Nikon D90 and D40 about the same?

[SchneiderMan]

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 but i really dont want it to be like or in the range of the D40. Im thinking its just for noobs too like the D40? Am i wrong about this?
What i really want to know if its better then the D40/D60 group.
Thanks for your help on this.

EDIT: i got a new lens, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8869/30077942173b26682cf9uc0.jpg

Big thanks to all the great members here!

[Apple Ink]

Get the Nikkor 50mm f1.8!

Its way more cheaper and the perfect solution to your problems. The main reason someone buys an SLR is for its interchangeable lenses! You buy the D90 or the D700 or the D3.. it'll all be same unless you get a fast prime lens!

The D90 has many features... more AF points, better ISO performance, built in motor for AF! I forgot video capturing... but the feature is as good as worth getting forgotten!

[Phrasikleia]

Low light shooting is really all about the lens. High ISO only helps so much. You need fast glass. Get a lens that has the widest aperture you can afford. For the D40, you'll probably want to get the 50mm f/1.4, since the cheaper f/1.8 version will not auto-focus on that camera body.

[SchneiderMan]

The lenses i have right now are the kit lens 18-55mm nikkor and a 55-200mm nikkor.

So its worth getting a 50mm lens? ii dont know anything about 50mm lenses, basically the 50mm lens would be like my 18-55 when its in full zoom?
Im reading that the D90 only has ll-af points? (2?) lol i just bought a magazine..
So my D40 is about the same as the D90? just get a better lens and im set?
thanks guys

And $1000 for a lens is too much for me to spend haha

[Apple Ink]

Yes thats pretty much it!

Both the lenses you currently own are 'slow' lenses.... if you look at the lens fronts carefully.. you'll note something like: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and something similar on the 55-200.

The problem here is that the 18-55 gives you an aperture (its a light gate in the lens... lesser the no. more open the gate is.. meaning more light can enter) of f5.6 at 50mm while the prime lenses mentioned above give you f1.4 at 50mm... translation.. about 6 to 8 times more light can enter... meaning.. you get shutter speeds upto ~4 to 6 times faster than what you get for the kit lens in the same lighting condition..

Also.. the primes (single focal length) are way more superior to similarly priced zooms in terms of IQ!

[jaduffy108]

The D90 is in a completely different league compared to the d40. The D40...as you said, "fancy P&S".

For night photography...fast glass and a *good* tripod for long exposures is the answer. Another approach would be
the most beneficial of all...study light and how to control it. strobist.com is a gold mine of information.

[SchneiderMan]

Great thanks guys, now for day shooting hands down the D90 is better by more then double? I really want to get better more pro looking pictures in daylight. D40 isnt really doing it after more then a year. For now im getting the 50mm nikkor glass :D

[Apple Ink]

D90 is better in every thing except Image Quality...

So anyone who says... an expensive DSLR gets better images... you say HUSH HUSH

Get a good lens like the 16-85 or the 17-55 if you can afford it. It'll do magic I tell you. Think about upgrading when you have a good collection of glass first.. since IMAGE QUALITY is a priority and not fancy useless features...

[hogfaninga]

The D90 is in a completely different league compared to the d40. The D40...as you said, "fancy P&S".

For night photography...fast glass and a *good* tripod for long exposures is the answer.

LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.

[SchneiderMan]

LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.

I can say that you are wrong about one thing, just because the D90 cost a little more and i mean little and because its newer doesnt mean it would be better, nor other slr.
Now your right about experience but i do think im capable of using my D40 up to now. Now i dont know if others would agree with me.
ISo i am right that the D90 is about the same as the D40 in image quality, i hoped not.
I would say appleink has alot of experience with cameras here. thanks again

[hogfaninga]

I can say that you are wrong about one thing, just because the D90 cost a little more and i mean little and because its newer doesnt mean it would be better, nor other slr.
Now your right about experience but i do think im capable of using my D40 up to now. Now i dont know if others would agree with me.
ISo i am right that the D90 is about the same as the D40 in image quality, i hoped not.

I'm not wrong. The D90 costs about $600 more (I know you can't buy the D40 without the kit, but that is about the difference). That is quite a bit of difference in price. The D90 is much better in almost every important category (not all) as it should be considering it is much much newer and costs more.

Now if you are a point and shoot person or don't know how to use those gains to your advantage then Ink is right it really doesn't matter about the body. If you do know how to use it for all it is worth then what I said is correct.

That being said either camera can produce excellent pictures.

[NintendoChick]

I also suggest a 50mm (either f/1.8 or 1.4) and a tripod. :)

[taylorwilsdon]

Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.

First off, he's a point and shoot user. I'm assuming he's using the D40 on auto mode. That means that the 50mm f/1.8, which won't autofocus on his D40, will blow his mind.

Secondly, the D90 is not even in the same ballpark as the D40. They aren't "about the same." The D90 is so much better. High ISO, image quality, focus capabilities, its all leaps and bounds better. JPG image processing will also be much improved.

If you can afford the D90, get it. Its a much better camera. If you just want faster glass, look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G. Both will autofocus on your camera, they're about $400 retail and will let you shoot at night with much greater ease.

[Apple Ink]

Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.

First off, he's a point and shoot user. I'm assuming he's using the D40 on auto mode. That means that the 50mm f/1.8, which won't autofocus on his D40, will blow his mind.

Secondly, the D90 is not even in the same ballpark as the D40. They aren't "about the same." The D90 is so much better. High ISO, image quality, focus capabilities, its all leaps and bounds better. JPG image processing will also be much improved.

If you can afford the D90, get it. Its a much better camera. If you just want faster glass, look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G. Both will autofocus on your camera, they're about $400 retail and will let you shoot at night with much greater ease.

Yes even I recommend the 50mm f1.4 since its autofocus or the newer AF-S 50mm f1.8 !
And clearly the chap is really interested in photography... his main aim should be to gather up more glass than a better body. He has a DSLR (with way less features) and he has a $1000 to spend... the answer is clear as crystal.. get glass and get a new camera later. Because ultimately even he gets the D90 after spending a whole load... its pretty useless! And using a 55-200.. a $150 lens on a $1500 body is.. er.. how should I put it.. LAUGHABLE!

Besides.. completely irrespective of the current situation... in your own language.. you'd suggest a $1500 camera to a pns user... who equally makes the camera a pns ???? o_O

[SchneiderMan]

Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.

First off, he's a point and shoot user. I'm assuming he's using the D40 on auto mode. That means that the 50mm f/1.8, which won't autofocus on his D40, will blow his mind.

Secondly, the D90 is not even in the same ballpark as the D40. They aren't "about the same." The D90 is so much better. High ISO, image quality, focus capabilities, its all leaps and bounds better. JPG image processing will also be much improved.

If you can afford the D90, get it. Its a much better camera. If you just want faster glass, look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G. Both will autofocus on your camera, they're about $400 retail and will let you shoot at night with much greater ease.

The only mode i dont use is the Auto mode lol, i thought the D90 would be better but wasnt really sure that why i came here. now i want to move on from the d40 because i dont feel its right for me anymore and i want to move to a better slr.. I use the manuel focus alot because my d40 isnt the best for autofocus sometimes. I know the d90 has better iso im just afraid nikon would treat it like the d60 family, they came out with the d40x and later called it the d60 basically. Thanks
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af

edit, apple ink
Does the kit lens with the d90 a good choice or would it be better to just get the body and add a better lens?
Amazon has the body for about $800 now and it will get lower in time. I got my d40 when it was $600 lol
Maybe ill go crazy and get a d300 and be done with it later on haha
thanks!

[Apple Ink]

The only mode i dont use is the Auto mode lol, i thought the D90 would be better but wasnt really sure that why i came here. now i want to move on from the d40 because i dont feel its right for me anymore and i want to move to a better slr.. I use the manuel focus alot because my d40 isnt the best for autofocus sometimes. I know the d90 has better iso im just afraid nikon would treat it like the d60 family, they came out with the d40x and later called it the d60 basically. Thanks
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af

edit, apple ink
Does the kit lens with the d90 a good choice or would it be better to just get the body and add a better lens? thanks!

The Nikon D90 ships with the Nikkor 18-105mm. Its definitely better than the 18-55 but I do find a problem with CA..... Very high sharpness and excellent resolution..... In all very good lens. Much better than 18-55. Also consider the Nikkor 18-70. The 16-85 is even better and really expensive. Google all and read reviews and decide for yourself!

But I do think the 18-105 is a fine lens for your usage..

[SchneiderMan]

The Nikon D90 ships with the Nikkor 18-105mm. Its definitely better than the 18-55 but I do find a problem with CA..... Very high sharpness and excellent resolution..... In all very good lens. Much better than 18-55. Also consider the Nikkor 18-70. The 16-85 is even better and really expensive. Google all and read reviews and decide for yourself!

But I do think the 18-105 is a fine lens for your usage..

Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens; last question would you say that the D90 is a professional level camera? maybe like the
D80
I see nikon doesnt call the D90 a professional camera

[Apple Ink]

Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens; last question would you say that the D90 is a professional level camera? maybe like the D80

It definitely isnt for beginners or casual hobbyists.. neither do you expect them to pay $1300 for a camera...

But you should keep in mind.. even the D90 doesnt have a built in motor.. meaning the old 50mm 1.8 is still manual focus.. for a built in AF motor... your only option is the D300 and above! But I do believe Nikon has some good new lenses without the need for inbuilt AF motor. Besides you always have Tamron and Sigma and Tokina, though these should be your second priority after Nikkors....

In the end.. the decision is yours!

[hogfaninga]

Like the D80, the D90 is a consumer camera. You have to pay a lot more for a professional quality camera. That doesn't mean the D90 isn't capable. Build wise it still has a plastic shell. The D100, D200, D300, D700, and Nikons higher pro cameras are made of magnesium alloy and not plastic.

[hogfaninga]

It definitely isnt for beginners or casual hobbyists.. neither do you expect them to pay $1300 for a camera...

But you should keep in mind.. even the D90 doesnt have a built in motor.. meaning the old 50mm 1.8 is still manual focus.. for a built in AF motor... your only option is the D300 and above! But I do believe Nikon has some good new lenses without the need for inbuilt AF motor. Besides you always have Tamron and Sigma and Tokina, though these should be your second priority after Nikkors....

In the end.. the decision is yours!

I take it you don't own a Nikon or know too much about them. The D90 does have a built in motor. Which means it can af the 50mm 1.8. It also has those fancy scene modes for the beginner. It is great for someone's first dslr if they got the money and take pics of their kids.

[SchneiderMan]

Hahaha i dont take pics of kids :D
Im thinking its still a beginner slr and i thought for that price it shouldnt be..

[hogfaninga]

Hahaha i dont take pics of kids :D

I could careless, but thanks for the info.. Hahaha

Of course it can do way more than that. It is great for sports, active kids, well almost anything. It is a nice camera. That being said I don't care what you do. I just want the correct info to be presented for others and the D90 has a built in AF motor.

[Apple Ink]

No I'm sorry for my ignorance but being a Canon EOS system user that I am... I am by mercy of God pardoned all these ridiculous errs that Nikon has...

And a minute ago... this is what you said in another thread... contrary I believe..

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7004385&postcount=7

The D90 doesn't accept those older lenses. The D300 does.

[hogfaninga]

No I'm sorry for my ignorance but being a Canon EOS system user that I am... I am by mercy of God pardoned all these ridiculous errs that Nikon has...

And a minute ago... this is what you said in another thread... contrary I believe..

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7004385&postcount=7

That is right. The D90 has a built in motor, but it can't use older legacy lenses like the D300 can. It is a big reason many choose the D300 over the D90.

I misread what you meant on that thread. I thought you meant legacy lenses since the OP in that thread mentioned he had a legacy lens.

I don't even try to learn all the stupid Canon errrrs.

[dL.]

I recently borrowed my friend's D90 for a concert. I currently own a D40, and I can say the D90 is way better than D40. With my same set of skills, I am able to produce far better quality pictures from a D90 than from a D40.

Put it this way, D90 makes it easier for one to produce great image while D40 may require further post processing to get there.

These are the pics I took from D90: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dshleung/sets/72157612931769946/

The rest of them in my photostream are D40 :P

dL

[Apple Ink]

dL.: You are using some very high end lenses there... the 18-135 is a very nice lens as compared to the 18-55 gen 1 which ships with the D40.

And you can ask anyone... your D40 30mm 1.4 pics are way more beautiful.

Finally... I'm ready to battle every single member of this forum with the renowned fact that a camera is merely a tool!

[SchneiderMan]

I recently borrowed my friend's D90 for a concert. I currently own a D40, and I can say the D90 is way better than D40. With my same set of skills, I am able to produce far better quality pictures from a D90 than from a D40.

Put it this way, D90 makes it easier for one to produce great image while D40 may require further post processing to get there.

These are the pics I took from D90: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dshleung/sets/72157612931769946/

The rest of them in my photostream are D40 :P

dL

Not bad, how close where you to the stage? how far did you zoom in? thanks!

[wheelhot]

aaarghhh, it doesn't matter what body you have, it doesnt matter what label Nikon put on their DSLR, as long as you dont have good lenses to go along with your DSLR body, it doesn't matter if you have a pro body. Heck, if you put a pro lens (meaning very good) on a D60, you can get sharper images then a stock kit lens fit on Nikon D300 (which can be considered as pro level).

The only time you will need to take body into concern is when you are shooting sports. Other then that, glasses and lighting is the things that will improve your photographs!!!.

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 but i really dont want it to be like or in the range of the D40. Im thinking its just for noobs too like the D40? Am i wrong about this?
What i really want to know if its better then the D40/D60 group.
Frankly speaking, you will be surprised at some of the pictures produced by this fancy point and shoot quality noob DSLR. And to answer your question, yea the D90 is better then the D40/D60 group (I bet you read KenRockwell).

[leighonigar]

Thanks
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af



Careful here, make sure you get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S (NOT AF-D) if you want it to autofocus on a D40. The Sigma 30mm has 'HSM' which is broadly the same thing. So that's ok. The 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4 AF or AF-D Nikkors will not.

I'm not sure what has been said. This thread is confusing. Essentially, and for the moment I would advocate a good tripod, even above the 50mms. Could you perhaps post a night shot you're not happy with? It would then be easier to see what your problems were (noise, focus, exposure, camera-shake etc.).

[JDDavis]

All I can relate is my experience as I'm not a technical expert on all things Nikon. I've used a D40, a D40x, and now I currently have a D90. I'll just reiterate what has been said. The lense makes a huge difference. I will say that I would much rather shoot with with the D40x over the D40 and I prefer the D90 far more than both. (I have not used a D60 or D80). I don't know if the D40x can autofocus the 50mm 1.8 but the D90 can and it is an outstanding lense for the price. I spent several evenings when I first got the D90 and that lense amazed at how dimly lit I could take a pic with no flash. Anyway, I can absolutely vouch for the D90. I chose it over the D300 (mainly for size and weight considerations) and I have the 18-200 VRII and a 50mm 1.8 and am very happy with both. The 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses that came with the D40x are good but the D90 with the 18-200 and 50mm are for sure a big step up.

[numbersyx]

LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.

The CMOS sensor in the D90 pretty much silences this proposition.

[Apple Ink]

The CMOS sensor in the D90 pretty much silences this proposition.

Your point.....

I hope you're not trying to say that if you buy a 3 year old toddler a D90.. just because it has a 'CMOS' he'll click some million dollar photos without bothering about the usual crap like composition and lighting and etc... ???

[rogersmj]

No kidding. There is some astonishingly bad assumptions going on in this thread. You think the D40 can't make good pictures? Look around on Flickr. There are tons of gorgeous shots made from the D40.

The D90 has a better sensor, a built-in autofocus motor, more AF points, more physical controls, etc...it will aid you in making photos, it will perhaps speed up some of the work required to set various settings and will enable you to autofocus with older glass. It will not fix your photographic technique. I'm not saying don't get a D90, because I myself am planning on upgrading from the D40 to the D90 soon, but almost everyone in this thread is blaming the D40 for bad pictures. That's crap. It will make beautiful pictures, even with the kit lens -- which, while not fast, is pretty dang sharp for a kit lens.

[El Cabong]

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots
like i said ill be getting the nikkor 50mm f/1.4 af
Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens;

Which lens are you actually planning to get? If you're getting the 50mm, make sure you get the AF-S and not the AF-D lens, as only the former will autofocus on your D40. What exactly is it that you're shooting at night? If it's something moving, then the VR lens won't help you much, but the f/1.4 lens definitely will (although I'm surprised no one has suggested a good flash); however, if it's stationary, and you're doing long exposures, fast glass is pointless (unless you really need shallow DOF), and you'd be better off investing in a good tripod (i.e. Bogen/Manfrotto, etc).

The D90 is a better camera because it offers improved autofocusing and slightly better manual control along with its higher-resolution sensor, but it's not a substitute for a good lens, and certainly not a substitute for a good photographer.

That said, I love my D300.

Also,
The CMOS sensor in the D90 pretty much silences this proposition.

Yes, absolutely. Silenced. People really are not to blame for bad photos, unless they're blamed for not buying a D90. Because I know that blurry, poorly composed, overexposed photos are automatically made amazing when they're shot using the magic of a CMOS SENSOR. In fact, a chimp throwing a D90 at a brick wall will somehow end up taking a better photo than a decent photographer with the so-inferior-it-might-as-well-be-a-tree-branch D40. Thanks, numbersyx, for clearing this up for all of us.

[leighonigar]

No kidding. There is some astonishingly bad assumptions going on in this thread. You think the D40 can't make good pictures? Look around on Flickr. There are tons of gorgeous shots made from the D40.


Agreed. This thread is garbled.

[TenPoundMonkey]

In fact, a chimp throwing a D90 at a brick wall will somehow end up taking a better photo than a decent photographer with the so-inferior-it-might-as-well-be-a-tree-branch D40. Thanks, numbersyx, for clearing this up for all of us.

hilarious...

This is a heck of a thread... we've got canon people throwing in false technical details about Nikons, the OP has now decided to buy at least 3 different lenses, CMOS cures all ills... wow.

To the OP-
get a good flash with a diffuser (SB-600, SB-800, SB-900), and a fast prime lens... play with this for awhile. Your D40 IS capable of taking very nice pics, moving up to a D90 won't magically fix any of your problems.

And, take it easy with "pro" and "consumer" etc... Any camera is capable of taking great shots with a great photographer. But the D90 is still considered "consumer", then the D300/D700 for "prosumer" and the D3/D3X for "pro". Then you're spending up to $8000 for the body. None of those cameras will automatically make your pictures better. The lenses and your skill are way more important than what body you use.

[jaseone]

Hilarity aside...

Schneiderman,

What exactly aren't you happy with in regards to the shots from your D40? Are they too noisy? Are they not in focus?

Why not provide some example shots that you aren't happy with and hope to have improved with purchasing a new camera body?

[66217]

I have to agree with previous posters, this thread has some very bad recommendations.

Don't buy a D90 if you've just had your D40 for 1 year. Believe me, your photos won't be any better than with the D40. Even if you bough the D300, your photos would look almost the same. Yes, the D90/D300 have much better ISO performance, but as for what I read, you are also looking for better photos in daylight, and the D40 and D90/D300 are the same here.

My recommendations:
- Get a fast prime. And invest on good glass.
- Get a decent tripod.
- Get an external flash. I would sugest avoiding the SB-400, and go for the SB-600.

Once you have the previous equipment, go for a better camera. Your D40 can easily last you a couple of years. If you can, try and use a 80-200 f/2.8, a 50 f/1.4, a 17-55 f/2.8, or any other pro Nikkor lens. Then you would know that what you need is not a "fancy" camera, but good glass.


So its worth getting a 50mm lens? ii dont know anything about 50mm lenses, basically the 50mm lens would be like my 18-55 when its in full zoom?


Definitely worth it. Yes, the 50mm f/1.4 would be the same as being ay 50mm in your kit lens (regarding focal length only), but the amount of light the lens would let pass is MUCH MUCH more. The same goes for sharpness. It's a day & night difference.

Great thanks guys, now for day shooting hands down the D90 is better by more then double? I really want to get better more pro looking pictures in daylight. D40 isnt really doing it after more then a year. For now im getting the 50mm nikkor glass :D

A D90 won't give you better images at daylight. Even a D3x won't give you better photos if you use a kit lens.

Thanks i think i made up my mind, i really like that 18-105mm lens; last question would you say that the D90 is a professional level camera? maybe like the
D80
I see nikon doesnt call the D90 a professional camera

Something tells me you want the D90 just to look more pro?:p

No, the D90 isn't what professionals use, most would use a D3/D700, and maybe a D300. But again, a professional isn't made because he has an expensive camera, but because he knows how to take the good photos. Meaning that, in good lighting, he would be able to get the same photo with a D40 or a D3.

And beware, the 18-105 isn't a good lens. It has (as far as I remember) a plastic mount and is not an improvement from your 18-55. What you need is faster glass. Look for lenses that have f/2.8 in their name. Or look at the 16-85, which has received some amazing reviews.


Finally... I'm ready to battle every single member of this forum with the renowned fact that a camera is merely a tool!

But, it is merely a tool only.:)

I'm ready to battle any single member of this forum with the incorrect fact that a "good" (pro, superior, etc) camera can get you better photos in day to day use than a "fancy P&S".:)

[Apple Ink]

Leave it.... sorry!

[Apple Ink]

Roco... then we'll be fighting a lot of people together....:)

[66217]

EDIT: OK, I'm confused Apple Ink, are you saying you are of the idea a good camera won't help you get better photos? If so, great minds think alike. =)

[jaseone]

For more examples of the images a D40 is capable of taking, check out the Flickr page for the D40:

http://flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/

[Apple Ink]

Oh dear Lord.... this thread is heading from simple craziness to torturous brutality... I lay my hands of this madness with one last comment:

Pls rank your priorities in the order of your 1) imagination (uber important) 2) Skill (can be honed with time and practice) 3) Lens 4) Body!

Thanks to those who understood me. A special thanks to those who didnt. Thanks a ton to people with some humor....

You made my day...

[leighonigar]

Is there any way we could hold a televised conference on this issue? I think it would be great prime-time TV.

Edit: - I wasn't sure what Apple Ink was saying with the photos either.

[OreoCookie]

I would look into a (used?) D80: you have many more lens options, because the D80 has a built-in focus motor. It also has a much larger viewfinder which does improve your ability to take pictures.

[wheelhot]

Lol...Im signing off from this thread.

To the op, Lens > Body ;)

[Apple Ink]

EDIT: OK, I'm confused Apple Ink, are you saying you are of the idea a good camera won't help you get better photos? If so, great minds think alike. =)

Now you're talking.... and believe me after reading your post I simply fell off my chair o_O... what exactly were you saying THEN. I perfectly understand and comply with your comment in bold and in my quotes...

[ChrisA]

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 .


What you need is a better LENS. If your goal is low light photography you should be looking at lenses that open up to f/1.4 or f/1.8 Or if you must use a zoom lens get one that goes to f/2.8 but you'd be best off using your feet as the "zoom" and going with an f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens.

The other thing you could do is add some light. Get the SB600 flash. The built-in flash really makes pictures look horrible. ANY directly aimed flash will do that. But the SB600 allows you to aim the flash at a wall or ceiling for "bounce flash" and that kind of light is much, much better. But still you would want the faster lens

The D90 body is not more sensitive to light and in itself will not help you problem BUT (big "but" here) the D90 as well as the D80 (or a used D50 or used D70) has a built-in focus motor. You need a body with built-in motor so that you can auto focus lenses that lack their own motors. Most of Nikon's fast primes and zooms lack motors.

Your problem is not with the D40 it's with the cheap f//5.6 lens. Get a better lens and (maybe) a camera that will fit that lens


I don't know how many times I've written here that the way to shop for an SLR is to FIRST find the lens(es) you want THEN buy the body that fits the lens.

But then people simply buy based on price and forget all advice


So my D40 is about the same as the D90? just get a better lens and im set?
thanks guys

And $1000 for a lens is too much for me to spend

Just a minute... You are willing to spend $1,000 on a D90 body but not on a lens? That's wrong Changing out the body will have almost zero efect on your pictures but buying a same price LENS wil make a huge difference in what you can photograph. Also. You will find that your D90 will have a short lifespan. No one uses 10 year old SLR bodies but lenses do last and remain usfull for decades. The $1K lens will still be a nice lens in 20 years while the $1K body will be in a landfill (or re-cycled) in 20 years

[leighonigar]

ChrisA - agreed. But has he ever actually said what he's doing? Is he hand holding at night? I mean... technique and knowing the limits of what you have has to be rule #1. So many people flailing around giving advice and he hasn't even shown us a problem photograph, despite, I think, being asked twice.

[cube]

Sell the D40, get a D50, and just buy a 50/1.8

Or don't spend so much money on a 50/1.4, it's better to get a 30/1.4 instead.

[numbersyx]

D90 is better in every thing except Image Quality...

So anyone who says... an expensive DSLR gets better images... you say HUSH HUSH

Get a good lens like the 16-85 or the 17-55 if you can afford it. It'll do magic I tell you. Think about upgrading when you have a good collection of glass first.. since IMAGE QUALITY is a priority and not fancy useless features...

Actually this is the response I was answering to (my mistake re: the last one).

[numbersyx]

Which lens are you actually planning to get? If you're getting the 50mm, make sure you get the AF-S and not the AF-D lens, as only the former will autofocus on your D40. What exactly is it that you're shooting at night? If it's something moving, then the VR lens won't help you much, but the f/1.4 lens definitely will (although I'm surprised no one has suggested a good flash); however, if it's stationary, and you're doing long exposures, fast glass is pointless (unless you really need shallow DOF), and you'd be better off investing in a good tripod (i.e. Bogen/Manfrotto, etc).

The D90 is a better camera because it offers improved autofocusing and slightly better manual control along with its higher-resolution sensor, but it's not a substitute for a good lens, and certainly not a substitute for a good photographer.

That said, I love my D300.

Also,


Yes, absolutely. Silenced. People really are not to blame for bad photos, unless they're blamed for not buying a D90. Because I know that blurry, poorly composed, overexposed photos are automatically made amazing when they're shot using the magic of a CMOS SENSOR. In fact, a chimp throwing a D90 at a brick wall will somehow end up taking a better photo than a decent photographer with the so-inferior-it-might-as-well-be-a-tree-branch D40. Thanks, numbersyx, for clearing this up for all of us.


Don't be ridiculous. I was talking about image quality. The CMOS sensor will produce better image quality than the CCD sensor in the D40. That automatically makes the D90 better than the d40. No one's arguing about composition, tripods etc.

[jaseone]

I feel a reply coming on along the lines of how the likes of Nasa still use CCD sensors for low light photography and that the beauty of the CMOS sensor is not that it is inherently better but that it is a single chip as opposed to the multiple required for CCD but I'll leave that detailed reply to the expert. ;)

[SchneiderMan]

Hilarity aside...

Schneiderman,

What exactly aren't you happy with in regards to the shots from your D40? Are they too noisy? Are they not in focus?

Why not provide some example shots that you aren't happy with and hope to have improved with purchasing a new camera body?

This pic i had to edit in Aperture to make it look good, it has had alot of noise and its not that sharp. this photo is cropped using the standard 18-55mm lens.

[jaseone]

This pic i had to edit in Aperture to make it look good, it has had alot of noise and its not that sharp. this photo is cropped using the standard 18-55mm lens.

Can you post the original? ISO400 at F/5.6 should not have had a lot of noise.

[SchneiderMan]

Can you post the original? ISO400 at F/5.6 should not have had a lot of noise.

here, i am happy with the bunny one :D

[SpookTheHamster]

This thread has me flabbergasted. I honestly can't believe the advice some people have been giving.

Seriously, just get a better lens. I take all my pictures (http://flickr.com/photos/maaaahtin) (not a very good selection, I admit) with a camera that's nearly 5 years old and I'm still not worried about quality because I use decent lenses. Even the kit lens that came with the D70 is good compared to what you get with the D40.

Get something fast. I had the 50mm f1.4, it's a pain to focus manually because the DOF is so narrow, but it's worth it.

One of the best things about faster lenses is being able to turn the ISO down, it makes a huge difference.

[gnd]

This pic i had to edit in Aperture to make it look good, it has had alot of noise and its not that sharp. this photo is cropped using the standard 18-55mm lens.

The exif info for this photo says this:
175mm, f5.6, 1/800s, ISO400

If those turtles were for example 5 meters away, the depth of field at that point was around 20cm, which is about one turtle deep. That is why the photo doesn't look that sharp. If you would have used f11, you would have had a depth of field of about 40cm. Looking at that photo that would have meant the whole rock, all three turtles. Also, the highlights on the central turtle are blown out, maybe the photo would look a bit better slightly under exposed, maybe half a step.

Are you sure you were using the 18-55mm lens? The turtles were taken at 175mm and the bunny at 90mm ... Maybe it was the 55-200mm lens?

[jaduffy108]

Christ, there is some terrible advice in this thread.



Amen!

[jaseone]

First major difference between the bunny and the turtles, the bunny was shot at f/8 and the turtles were shot at f/5.6, this is why a lot more of the bunny photo is in focus as it has a larger depth of field.

The (sun?) light reflecting off of the turtle shells is rather distracting but to try to do anything about that you would have needed to take the shot with a polarizing filter.

What did you do to the turtle shot in post processing? The original actually looks a LOT better to me.

What specifically don't you like about the turtle shot? I'm suspecting it is the out of focus background, which is simply a result of using F/5.6, if you had have used f/8 then a lot more of the shot would be in focus.

[jaseone]

This thread has me flabbergasted. I honestly can't believe the advice some people have been giving.

Seriously, just get a better lens.

I agree with the comment regarding the poor advice given but given the original poster's recent image examples I also think the "Just get a better lens" advice falls into that category as well. The better advice would be to pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson and learn about the ins and outs of exposure first.

[SchneiderMan]

And there is alot of noise in this low-light photo taken at 1250iso
ok i understand the focal ratio part now thanks
I didnt have a polarizer then but i now got one for $60 so i can also use it for long exposures in daylight.

[jaseone]

And there is alot of noise in this low-light photo taken at 1250iso

What mode was that shot in? Aperture priority? Regardless that is the one shot where a faster lens would have helped as the ISO shouldn't have needed to be bumped to 1250 in those circumstances.

[jaduffy108]

LOL While the D90 is much nicer than the D40 (it is newer and cost a hell of a lot more--so it should), the D40 is a lot more than just a fancy P&S. Well it is more if someone knows what they are doing. People are quick to blame the camera for their crappy pictures when 99% of the time it is the person behind the camera who is the problem.

Hogfan...I stand by my statement. I'm not blaming the camera for "crappy pictures". I agree, the D40 is a capable of impressive IQ, especially considering its cost. You emphasize the person "behind the cam"....great...that's precisely what makes the D90 worth every penny over the D40. The D90 gives the skilled, experienced photographer FAR more creative freedom and FAR better tools than the D40.

The primary target audience for the D40 is someone who wants better IQ with the ease of use of a p&s. The D40 is well designed in this regard.

[hogfaninga]

Hogfan...I stand by my statement. I'm not blaming the camera for "crappy pictures". I agree, the D40 is a capable of impressive IQ, especially considering its cost. You emphasize the person "behind the cam"....great...that's precisely what makes the D90 worth every penny over the D40. The D90 gives the skilled, experienced photographer FAR more creative freedom and FAR better tools than the D40.

The primary target audience for the D40 is someone who wants better IQ with the ease of use of a p&s. The D40 is well designed in this regard.

I must of misinterpreted what you said before then because I agree with everything you just said.

[iTiki]

I just sold my D40 with the 18-55 kit lens, 55-200 and bought a D90. I passed on the 18-105 kit lens after reading many reviews and spent a few extra bucks for the 16-85 (which gets great reviews) and I'm thrilled with the upgrade (both features and PQ). I must say, I was happy with the D40 and took many great (to me :D) photos with it. It was a great place to start, but I was ready to move to the next level. My next lens will be the 70-300VR followed by a Tokina 11-16. I think the D90 with those three lenses will cover 99% of what I want to do until the next upgrade in a couple of years. I have no regrets on starting with the D40, it was just time (for me) to move on.

Mike

[hector]

I agree with the comment regarding the poor advice given but given the original poster's recent image examples I also think the "Just get a better lens" advice falls into that category as well. The better advice would be to pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson and learn about the ins and outs of exposure first.

Hahaha beat me to it.

Can't believe you are the first person on this thread to tell this guy to go away and learn how to use the equipment he already has before spending money on buying stuff he doesn't need.

99% of the advice on this thread is equivalent to telling a guy who doesn't know how to change gear in his BMW that he will go much faster in a Ferrari...

[66217]

Now you're talking.... and believe me after reading your post I simply fell off my chair o_O... what exactly were you saying THEN. I perfectly understand and comply with your comment in bold and in my quotes...

It was a misunderstanding then. And the comment about the photos was just kidding.;) I was just being funny.

At first I thought that you meant that a good camera is better than technique or a new lense.

Cheers.

[cutsman]

Getting a more expensive camera will not magically make your photos better. If you went and bought a D90 tomorrow, your photos will likely be virtually indistinguishable from those taken with your D40... there really isn't that much of an improvement in IQ. The D90 has a little less noise at high ISO and slightly better dynamic range. Other than that, your photos aren't going to improve dramatically. Much of the added cost of the D90 are due to additional convenience features, better build, AF motor, wireless flash triggering, larger LCD, etc.

If your concern is noise when shooting in lowlight, your best bet is to invest in some faster lenses (sigma 30mm f1.4 or nikon AF-S 50mm f1.4), an external flash, and a tripod. You will not be able to shoot decent handheld low light shots with your 18-55/55-200 lenses... regardless of what camera body you have.

If your concern is that the general quality of your shots aren't up to your expectations... well, I'm afraid this is not the fault of the camera body. Get yourself some books or take a photography course at your local college and learn the basics of exposure and composition. Your photos will improve far more from a $300 photography course than dropping $1000+ on a new camera body.

[SchneiderMan]

well thanks to all of you guys that helped
I got this for now
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D :D
http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2137-AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.80/Views/353_2137_AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.80_front.jpg

[jaseone]

well thanks to all of you guys that helped
I got this for now
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D :D
http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2137-AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.80/Views/353_2137_AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.80_front.jpg

Congrats on the purchase! Best of luck with the manual focusing of such a fast prime lens!

How exactly do you expect the new lens to help with shots like the one of the turtle you posted that you are disappointed with? Stopping a faster lens like this one down further is going to make your depth of field even smaller in such shots.

[El Cabong]

well thanks to all of you guys that helped
I got this for now
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D :D
http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2137-AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.80/Views/353_2137_AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.80_front.jpg

Wow. I know that this thread was nearly incomprehensible, but I never would've guessed that the takeaway point would end up being "who needs autofocus, anyway?" On the bright side, you can get practice manually focusing using a sliver-thin depth of field. Sorry if you're disappointed; hope you kept your receipt. Or, you could buy a D90 after all, so that you can use one of the main features of the lens you just bought.

Don't be ridiculous. I was talking about image quality. The CMOS sensor will produce better image quality than the CCD sensor in the D40. That automatically makes the D90 better than the d40. No one's arguing about composition, tripods etc.

Yeah, except that in your original reply, you (accidentally, I gather) quoted someone who conceded that the D90 had many better features than the D40, and pointed out that bad pictures are usually the fault of the photographer('s implied inability to compose shots, use the proper tools, etc). Your one-sentence response was that a CMOS sensor easily negated that argument, and bore no mention of "image quality." However, you're right, and I apologize for ridiculously assuming you paid attention to the content of your own post. Next time, I'll just ignore it.

Additionally, without going into ISO and pixel noise, I'm told that it's pretty obvious that a 12 MP sensor (D90) will outresolve a 6 MP (D40) one, CMOS or no. But thanks again for pointing out other features of the D90's superiority, because simply comparing the number of megapixels doesn't help those of us who don't know which numbers are bigger than other numbers. I know I'm in that group, although I already knew that CMOS has more letters than CCD, which automatically makes it better. Like how Vista is better than OSX, and Betamax is better than Blu-ray. That's how electronic things work, right? I guess that's why everyone used to say that the Canon 10D, with its 6 MP CMOS, produced much better output than the Nikon D200, with its pathetically primitive 10 MP CCD.

Such a sensitive lad.

[LittleCanonKid]

I'm not even sure if the OP is reading the advice in this thread (if he is, he should be careful because there's a lot of crap to wade through to get to the good stuff), so I'm going to compile a list of things in a nice and neat list format.

1. Manual focus with such a shallow DOF is going to be loads of fun. Actually no, I'm joking. Shouldn't you have gotten the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 if you were going to get a lens? I'm not saying that you should've gotten a new lens, but that's the best way to go if you're going down the "new lens" path.

2. Better lens>better body.

3. Just because something is CMOS doesn't mean it's better than CCD... cripes, numbersyx. And even if it is, I don't think the IQ is the biggest of the OP's worries...

4. The person behind the viewfinder can usually be blamed more than the equipment being used.

I'll edit to this and add more if anything else comes up.

[SchneiderMan]

Wait i dont understand whats wrong with manually adjusting the focus?
I know people that got this lens and have a d40 and are happy with it.
Maybe im wrong :confused: i didnt want to spend $1000 on the af-s lens just because its af-s

[LittleCanonKid]

Wait i dont understand whats wrong with manually adjusting the focus?
I know people that got this lens and have a d40 and are happy with it.
Maybe im wrong :confused:When you're dealing with such a small DOF, focus counts. If you're off just a little bit, chances are it'll be noticeable. When you're shooting wide-open, chances are that you won't nail the focus correctly that often.

And, if given the choice, why choose MF over AF? At least the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 lets you do both, if you just want to manually focus for kicks and autofocus when you want the shot.

[SchneiderMan]

When you're dealing with such a small DOF, focus counts. If you're off just a little bit, chances are it'll be noticeable. When you're shooting wide-open, chances are that you won't nail the focus correctly that often.

And, if given the choice, why choose MF over AF? At least the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 lets you do both, if you just want to manually focus for kicks and autofocus when you want the shot.

The only problem is money for a Af-s 50mm lens its just to expensive that you can get a D90 body for its price. I came across this flicker pool with D40's using that lens
http://www.flickr.com/groups/729803@N22/pool/

Maybe there is a low cost Af-s lens other then this? thanks

[LittleCanonKid]

The only problem is money for a Af-s 50mm lens its just to expensive that you can get a D90 body for its price. I came across this flicker pool with D40's using that lens
http://www.flickr.com/groups/729803@N22/pool/

Maybe there is a low cost Af-s lens other then this? thanksThe lens runs around $440, which isn't exactly D90 pricing.

Look at Nikon's lens lineup and pick out lenses you'd eventually like to purchase down the road. If a good chunk of them don't AF on the D40/40x/60, then maybe it's time to upgrade to a body that can.

You can still use the lens you bought, but I think it's just money that could go toward either a lens that'll work better on your D40 or a body that'll AF on lenses you would like to use.

[netdog]

When you're dealing with such a small DOF, focus counts. If you're off just a little bit, chances are it'll be noticeable. When you're shooting wide-open, chances are that you won't nail the focus correctly that often.

And, if given the choice, why choose MF over AF? At least the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 lets you do both, if you just want to manually focus for kicks and autofocus when you want the shot.

Having recently ditched the world of DSLRs for a digital rangefinder, I realize how fat and lazy I had become with auto-everything, and it negatively impacted my photographs.

Manually focussing with a 50mm 1.8 is easy, even when the lens is wide open. I manually focus with a 75mm at f2 that is the equivalent of a 90mm lens on my camera, and while it was challenging at first, choosing your own focus point opens up a lot of possibilities that auto-focus can not offer. AF is not very smart. We are. We are also the creative partners in the photographic process, not our cameras. I have nothing against people using AF all the time, but be careful about advising people against manually focussing. It's not that hard.

[SchneiderMan]

The lens runs around $440, which isn't exactly D90 pricing.

Look at Nikon's lens lineup and pick out lenses you'd eventually like to purchase down the road. If a good chunk of them don't AF on the D40/40x/60, then maybe it's time to upgrade to a body that can.

You can still use the lens you bought, but I think it's just money that could go toward either a lens that'll work better on your D40 or a body that'll AF on lenses you would like to use.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-1-4G/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1233131662&sr=1-1
$966

That lens that i got will be great with the D90 body ill be getting in the future, in the meantime i dont mind using it in manuel focus, i use it alot with my other lenses when auto doesnt work out for me. thanks

[leighonigar]

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-1-4G/dp/B001GCVA0U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1233131662&sr=1-1
$966

That lens that i got will be great with the D90 body ill be getting in the future, in the meantime i dont mind using it in manuel focus, i use it alot with my other lenses when auto doesnt work out for me. thanks


I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun. I manually focus old primes on my S5, if I'm honest, it's more miss than hit especially when I have to 'think fast!' (partly as nikon lenses focus the opposite way to the sigma ones I normally use, and also because the focusing screen is dreadful for MF).

On the price of that lens, '$966' is a completely disreputable price. It's no more than $500 anywhere else, usually less. A simple Google demonstrates that.

[jaseone]

That lens that i got will be great with the D90 body ill be getting in the future, in the meantime i dont mind using it in manuel focus, i use it alot with my other lenses when auto doesnt work out for me. thanks

That still doesn't explain how you expect the new lens to improve the example photo of the turtles you provided? I'm very curious as to your logic with that.

[leighonigar]

That still doesn't explain how you expect the new lens to improve the example photo of the turtles you provided? I'm very curious as to your logic with that.

Remember, the turtles were photographed at 175mm, I suspect, technically, the 50mm will deliver a worse photograph in similar circumstances. But 'whatevs'.

[Apple Ink]

The pictures you've taken are beautiful... no doubt! I'd require a CPR if any one could show me some better photos with an 18-55 non VR gen 1 kit... (and no.. I dont want retorts on this. please dont post your pics..)

Once again.. I'd recommend you please get your priorities correct! I'm not pointing particularly to a specific lens... just saying that a $1400 lens on a $400 body is actually much better than a $400 lens on a $1400 body!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjasha/3225144456/meta/

This photo made the front page of Explore... something that only one person per probably a million can boast of.... it was taken on a D40 with a 50mm prime lens.....

[jaseone]

The pictures you've taken are beautiful... no doubt! I'd require a CPR if any one could show me some better photos with an 18-55 non VR gen 1 kit... (and no.. I dont want retorts on this. please dont post your pics..)

Once again.. I'd recommend you please get your priorities correct! I'm not pointing particularly to a specific lens... just saying that a $1400 lens on a $400 body is actually much better than a $400 lens on a $1400 body!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjasha/3225144456/meta/

This photo made the front page of Explore... something that only one person per probably a million can boast of.... it was taken on a D40 with a 50mm prime lens.....

Who and what was that in reply to? :confused:

This never should have been about what is better between upgrading a body and upgrading a lens but rather what the original poster isn't happy with in regards to his photos and nothing he has shown would be improved by either a new body or a new lens.

[SchneiderMan]

That still doesn't explain how you expect the new lens to improve the example photo of the turtles you provided? I'm very curious as to your logic with that.

Im just confused as hell
Would a 50mm F/1.4 Af-S be a better and more satisfying lens for all my
work?
Im calling to cancel my order for the lens lol

[Apple Ink]

The only problem is money for a Af-s 50mm lens its just to expensive that you can get a D90 body for its price. I came across this flicker pool with D40's using that lens
http://www.flickr.com/groups/729803@N22/pool/

Maybe there is a low cost Af-s lens other then this? thanks

Who and what was that in reply to? :confused:

This never should have been about what is better between upgrading a body and upgrading a lens but rather what the original poster isn't happy with in regards to his photos and nothing he has shown would be improved by either a new body or a new lens.

I believe you can easily interpret that the guy is still having a hard time absorbing the fact that in the World of DSLRs its the Lens thats more important and not the body! He's clearly thinking that spending the same amount of moolah on a lens as a body is an overkill and not worth....

What kind of improvements he want I dont know... seems like he needs to work on composition.... he's trying real hard to get there but its the composition that comes in b/w.....
In any case... the point arose of lens v/s body and as a beginner it was important that he be told with full clarity (which this thread severely lacks) that a lens is way more important than a body!

AF is very critical especially for you.... dont get AF on a lens and I'm positive you'll be chucking it out of your window in o time!

Why dont you do something... acquaint yourself with all the technical stuff like aperture and IS and focal length.... the question you ask above^ will be much better answered by you then....

[jaseone]

Im just confused as hell
Would a 50mm F/1.4 Af-S be a better and more satisfying lens for all my
work?

With the one example you provided the answer is a resounding NO it won't be better and more satisfying for you, how is a 50mm prime lens going to help you with a photo that was taken at a focal length of 175mm?

You still haven't answered as to what exactly you would like to see improved in the turtles photo, myself and others have commented it is likely the depth of field making the background out of focus but you haven't replied to that at all?

[SchneiderMan]

I think the turtle shot was with my 55-200mm but thats just the lens i took it with at the time. I dont care to take a different shot prospective with a 50mm lens. I would like to take better focused shots and bokeh, i want a more clear and sharp photos with a new lens. I wasnt really happy with the quality of the photos, i dont know if its because i need a better lens.. But that what you guys are saying that i need a better lens on my d40.
Im also not talking spacificly about that turtle pic.
(ok canceled the 50mm non af-s for now haha)

Apple ink, you guys are against af so i might just pull the trigger and get that 50mm F/1.4 af-s or the 30mm F/1.4 hsm by sigma

[jaseone]

My brain hurts...

I don't think you need a new body or a new lens but rather to spend some time learning to use what you have already. Stop reading Lens Lust forums & the like to learn terms like bokeh, ignore all the threads of people taking great photos with the dirty thirty, the nifty fifty etc. The majority of those people could take great photos regardless of the body + lens combination.

As I suggested before pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson or any other good photography book or take a photography course or heck just read your camera's manual and above all just practice, practice, practice!

Then post pictures here you aren't happy with, stating why and then we can give you feedback on how to improve your photos, it may well end up being that we recommend a new lens but at this stage I think that would be bad advice.

[Phrasikleia]

When you're dealing with such a small DOF, focus counts. If you're off just a little bit, chances are it'll be noticeable. When you're shooting wide-open, chances are that you won't nail the focus correctly that often.

And, if given the choice, why choose MF over AF? At least the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 lets you do both, if you just want to manually focus for kicks and autofocus when you want the shot.

Hmm. I actually find that I always get better accuracy with manual focus. If I really want to put the the focus in a very particular place, I switch over to manual, magnify 10x with Live View, and dial it right in. With AF and a really thin DOF, the slightest amount of camera shake can throw things off.

[jaseone]

Hmm. I actually find that I always get better accuracy with manual focus. If I really want to put the the focus in a very particular place, I switch over to manual, zoom in 10x with Live View, and dial it right in. With AF and a really thin DOF, the slightest amount of camera shake can throw things off.

Oh now you've done it... Mentioned Live View that is! Now the Original Poster is going to want the D90 again! :D

[Phrasikleia]

Oh now you've done it... Mentioned Live View that is! Now the Original Poster is going to want the D90 again! :D

Oops. My bad. ;)

[aquajet]

I think the turtle shot was with my 55-200mm but thats just the lens i took it with at the time. I dont care to take a different shot prospective with a 50mm lens. I would like to take better focused shots and bokeh, i want a more clear and sharp photos with a new lens. I wasnt really happy with the quality of the photos, i dont know if its because i need a better lens.. But that what you guys are saying that i need a better lens on my d40.
Im also not talking spacificly about that turtle pic.
(ok canceled the 50mm non af-s for now haha)

Apple ink, you guys are against af so i might just pull the trigger and get that 50mm F/1.4 af-s or the 30mm F/1.4 hsm by sigma


All the information you need to start taking pictures that meet your expectations has already been briefly outlined for you in this thread. Please go back and re-read the sections of the thread that talk about aperture and depth of field.

Sorry for being so blunt, but you clearly do not know what you're doing when you pick up your camera and start taking pictures. Go read and study up on the basics. Somebody has already suggested a book to get you started. Your problem right now is that you do not have a firm grasp of the basics, and you are the only one to blame if the pictures don't meet your expectations because you do not yet know how to use your tools properly.

[H2Ockey]

SchneiderMan,
Read this post by Jaseone I quoted below. Then do what it says. Next time you are thinking of purchasing a new lens or body read this post agian, then re-read some chapters of the book. Get an off camera flash, get a tripod and remot cord and keep practicing.
Post pictures for critique.
THEN
when the critique comes back with things like "Wow, great shot perfect composition and sharp focus, but I would have liked better isolation and bokeh."
THEN research a new lens and get one that suits your shooting style as far as focal length and zoom versus prime. A 1.4 50mm is a great lens but is it great for you? I don't own one and I won't unless I move to a full frame sensor because I don't like the Field of view. I prefer a 30 or 35mm instead. Just because EVERYONE EVERYWHERE loves the lens doesn't mean I'm going to go get it in hopes of magically producing better pictures. Because it's NOT FOR ME.
Understand exposure first. How does ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture relate, what is 'good light' versus flat light?
Then understand composition and framing
Then choose what types of photography you like
THEN choose the lens that suits the photography


My brain hurts...

I don't think you need a new body or a new lens but rather to spend some time learning to use what you have already. Stop reading Lens Lust forums & the like to learn terms like bokeh, ignore all the threads of people taking great photos with the dirty thirty, the nifty fifty etc. The majority of those people could take great photos regardless of the body + lens combination.

As I suggested before pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson or any other good photography book or take a photography course or heck just read your camera's manual and above all just practice, practice, practice!

Then post pictures here you aren't happy with, stating why and then we can give you feedback on how to improve your photos, it may well end up being that we recommend a new lens but at this stage I think that would be bad advice.

[ChrisA]

Wait i dont understand whats wrong with manually adjusting the focus?
I know people that got this lens and have a d40 and are happy with it.
Maybe im wrong :confused: i didnt want to spend $1000 on the af-s lens just because its af-s

Older manual focus cameras had viewfinders that made it easy to manually focus. New cameras seem to lack optical focus aids, like a split prism. Also you will find that focus is more critical if you have as f/1.4 lens as the depth of field is so shallow.

If your problem is light, then way not fix that. Add more light. Buy a flash. The SB600 is good but if you are really strapped for cash any light will work as long as it can be aimed up and or to the side. For daylight shots a cheap sheet of white cardboard can act as a refector and provide fill-in light. If you don't want to spend the $$ on a lens, lighting is cheaper.

[leighonigar]

Older manual focus cameras had viewfinders that made it easy to manually focus. New cameras seem to lack optical focus aids, like a split prism. Also you will find that focus is more critical if you have as f/1.4 lens as the depth of field is so shallow.


It's infuriating! I've just taken my 28mm off my S5 because it is just a bit too slow and a little too hit and miss with the small, bright but splitless finders that come in today's cameras. Perhaps I'll get a splitscreen for it one day.

In the mean time, best of luck to the OP! Learn, learn, learn!

[wheelhot]

Post pictures for critique.
THEN
when the critique comes back with things like "Wow, great shot perfect composition and sharp focus, but I would have liked better isolation and bokeh."
THEN research a new lens and get one that suits your shooting style as far as focal length and zoom versus prime. A 1.4 50mm is a great lens but is it great for you? I don't own one and I won't unless I move to a full frame sensor because I don't like the Field of view. I prefer a 30 or 35mm instead. Just because EVERYONE EVERYWHERE loves the lens doesn't mean I'm going to go get it in hopes of magically producing better pictures. Because it's NOT FOR ME.
Understand exposure first. How does ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture relate, what is 'good light' versus flat light?
Then understand composition and framing
Then choose what types of photography you like
THEN choose the lens that suits the photography

Wow, great tip, Im going to bookmark this and do some reading on the things you said :)

[El Cabong]

I own the D40 and im not happy at all with its performance in night shoots and i think its just a fancy point and shoot quality..
Now im looking to get the D90 but i really dont want it to be like or in the range of the D40. Im thinking its just for noobs too like the D40? Am i wrong about this?
What i really want to know if its better then the D40/D60 group.
Thanks for your help on this.
And there is alot of noise in this low-light photo taken at 1250iso
ok i understand the focal ratio part now thanks
I didnt have a polarizer then but i now got one for $60 so i can also use it for long exposures in daylight.
I think the turtle shot was with my 55-200mm but thats just the lens i took it with at the time. I dont care to take a different shot prospective with a 50mm lens. I would like to take better focused shots and bokeh, i want a more clear and sharp photos with a new lens. I wasnt really happy with the quality of the photos, i dont know if its because i need a better lens.. But that what you guys are saying that i need a better lens on my d40.
Im also not talking spacificly about that turtle pic.
(ok canceled the 50mm non af-s for now haha)

This is insane.

I'm certain that the reason everyone suggested a large aperture lens was because you gave people the impression in your original post that you were having trouble doing nighttime photography with your kit lens(es). Yet, when people ask to see evidence of the troubles you're having, you first post two photos taken in broad daylight, and suddenly your issue with your equipment is some mixture of lens sharpness and DOF that's too broad?

First of all, believe it or not, your kit lenses are plenty sharp, at all focal lengths, even at their maximum apertures. Detailed reviews are available online that show this (dpreview, slrgear). If you're not getting sharp photos, especially when you're stopped down, unless you have defective equipment, your lens and/or camera is not to blame. Second, your sudden interest in bokeh is perplexing, since you never mentioned disliking the bokeh in your turtle shot. Are you wanting to do portraits, now? It's unclear what you're trying to do with your photography at all, other than experiment, and you don't need new equipment for that (unless you're doing long exposures at night without a tripod, in which case, get a tripod).

Finally, you seem to have a huge lack of knowledge about using cameras, an apparent inability to do minor internet research, and the misconception that buying more equipment will solve your problems. I mean, since your original post, you've shown that you don't fully understand focal length ("i dont know anything about 50mm lenses, basically the 50mm lens would be like my 18-55 when its in full zoom?"), aperture (as shown by the many people in the thread that have had to explain it), its relationship to depth of field (as you didn't understand why all your turtles weren't in focus), filters (polarizing filters aren't really for long exposures, and long exposures and daylight don't really mix), exposure, shutter speed (the blurriness of your Mac photo has more to do with the 1/8 exposure time than the D40's high ISO performance), and basic composition (as shown by your preference for the rabbit smack dab in the middle of the frame).

You also ordered (and thankfully canceled) a lens that wouldn't fully function on your camera, could only find a grossly overpriced alternative (the 50mm AF-S retails for around $500, not $900, and Amazon is not the only place to buy lenses), and thought that the "II" autofocus points on the D90 meant two (when 11 means eleven). All these things could have been rectified with a Google search.

New advice: don't buy anything, and learn how to better use your camera. You've spent only a year with it, and it shows in many ways. Your enthusiasm is great. With more experience, you'll be able to make a more informed choice in the future, and you'll save money now for a better lens/flash/camera then. Post things for critique every once in a while. As you're doing that, you should do the unglamorous work of reading up on photographic technique (not just on the internet) and looking at past work of good photographers (again, not just on the internet), as it will do more more for your own work than new equipment ever will. Once you learn more about photography and the sort that most appeals to you, you'll be able to pick the equipment that's best suited to your work. New equipment is useless if you don't already know how to use your current gear properly.

Especially in this economy.

[SchneiderMan]

Thanks for the tips,
What do you say about these photos? i didnt like the iphone pic because its not really in focus and its not sharp and clear.
I really appreciate all your help!
El cabong your right
i thought i can get better results with better lenses with what i know now.

[leighonigar]

Thanks for the tips,
What do you say about these photos? i didnt like the iphone pic because its not really in focus and its not sharp and clear.
I really appreciate all your help!


The iphone is, I think, in focus. At least, one end of it is but again it's too dark and so the camera has had to up the ISO to 1250 and increase the amount of time that the shutter is open to 1/8 seconds. That's why it's blurred. Really for indoor things like that you either need a lot of light or some kind of steady mount, a tripod or tilted bookstack or something.

The airport shot is fine, I mean, compositionally I'm sure we could say all kinds of things, but it's ok, sharp enough despite being shot at f/4.2. I'm not sure if the poles want to be in the photo or out of it, what exactly you're doing etc.

The shot of the statue, um. Well, again, it's ok. I think you could have come up with a better angle, waited until the guy was out of the cup etc. Also, perhaps opened up the aperture to throw the background out of focus more. What do you want from this photo? Oh, the ground is tilting oddly.

Advice - think before you shoot. What do you want from the photograph? What do you want to be in focus? Is there enough light for what you're trying to do? How can you make the scene interesting? [and in the case of these, how much distracting cruft can you take out of the frame?]

[Apple Ink]

The iPhone shot looks fine! Its probably the best of them all! The blurry effect is called Bokeh...... and its a really really popular and 'in-demand' effect.... something, again sorry but, Prime lenses with their extremely wide apertures have a mastery on. Its also one of the three most popular ways of inducing depth in your photographs!

The second way is lines..... converging lines! Something you could've used in your Airport photograph but nevertheless, nice pic!

As for the third photograph.... zooming in with PORTRAIT would've yielded better results and more Bokeh differential focus (distinguish b/w in-focus and background)
And.... the whole photography term 'portrait' carved it in the tech industry with all printers distinguishing the orientation of a rectangular sheet as 'portrait' and 'landscape' yet you use landscape to shoot a portrait......

Always consider lighting...... ALWAYS... The statue receiving natural sunlight from the front left would've produced way better results shot from the front due to the introduction of soft shadows then!

[leighonigar]

The iPhone shot looks fine! Its probably the best of them all! The blurry effect is called Bokeh...... and its a really really popular and 'in-demand' effect.... something, again sorry but, Prime lenses with their extremely wide apertures have a mastery on. Its also one of the three most popular ways of inducing depth in your photographs!


Not wishing to disagree, but I think it is a bit blurred due to camera-shake. Albeit perhaps not much. Also, best, how?!

[H2Ockey]

The second way is lines..... converging lines! Something you could've used in your Airport photograph but nevertheless, nice pic!

This just made me think of something that would be great is some online "Assignments" there is a thread here for that, but seems pretty old. Search multiple forums and find one that is current, weekly or monthly assignments where you go out shoot a particular subject and then get feedback on those shots.

It will help you develop and Eye, and a personal style plus you will learn your equipment fully.

[Apple Ink]

Not wishing to disagree, but I think it is a bit blurred due to camera-shake. Albeit perhaps not much. Also, best, how?!

Pardon me for ignoring the details but I didnt consider reading the Exifs....

At any cost sharp or unsharp... I was emphasizing more on composition here... and in that regard I'm pretty sure you cant deny it is! It has the best subject-background differentiation and good lighting.
The Airport has too much lossy light from the window (lossy as in low contrast) and underexposure in certain areas..
The statue... well It took me considerable amount of time deciphering what the photographer wanted to show since I had to put in effort to differentiate the subject from the background..

OP: You shoot in RAW or JPEGs... I think I'm getting what you dislike about your camera...

[SchneiderMan]

Pardon me for ignoring the details but I didnt consider reading the Exifs....

At any cost sharp or unsharp... I was emphasizing more on composition here... and in that regard I'm pretty sure you cant deny it is! It has the best subject-background differentiation and good lighting.
The Airport has too much lossy light from the window (lossy as in low contrast) and underexposure in certain areas..
The statue... well It took me considerable amount of time deciphering what the photographer wanted to show since I had to put in effort to differentiate the subject from the background..

OP: You shoot in RAW or JPEGs... I think I'm getting what you dislike about your camera...

highest jpeg setting and i also bumped up the sharpness in the d40 settings
I want to be able to take crisp shots of mountains, scenery and close up detailed objects
Im reading this btw
http://www.dslrtips.com/lens_guide/Lens_buying_guide.shtml

[Apple Ink]

Try and shoot in RAW.... I know many people will retort here saying that JPEGs are just as fine.... but 'Each and Every Single Photo you take is a Darling Image'... delete 99% of them if you have to but dont waste your Camera's efficiency after paying thrice more if you want it to do what a pns does....

Even iPhoto has Ok.. Ok.. capabilities with RAW..... try and get Ps elements or Aperture if you can... EDIT EDIT EDIT.... increase the saturation, Hue Boost, sharpness, etc... to the best of your judgements! Learn what a histogram is and you'll learn the art of editing...

Crispness again is something unique.... Reduce ISO... dont extend above 800. Your camera applies Noise reduction which is nothing but a modified algorithm of Gaussian Blur.... note gaussian BLUR.. means you'll lose out on crispness trying to aim for less grainy images!

Lenses are another thing... primes are way better in sharpness as compared to Zooms.... but this probably shouldnt concern you so much!

Camera Shake is another.... slow shutter speeds tend to cause blur with even the slightest of camera shake... get a tripod. I know its cumbersome and you'll feel 'weird' and stuff but its inevitable... as and when you delve in photography (I bet you will) with time lapse and HDR its inevitable.... lastly get a VR lens.... the 18-55mm VR is a good cheap option!

Finally..... as a beginner you're demanding too much from yourself! Million dollar photographs aren't produced in one day neither are million dollar photographers....
PRACTICE..... my only advice! Practice.... read stuff on the net and implement! Google Photography Composition and study them and implement them... practice! No lens or camera in the World can compensate for this one thing PRACTICE!

[SchneiderMan]

THanks again haha, i have a gorillapod slr zoom and a big tripod too :D i use them sometimes (yes long exposures) i think im all set with camera gear except external flash.. i have Aperture,PS Cs4,LR, and iPhoto 09 + photomatix pro

I really want to get a new lens now hehe, i know it will give me more influence to get better.. now im thinking macro, tele macro and 50mm :D:p

[leighonigar]

Learn!!!

I know we're not supposed to be encouraging you to buy equipment that currently you don't really know how to use, but the nikon 60mm AF-S micro is a pretty excellent macro lens. Give yourself a year first.

[Phrasikleia]

Try and shoot in RAW.... I know many people will retort here saying that JPEGs are just as fine.... but 'Each and Every Single Photo you take is a Darling Image'...

I'm going to second this motion. Shooting in RAW gives you everything your camera's sensor has to offer. Conversely, if you shoot in JPEG, you're getting a mere subset of what the sensor can record, and you're letting the camera make some important decisions for you. Since you have the software to make use of the RAW images, you really ought to. Then you are in control.

[Apple Ink]

I really want to get a new lens now hehe, i know it will give me more influence to get better.. now im thinking macro, tele macro and 50mm

Thats why I'm neutral on this whole 'lens v/s composition/technique' argument!
you're a beginner and you'll learn about composition with PRACTICE sooner or later. What you require is motivation.... and there's nothing more motivating than a new expensive piece of equipment!
But the problem remains you lose out to easily.... please dont be disheartened with your results.... practice!

Macro... hmmm interesting choice IF you're appreciate nature and have patience! Macro requires a lot of work and imagination... but its the only thing in this World that limitless! A good macro lens (60mm suggested above specially) can also double up as an excellent portrait lens.

i have Aperture,PS Cs4,LR, and iPhoto 09 + photomatix pro

THEN WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING JPEG WITH A DSLR?

[leighonigar]

Macro... hmmm interesting choice IF you're appreciate nature and have patience! Macro requires a lot of work and imagination... but its the only thing in this World that limitless! A good macro lens (60mm suggested above specially) can also double up as an excellent portrait lens.



Yes, the versatility of the lens was why I suggested it. I've used the sigma 50mm Macro as a wander-around lens and it was terrifically better than the 18-70DX I was also using at the time. That lens isn't AF-S (HSM) or at least, it wasn't then. Hence my suggestion of the nikon 60mm. I'm not sure that it's much more expensive than the 50mm AF-S, though, of course, it's a fair bit slower (two stops, but still faster than the kit lenses![OP - aperture I mean]).

[SchneiderMan]

Thats why I'm neutral on this whole 'lens v/s composition/technique' argument!
you're a beginner and you'll learn about composition with PRACTICE sooner or later. What you require is motivation.... and there's nothing more motivating than a new expensive piece of equipment!
But the problem remains you lose out to easily.... please dont be disheartened with your results.... practice!

Macro... hmmm interesting choice IF you're appreciate nature and have patience! Macro requires a lot of work and imagination... but its the only thing in this World that limitless! A good macro lens (60mm suggested above specially) can also double up as an excellent portrait lens.



THEN WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING JPEG WITH A DSLR?

I had to because my sd card was small and as you know raw is alot bigger in size but know i got a 16gb sd so i will shot in raw, i did see i have the option to use both at the same time. Yes i love macro
There is this sigma for a good price
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-5-Macro-Nikon/dp/B000UC26CS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1233209648&sr=1-4
only $325 at adorama

[Apple Ink]

I had to because my sd card was small and as you know raw is alot bigger in size but know i got a 16gb sd so i will shot in raw, i did see i have the option to use both at the same time. Yes i love macro
There is this sigma for a good price
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-5-Macro-Nikon/dp/B000UC26CS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1233209648&sr=1-4

NEVER EVER buy a hemi macro lens.. specially being a zoom that it is... not specific... keep away.. if you want a lens in majority for Macro.... stick to a true macro 1:1 magnification with all floating elements (for focus correction) and a USM/HSM/AF-S etc lens......

The Sigma is a good ZOOM lens and provides customers with a 'casual' side lined macro 'ability'!

[leighonigar]

NEVER EVER buy a hemi macro lens.. specially being a zoom that it is... not specific... keep away.. if you want a lens in majority for Macro.... stick to a true macro 1:1 magnification with all floating elements (for focus correction) and a USM/HSM/AF-S etc lens......

The Sigma is a good ZOOM lens and provides customers with a 'casual' side lined macro 'ability'!

Agreed. I actually use that lens most of the time, but it isn't a real macro lens. It is however a lot of fun!

[SchneiderMan]

Ahhhh okay i got you there, true 1:1 macro
http://www.adorama.com/NK6028AFGU.html?searchinfo=Nikon%2060mm%20f/2.8G%20&item_no=1
The new Af-s really nice

[leighonigar]

Ahhhh okay i got you there, true 1:1 macro
http://www.adorama.com/NK6028AFGU.html?searchinfo=Nikon%2060mm%20f/2.8G%20&item_no=1
The new Af-s really nice

Oh yes. Are you interested in macrophotography then?!

[SchneiderMan]

Oh yes. Are you interested in macrophotography then?!

Dude im interested in everything trust me! i love every possible technic. thats why its also hard for me to decide what i want, im not rich :D
I dont have a specific way of shooting my photos, i basically try everything and thats what i love.

[leighonigar]

Dude im interested in everything trust me! i love every possible technic. thats why its also hard for me to decide what i want, im not rich :D
I dont have a specific way of shooting my photos, i basically try everything and thats what i love.

You might find that it's possible to have some fun with a close-up filter on your 18-55. It's not going to get you as close, or give you the quality, but it's good clean fun! And potentially inexpensive.

[wheelhot]

Dude im interested in everything trust me! i love every possible technic. thats why its also hard for me to decide what i want, im not rich
I dont have a specific way of shooting my photos, i basically try everything and thats what i love.
Aaah okay, well you will love Macro thats for sure cause you can capture soo much without having to travel far. Here is a tip someone tell me before, don't just blankly capture and press you shutter continuously, think before taking the photo, think of which angle will make it interesting or settings or if permission allows it, try a few settings of the same shots. Well dont need to get a new gear yet though, understand your current gear first before indulging into a newer gear =)

Good luck! I like your attitude :thumbsup:

[SchneiderMan]

Thanks to all for taking the time a writing here and giving great tips to me and other members here!

[TenPoundMonkey]

THanks again haha, i have a gorillapod slr zoom and a big tripod too :D i use them sometimes (yes long exposures) i think im all set with camera gear except external flash.. i have Aperture,PS Cs4,LR, and iPhoto 09 + photomatix pro

I really want to get a new lens now hehe, i know it will give me more influence to get better.. now im thinking macro, tele macro and 50mm :D:p

You bought over $1,500 worth of software? Do you know how to use it all? You are all over the place with software and lenses and new cameras... Take a deep breath- you have more than enough stuff, take some time and learn how to use it all. Buying more isn't the answer... use your money on a class at a local college on photography.

I had to because my sd card was small and as you know raw is alot bigger in size but know i got a 16gb sd so i will shot in raw, i did see i have the option to use both at the same time. Yes i love macro.

Don't bother shooting both at once, go RAW and learn to adjust in aperture. SD cards are cheap, no excuse for that... plus, do you really need the space for 1,200+ shots (RAW on a 16G card) in a single shooting session?


I'm not rich :D

If you are serious about this thread at all, then you've really spent a lot on strange things- all that software money would have been better spent on classes or books... You've got all the basics, don't sweat the purchases, good photos are good photos- it doesn't matter what you take them with.

Dude im interested in everything trust me! i love every possible technic. thats why its also hard for me to decide what i want, im not rich :D
I dont have a specific way of shooting my photos, i basically try everything and thats what i love.

Jack of all trades, master of none? Again, take a breath and try concentrating on one or two styles at a time. practice, practice, practice and learn. It's all OK, expect to throw away 99 out of 100 shots. Take your time and think about your pics, it'll come along.

keep it up.

[SchneiderMan]

Yes i use all that software and not only for my photos..
RAW it is then :D

I know you guys will get mad at me but i just had to :D :D
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
I know that prices will go up in a few days so i got this for $430 on amazon

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8869/30077942173b26682cf9uc0.jpg
not my pic, this lens has a crazy 77mm filter!

Im learning and learning thanks again ;)

[Apple Ink]

Good decision! It's one of the best pro grade 50mm prime at 1.4 not only for Nikon but everyone else out there... It's the newest build out thee with really good optics! It's also a great vfm... The only problem.... It's not 'as' light as primes are supposed to be!

Good choice! You'll enjoy it...(hopefully)

[leighonigar]

Yes i use all that software and not only for my photos..
RAW it is then :D

I know you guys will get mad at me but i just had to :D :D
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
I know that prices will go up in a few days so i got this for $430 on amazon

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8869/30077942173b26682cf9uc0.jpg
not my pic, this lens has a crazy 77mm filter!

Im learning and learning thanks again ;)

Dear Lord, have fun with that. My only 50mm is a 1.8 AIS (manual focus) which I picked up in a charity shop with a nikon FM and 28mm for £50... and you say you're not rich! (I'm joking, in tone, though it's true).

Enjoy, perhaps post some pictures when you've got some you're happy (/unhappy) with.

[Cliff3]

I know that prices will go up in a few days so i got this for $430 on amazon

It's Nikon that is raising lens and accessory prices on Feb 1, not Sigma. Have fun with your new toy.

(edit: wish I knew why that thing is so large - it's nearly the same size and weight as my 85 f1.4. Nikon's new 50 is about half the weight and an inch shorter.)

[hogfaninga]

It's Nikon that is raising lens and accessory prices on Feb 1, not Sigma. Have fun with your new toy.

(edit: wish I knew why that thing is so large - it's nearly the same size and weight as my 85 f1.4. Nikon's new 50 is about half the weight and an inch shorter.)

Sigma is raising prices also.

[Cliff3]

Sigma is raising prices also.

Sigma UK only, from what I could find.

[hogfaninga]

Sigma UK only, from what I could find.

U.S. also according to my local camera shop. Not worth debating though.

Nice lens OP.

[leighonigar]

It's Nikon that is raising lens and accessory prices on Feb 1, not Sigma. Have fun with your new toy.

(edit: wish I knew why that thing is so large - it's nearly the same size and weight as my 85 f1.4. Nikon's new 50 is about half the weight and an inch shorter.)

It is pretty confusing isn't it. There must be some design reason for it, I assume they didn't just say 'we need the biggest front element we can make for $400'.

[Cliff3]

It is pretty confusing isn't it. There must be some design reason for it, I assume they didn't just say 'we need the biggest front element we can make for $400'.

The review of this lens on dpreview seems to indicate it's due to an effort to reduce vignetting. Dunno...

[wheelhot]

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Well we wont be angry at you cause you got one of the right next lens every beginner should have ;). After owning a zoom lens, most people will ask a beginner to get a 50mm prime to get use with the idea of having a fix focal length lens, I now know most people who never use primes but owns a DSLR dont like primes cause it requires you to change lens often but I'll say if you need low light performance and very sharp image, then primes is the only way to go :)

[leighonigar]

I had a poke around to see if I could find a photo of this lens on a D40 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kermit71/3052813784/

What chunk!

[svndmvn]

I had a poke around to see if I could find a photo of this lens on a D40 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kermit71/3052813784/

What chunk!

that's a 30mm 1.4 though.

[MacJenn]

I heard mixed reviews on that Sigma lens. Some say it is pretty nice, while others say it isn't worth near the cost they want for it. For the money I would buy the new Nikon one. Sigma has been raising prices, but lowering quality in a lot of their lenses recently.

[leighonigar]

that's a 30mm 1.4 though.

Whoops, so it is. The 50mm is slightly larger in both dimensions (9mm wider, 9mm longer). Even better on pure-pose value.