature.

I have a D50. Only thing I can't do with it is make huge prints. But using the more expensive D200 you only get (about) 30% larger prints. For huge fine art prints use film. If your images are only to be viewed on an electronic screen then you may never need to upgrade the D50. I am seriously considering 4x5 format like an old Speed Graphic and scanning the film

[carbonmotion]

If you don't have alot of Nikkor lens already, check out the D40, it's better in many ways including image quality than the D50. D50 is noisier at the same ISO compared to the D40. Even though D50 has more auto-focus zones than the D40 (5 vs 3), the autofocus on the D40 works just as well if not somewhat better (check reviews). DPReview can give you the low down on image quality. There's alot of passionate debate about D40 vs D50 lately and I tend to find that people who've bought a camera want argue that they made the best purchasing decision... at the end of the day though, it's about how the unit feels for you and what you need. Coming in from a point and shoot background, I didn't need any of the advance features that they removed from the D50 but did need the big LCD and the better image quality (among other new features), which is great for on-location reviews of pictures (2.5 inches is big enough for you to tell if you've nixed your shot). The D40 stock lens is supposedly (according to some review sites) better than the old stock lens on the D50, but they feel pretty much the same to me. I'm in possession of a D40, but also is keeping my bro's things, including his D50 since he's doing doctors without borders. It's a great camera, but after using the D40, I don't think I would ever use the D50. But, that's my biased user experience. Make sure you check out the D50, D40, Pentax K110D, and the Rebel 350D. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and in the end it doesn't matter which camera you have... or if you have a D2X, it's more about lens and more importantly your skill as a photographer.

That said, I still recommend the D40 with no hesitation.

[compuwar]

I am seriously considering 4x5 format like an old Speed Graphic and scanning the film

Speed Graphics don't have near the movements or extension of a modern view camera, though they are relatively portable. If you're serious about going LF, you should consider something with more movement and bellows extension. I have a Canham MQC, the DLC is its 4x5 little brother, and is a good field camera. There are a lot of good technical and field cameras out there that'll give you a lot more swing, back tilt, and other things that are a hallmark of LF photography. If you're just looking at studio use, then something cheap like a Calumet will do you just fine, but there's lots better options than the Speed Graphic for anything other than grab shots (which is where it excels.) I'd also highly recommend Strobell's (sp?) "The View Camera."

[filmamigo]

Agree with others regarding the lenses -- full coverage is less important than you might think. I find that I use 3 focal lengths: as wide as possible (for my lenses, that's 18mm in digital, 28mm in 35mm film), regularish (50-70mm in 35mm film) and telephotoish (135mm in 35mm film).

It makes more sense for me to have faster lenses that give me less choices of focal length. Being able to shoot in dim light with an 50mm f/1.8 means I can get the shot -- a shot that I would have missed on a 28-300mm at f/3.5-5.6. Only experience can tell you what lighting conditions you usually shoot under, and what coverage makes sense for you.

Now, about that camera. The D50 is a great performer, and fits in my hands much better than a D40. You need to hold both before you decide, because I believe ergonomics are one of the most important aspects of buying a camera. If you like using a camera, you will use it. It you don't like holding it, you will leave it in a bag at home.

In the price range you are talking, you should also consider Pentax DSLRs. Pentax make great cameras (DSLRs, 35mm and Medium Format). Pentax tends to include pro-level features that Nikon holds back on -- like mirror lock-up, and image stabilisation. Nikon wants you to spend a lot of money to just get mirror lock-up. And they want you to re-buy image stabilisation in very expensive lenses, instead of including it in the body. Plus, Pentax respects their customers (and themselves) by maintaining compatibility with most every Pentax lens ever made. Compare that with the Nikon D40, which demands you only buy the very latest lenses. Nikon even disables light-metering with anything but a very current lens, unless you buy a top-of-the-line camera -- and suddenly they allow metering to work.

Don't get me wrong, I actually own a Nikon, and they are very well built. But the Pentax are equally well built and worthy of your consideration.

[likeavaliant]

weird that i came across this thread. i'm actually really considering the same camera used with the following for $400:

" It comes with a 18-55 mm lens, 2 memory cards, a reader/writer to read the card in a computer, an USB cable and a CD-ROM. I also bought a 4 year extended warrenty which has 3 years left on it."

pretty good deal if you ask me. this thread has been very helpful.

[carbonmotion]

Agree with others regarding the lenses -- full coverage is less important than you might think. I find that I use 3 focal lengths: as wide as possible (for my lenses, that's 18mm in digital, 28mm in 35mm film), regularish (50-70mm in 35mm film) and telephotoish (135mm in 35mm film).

It makes more sense for me to have faster lenses that give me less choices of focal length. Being able to shoot in dim light with an 50mm f/1.8 means I can get the shot -- a shot that I would have missed on a 28-300mm at f/3.5-5.6. Only experience can tell you what lighting conditions you usually shoot under, and what coverage makes sense for you.

Now, about that camera. The D50 is a great performer, and fits in my hands much better than a D40. You need to hold both before you decide, because I believe ergonomics are one of the most important aspects of buying a camera. If you like using a camera, you will use it. It you don't like holding it, you will leave it in a bag at home.

In the price range you are talking, you should also consider Pentax DSLRs. Pentax make great cameras (DSLRs, 35mm and Medium Format). Pentax tends to include pro-level features that Nikon holds back on -- like mirror lock-up, and image stabilisation. Nikon wants you to spend a lot of money to just get mirror lock-up. And they want you to re-buy image stabilisation in very expensive lenses, instead of including it in the body. Plus, Pentax respects their customers (and themselves) by maintaining compatibility with most every Pentax lens ever made. Compare that with the Nikon D40, which demands you only buy the very latest lenses. Nikon even disables light-metering with anything but a very current lens, unless you buy a top-of-the-line camera -- and suddenly they allow metering to work.

Don't get me wrong, I actually own a Nikon, and they are very well built. But the Pentax are equally well built and worthy of your consideration.

Pentax has features like DOF, etc etc... although D40's image quality is abit better then Pentax... a very slight bit.

[compuwar]

Pentax has features like DOF, etc etc... although D40's image quality is abit better then Pentax... a very slight bit.

Anyone who's trying to peep the difference in IQ between 6MP bodies is likely kidding themselves. There really isn't enough difference to worry about in the whole pack of current bodies unless you're seriously underexposing or at the end of the ISO spectrum.

[filmamigo]

Anyone who's trying to peep the difference in IQ between 6MP bodies is likely kidding themselves. There really isn't enough difference to worry about in the whole pack of current bodies unless you're seriously underexposing or at the end of the ISO spectrum.

Absolutely.

The biggest difference between cameras and between brands, is in how the image is profiled by default, when shooting JPGs. If you shoot RAW, they are all equivalent, and you can define the contrast and colour responses yourself. If you shoot JPG, each camera design will have a little different look "baked in" to the image.

The D40 and D80 are set to really make the images "pop". They are colourful and contrasty. Probably because Nikon took some lumps from folks who weren't getting bright, contrasty pictures "out of the box" with the older Nikon cameras. (Even one of the most knowledgable photographers I know complained about his D70 when he bought it -- because he was shooting JPG and the colour profiles weren't to his liking. Once he learned to shoot raw and apply the look he wanted, he was tickled. The camera gives him the equivalent of a well-exposed negative, and then he can push the image around in photoshop to get the look he wants.)

The D50 seems to be half-way between the D70 and the D40, when it comes to making JPGs that "pop." Other brands and models will have different looks too.

The drawback of having these bright, contrasty JPGs straight out of the camera is that you run the risk of clipping highlight detail and not having as much headroom for postprocessing. The advantage is, if you aren't going to ever post-process, you get nice snapshots with no effort.

If you will shoot RAW, it doesn't matter how the camera profiles your JPGs.

[carbonmotion]

Anyone who's trying to peep the difference in IQ between 6MP bodies is likely kidding themselves. There really isn't enough difference to worry about in the whole pack of current bodies unless you're seriously underexposing or at the end of the ISO spectrum.

larger size print quality and display on large moniters or cropping.... all areas where image quality matters.

[likeavaliant]

so i got my d50 today and as a beginner i can say that i think i will be very very pleased to learn on it. it's a nice camera, fits well in my hands, and is very comfortable. and, as a beginner, i'm glad it doesnt have all the bells and whistles of a better, more expensive camera.



very pleased.

[Veritas&Equitas]

so i got my d50 today and as a beginner i can say that i think i will be very very pleased to learn on it. it's a nice camera, fits well in my hands, and is very comfortable. and, as a beginner, i'm glad it doesnt have all the bells and whistles of a better, more expensive camera.

Well, funny that! I just got a D50 today as well off Craigslist! So far, I love it! Came w/the default Nikon 18-55mm lens, but I plan on getting the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G for around $100-110 off eBay soon.

I also ordered a Tiffen filter kit for $24 (great deal IMO) off Adorama and a few screen protectors for the LCD. I really love the D50 so far! Thanks for all the input guys!

P.S. I might hold off on the tripod for awhile, but can't decide between a tripod and monopod?

[carbonmotion]

http://www.digitalreview.ca/Content/Nikon-D40-versus-D50-versus-Pentax-K110D-K100D.shtml

d40 vs d50 vs pentax

[Abstract]

larger size print quality and display on large moniters or cropping.... all areas where image quality matters.

But compuwar is right in this case. The difference between the 6 MP cameras out today is so small that you may as well just get the camera you want without worrying about quality. They're all of extremely high image quality, and this is after reading all the reviews. I know the D40 is good (in terms of image quality), but lets not get carried away. The differences are marginal. I'd be just as happy with the Pentax than I would with a D40, maybe more so because of the Pentax body.

[Funkatation]

I love my D40 and 18-200VR lens...

18-200VR is why I went Nikon instead of Canon.

[carbonmotion]

I love my D40 and 18-200VR lens...

18-200VR is why I went Nikon instead of Canon.

the image stabilzation is of marginal use on the Pentax, this i know from a real user's experience. that's why i disregarded it in my decision. other then that, feature for feature, D40 is about where the pentax is at... and nikon makes better glass. although the d40 is missing the top lcd panel, i dont think its that big of a deal. since i have small hands, big cameras feel awkward to me, so im partial to the D40, which fits like a glove. however, if you have big hands, you should look in to the d50 or some such. anyways, whatever you pick , it should be good.

[compuwar]

larger size print quality and display on large moniters or cropping.... all areas where image quality matters.

Monitor resolution isn't high enough to show the differences, and I'd bet even at 11x14 you'd be hard-pressed to say which camera produced which photo for pretty much the entire crop of 6MP bodies *if the images were all profiled*. Some of the built-in exposure and color space stuff is identifiable, but it's really all in the JPEG engine.

For cropping, size matters more than IQ, since you're pretty-much just enlarging more- for instance I see more detail at 16x20 in some of my D2x prints than I do at 8x10 because there's lots more information there, and it's not obvious until you go big. But the difference between the D200 and the D2x isn't really noticeable even side-by-side, let alone looking at the images serially. A 6MP high-speed crop from my D2x isn't really distinguishable from a D70 shot.

Walk around a fine art photo gallery and tell me honestly you can distinguish what camera made what image.

My customers can't tell at 8x10 if my images were made with an old FinePix S2Pro, a D200 or a D2x.

[carbonmotion]

Monitor resolution isn't high enough to show the differences, and I'd bet even at 11x14 you'd be hard-pressed to say which camera produced which photo for pretty much the entire crop of 6MP bodies *if the images were all profiled*. Some of the built-in exposure and color space stuff is identifiable, but it's really all in the JPEG engine.

For cropping, size matters more than IQ, since you're pretty-much just enlarging more- for instance I see more detail at 16x20 in some of my D2x prints than I do at 8x10 because there's lots more information there, and it's not obvious until you go big. But the difference between the D200 and the D2x isn't really noticeable even side-by-side, let alone looking at the images serially. A 6MP high-speed crop from my D2x isn't really distinguishable from a D70 shot.

Walk around a fine art photo gallery and tell me honestly you can distinguish what camera made what image.

My customers can't tell at 8x10 if my images were made with an old FinePix S2Pro, a D200 or a D2x.
how come i can tell the quality difference at 100% form a D40 and a D50?
when editing on a powerbook + 20 inch ACD

[compuwar]

how come i can tell the quality difference at 100% form a D40 and a D50?
when editing on a powerbook + 20 inch ACD

Most likely you either have an exposure or focus issue with one body, though pixel peeping generally doesn't show things you'll see in a print until you get up past 8x10, and then you have to be looking well inside the correct viewing distance for whatever sized print it is.

[carbonmotion]

Most likely you either have an exposure or focus issue with one body, though pixel peeping generally doesn't show things you'll see in a print until you get up past 8x10, and then you have to be looking well inside the correct viewing distance for whatever sized print it is.

they are test shots from dp review and other resources

[compuwar]

they are test shots from dp review and other resources

You're basing image quality off of a Web-based JPEG from a 3rd party? DPReview doesn't even use the same parts of the image when showing 100% crops from each camera, they shoot mostly in JPEG, and there's an obvious lighting issue with the D50 NC/PP/JPEG test that pretty-much invalidates a direct comparison. The resolution test charts don't even look the same, and in the comparison shots they used a completely different lens. Under those conditions, there's no way you can compare image quality with any idea of getting a valid result.

In the direct comparison, there's either a focus issue or a sharpening issue- it looks to me more like a focus problem- though again it's a JPEG, which isn't the way to compare the sensors, especially since you've got the same manufacturer, so RAF file processing is likely to be as equal as it every can be.

[carbonmotion]

You're basing image quality off of a Web-based JPEG from a 3rd party? DPReview doesn't even use the same parts of the image when showing 100% crops from each camera, they shoot mostly in JPEG, and there's an obvious lighting issue with the D50 NC/PP/JPEG test that pretty-much invalidates a direct comparison. The resolution test charts don't even look the same, and in the comparison shots they used a completely different lens. Under those conditions, there's no way you can compare image quality with any idea of getting a valid result.

In the direct comparison, there's either a focus issue or a sharpening issue- it looks to me more like a focus problem- though again it's a JPEG, which isn't the way to compare the sensors, especially since you've got the same manufacturer, so RAF file processing is likely to be as equal as it every can be.

Well I work with a D200 at my company, we have two D80s and D200. I feel like D40's output is sharper than D50. dpreview pointed it out as well. now this could be real or imagined, but everyone else i know has noticed it too. so d50 does not produce the same quality of image as d40, it produces a slightly lower quality.

I'm sure you can see a difference between these two images, clearly Nikon has developed its image processing engine since the D50. Image detail is better with no artifacts (there are some on the D50 image) which indicates improved demosaicing, edge and texture detail are also improved as a consequence, the overall result being an iamge which looks more natural yet crisp and detailed. --dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page22.asp

with that said, everyone who has a d50 is very devoted to their body... so it must be doing something right. i just think the d40 is a bit more crisp, but that won't really count for much unless i'm printing 13 inches x 16 inches

on the downside you can put really decent cheap glass on the d50 like the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G, but then again the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR does have much better quality. The d40's 2.5inch lcd is much better at reviewing pictures in the field than the 2 inch lcd on the d 50, you can see so much more. In the end though, it really comes down to how the camera feels in your hands as the image quality is basically close enough. i have small woman size hands, which is really sucky because i'm pretty in to tennis , but then again i suppose those slender long fingers help make me a good piano player and a even better sweat shop worker. So, it refreshing for me to find a camera that i can actually wrap my hands around.

[Abstract]

Well I work with a D200 at my company, we have two D80s and D200. I feel like D40's output is sharper than D50. dpreview pointed it out as well. now this could be real or imagined, but everyone else i know has noticed it too. so d50 does not produce the same quality of image as d40, it produces a slightly lower quality.


You're splitting hairs.

You can tell by looking at a 100% crop? Big deal. You wouldn't notice in a print. C'mon man, lets see those resolution charts! We'll have a big party while viewing them.

Funny thing is that I bet you I can hold a D50 or D80 more still than I can hold a D40. The D40 is too small for most hands. I have medium sized hands, and I really don't think I can go smaller than the D50. I think slightly larger would be better for me, actually. Anyway, the camera that I'll be able to hold most comfortably will probably end up with sharper photos, if you really want to get picky.

Pixel peeping sucks. Photography is about photos, not stupid tests. I'm sure I can produce sharper photos with a D50 than I can with a D40 simply because I don't like holding the D40. I may as well be holding a Canon 400D (bleh!).

Monitor resolution isn't high enough to show the differences, and I'd bet even at 11x14 you'd be hard-pressed to say which camera produced which photo for pretty much the entire crop of 6MP bodies *if the images were all profiled*.

Yeah, seriously.

[compuwar]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page22.asp


Artifacts are for JPEGs, default sharpening is for JPEGs - I can post-process better files from RAFs than the JPEG engine in any camera will give- almost anyone can. Even if they changed the AA filter, I'd bet real money I could get equivalent images out of two good samples of each body.

Don't believe the hype.

For instance:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD50/Samples/Quality/DSC_0131-raw-pp.jpg

Doesn't have the bad focus/sharpness issues, even though it has incredibly bad lighting on the watch. This is simply put a very bad comparison by DPReview, they didn't do anything close to an apples-to-apples comparison. It happens, nobody's perfect. But if you care about IQ, you're shooting raw, where most of the DPR stuff doesn't apply anyway.

[carbonmotion]

Artifacts are for JPEGs, default sharpening is for JPEGs - I can post-process better files from RAFs than the JPEG engine in any camera will give- almost anyone can. Even if they changed the AA filter, I'd bet real money I could get equivalent images out of two good samples of each body.

Don't believe the hype.

For instance:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD50/Samples/Quality/DSC_0131-raw-pp.jpg

Doesn't have the bad focus/sharpness issues, even though it has incredibly bad lighting on the watch. This is simply put a very bad comparison by DPReview, they didn't do anything close to an apples-to-apples comparison. It happens, nobody's perfect. But if you care about IQ, you're shooting raw,
where most of the DPR stuff doesn't apply anyway.

well you may be right, but at any rate, the D40 still has a larger lcd, more accurate in the back so you can use it to tell if you've mussed up shoots. alternatively, the D50 is compatible with more cheap lenses. You might say lcds don't matter and I might say I'm never getting more than one more lens. so, lets just leave it at personal preferences. I still think the D40 gives you a richer, out of camera result.

[Clix Pix]

I still think the D40 gives you a richer, out of camera result.

A lot of that would be due to the default settings, which with .jpg can produce somewhat more saturated images that really "pop" and which need little post-processing. For the target audience, that is exactly what is desired. For those who like to tweak and twiddle with their images it is always possible to readjust the settings to their liking, more akin to the D200 or other camera settings. I'd be willing to bet that not too many users of the D40 shoot that camera in RAW anyway.

[carbonmotion]

A lot of that would be due to the default settings, which with .jpg can produce somewhat more saturated images that really "pop" and which need little post-processing. For the target audience, that is exactly what is desired. For those who like to tweak and twiddle with their images it is always possible to readjust the settings to their liking, more akin to the D200 or other camera settings. I'd be willing to bet that not too many users of the D40 shoot that camera in RAW anyway.

shooting in raw is not realistic for some tasks. besides, im not sure if i buy the argument that the d50 is somehow a better camera than the d40.. i think give or take their about the same, although the d40 cames in a ahead with the lcd and size for me ....though for a non nikon noob with lots of lens, the d50 is probably more economical.

[compuwar]

shooting in raw is not realistic for some tasks. besides, im not sure if i buy the argument that the d50 is somehow a better camera than the d40.. i think give or take their about the same, although the d40 cames in a ahead with the lcd and size for me ....though for a non nikon noob with lots of lens, the d50 is probably more economical.

I can't think of a good reason not to shoot raw if you're properly equipped, though I occasionally find it advantageous to shoot raw+jpeg when I'm not properly equipped.

A big advantage to the Nikon system is that there's an incredible number of good AF-D lenses out there, so you can get say a 300mm/f4 EDIF for less than $700- an incredible deal on pro-quality glass. If you're in the "it's just a big P&S" category then that doesn't matter to you and the D40's a good choice, if you're in the "I'd like to take this further" crowd, then the D50 allows you to keep the body investment longer while still retaining autofocus for the cheap gems in the used market. Now you have to purchase a more expensive body for that option, with the D50 you were getting an incredible deal on backwards compatibility back through AF-D. But as I said, it's pretty moot image-wise until you start getting lenses where a lighter body is a disadvantage.

I'm perfectly happy with my 2x, but I realize that it's not a camera for everyone- the great thing is that the market is still big enough that we can all get bodies we're happy with.

[carbonmotion]

I can't think of a good reason not to shoot raw if you're properly equipped, though I occasionally find it advantageous to shoot raw+jpeg when I'm not properly equipped.

A big advantage to the Nikon system is that there's an incredible number of good AF-D lenses out there, so you can get say a
T for less than $700- an incredible deal on pro-quality glass. If you're in the "it's just a big P&S" category then that doesn't matter to you and the D40's a good choice, if you're in the "I'd like to take this further" crowd, then the D50 allows you to keep the body investment longer while still retaining autofocus for the cheap gems in the used market. Now you have to purchase a more expensive body for that option, with the D50 you were getting an incredible deal on backwards compatibility back through AF-D. But as I said, it's pretty moot image-wise until you start getting lenses where a lighter body is a disadvantage.

I'm perfectly happy with my 2x, but I realize that it's not a camera for everyone- the great thing is that the market is still big enough that we can all get bodies we're happy with.

I mean I don't consider myself a professional by any means, but for my work, we have a 15-200 mm AF-S VR and a 70-300 mm AF-S VR both are great glass and can be had for 700 bucks or less. The glass you've mentioned is a great work horse from the 80ties, but it is a little soft in my opinion and in 2000 Nikon made a AF-S version of it with improved optics. As someone who's just entering the slr photography scene, the only lens i'll probably purchase to complement my D40 is either the 15-200 mm AF-S VR or a 70-300 mm AF-S VR ... probably the former. I don't see a need for a amature photographer to need more. I do regret not being able to buy the Nikkor 70-300 mm G as it's a perfectly good lens for 100 bucks. however, my friend said the optics was really soft and the auto focus was lacking at the max end of the telephoto.

For my personal purpose, I'd probably never go pass the Nikkor 15-200mm AF-S VR as the one other lens I prefer.

Additionally, to address the issue of JPG vs RAW... do you realize that RAW is 5 MB/ pc? while JPG is 3 MB? You can shoot alot more with JPG and for shots which depend on sequence, JPG doesn't overflow the digital camera's buffer like RAW. Some shots you need RAW because you know you're gonna run it through adobe light room later, other shoots you just want to let it go straight through iphoto. I mean if you're taking 4gb worth of photographs, there's no way you're gonna have time to tweak every single one.

Further more, one of the only ways i know when I've messed up a shot is via the LCD review, so that's piece of equipment is crucial to me.

[compuwar]

The glass you've mentioned is a great work horse from the 80ties, but it is a little soft in my opinion and in 2000 Nikon made a AF-S version of it with improved optics. As someone who's just


While the AF-S version is optically superior wide open, I've yet to see a noticeably soft photo from the original. My sample certainly produces photos almost as sharp as my 400mm f/2.8 AFS-II, and certainly sharper than anything I've seen from the current crop of consumer-level zooms. At f/4 you can peep some softness if you really, really try, but it's gone as soon as you're not shooting wide open.

For someone on a budget who isn't shooting motorsports, the non-AFS version is a total bargain. To me it's sharper than the 70-300@300mm.

Thom Hogan says this about the new version:

Let me report the good news first. Everything that was wonderful about the old 300mm f/4 seems to remain. I can't see any tangible visual difference between pictures shot with the old and the new version--it's as if Nikon took the optics out of my old lens and installed it in a new body (with a couple of minor changes, that's essentially what they did). Being able to focus to 5 feet (1.45m) is a big performance plus, in my opinion.



Additionally, to address the issue of JPG vs RAW... do you realize that RAW is 5 MB/ pc? while JPG is 3 MB? You can shoot alot more with JPG and for shots which depend on sequence, JPG doesn't overflow the digital camera's buffer like RAW. Some shots you need RAW because you know you're gonna run it through adobe light room later, other shoots you just want to let it go straight through iphoto. I mean if you're taking 4gb worth of photographs, there's no way you're gonna have time to tweak every single one.



My photos are considerably larger than 5M each, it doesn't bother me much though, as I tend to be properly equipped CF-card-wise. While I typically take more than 4G of images every time I shoot, they're twice the size of yours, so we probably end up with close to the same total number of frames.

If you need high speed regularly, neither the D40 nor the D50 is the right tool for the job.

If I'm shooting for a client, I'll definitely tweak every image I'm giving them, no matter how many there are unless they're something like insurance photos. If I'm shooting fine art, then I'll definitely tweak every image I'm going to offer for sale. If I'm shooting something where I don't need the best image possible from each shot, then I'll tweak one and batch the rest based on those settings. For mixed lighting, I don't see how anyone can afford to shoot JPEG unless they're just playing P&S.


Further more, one of the only ways i know when I've messed up a shot is via the LCD review, so that's piece of equipment is crucial to me.

I rarely chimp images, unless I really want to look at a histogram to see if I've lost the highlights.

[Abstract]

^^You put way too much emphasis on the LCD. The best pro cameras have a smaller LCD than the one on the D40.

For you, the D40 might be good because apparently, you have very small hands, and you judge the quality of photos from a 2.5" LCD. For people who shoot with a DSLR and want to learn about photography, I think they'll soon realize that what they see on the tiny LCD means nothing, regardless of whether they increased it to 3" one day or not. Just give me a histogram to judge exposure. I'll judge sharpness after uploading to my computer, although I can easy do so just by previewing and cropping as much as I can from each photo. It doesn't really help me whether the screen is 2" or 2.5". The only thing better about the D40's LCD is the viewing angle. The viewing angle of the D50's LCD is very narrow and things seem to shift if you're not careful about how you hold it.


On the other hand, I don't know how you can live without the top display to view settings. Most photographers

[carbonmotion]

^^You put way too much emphasis on the LCD. The best pro cameras have a smaller LCD than the one on the D40.

For you, the D40 might be good because apparently, you have very small hands, and you judge the quality of photos from a 2.5" LCD. For people who shoot with a DSLR and want to learn about photography, I think they'll soon realize that what they see on the tiny LCD means nothing, regardless of whether they increased it to 3" one day or not. Just give me a histogram to judge exposure. I'll judge sharpness after uploading to my computer, although I can easy do so just by previewing and cropping as much as I can from each photo. It doesn't really help me whether the screen is 2" or 2.5". The only thing better about the D40's LCD is the viewing angle. The viewing angle of the D50's LCD is very narrow and things seem to shift if you're not careful about how you hold it.


On the other hand, I don't know how you can live without the top display to view settings. Most photographers

that's fantastic, i understand everyone wants to justify their purchase. I'm simply saying the D50 isn't for me. All the reasons you've mentioned, I don't see. I use the LCD to see if the shoot i took is blurry or not, to check the quality of the colors and to see if I've blow the highlights. Additionally, the LCD on the D40 is very bright and accurate and that's important.

Waiting to upload the picture to the computer is way too late , its already after the shoot.

Can we stop with these fan boy arguments? Just because you bought it doesn't mean it's the best. I mean the D50 has its advantages, but it certainly has its faults as well, the D40 is more optimized for those who're starting out in photography. That's why I always recommend the D40 over the D50 for beginners and the D80 or D200 for the more advanced users. Notice how I never say professionals? That's because Nikon is more for hobbists, the majority of the people who make the big bucks making a living off of their camera likes sports photographers, use full frame Canons.

Like most people starting out in photography, we just want a easy time taking great pictures with a camera that cushions things for its users. We expect our pictures will be displayed in large print in our apartments, but probably not an art gallery. That's why its called a hobby.

the 2 inch LCD on the D50 is rather low rez, in fact it has the same resolution as the 1.8 inch lcd on my Canon and I have trouble telling my shots from that. I mean while histograms can tell you some stuff, its not gonna tell you everything. You have to review the photo.

The top lcd is a loss, but the trade off in size is well worth it. The D40 fits my hands perfectly. The portability along makes it worth its price. So in conclusion, smaller, takes better jpgs, battery lasts longer... boom. sold. great beginner cam.

[compuwar]

That's why I always recommend the D40 over the D50 for beginners and the D80 or D200 for the more advanced


Frankly, you don't appear to have the experience to give a good recommendation, and your evaluation criteria are mostly questionable other than those which come down to ergonomics, which aren't general criteria.


users. Notice how I never say professionals? That's because Nikon is more for hobbists, the majority of the people who make the big bucks making a living off of their camera likes sports photographers, use full frame Canons.


Ah, the old Microsoft argument! Most people using computers are running Windows, so we should all go recommend that, right? I mean most professional computer users run it, it has to be the best! :p While Canon certainly has the lion's share of the pro market, that doesn't make Nikon's professional offerings any less good. Fortunately, despite your lack of recommendation, Nikon seems to be selling quite a few D2x and D2h series bodies. We should let them know next quarter's sales figures might dip since you're not going to recommend Nikons to all the professionals you influence. :eek:

Full frame is sooooo important to all those newspaper photographers too, I mean newsprint, those huge^H erm, small images, they'll really need.. oh wait maybe not. Oh well, there's the magazines, oh wait, um, there's the backdrops for TV, oh wait, nope. While the landscape guys have a fair full-frame argument, sports shooters?

[carbonmotion]

If I'm shooting for a client, I'll definitely tweak every image I'm giving them, no matter how many there are unless they're something like insurance photos. If I'm shooting fine art, then I'll definitely tweak every image I'm going to offer for sale. If I'm shooting something where I don't need the best image possible from each shot, then I'll tweak one and batch the rest based on those settings. For mixed lighting, I don't see how anyone can afford to shoot JPEG unless they're just playing P&S.



I rarely chimp images, unless I really want to look at a histogram to see if I've lost the highlights.

It seems you make some kind of a living taking photos. Well, I do not. I have a friend who's a freelance photo journalist who says that if I'm just starting out for a hobby the best thing to do is not to get trapped in the cult of photographers and their cult of photographer's elitism. I mean you're just taking a picture for personal pleasure, why get all uppity about it, trying to justify one way as better than another? Do you really have to look at histogram over review on the LCD? Do you really have to post proccess every shot? Do you really have to shoot in RAW over JPG? In all those , you can if yo want to, but it doesn't make or break you as a photographer and it certainly doesn't make or break your end results.

Yes I do admit that if you're a pro or intend to emulate a pro, that's what you should do. but the majority of people who're looking at D40 and D50 anyways aren't in that category. Hell, most people who own D200s probably aren't in that category. Most people who actually earn a living shooting news or sports photographs are using at the very minimum a D 2x or Canon 5D.

[carbonmotion]

:eek:

So, basically you own a D50 and can't stand the fact that its being replaced by the D40. So you have to convince everyone that your purchase is the best purchase because you're a pro. A pro who uses a D50 at that. Good job. An I'm no qualified because I'm a hobbiest and as well all know hobbist's opinion < pro's opinion. Well mr. pro, hobbists have hobbist needs, we want a camera that takes good pictures and lets us be happy. Most of us are gonna own 1.5 lenses so this compatibility issue isn't a big deal. We care more about ease of use and what feels better instead of what's "proper" or more "leet"

The reason why I got a D40 is because my semi-pro friends who own D50s and D200s recommended me to get a D40. In their opinion, its much more of a hobbist camera than a D50. Their opinion actually sounded rational while yours just sounds like you can't stand the thought of someone preferring a different camera over yours.

To the OP: go to the camera store and pic the one that feels better to you.. It's not gonna make that big of a difference if you pick a D40 or D50 or a Rebel XT in the end. Just pick one that will make you think will make you happy. The end.

[compuwar]

It seems you make some kind of a living taking photos. Well, I do not. I have a friend who's a freelance photo journalist who says that if I'm just starting out for a hobby the best thing to do is not to get trapped in the cult of photographers and their cult of photographer's elitism. I mean you're just taking a picture for personal pleasure, why get all uppity about it, trying to justify one way as better than another?


For someone who touts image quality as something that's important as a differentiator, you're sure into throwing away the way to get the best possible image quality out of your camera.

Look- if you're just playing P&S, then no- it really doesn't matter, but then your comments on image quality don't really matter either because you're not going to get the best image quality out of JPEG mode.

Me- I like craftsmanship. Even when I shoot for the pure pleasure of it, I want to make the best image I can because I'm shooting to do photography, not to record who was at a party.

If you shoot JPEG, you *can't* white balance after the fact properly, and changes to exposure and edits and re-saves all lose quality. You also can't get the maximum dynamic range out of JPEG.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

While some of my income comes from photography, not all of it does, but that doesn't matter, I want to achieve the best results possible. For what I sell, I'm way pickier than my customers, but then I feel it should be that way.


Do you really have to look at histogram over review on the LCD? Do you really have to post proccess every shot? Do you really have to shoot in RAW over JPG? In all those , you can if yo want to, but it doesn't make or break you as a photographer and it certainly doesn't make or break your end results.


Actually, in a mixed lighting environment it sure will make or break the end result.



Yes I do admit that if you're a pro or intend to emulate a pro, that's what you should do. but the majority of people who're looking at D40 and D50 anyways aren't in that category. Hell, most people who own D200s probably aren't in that category. Most people who actually earn a living shooting news or sports photographs are using at the very minimum a D 2x or Canon 5D.

Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70.

[carbonmotion]

For someone who touts image quality as something that's important as a differentiator, you're sure into throwing away the way to get the best possible image quality out of your camera.

Look- if you're just playing P&S, then no- it really doesn't matter, but then your comments on image quality don't really matter either because you're not going to get the best image quality out of JPEG mode.

Me- I like craftsmanship. Even when I shoot for the pure pleasure of it, I want to make the best image I can because I'm shooting to do photography, not to record who was at a party.

If you shoot JPEG, you *can't* white balance after the fact properly, and changes to exposure and edits and re-saves all lose quality. You also can't get the maximum dynamic range out of JPEG.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

While some of my income comes from photography, not all of it does, but that doesn't matter, I want to achieve the best results possible. For what I sell, I'm way pickier than my customers, but then I feel it should be that way.



Actually, in a mixed lighting environment it sure will make or break the end result.




Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70.

As a hobbyist you shoot in raw for your essential shots, shoot in jpg for the rest to maxmize your memory. Or for that matter shoot in whatever you feel is best. Why not shoot in JPG, if it look sweet out of the camera rather than RAW, then going in to your camera and balancing and tweaking it to make it look like the jpg?

Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70. -- are you trying to tell me that professional sports photographers shoot with XTis and D70s or D80s? That's absurd. I know that to be false because in those boys clubs, a 5D is practically required to not get laughed out. D70 and D80s are not pro cameras, they're high end hobbyist cameras.

[compuwar]

So, basically you own a D50 and can't stand the fact that its being replaced by the D40. So you have to convince


Um no- I suppose you don't actually read what's posted in this thread. I listed the cameras I've owned and what I currently own in this thread. I own a D2x.


everyone that your purchase is the best purchase because you're a pro. A pro who uses a D50 at that. Good job. An I'm no qualified because I'm a


You really should learn to read and comprehend before spouting off. I've actually not said much against the D40 (other than perhaps the body size with larger lenses.) You know what though, you just showed even more ignorance with that statement *and* you fell right into camera elitism. I could sell just as many photos with a D50 or a D40 as I do with my D2x, because in the end *I* make a heck of a lot more difference than any of the current crop of 6MP camera bodies (hmmm, sound familiar- that's right, while you and your case of semi-pro friends were trying to justify your D40 I was saying how it really didnt matter.)


hobbiest and as well all know hobbist's opinion < pro's opinion. Well mr. pro, hobbists have hobbist needs, we want a camera that takes good pictures and lets us be happy. Most of us are gonna own 1.5 lenses so this compatibility issue isn't a big deal. We care more about ease of use and what feels better instead of what's "proper" or more "leet"


No, I said you don't seem to be qualified based upon your criteria, statements about cameras you've apparently judged as inferior based upon JPEG samples on the Web, and what seems to be a general lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject.


The reason why I got a D40 is because my semi-pro friends who own D50s and D200s recommended me to get a D40. In their opinion, its much more of a hobbist camera than a D50. Their opinion actually sounded rational while yours just sounds like you can't stand the thought of someone preferring a different camera over yours.


Yeah, that's why I've been recommending everyone get a D2x. I mean, every post of mine justfies how much I like the LCD and how it fits in my hands, right? :rolleyes:

[compuwar]

As a hobbyist you shoot in raw for your essential shots, shoot in jpg for the rest to maxmize your memory. Or for that matter shoot in whatever you feel is best. Why not shoot in JPG, if it look sweet out of the camera rather than RAW, then going in to your camera and balancing and tweaking it to make it look like the jpg?


Read the link. Re-read the post. *IF* you care about image quality it's all in there, *IF* you don't, then there's no need.


Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70. -- are you trying to tell me that professional sports photographers shoot with XTis and D70s or D80s? That's absurd. I know that to be false because in those boys clubs, a 5D is practically required to not get laughed out. D70 and D80s are not pro cameras, they're high end hobbyist cameras.

Most as in "the biggest number" are probably stringers covering high school sports for local newspapers. There you go with that elitism again. There are more newspapers than any other media. Newsprint doesn't need ultra-high resolution images. There are more high schools than college or professional teams, therefore there are likely to be more sports shooters shooting HS games part-time than professional sports photographers (at least in the US market, I have no idea how the European market works, but I spent 8.5 years working for a large mostly-American media conglomerate.)

Edit: Apologies, you did say "earn a living," which implies full-time employment, in which case they're likely using paper-supplied bodies, and since Canon gives sweet deals to the media, that almost certainly means pro bodies, though not necessarily full-frame.

[chriscorbin]

I am an event photographer and the only camera i use is a d50
its cheap and light, but i reccomend a larger SD card around 2Gb ive tried several and brand really doesnt seem to matter
overall a good choice

[Abstract]

Can we stop with these fan boy arguments? Just because you bought it doesn't mean it's the best.

So, basically you own a D50 and can't stand the fact that its being replaced by the D40. So you have to convince everyone that your purchase is the best purchase because you're a pro. A pro who uses a D50 at that. Good job.

You keep waving that point (cough) around, but where is this coming from? Is it just because we don't agree with you? You pulled that out of the air. Nice scapegoat. ;)

Sounds like someone's trying to justify his purchase, not us. I certainly never said that the D40 was inferior. I just said it wasn't superior to the D50 in image quality, and you probably can't tell. Heck, you're judging the colour and quality based on that tiny LCD!! My goodness. :o You're saying a 2.5" LCD is suitable for judging photos, but a slightly smaller 2" screen is not suitable. Surely you can understand how silly that sounds.


And if you shoot RAW, the photo you see on the LCD is just a RAW file processed by the camera anyway (similar to the camera making a JPEG out of it), and not what you'll actually see on your computer before adjusting it. I don't know why you're so concerned about the LCD. Looking at an LCD provides very little information regarding the photo, while a histogram does. The image you see on the LCD may not even look like that when you upload it to your computer.

Notice how I never say professionals? That's because Nikon is more for hobbists, the majority of the people who make the big bucks making a living off of their camera likes sports photographers, use full frame Canons.

Nikons aren't more for hobbyists. They certainly weren't designed that way. What is this based on....market share? That's like saying Macs are only for casual computer users.

A Canon 5D doesn't even have weather seals, while even a Pentax 10D does. From the way you make the distinction between cameras for pros and amateurs, the 5D shouldn't even fall under the category of "pro camera", not even by your definition.

-- are you trying to tell me that professional sports photographers shoot with XTis and D70s or D80s? That's absurd. I know that to be false because in those boys clubs, a 5D is practically required to not get laughed out. D70 and D80s are not pro cameras, they're high end hobbyist cameras.

You'd want a 5D to shoot sports? :confused: The 5D shoots at a slower fps rate in continuous mode than the 30D does. Plus, on a 5D, lenses don't reach as far as they do on a 30D.

[carbonmotion]

ok well, i if that's what you believe then we're on the same page ... what the hell are we arguing about?!

i apoligize for contributing to make this thread a pissing contest like so many other d40 v d50 threads... OP, it doesn't make a diff. just go and pick one that you like.

i shoot events too, all im saying is if you get the job done with jpgs, then use jpgs... noone wants to fill them mem card up with raws and miss the shot of the speaker getting **** faced and making a pass at the intern. ...that and their basically all rather similar in the end will end up being personal preference.

[Clix Pix]

shooting in raw is not realistic for some tasks. besides, im not sure if i buy the argument that the d50 is somehow a better camera than the d40.. i think give or take their about the same, although the d40 cames in a ahead with the lcd and size for me ....though for a non nikon noob with lots of lens, the d50 is probably more economical.

True, shooting in RAW is not for everyone. It took me a long time to make the jump into doing that, and now it is what I prefer to do in most shooting situations.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the D50 here within the context of my post, as I made no reference to it at all; I don't have a D50 and have not used one. Since we're on the subject, though, yes, one thing about the D50 which could make a difference for some purchasers/users would be that the D50 handles all of the Nikon AF lenses, whereas the D40 is limited to autofocusing with just the AF-S ones. In my opinion, that's no big deal; one can manually focus quite easily and comfortably with many lenses. I've shot with a 35mm f/2 and a 28mm f/1.4 on a D40 without any problem at all.

Those who want to be able to autofocus each and every time regardless if a lens is AF or AF-S will have to make their purchasing decision accordingly. There is also a significant difference between the D40, D50, D70/D70s, D80 and the D200 -- and that is: on the D200 one can use AI-S lenses and set them up in the camera for correct metering. Can't do that with a D40, D50, etc.... Does that mean these lenses cannot be used on any of those cameras? No. Not at all. It is simply a matter of functionality. So you can't get accurate metering on a D40, D50, D70/D70s, or D80 when using Uncle Joe's older Nikkor non- AF lens. No big deal. If you chimp you can see right in the LCD screen and in the histogram what you need to do to ensure correct exposure. End of problem....

Oh, by the way....I don't think that at your work you have a 15-200mm VR AF-S.... there isn't such an animal. There's the 18-200mm VR AF-S. I'm sure that's what you meant.