File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
In your opinion, what is a decent affordable camera, with decent MP that would be suited towards the more beginner level photogrpher?

P.S. i took my pic in grade 8 i figured it was good back then ._.
>> Anonymous
>with decent MP

What happened to lurking a board before asking things that made you look stupid?

P&S: Canon A series
DSLR: Nikon D50, Sony A100, Canon XTi, Pentax K200D
>> Anonymous
>DSLR: Nikon D40

fixed that for you there anon
>> Anonymous
>>282065
Not a fix, D40 has no AF motor in body and a shitty viewfinder. Not a great beginners camera when you can only afford a few new shitty lenses. I'm positive you already knew this though, this is more for my retarded friend the OP.
>> Anonymous
Dynax 7D, Canon 30D/40D or Nikkon D200, just grab used ones.
>> Anonymous
im a good camera. you see, you can look through me all you want, i will spew out the image that you see in the vieew finder as clear as day. but lets say you like the more vibrant. Well in that case just tickle my ear lobe and you know what ill my menu button will appear. ill alter contrast, and color a.s.a.p. And if otyu dont like your picyture? shitt man?> ill shhoooooop that shit for you like nothing because i am the best camera in the world. i have adobe 7.0 (not c.s sorry:[) built right intyo mee.... and if you dont like arizonA??? ill blow that shit up for you because its a peiece of shit like texas anyways.....texas steals girlfriends... and im drunk because of it... and od rathere remain annon while writing about it so this is the rihgt place? ok?

night /p/
>> Anonymous
>>282067Not a great beginners camera when you can only afford a few new shitty lenses

all the good nikkor lenses have the motor in them anyway, the point is moot
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>282208
Nikkor 50/1.8
Nikkor 35/2
Nikkor 85/1.8
Nikkor 80-200/2.8

I can totally imagine these being a second or third lens, so it's kinda limiting being without them. Of course it's completely possible to have a fully motored setup (Tamron 17-50/2.8HSM + Nikkor 55-200 or 70-300 + Sigma 10-20 comes to mind), but it's always good to have options open.
>> Anonymous
So let me get this straight. Other modern Nikon bodies apart from D40 have an external autofocus motor built in the body, while most new lenses have the motor as well. Redundancy has its place in engineering but this just seems stupid.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>282234
1) In-lens motors were invented after many awesome lenses were made.
2) In-lens motors bring added benefits over in-body motors like full-time manual focusing (well, in Nikon's implementation), so it wasn't just done to fuck over people.
3) You're a retard.
>> Gregarious !zGiYGASnKo
What's your take on a Canon S5IS? I picked one up at Best Buy as a beginner's camera..
>> Anonymous
>>Nikkor 50/1.8
>>Nikkor 35/2
>>Nikkor 85/1.8

primes, someone buying a d40 won't buy those. if he does want those, sigma makes them

>>Nikkor 80-200/2.8

archaic telephoto, if someone buying a d40 wants one, he can get a 70-300 vr or the new 70-200 2.8

point is completely moot for d40 people
>> Anonymous
>>282232
Second or third? More like first, second or third. 35/2 would make a nice normal.

Also 28/2.8 as another normal, 24/2.8 as a wide or even as a standard-though-wider-than-normal like a lot of people do, 20/2.8 as a wide.

And that's just current production Nikkors.

The D40 not having a focus motor is ridiculous. It'd be fine if they just gave it a decent viewfinder, but they didn't. In other words, someone looking for a classic general-purpose prime setup (say, 20/24-28/35-50, or 24-50, or 20/24/35, etc.) would be SOL for autofocusing on the D40 and SOL for manual focusing. For a normal, they'd have precisely one lens to pick from, the large and costlier 30/1.4 Sigma. For a medium tele, they'd have two, the 50/1.4 Sigma and the new Nikkor 50/1.4, both costlier than alternatives and larger. There aren't any options for a wide.

I also don't get why everyone thinks only entry-level people are interested in a small, compact body the size of the D60 or Rebel or whatever.
>> Anonymous
>primes, someone buying a d40 won't buy those. if he does want those, sigma makes them

See below and>>282253.


>archaic telephoto

It's not like it's some uncoated pre-war lens, come on. Put it alongside the 70-200 and no one not familiar with the two lenses could tell the difference, maybe not even then.

>, if someone buying a d40 wants one, he can get a 70-300 vr or the new 70-200 2.8

The 70-300 VR is slower and the 70-200 is more expensive. The 70-300 VR will still do for most people, in terms of quality and speed, but not for everyone.

>point is completely moot for d40 people

Someone could:

1. Be a serious photographer but want a small body.
2. Be a serious photographer but be broke and is investing in glass first.

Just because a body is cheap and small does not necessitate it being suited only for the lowest common denominator.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> would be SOL for autofocusing on the D40 and SOL for manual focusing

they don't make these cameras for you to use manual focus. 97% of Rebel/A100/D40/K100 users use autofocus

want to use manual focus? get a proper camera with a proper lens

>>For a normal, they'd have precisely one lens to pick from, the large and costlier 30/1.4 Sigma.

>>35/2
$319
>>28/2.8
$235
>>24/2.8
$309
>>20/2.8
$489

sigma 30 is $470, is better than all of the above, will autofocus with the D40 and has a far superior focus motor

picture related for size, OH MY GOD IT'S SO HUGE, not.

>>I also don't get why everyone thinks only entry-level people are interested in a small, compact body the size of the D60 or Rebel or whatever.

because the D60 or Rebel _ARE_ entry level cameras?
>> Anonymous
>>The 70-300 VR is slower and the 70-200 is more expensive. The 70-300 VR will still do for most people, in terms of quality and speed, but not for everyone.

most people = the people who buy a D40. if you actually want the "quality and speed" you are smart enough to realize the 70-200 2.8 is an investment that will work 100% with your D40 and 100% with any future Nikon body you buy. but that is not = most people

>>1. Be a serious photographer but want a small body.

okay? then buy a D40, 87% of the lenses will work with it

2. Be a serious photographer but be broke and is investing in glass first.

okay? that "glass" you are investing in will have the AF in the lens. if it doesn't, you just have to cope with being broke and buying a D40 and use it manually or buy a D50

>>Just because a body is cheap and small does not necessitate it being suited only for the lowest common denominator.

except Nikon _is_ catering it for the "lowest common denominator". see Ashton Kutcher ads
>> Anonymous
>>282257
>they don't make these cameras for you to use manual focus. 97% of Rebel/A100/D40/K100 users use autofocus

Yeah, fuck that shit. Just because most of your customers won't know the difference does not justify turning out a shit product. It's like people shooting weddings with some Rebel and 18-55 with the on-camera flash and HDRing it, except in this case the "photographer" knows better.

And again, just because a camera is good/small doesn't mean it has to be big/bad.

>>282257
It's twice the price of the 28/2.8. Someone looking for just a normal would have to pay twice as much for two stops of aperture (and bulk) he wouldn't necessarily need.

Comparing it to the 20mm is stupid, it's an ultrawide for 36x24, of course it's going to cost a little.

>picture related for size, OH MY GOD IT'S SO HUGE, not.

A), it's noticably larger, pic related. B), do a search for a picture of a 30/1.4 on a D40. Or here, I did it for you:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aurora_photog/2353544312/

Doesn't look too great to shoot with, either holding or not-being-obtrusive-or-intimidating-the-subject wise.
>> Anonymous
>>282258
>most people = the people who buy a D40. if you actually want the "quality and speed" you are smart enough to realize the 70-200 2.8 is an investment that will work 100% with your D40 and 100% with any future Nikon body you buy. but that is not = most people

I don't get where you're going here. When I said "most people," I meant "most serious photographers," most people who need a tele zoom can stop down to f/8 or something to get good quality out of the consumer ones. Galen Rowell usually did just that, for the lighter weight. And since all the consumer Nikon film AF bodies had focus motors, he didn't need to worry about this shit when he went for those for their light weight, too.

People shooting certain specialized subjects- sports, wildlife, concerts and other events- have a use for the f/2.8 aperture. I'm not talking soccer mom versus photographer, I'm talking different applications.
>> Anonymous
The 80-200 would also be an investment in the way you're talking, except it won't work with the entry-level line because Nikon gimped it. It will work with everything else, and it would work with the entry-level line otherwise.

>okay? then buy a D40, 87% of the lenses will work with it

It doesn't matter how many lenses will work with it. It matters how many *useful* lenses will focus with it. Stop padding your case with Nikon's bajillion standard zooms and the ultraexpensive superteles most people (again, application) don't need.

Again, you're SOL if you're looking for a general prime set-up with the D40.

>okay? that "glass" you are investing in will have the AF in the lens. if it doesn't, you just have to cope with being broke and buying a D40 and use it manually or buy a D50

Which brings us back up the the second and third posts in the thread. The second said "D50," for the focus motor, the third said he was wrong and to go with the D40. That's the debate.

>except Nikon _is_ catering it for the "lowest common denominator". see Ashton Kutcher ads

Everyone is. And again, fuck that shit, etc.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282260
Whoops, left off pic related.
>> Anonymous
>>282264Again, you're SOL if you're looking for a general prime set-up with the D40.

you're doing it wrong

1) you know the D40 sucks shit, you don't buy it

2) you don't know the D40 sucks shit, you don't care about the 5 fixed lenses it doesn't AF with, you're happy with it

everyone wins
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282260http://www.flickr.com/photos/aurora_photog/2353544312/

ahahahahhaha, way to twist it on your favor by picking it from such an angle AND with the hood

OMG SO HUGE, SO IMTDIMIDATING SO HARD TO HOLD. give me a fucking break
>> Anonymous
>>282267
So what's your point? The debate ITT has two aspects, whether the D40 or D50 is the better camera, and whether the D40 is a good camera. You seem to agree with me that the D40 isn't a good camera, and presumably think the D50's better.

So it seems our disagreement is what, that you don't have a problem with companies selling shit so long as the customer doesn't notice the difference, and that it doesn't matter that no one makes a good, compact, cheap digital SLR today.

There's more than five lenses, and they generally run the list of most useful Nikkors, too.

>>282269
I just took the first result, it still looks awkward to hold and shoot with in this one.
>> Anonymous
All that from saying the D50 would be a better beginners camera because of the in-body motor. Amazing.
>> Anonymous
God, you guys are such pussies.

I was sick of 35mm grain, and I moved to medium format and I never bitched about equipments size. So you want to a decent lens for a dslr? Don't bitch about the size, because I can guarantee you, It's still going to fit in your goddamn camera back.

Whoever the fuck is bitching about the size of the 30/1.4, shut the fuck up you pussy. That's a tiny lens compared to actually good primes. Never mind good zooms that you'll never buy with that attitude. Fuck your 17-50 tamron.
>> Anonymous
what is the biggest prime that I scare children with
>> Anonymous
>>282320
1200mm 5.6L
>> Anonymous
>>There's more than five lenses, and they generally run the list of most useful Nikkors, too.

Nikkor
• 12-24 mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX
• 14-24 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
Sigma

• 10-20 mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM*
• 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM*
Standard zooms

Nikkor


• 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR*
• 17-35 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
• 17-55 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX
• 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX*
• 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX*
• 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX*
• 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX*
• 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX*
• 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR*
• 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED AF-S
• 24-120 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR*
• 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S
Sigma

• 17-70 mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM*
• 18-50 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC HSM*
• 18-50 mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro HSM*
• 18-125 mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM*
• 18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 DC*
• 18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM*
Tamron

• 17-50 mm f/2.8 XR Di II (Model A16)*
• 18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II (Model A14)*
• 18-250 mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II (Model A18)*
>> Anonymous
Telephoto zooms

Nikkor


• 55-200 mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX*
• 55-200 mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR*
• 70-300 mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR*
• 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
• 200-400 mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
Sigma

• 50-150 mm f/2.8 EX DC APO HSM
• 50-500 mm f/4-6.3 EX DG APO HSM
• 55-200 mm f/4-5.6 DC HSM*
• 70-200 mm f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II
• 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro*
• 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro*
• 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG OS APO
• 100-300 mm f/4 EX DG HSM
• 120-300 mm f/2.8 EX IF DG HSM APO
• 120-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO
• 150-500 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO
• 300-800 mm f/5.6 EX DG HSM
Tamron

• 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 Di (model A17)*
>> Anonymous
Prime lenses

Nikkor


• 200 mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR
• 300 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
• 300 mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S
• 400 mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR AF-S
• 400 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S II
• 500 mm f/4G ED-IF VR AF-S
• 500 mm f/4G ED-IF II AF-S
• 600 mm f/4G ED-IF VR AF-S
• 600 mm f/4G ED-IF II AF-S
Sigma

• 4.5 mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye
• 10 mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Diagnonal fisheye*
• 30 mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM*
• 50 mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM?
• 300 mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM
• 500 mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM
• 800 mm f/5.6 EX DG APO HSM
Macro lenses

Nikkor


• 60 mm f/2.8G ED AF-S*
• 105 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR*
Sigma

• 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM*
• 180mm f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>I just took the first result, it still looks awkward to hold and shoot with in this one.

oh.. like putting a 50/1.2 on a Rebel? MY GOD THAT'S SO AWKWARD TO HOLD AND SHOOT WITH, WHAT WILL I EVER DO. give me a fucking break
>> Anonymous
>>282393
what sort of faggot puts that lense on a 400d
>> Anonymous
>>282393
That lens looks pretty sexy right there, even if it's only on a Rebel.
>> Anonymous
>>282406what sort of faggot puts that lense on a 400d

because it's just as good as if it were on a 20/30/40d????
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>282408
durr too much gear threads

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeLeica Camera AGCamera ModelM8 Digital CameraCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop LightroomMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:25 22:26:55Exposure Time1/500 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating160Exposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID00000000000000000000000000000D63
>> Anonymous
>>282410
yes but if can afford a £1000~ lens why put it on a shitty rebel which costs £300~
>> Anonymous
>>282712
Maybe because if they bought a more expensive camera they wouldn't be able to afford the lens?
When I got started in DSLRs this year, I got an L and and a top of theline EF-S, as well as an XT. Now I finally upgraded to a 40D, and the image quality improvement, for the most part, is minimal.
Glass over body durr dee durr