Moving on from a D40

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by timmyb, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. timmyb macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #1
    I've had my D40 for a year or so and love it, but now want a body with an autofocus motor. I thought I'd be able to put off this jump but the draw of a zoom lens (70-300 in particular) has made this patience aside. £450 for the AF-S compared to £100 for the AF make it a worth the move now.

    I haven't really considered any other criteria at this stage; what else apart from the motor should I look for? Ideally I don't want to pay over £500.
     
  2. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #3
    The AF-D 70-300 is a terrible lens, just so you know.

    The built-in autofocus motor is a great thing for older AF-D lenses that happen to remain Nikon's best in their focal lengths (i.e. the wide primes and lenses like the 85/1.8 and 1.4, along with the 180). There are no AF-S equivalents for those as yet.

    I moved on from a D40 to a D300, though I wish I just just moved on to the D700 straight away (which is what I have now). Would have been cheaper in the long run.
     
  3. timmyb thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    I like the big screen on the D40 so don't think I could go to a D50. Also I'm not too keen on the idea of buying from ebay with dust marks etc unknown. Alas the D300/700 are out of range.

    I think it's becoming a choice between the D80 & 90. Is £425 for a used D80 with a 12 month warranty a good deal? The D90 with the 18-105 kit lens looks great, but it's £800. Is it worth £375 more, (or more like £200 taking the lens out.) The video feature of the D90 doesn't interest me.
     
  4. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #5
    I agree with the philosophy here. There has only been a handful of lenses released recently by Nikon in the past 7 or 8 years which has not been AF-S, and those are either the manual focus Tilt Shift lenses, or the 10.5mm fisheye which was the last non AF-S lens Nikon made (introduced in 2003). Everything else from then on and in to the future will be AF-S. I would say rather than putting more money in more last-gen bodies (excepting the D90), put that money into the more recent lens with AF-S. Not only is the AF-S better but the optical formulas have improved as well netting you superior image quality.
     
  5. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #6
    If you think the screen on the D40 is nice, don't use a D90. It has the same screen as the one on the D3/x/700/300.
     
  6. Dont42Panic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Location:
    Jeffersonville, IN
    #7

    I am also a D40 user who was contemplating a jump up fairly soon (probably a year based on affordability), but the point you bring up is one I never really thought of. Is there a website that shows when Nikon has released lenses? I'm just intrigued to see how often they are coming out.
     
  7. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #8
    Thom Hogan's site has something that comes somewhat close to that.
     
  8. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #9
    Nikon archives its press releases on their corporate site as well as the sites for each country company.
     
  9. nimda0 macrumors 6502

    nimda0

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    D-town!
    #10
  10. electroshock macrumors 6502a

    electroshock

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    #11
    If you want a new (instead of solid used) camera with a built-in motor... of the currently selling models, you have the D90, D300s, D700 (and the pricier high end models).

    The difference between D90 and D300s would be size, weight, amount of buttons/dials/etc. on the camera body. And of course, price. :) In the UK, I think the body-only Nikon D90 is going for around £650 if brand new? There might be better prices for it or if you could be open to the idea of buying either an used D80 or used D90, you'd likely meet your £500 budget.

    If you want information on when any given Nikkor AF lens (AF, AF-I, AF-D, AF-S) was released, a great website for that is here:

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/index.htm

    Very highly recommended. It also includes a brief review and information about each lens, not just the date of release.
     
  11. nimda0 macrumors 6502

    nimda0

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    D-town!
    #12
    I've used the nikon d40 and the d60, as well as my current camera which is a Canon 1000d (also called the XS... not to be confused with the XSI).

    I would recommend getting the XS out of all of them.

    Facts:
    - Canon Rebel XS is a 10.1 megapixel, and the Nikon D60 is a 10.2.
    - Canon Rebel XS has a 0.10 second startup, and the Nikon D60 has a 0.18 second startup.
    - Canon Rebel XS has a 80 millisecond shutter release lag, the Nikon D60 has a 100 millisecond shutter release lag.
    - Canon Rebel XS has a 21mm eyepoint, the Nikon D60 has a 18mm eyepoint.
    - Canon Rebel XS has a max resolution of 3888 x 2592, the Nikon D60 has a 3872 x 2592 max resolution.
    - Canon Rebel XS has convenient control settings for ISO, White Balance, focus points and picture type. The Nikon D60 requires access through the LCD menu to handle most of these functions which can become annoying.
    - Canon Rebel XS has a 7 point focus point selection with cross type at center, the Nikon D60 has 3 points.
    - Canon Rebel XS has an average battery life longer than that of the Nikon D60. You can get 450 - 600 shots from the Canon XS in the same amount of time that you could only get Approximately 500 shots from the Nikon D60.
    - Canon Rebel XS offers a "live view" option to snap pictures using the LCD to view the shot before you take the picture. The Nikon D60 does not offer this feature.

    Just my opinion of course. The review can be found below.

    The end result was them saying, "Based on our tests between the Nikon D60 and the Canon Rebel XS digital SLR we would say that in general you can't go wrong with either camera. Both the Nikon D60 and the Canon Rebel XS are capable of delivering very good output with accurate colour and sharp results. Both cameras offer user friendly operation with a range of manual features and overrides if so desired."

    However, they chose the Nikon D60 with the slight advantage due to it having photo editing abilities built into the camera. Personally I think that's a poor reason to give any advantage to one camera or the other, as all touch-up will need to be performed within a program on your computer to produce any sort of decent touch-up.

    The choice is yours, but I would go with the Canon. In the end, it's the lens quality and abilities of the photographer that make the photo's... not the Camera.

    http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D60-Compared-to-Canon-Rebel-XS-1000D.shtml

    Here's the Canon XS. $509 with free shipping (Brand new, USA Warranty) and it includes a EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens (Black) and a 2gb SD memory card. They have a 30-day return policy if you aren't satisfied.

    "What's in the box"?

    EOS Rebel XS Body - (black)
    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
    Eyecup Ef
    Wide Strap EW-100DB III
    Video Cable VC-100
    USB Interface Cable IFC-200U
    Battery Pack LP-E5
    Battery Charger LC-E5
    EOS Digital Solution Disk
    Software Instruction Manual
    "Great Photography is Easy" Booklet and "Do More with Macro" Booklet

    http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNDRXSK1855#
     
  12. electroshock macrumors 6502a

    electroshock

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    #13
    Well, the OP wants to get a camera with an in-body focus motor, so that rules out the D60 -- and technically also the XS. Most of the differences you listed are in practice pretty miniscule and not likely to be noticed. Though there's certainly a few significantly nicer points to the XS that you mentioned when compared against a D40 or D60.
     
  13. nimda0 macrumors 6502

    nimda0

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    D-town!
    #14
    The Canon XS has a focus motor, and so does the D60.... so long as you have a lens capable of using the AF mode. By this, i mean one that can utilize the on-camera AF motor... not a lens that has an AF built into it specifically.
     
  14. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #15
    That's confusing at best.

    The D40/60/3000/5000 lack in-body focus motors that can drive lenses that don't have focus motors in them. All AF/AF-D lenses are manual focus only on those cameras.
     
  15. dubels macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    #16
    Plus since the OP is coming from a D40 he/she might already have Nikon lenses so it would not make sense to jump over to canon for a body that doesn't have what he wants. Your post made no sense about the AF crap.
     
  16. timmyb thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #17
    I'm quite happy with nikon thank you, wasn't really looking for a nikon v canon debate! It's between the d80 and 90 for me, really depending on whether I find a nice used 80. Will see what happens, not going to buy for a month or so and the d40 is doing very nicely.Thanks for the helpful input on the nikons side.
     
  17. iTiki macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Location:
    Maui, Hawaii
    #18
    I would say go for a D90 if you can swing it. Love mine
     
  18. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #19
    You'll get better results with the D40 and 70-300 VR than with the D90 and the 70-300 ED. You know what's I'd do.
     
  19. chiefroastbeef macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas/ Hong Kong
    #20
    I jumped from a d40 straight to a d700, and it is awesome. Adjustments are so much easier, with the dials and buttons, and the AF-ON button is an amazing feature. And the ISO performance will BLOW you away! From my observations, 3200iso on the D700 is equal to 800iso on the D40. I usually won't go beyond 1600iso on the D700 to prevent noise. If you shoot a lot in low light, a full frame camera is a joy to have!

    Personally, if I were you I'd save up to upgrade to a D300 or D300s, or a D700 if funding allows. I don't think it is really worth it to upgrade to a D90 for that amount of money. Just my opinion. :)
     
  20. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #21
    Are you using Capture NX 2 for your conversions? If not, you haven't yet seen the full extent of your D700's capabilities.

    See the "low light" thread for an NX 2 powered 25,600 ISO shot from my D700.
     
  21. chiefroastbeef macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas/ Hong Kong
    #22
    Unfortunately I have not yet integrated NX 2 in my workflow, I just dabble with Aperture and use it to convert RAW etc. I'll check it out! Thanks!

    Edit: Just saw the 25,600iso photo, while amazing, I wouldn't be satisfied with the noise it still had. It is beyond imagination how good it is at 25,600 though! The highest iso setting I've gone on the D700 is 3,200. Lum, do you solely use NX 2? Or do you use something like Aperture or Lightroom after RAW conversion?
     
  22. bobpensik macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #23
    I have been debating the same thing (upgrade path from the D40)

    My current equipment:
    Nikon D40
    Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX
    Nikon 30mm f/1.8G DX

    I have been debating between the D90 and the D700. My main focus is buying a body which can auto-focus the AF-D lenses as there are so many good ones out there.

    Here are the options I've been debating (All in Canadian prices)
    Nikon D90 - $980
    Nikon 20mm f/2.8D - $605
    Nikon 50mm f/1.8D - $140
    Nikon 85mm f/1.4D - $1170
    Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S IF-ED VRII - $540
    TOTAL = $3435

    D700 - $2770
    Nikon 50mm f/1.8D - $140
    Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - $615
    TOTAL = $3435

    These are two potential options as I see them

    There is a big trade-off as I see it. Both options cover around the same focal length, but the trade-off is in quality of glass.

    Seeing as my budget is around $3500 I don't want to spend the vast majority of that budget on a body which is already a few years old. I want to get some good glass and then I can save up the money to buy a body when one comes out to replace the D700. Plus with the D90 I can still use my 35mm f/1.8. I prefer primes to zoom lenses because they are lighter, provide great optical quality and make me work a little harder for my shot. Plus the 24-120 is only so-so and the D700 would really make me realize the limitations of the lens and I might end up selling it down the line anyway.

    Now your budget may not be the same as mine, but consider what you want to do in the long run. I like to shoot with primes because they really lighten my load and provide great optical quality, but you may prefer zooms. If that is the case then you might be better off investing in some good glass (17-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f2.8) and keeping the D40 for now.



    ** I just re-read your question and realize you only have 500GBP. I would say go for the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S and keep the D40 since a D90 is more then that anyway. It's always a good idea to upgrade the glass you use compared to the body because good lenses will outlast any body**
     
  23. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #24
    Well, first off is a choice between DX and FX.

    I'd stay away from the 24-120, as it's a variable aperture lens that is considered mediocre at best. I'm a prime shooter myself and have little use for zooms, so bear that bias in mind with regard to my posts.

    Better is the Tamron 28-75/2.8, a small and very sharp lens that is well regarded. Check out www.photozone.de for a lot of Nikon lens reviews. It's a great site for rigorous lens tests.

    My personal ideal setup is something like this: 35/50/85/105/135/180, boiled down to 35/85/135 in terms of practical reality. Right now, I have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, two lenses that cost me a combined $425 or so (50 was new, 85 was used).

    The D90 is a great camera, and if you want to shoot with DX and be able to use both DX and FX lenses, it's a great way to go. The D90 can't meter with AI/S lenses, whereas the D700 can, just so you're aware of that.
     
  24. chiefroastbeef macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas/ Hong Kong
    #25
    I too wouldn't waste money and time on the 24-120mm, especially on a d700. Have you thought about picking up a used d700 and a 24-70mm 2.8 nikkor? That is truly a great walk around set up, along with a 20mm 2.8, and maybe a 50mm 1.4 for low light.
     

Share This Page