Ok, I want to buy a DSLR... But I need LOTS of help.

[12991]

Im buying a dslr, i got a powershot s3 a few months ago, but im growing more interested in photography, so i want to buy a dslr.

I think ive narrowed it down to 2, the Nikon D40 and D50.

I think i would want one kit lens (18-55mm)

One zoom 70-300mm

And then, i love to take moon shots... i want to get the best shots humanly possible, thats how much i love them. So, can i take pictures through a telescope? Cant i buy a celestron telescope and get a tring and attach my camera and take pics? Can i do this with the d40 or D50??

will it work with:
http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-NexStar-130-Computerized-Telescope/dp/B0007UQNNQ/ref=sr_1_22/104-6917832-9407954?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1180226811&sr=1-22
http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-NexStar-SLT-Computerized-Telescope/dp/B0007UQNMW/ref=sr_1_51/104-6917832-9407954?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1180226835&sr=1-51

and im guessing the d40 is better for a beginner, but the d50 is more compatible with the older lenses. I think i may be leaning towards the d50 though. Im young, so i dont want to spend more than 1500 total (including the telescope) and i want to be able to keep everything for atleast 10 years. Thanks

[cgratti]

That will work fine, just make sure you get the correct t-ring to attach to your telescope.

[epicwelshman]

The D40/D50 question is tricky. The D50 can work with older lenses, yes. But the D40/x has newer technology that, frankly, gives better image quality. It's also of course fully supported by Nikon, whereas they're phasing out the D50. Honestly, unless you want/have access to older non AF-S lenses, I'd say go with the D40/x... while it has a beginner mode I suppose, it's a fully capable dSLR. I'm no beginner and my D40x never goes off manual or one of the priority settings.

[12991]

Thanks... i think I'm going to get the D40. I should be able to print good quality 8x10 or 6x8 right??

[M@lew]

The D40 can pretty much print anything A4 or lower. If you want to print large prints, get the D40X, which has 10.2 megapixels instead of 6.

[Westside guy]

Thanks... i think I'm going to get the D40. I should be able to print good quality 8x10 or 6x8 right??

The answer to this is yes - as long as you take good pictures. :D

I don't know that I agree with the previous poster regarding the choice between the D40 and D50, although I'm unclear if you're referring to the original D40 or the more recent D40x. They're both good cameras, though.

If you get the D40, be sure the 70-300 zoom you buy is the newest AF-S version - otherwise the autofocus won't work with the D40 since that camera doesn't have its own autofocus motor (which the D50 does have).

You can probably get decent moon photos at 300mm if you use a tripod, but they will still be only a small part of the frame - I'm guessing you understand that. But if it's that important to you, and if you can save up money over time... I'd suggest you at least consider getting just the 18-70mm lens for now (which is better than the 18-55), and saving your pennies for the 80-400mm AF lens. Of course that's $1200+ ;) and also would require you purchase the D50 not the D40.

[12991]

Yeah... i was considering the d40x, but i just realized how much more expensive it is than the d40, and just over a few MPs. Not worth it for me atleast, i rather get some filters or a new lens.

Are filters even worth it? i was thinking about getting the Hoya 4 filter introductory set, or is it just a gimmick?

[Westside guy]

The D40 can pretty much print anything A4 or lower. If you want to print large prints, get the D40X, which has 10.2 megapixels instead of 6.

For the vast majority of people who are buying a D40/x or a D50, it is very doubtful that 10MP will yield pictures with any more detail than a 6MP camera - no matter how much you're blowing the photos up. The limitation in one's photos is likely to be the person's technique rather than the pixel count. In fact a smaller pixel count, which means larger individual pixel size, is more forgiving of less-than-optimal technique. Not to mention that there are real-world situations where a larger pixel count/smaller pixel diameter can actually interfere with overall resolution, thanks to diffraction.

Edit: Just want to be clear that there's nothing wrong with having more pixels; but the difference between 6MP and 10MP isn't as cut-and-dried as some people seem to think. There are advantages to having more, smaller pixels; and there are advantages to having fewer, larger pixels.

[epicwelshman]

Yeah... i was considering the d40x, but i just realized how much more expensive it is than the d40, and just over a few MPs. Not worth it for me atleast, i rather get some filters or a new lens.

Are filters even worth it? i was thinking about getting the Hoya 4 filter introductory set, or is it just a gimmick?

From what I've heard, the "must have" filters are a UV (mainly for lens protection) and a circular polarizer. Make sure they're good quality, i.e., don't go cheap, because it's another piece of glass in front of your lens - you want quality.

The answer to this is yes - as long as you take good pictures. :D

I don't know that I agree with the previous poster regarding the choice between the D40 and D50, although I'm unclear if you're referring to the original D40 or the more recent D40x. They're both good cameras, though.

If you get the D40, be sure the 70-300 zoom you buy is the newest AF-S version - otherwise the autofocus won't work with the D40 since that camera doesn't have its own autofocus motor (which the D50 does have).

The D50 vs D40/x issue is a sticky one. Some people see the D40 as a true upgrade from the D50, and see the future in AF-S lenses. However, some see it as a sidegrade, and some even as a downgrade. I suppose it depends what you need. The only lenses I'll be buying are AF-S, so the D50's focus motor had no use for me. The D40 also has newer sensor technology, which (at default settings) would create higher quality images.

That being said, I know many people who have and love the D50, and take wonderful photos. I just decided personally to go for the D40x.

[12991]

I'm assuming that sunpak is bad. Its only 10 bucks. But the reason Im considering it is because its at bestbuy, and thats where ill be getting my d40 tomorrow.

Also, what size filter do i need, 52mm right? Will a 52mm work on all d40 lenses?? And anyone have any experience with sunpak?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7668507&st=filter&lp=12&type=product&cp=1&id=1134701342463

They also have a company called tocad. Thanks

[Westside guy]

Are filters even worth it? i was thinking about getting the Hoya 4 filter introductory set, or is it just a gimmick?

This will vary from person to person - it really depends what kind of shots you like to make. I think a decent circular polarizer (CP) is good to have - of course that's going to run you somewhere around $100 (Nikon makes a great CP that costs something like $130).

If you choose to get filters, don't make my mistake! Don't automatically buy your first filters at the size to fit your current lens. :D Instead, pick a filter size that will work on all your eventual lenses, and just use step-up rings ($15) so that all your lenses can use those filters. I've (finally) started standardizing on 77mm filters, since that's the largest thread Nikon uses. A 77mm circular polarizer is a little more expensive than a 52mm or 62mm CP, of course; but it costs less than having to buy a second CP when you find your second lens doesn't have the same filter size as your first!

[12991]

so is sunpak good or tocad??

[Westside guy]

so is sunpak good or tocad??

I don't know - I haven't even heard of them. If you want to buy a protective UV or Skylight filter for the front of your lens, I think you should probably stick with the name brands such as Hoya (get the HMC version (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/23729-REG/Hoya_523037_52mm_Haze_UV_0_HMC_.html), which costs a few dollars more) or B+W (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11964-REG/B_W_65070100_52mm_UV_Haze_010.html). And this is just my personal opinion (heh, like the rest isn't?), but - when it comes to buying a filter like a circular polarizer, I think you're better off spending more money to buy a quality product such as Nikon, B+W, or even Singh-Ray (talk about pricey!).

Remember that, when you're adding even just a protective filter to your lens, you're adding an additional optical element. Poor quality filters will yield poor quality photographs.

Edit: Man I'm terrible about adding stuff after the fact. :D If you are going to get a protective UV filter for your lens - in that particular case you do want to buy the filter to fit the lens (as opposed to my advice in a previous post, about maintaining one set of filters and using step-up rings).

[Plymouthbreezer]

This question is tricky! I like the D50 over the newer models. Buuut....

Honestly, if you don't have any $$ already invested in older Nikkor glass, I'd go with the D40, or even the D40x.

The D40 is lighter and like other's have said, is newer technology. In the same breath, a beginner (and for that sake, even many pros) won't notice a difference in image quality between the D40 or a D50 - both will "take good pictures" (but as any photographer knows, the body matters little, the glass more, but most of all, the person snapping the shutter).

[M@lew]

Also the D40 is very good for beginners because it has a graphical representation on the display to show you what the different aperture's etc. mean and a little "?" which you can push to find out what each function of the camera does.

[Abstract]

Yeah... i was considering the d40x, but i just realized how much more expensive it is than the d40, and just over a few MPs. Not worth it for me atleast, i rather get some filters or a new lens.


Wow, that's actually quite sensible, particularly for a beginner. :)


And I've printed many 8" x 10", 8" x 12", and even 10" x 15" print from a 6 MP camera, and they come out very well. :) Of course, I didn't print any 10" x 15" photos that weren't tack sharp, or cropped. The 8" x 12" prints came out as good as the 8" x 10" or 6" x 8", IMO.

[compuwar]

Im buying a dslr, i got a powershot s3 a few months ago, but im growing more interested in photography, so i want to buy a dslr.

I think ive narrowed it down to 2, the Nikon D40 and D50.


If you got the D50, you could get an 80-200/2.8 zoom for dirt-cheap and have a fast and good lens. Either camera will be fine up to 8x10, possibly 11x14. If it were me, I'd go with the D50 because of the lens compatibility (I rarely buy lenses new.) I think 10 years isn't realistic for a digital body- 6-8 is probably a more realistic lifetime.

[cube]

The D50 takes very good pictures and you can enjoy access to many good used lens deals.

[12991]

I don't want 10 years for the body, more 10 years for the lenses. Because i dont have any lenses, I don't really care. The only one single concern i have is that the d40 doesnt have an affordable, fast, wide angle, prime lens. Thats what i like about the d50, i could get a 1.8, 50mm for 120ish. With the d40, I could get that but I would have to manual focus. I dont know, is so tough to decide.

[compuwar]

I don't want 10 years for the body, more 10 years for the lenses. Because i dont have any lenses, I don't really care. The only one single concern i have is that the d40 doesnt have an affordable, fast, wide angle, prime lens. Thats what i like about the d50, i could get a 1.8, 50mm for 120ish. With the d40, I could get that but I would have to manual focus. I dont know, is so tough to decide.

You'll get better than 10yrs with almost any decent lens. Get the D50 and don't look back!

[12991]

I don't see the point in me getting a d50 really though. I think that AF-S will become the future and i will need to buy into it anyway. I always like having the latest and greatest, so the d40 seems better for me. I really will stick with the kit lens for atleast a month or two. Then get a zoom, then at the end of the year get a prime. I think thats all i really need, considering im still a teenager. I dont want to be blowing all the money that im not earning on camera stuff that ill just be doing as a hobby. D40 seems better for beginners for some reason.

I think that either one I buy, Ill love it. So I think im leaning towards the d40 because atleast i know it will be covered under warranty, Ill have the newest one, and it is smaller, and Ill be walking around with it, so its nicer to have a smaller one, even if its only a little bit smaller. D40 just seems perfect for me. I really dont want to get a used d50 for the same price, just doesnt make sense to me. The only real advantage Ill have is a bigger selection of prime lenses. Because i know what zoom lens im getting. And sigma has a good prime lens, even though its expensive... I think itll be worth it. Otherwise, i can just manually focus with the other prime lenses

[cube]

Sometimes the latest is not the greatest when it comes to lenses. But I guess for that one really needs a D200 at least to be more completely covered.

[Plymouthbreezer]

Sometimes the latest is not the greatest when it comes to lenses. But I guess for that one really needs a D200 at least to be more completely covered.
Hum? What do you mean? :confused:

[cube]

Hum? What do you mean? :confused:

Sometimes when a lens is replaced by something newer it happens that the optics are better in the older version.

The D200 is the cheapest Nikon which meters with AI, AI-S and E lenses.

[BobCham]

Hi,

I've just read this thread, as I am searching for a tring for my D40 to connect it to a spotting scope. (and later a full telescope).

While you all have had great responses to the 50/40 question, the initial question has gone unanswered ... Does the D40 have a tring?

I have searched all the 'normal' places and come up empty. The only tring for Nikon I can find is the the '35 mm body'. Since the D40, 80, and 200 all use the new lenses I don't think the general tring for SLR will fit the D40.

Any comments or links to a tring for the D40 family?

BTW - I'm a complete newbee, Just got the D40 today, before that I've had a 2mp HP camera for about 10 years, and before that a 35mm full automatic Cannon. I'm wanting to get a little more serious and start doing manual ISO controlling, so its now time for me to find subject mater that doesn't move, and take 1 shot of each permutation to learn how to set everything :) ... Seriously, I'm completely green but willing.

Thanks, Bob Cham.

[Martin C]

You said that you wanted to keep your budget under $1,500 while getting the 18-55mm kit lens and a 70-300mm zoom.

Amazon.com
--------------

Nikon D80 with 18-55mm kit lens (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-10-2MP-Digital-18-55mm-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000MLG9K2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_10/102-5384216-7243331?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1180696520&sr=8-10): $1,017.90

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_2/102-5384216-7243331?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1180696362&sr=1-2): $485.95

Total: $1,503.85

I went over four bucks, but I think that equipment should last you quite a long time.

If you substiture the D80 and kit lens with a D40x and kit lens (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000NOEDGK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5384216-7243331?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1180696769&sr=1-1), your total including the 70-300mm VR would be $1196.86

With that budget, you can get the lenses you want as well as a better body than the D40 and the discontinuing D50.

[Abstract]

Thanks... i think I'm going to get the D40. I should be able to print good quality 8x10 or 6x8 right??

The D40 can pretty much print anything A4 or lower. If you want to print large prints, get the D40X, which has 10.2 megapixels instead of 6.

Yes, but arguably, if the photo is sharp enough, you can print a 8" x 12", or even 10" x 15" and not end up with horrid quality. Really, A4 isn't the limit. I don't really buy into the whole 300 ppi stuff anyway. It doesn't mean anything because you're not printing a magazine, and inkjet printers print likely print better than industrial printers anyway. Maybe they need 300 ppi to make up for a lack of dpi....

For yourself, I'd get the D40. The lenses you want can all auto-focus on the D40, which is good. Also, the D40 can accept SD cards with > 2 GB of space, while the D50 can't. It's not a big deal for these cameras since the file sizes are quite small, but still.....


PS: Christ, I answered this thread already and didn't even realize it!

[12991]

just to let you guys now, i bought a d40 a few days back, and its a lot harder than i thought. Still getting used to it. Thanks for the help

[Clix Pix]

The D40 can pretty much print anything A4 or lower. If you want to print large prints, get the D40X, which has 10.2 megapixels instead of 6.

Agh, the megapixel myth again! Actually, if you focus and shoot carefully, a 4 MP camera can produce wonderful images. The secret? Not depending on cropping after the fact. Learn to crop in-camera. Look through the viewfinder, study the subject and its surroundings carefully. What's around, behind, above and beneath the main subject? Can you move in closer? Do you need to back up a little? Would moving to one side or the other improve the image? Yes, the resolution on a 10.2 MP camera is going to be higher than on a 6 MP camera or a 4 MP camera but it's not all that signficant unless you plan to (a) crop extensively and (b) print massive poster-sized images. Learn to crop in-camera effectively and the whole megapixel thing isn't nearly as significant.....