File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/

I work at Circuit City, and we have one Rebel XT left, I can get it for a lower price.

We also have others like D40 that are a bit pricier, but newer. But I have personally played with the XT alot, and I like it. What's the better deal?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
The XT's a better deal unless you have a bunch of Nikon equipment you'd like to use with it.
>> Anonymous
Nah, I don't have anything, my g/f has a couple of lens for the XT like fish eye and long range.

Are lens for Nikons expensive?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170342
New ones are on par with Canon lenses. Nikons have the advantage that they can use really old Nikon manual-focus lenses from the used market, but manually focusing with a D40's tiny viewfinder is a tragic farce, and the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

(The XT's viewfinder is equally bad for manual focus, but all autofocus Canon lenses will autofocus on it, and the non-AF Canon lenses are so absurdly specialized and expensive that you shouldn't ever have to worry about them)

But yeah. Especially if your girlfriend has Canon gear, there's zero reason to pick the D40 over the XT.
>> Anonymous
>>170341
If the lenses aren't AF-S, it could be argued that XT + F-to-EOS adapters would actually be a better solution than a D40.

>>170342
No more expensive than Canon lenses, but why throw away the ability to use stuff?

If your girlfriend has Canon lenses, definitely get Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>170344


Awesome, I think I could grab a new XT for about 300-350 maybe less with my employee discount.

If I can find an open box one, easily 250.

Any sweet add ons out there like lens of accessories I should look out for?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170346
Maybe get the EF 50mm f/1.8, since it's really cheap. But it sounds like you're a bit of a newbie, so I'd recommend just sticking with the basic kit for a while before buying a bunch of other stuff for it.
>> Anonymous
>>170346
What sort of pictures do you want to take, and what lenses does your girlfriend have?

As general, generic stock advice:

General purpose lens: Either a 28mm or 35mm lens, to taste out of available options.
Portrait/reach lens: 50/1.8 ($80) or 50/1.4 (~$300, IIRC). The 50/1.4 is a lot better than the 50/1.8, but that's just because it's a really, really great lens, almost perfect. The 50/1.8 is still very good, though.
Wide Angles and zoom: 18-55 IS. (Don't get the non-IS version, though, as it sucks.)
>> Anonymous
400D :P
>> Anonymous
>>170347


Only with these SLRs, they were always too expensive for me, so I settled with purely digital cameras, they weren't bad, but they never had the focus and precision these cameras have.

>>170348
I take everything really. I focus on urban and abstract since I find them prettier. =D

Hm, I'm not very sure on exactly the lens she has, she has fish eye/very wide lens, whatever you wanna call it, the stock ones, and one that goes very far.
>> Anonymous
>>170350
Find out what lenses she has. And could you post an example of what you mean by "urban?" Some abstract samples would help, too, to see the way you do them. Plus, it would turn this into a picture thread and not just a gear thread.

The reason I'm asking this is different sorts of work and different styles need different lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>170344the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

uh, more like can't autofocus on the lenses without built in motors. and the only one most people will name off the top of their heads is the 50mm 1.8 and that's it

there are at least 29 genuine nikon AF-S lenses out of i don't know how many, covering every range and application

people need to bitch less or get the facts right
>> Anonymous
>>170353
Butthurt D40 fag, lolol.
>> Anonymous
>>170356

sorry, i have a xti

i just had to say something when what he said just wasn't true
>> Anonymous
>>170353
Bullshit. There are no moderate length primes, first of all. Lots of us prefer working with those. The fastest lens available from Nikon is f/2.8. If you need faster than that, you're locked to the Sigma 30/1.4. Six of those are long teles, and that's not counting the tele zooms. Fully eleven of those are endless, useless variations on the "standard zoom" concept; people are going to need/want one of those at most.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170353
>there are at least 29 genuine nikon AF-S lenses out of i don't know how many, covering every range and application
29 out of 55, based on my memory of the last time I had this argument, though I'm too lazy to go to Nikon's site and count 'em up. Which means 29 that'll AF with the D40, and 26 that won't. That's a pretty big chunk.

And that pretty big chunk includes all of the fast cheap prime lenses. Enjoy your f/2.8 max aperture.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170362
Just counted. 19 that won't work, 26 that will, based on manually counting the lenses listed on Nikon's site.
>> Anonymous
there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

19 AF and 29 AF-S
>> Anonymous
it's really just hurting on the classic 50mm 1.8/1.4 which can be had for cheap if nikon hadn't castrated the camera

but sigma is more than happy to make those for you

and let's face it, people who buy d40 don't go and buy these, we can call them specialty lenses

if they do, it's their own damn fault for not knowing beforehand
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170368
>there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.
How so? Are you saying 39% is not a significant portion of Nikon's lens lineup?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170370
>and let's face it, people who buy d40 don't go and buy these, we can call them specialty lenses
Agreed. But this particular forum is made up of the sort of people who do buy 'em, so it's very much worth mentioning.

>but sigma is more than happy to make those for you
Sigma's 50/1.4 hasn't been released yet. They don't have a 50/1.8.
>> Anonymous
>>170374Agreed. But this particular forum is made up of the sort of people who do buy 'em, so it's very much worth mentioning.

i'm just saying, some of us realize what you meant: no fast primes

but for novices who read, they'll think, oh a d40 can't even autofocus on most lenses

so please revise your d40/d40x/d60 statements from now on since you post a lot in threads like these
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170376
I dunno. While I'll agree that, for the vast majority of D40 buyers, the 18-55 kit might as well be welded on, I think the sort of people who come to a photography forum to ask about it are the sorts of people who are going to want to have access to some fast primes. If the sort of person who will never use anything other than the kit lens is asking about a DSLR here, I'm more likely to just direct them to a cheaper Point & Shoot.

Also, I'm an unrepentant canonfag, so I prefer to phrase it in the way that makes it look worse. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>170376

Lol good luck trying to get sense out of that fat fuck AC, the guy is always trolling with his D40 shit. For a canonfag, he sure seems to want people to think he's an expert on Nikon.

His shit is misleading and misses the point of the D40.

Why trust someone who takes shit photos and had to take delete a photo of his ugly ass girlfriend when /p/ started reminding him of that fact?
>> Anonymous
>there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

No, not really. Six of the lenses are expensive superteles. (I'm including the 200/2, which is the fastest AF-S lens, with superteles even though Nikon doesn't.) Eleven of them are just standard zooms, of which someone would need precisely one. Subtract sixteen- all those lenses minus one standard zoom- and you're left with thirteen AF-S lenses.

Three of them are expensive wide-angle zooms most people won't find a use for. You're left with ten. Or, hey, I'll be generous and not count the 17-35/2.8, since it would be nice as that one standard zoom on a crop body. Eleven lenses left.

Then there's the 55-200 consumer tele zoom. It's available in two versions, identical except for some weird glass or something used. So ten lenses.

Two of the remaining ones are the 70-200/2.8, a top-end pro zoom, and the 70-300/whatever, a consumer zoom. People are only going to own one of those. We're down to nine lenses.

Another remaining one is the 200-400/4, an expensive pro supertele zoom. Strike that one off. Eight lenses. Not twenty-nine.

>>170370
A fast medium tele (and a fast normal) are hardly specialty lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>170372How so? Are you saying 39% is not a significant portion of Nikon's lens lineup?

that portion includes the 50mm and 85mm fast primes but the rest are lenses most of us will probably never own

10mm fisheye
16mm fisheye
200mm macro
a bunch of wide primes which are only 2.8, canon and sigma make a bunch of 2.0 and 1.8 versions. but fine let's throw them in the fast primes category
some telephoto primes

so really, the sensible and reasonable ones most people would buy are the fast primes, the rest are 10 or so specialty lenses

for people buying a d40, they will have every range covered

>>170379

^ that isn't me by the way
>> Anonymous
>>170380

dude, if you're going to bunch them up like that, you could do the same about the AF lenses as well..

which i kind of did in my previous post while you were typing all that.

why hasn't nikon made a AF-S 50mm 1.8? if people want to use it, they get a d80 and up

consumer level makes up for the majority of purchases, zooms outsell primes

we use them because we're cool kids like that but for everyone else, they are specialty lenses

joe blow walks in best buy, THIS SHIT CAN'T ZOOM?
>> Anonymous
>>170381
see
>>170380.

There are eight AF-S lenses, with some redunancy and superfluity, that most of us will probably ever own. I'm far more likely to buy a 28/2.8 or 50/1.8 than a 14-24/2.8, for instance.
>> Anonymous
>>170383
Takes five minutes to explain, "No, but the lens is better, especially for taking pictures indoors. Your kid having a birthday party at night? You'll be lost with the zoom unless you use flash that washes out the ambiance of the cake candles. With this 50/1.8, you can be sitting across the table from him and catch the beautiful scene just as it is."
>> Anonymous
>>170384

well, i could go and say see my previous post.. if you're going to tie in the lenses in a group like that

there's like 4 wide primes, and if want to say that the 8 zooms have overlapping range, i could say zoom with your feet and get only one of the wide primes

which would be stupid, for both of us to use that argument

doesn't change the fact that there are more af-s than af only, and the af are all specialty minus the fast primes

>> I'm far more likely to buy a 28/2.8 or 50/1.8 than a 14-24/2.8, for instance.

the 50mm no question, the whole point of this was d40 can't use fast primes but it's arguable that the 14-24 would bitch slap the 28mm since you know.. it's the best lens Nikon currently makes
>> Anonymous
>>170383
Okay, let's bunch up the AF lenses.

Throw out the fisheyes (-2), the 14/2.8 (-1), either the 28/2.8 or the 35/2 (-1), one of the fifties (-1), one of the 85s (-1), the two DC lenses (-2), the 180/2.8 (-1). Based on AC's count of 19, that leaves ten. Still more, and you'll be left with more useful lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>170386
The 28 is a normal lens. The 14-24 is a wide. The 28 is tiny and lightweight. The 14-24 is huge. Different purposes.

As far as the wide primes- there's a big difference between a 20mm lens and a 24mm lens on a crop sensor. One's kinda like a 28mm and the other is like a 35mm. Granted, most people will probably use just one, but that still leaves a one-lens lead. And remember, I'm counting redundancy, too, in the AF-S figures. No one is going to own both another sort of standard zoom and the 17-35, and no one is going to own a 55-200 and a 70-300.
>> Anonymous
>>170385

so wait, are you trolling here?

do you accept for a fact, that there are more AF-S lenses than AF?

with that said, let's still play the game

12-24 for ultra wide
14-24 for ultra wide and possibility of super ultra wide if one day a d40 owner gets a d3
16-85 VR for standard plus VR
17-55 for sweet sweet 2.8
18-55 for cheap ass VR
18-200 for massive range and VR
55-200 for cheap telephoto
24-70 for sweet sweet 2.8 and possibility of standard zoom if one day a d40 owner gets a d3
70-200 for pro level telephoto zoom
60mm macro

so uh, yeah i'm going to stop there

and i'm not up to snuff about older Nikon lenses but it's funny that all the wide primes on their website is 2.8 and the fastest is only 2.0 so it's not like you're gaining THAT much compared to a 17-55 2.8
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170395
...and nothing for low light.

The pure numbers are irrelevant when there exists no lens that will autofocus for the specific purpose you need. And "Indoors without a big window" is a shooting situation I find myself in a lot, personally.

I'm not arguing that the D40/40x/60 is bad for Joe Average Consumer. I'm just arguing that it's bad for those of us who know that on-camera flash is almost always fail.
>> Anonymous
>>170399

i've already said you would be missing out on fast primes see:

>> there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

no arguing about that, all they would be missing are fast primes

but it still doesn't change the fact.. that there are more AF-S than AF, regardless of overlap

and also again, the 17-55 2.8 arguably CAN take care of all the ranges of the wide primes minus the35 2.0
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170379
>His shit is misleading and misses the point of the D40.
The point of the D40: Cheaper body for the sort of consumer who buys a camera and never gets more than the kit lens or maybe a telephoto like the 55-200 or the 18-200. Gives them the impetus to start replacing the whole lens lineup with AF-S so they can eventually release something like the D90 with no in-body motor and have a whole host of AF-S lenses to go with it and finally put this whole damn argument to rest for once and for all.

You've obviously never seen any of the many threads where I've argued that the D40 is a good strategic move on Nikon's part.

I totally grasp the point of the D40. I just don't think the D40 is targeted at the sort of person who comes here.
>> Anonymous
>>170402

you just broke the heart of the /p/ d40 fags

</3
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170400
>but it still doesn't change the fact.. that there are more AF-S than AF, regardless of overlap
I never said there weren't.

(Well, I did, but not in this thread. Haven't done it since someone corrected me)

I just said that the number of non-AF lenses was significant (nearly 40%) and that it included an entire class of lenses that the sort of person posting to a photography discussion board would be likely to want to use (fast primes).
>> Anonymous
>>170404

yeah well >> the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

doesn't exactly scream no fast primes

and it puts us back to square one where i ask you to revise the statement

backwards time universe/divide by zero
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170406
Fine, I'll try to be more verbose about which lenses it won't work with in the future.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>170408
I cant belive you think I troll any more than you do.
>> Anonymous
>>170408

no that's fine, i'm a canonfag anyway, i was just being anal

converting more people to canon is always better
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170409
When I'm wrong, I admit it.

When you're wrong, you go LOLOL I WAS TROLLZ0RING YOU LOLOL!!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Wow, my thread got so big, awesome.

>>170352
Here's an image of what I like to take pics of. urban as in, ghetto, abandoned places etc.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK EASYSHARE ZD710 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERAMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution480 dpiVertical Resolution480 dpiExposure Time3.2 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304Exposure Index200RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170412
Fast prime lens would be useful for a shot like that. ;)
>> Anonymous
itt SHITSTORM WHOOOOOSH
>> Anonymous
>>170395
No, I'm not trolling. People are more intelligent than they're given credit for.

Lots of the lenses you're listing just plain don't count, either because of price or application.

>12-24 for ultra wide
>14-24 for ultra wide and possibility of super ultra wide if one day a d40 owner gets a d3

Expensive as fuck. Of very limited use to most users.

>16-85 VR for standard plus VR
>17-55 for sweet sweet 2.8
>18-55 for cheap ass VR

Pick one and only one. No one is going to go buy all three of these.

>24-70 for sweet sweet 2.8 and possibility of standard zoom if one day a d40 owner gets a d3
>70-200 for pro level telephoto zoom

Both very expensive.

>18-200 for massive range and VR
And this is just... then lens is huge, especially on a D40. It's slow. It's not a good lens. There is no reason for 99% of people who are serious about photography to buy it.

You're looking at these things off the bare specs when you're saying "all the wide primes on their website is 2.8 and the fastest is only 2.0 so it's not like you're gaining THAT much compared to a 17-55 2.8."

First of all, 35mm is not wide on a D40. Neither is a 28mm. They're normal lenses. Nikon's just being a stupid bitch with its labeling. They make precisely three cameras for which those are wide: a shitty film body no one buys when they can get an old F2, the F6, a $1,000+ pro camera, and the D3, a pro camera with some huge price tag I don't know.

Second, primes are a different, and I'd argue better, way of working from zooms.

Third, an f/2.8 prime is significantly than an f/2.8 zoom, to the point where I'm wondering if you've shot with both types. Hell, the 28/1.4 is (I think) smaller than the 17-55/2.8, not that that comparison itself has bearing here.

You're gaining a prime and a lighter, more ergonomic kit. That's quite a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>170412

The suggestions in>>170348stand, then, although you might want to replace the 28/35 with a 24mm. Lots of people who do that sort of thing want something slightly wide, and the 24mm on the Rebel will have the same field of view as that 38mm equivalent lens on your current camera, so you'll already have practice shooting with it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
As you can see, my Digital Kodak is not very good. =(

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK EASYSHARE ZD710 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERAMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution480 dpiVertical Resolution480 dpiExposure Time5 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304Exposure Index400RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>170418Expensive as fuck. Of very limited use to most users.

you can say the same thing for telephotos, or ultra wides, or extremely wide aperture primes

to each their own

and price is of no concern here, we're just tallying lenses

>> Pick one and only one. No one is going to go buy all three of these.

uh, okay, pick one of the wide primes and only one, no one is going to buy all five

see how that works? it doesn't.

i started off with a 18-55 II and still have it after i bought a 17-55 2.8 IS and still use it if i'm taking it to a place where i don't want to risk a $1,000 lens or because it's simply too big

and all 3 are different, 18-55 VR is cheap as fuck for beginners. 16-85 is 2mm wider than most standard DX and has good range along with VR. 17-55 2.8 is the fastest DX standard zoom

>> Both very expensive.

again, price is of no concern when we're just counting lenses

>> 18-200 for massive range and VR

i'm not arguing about optical quality.

it is a distinc lens in the line up and offers something the others don't.

>> You're looking at these things off the bare specs when you're saying "all the wide primes on their website is 2.8 and the fastest is only 2.0 so it's not like you're gaining THAT much compared to a 17-55 2.8."

care to prove me wrong?

at least with canon, they got the 1.4 versions which would run circles around a 2.8 zoom and have a special look to the images

but the 4 wides on nikon's website are 2.8 only. for all intents and purposes, the 17-55 DOES offer the same range and speed. unless of course you're telling me the wides have a REMARKABLE quality to them that the zoom simply can't produce.
>> Anonymous
>>170418First of all, 35mm is not wide on a D40. Neither is a 28mm. They're normal lenses.

okay, and this is relevant, how?

>> Nikon's just being a stupid bitch with its labeling.

no, you're just reading it wrong. a 28mm is a 28mm, always. it produces a normal wide image on the 35mm standard. it's not anyone's fault that crop DSLRs make it a normal lens. every manufacturer still labels their lenses as the 35mm standard, there's no reason NOT to..

>> Third, an f/2.8 prime is significantly than an f/2.8 zoom, to the point where I'm wondering if you've shot with both types.

there's no arguing my 50mm 1.4 is better than my 17-55 at 50mm

i don't have a 2.8 prime to test but canon and nikon's 17-55 2.8 are close rivals to a comparable prime
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170434
>> Pick one and only one. No one is going to go buy all three of these.
>uh, okay, pick one of the wide primes and only one, no one is going to buy all five
While it's true that nobody's going to buy all five of the wide primes, the D40 doesn't have the option of *any* of them if you want to autofocus (and manual focus on a D40 with a lens faster than f/2.5 is difficult at best).

I think you're a bit too hung up on the *wide* aspect. The issue is that the only lens for the D40 that can be considered a "fast prime" is a 200mm f/2.0 telephoto. So you get no 50/1.8, no 85/1.8, no 35/2.0, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>170436

for the third time: there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

i already said you lose out fast primes with a d40

i also include the so called wide primes on nikon's website in that list

>> a bunch of wide primes which are only 2.8, canon and sigma make a bunch of 2.0 and 1.8 versions. but fine let's throw them in the fast primes category

this dude can't seem to accept that there are more AF-S lenses than AF
>> Anonymous
>>170418
>Pick one and only one. No one is going to go buy all three of these.

Lol, with any other system, except maybe sony, you can have both f/2.8 AND VR in one lens, significantly cheaper than Nikon's 17-55 and maybe even 16-85.
>> Anonymous
>>170435
>every manufacturer still labels their lenses as the 35mm standard

It's not a '35mm standard'. It's simply focal length. Focal length is focal length - it doesn't matter if it's on a tiny point-and-shoot or a 8x10 view camera.
>> Anonymous
>>170439

a 50mm for 35mm is only 50mm on 35mm
>> Anonymous
>>170438

except pentax, sony and olympus don't make vr/is lenses, sure

(leica doesn't count)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170437
>this dude can't seem to accept that there are more AF-S lenses than AF
No, he accepts that. He's saying that it doesn't matter because there are fewer *categories* that have AF-S lenses available in them.

All the pitchers and fast runners in the world won't help you win a baseball game if you don't have anyone on your team who knows which end of the bat to hold.
>> Anonymous
>>170440
no, a 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm. the field of view it gives will depend on the size of the medium.
>> Anonymous
>>170441
well, obviously they don't need to
>> Anonymous
>>170442No, he accepts that.

he never admitted it, keeps on insisting there are more AF than AF-S

>> He's saying that it doesn't matter because there are fewer *categories* that have AF-S lenses available in them.

what categories? ultra wide, wide, normal, telephoto, macro

first off, there are more AF-S than AF

the AF lenses are mixed and matched in the above categories

the significant group of AF lenses are the short fast primes, 14, 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50. along with the 85, let's count it

and again for the fourth time, there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

we all know you lose out that group with a d40

so what the fuck is he arguing? even with those out of the count, there are STILL more AF-S than AF

i've never argued about cost, use or quality. i'm talking about numbers
>> Anonymous
>>170445

there's a big difference in making a 2.8 lens and a 2.8 lens with VR/IS
>> Anonymous
>>170444

okay...

what are you saying or arguing? they are made for 35mm and are labelled as such

let's take the meme: Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Wide Angle Lens

it's labelled wide because it is a wide on 35mm, they're not going to start labelling it normal for the dslr people
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170448
>what categories? ultra wide, wide, normal, telephoto, macro
FAST.

Fast counts as its own category.

There's only one AF-S lens in Nikon's lineup faster than f/2.8, and that's a $4000 telephoto that almost nobody's gonna buy which isn't useful for a lot of the situations most people need speed in (i.e., anything other than sports and wildlife).

Fast counts as its own category because there are pictures you can take with an f/1.4 lens that you just can't get with an f/2.8 lens, regardless of focal length.

Also, in all of the other categories, the D40 can merely *tie*, it can't *win*, because you can use those AF-S lenses on cameras with an in-body motor.
>> Anonymous
>>170434
>you can say the same thing for telephotos, or ultra wides, or extremely wide aperture primes

Yes, which is why I have counted out the long telephotos, the ultra wides, and Nikon doesn't make any f/1.2 lenses right now. If they did, I'd count those out, too.

>and price is of no concern here, we're just tallying lenses

No, it is of concern. Because we're tallying lenses for the purpose of making a purchase recommendation. And price has to be taken into account there. For all practical purposes, a lens a photographer can't afford doesn't exist.

>>170434
>uh, okay, pick one of the wide primes and only one, no one is going to buy all five

Primes work differently, and there are not five fucking wide primes for the D40. I don't know where you're getting that number. There's the 14/2.8, 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8, The 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 could work well together, the 20 as a wider option and the 24mm as a main lens for someone who likes a slight wide perspective, but there's no reason to own two zooms that cover the same area.

>if i'm taking it to a place where i don't want to risk a $1,000 lens or because it's simply too big

This is silly on two counts: if you have a $1,000 lens and it isn't insured, you're doing it wrong. And the size of it is precisely one of my points for the primes: primes are small, zooms are big. Which leads into:

>You're looking at these things off the bare specs when you're saying "all the wide primes on their website is 2.8 and the fastest is only 2.0 so it's not like you're gaining THAT much compared to a 17-55 2.8."

And I don't know how else to do it except repeat myself, literally. Stop looking at lenses as a set of focal lengths and apertures and MTF results and start looking at them as tools to use. The f/2.8 prime is tiny. The f/2.8 zoom is huge, especially on a D40.
>> Anonymous
>>170454FAST.

for the fifth time now, there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

and again, even with those out of the count, there are STILL more AF-S than AF

i've never argued about cost, use or quality. i'm talking about numbers

>> Also, in all of the other categories, the D40 can merely *tie*, it can't *win*, because you can use those AF-S lenses on cameras with an in-body motor.

i've never said it was superior to a camera with motor.

i am arguing about this awesome statement you made in the begining:

>> the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

because it CAN AF with more lenses

and AGAIN, i've never argued about cost, use or quality. i'm talking about numbers
>> Anonymous
>it is a distinc lens in the line up and offers something the others don't.

Something useless to almost everyone. More people have need of perspective control lenses than need an 18-200.

>4 wides

You've been saying it's five.

>okay, and this is relevant, how?

You keep saying there are five wide primes when there are three. The only reason I can imagine for this is some weird insistance on counting the 28mm and 35mm as wides, which with the 14, 20, and 24 make five.

>a 28mm is a 28mm, always.

No shit? The point is that, on most of Nikon's cameras, including the one we're discussing here, 28mm is not wide and therefore they shouldn't categorize it on their website as one. But this is a side issue of taxonomy. Let's drop it.

>there's no arguing my 50mm 1.4 is better than my 17-55 at 50mm

>canon and nikon's 17-55 2.8 are close rivals to a comparable prime

Nowhere close. You're missing the point. I'm not talking about optical quality or speed at all. I'm talking about them as tools to take photographs with. No (continuous) zoom will ever offer the same working experience as a prime, just like no prime will offer the same working experience as a zoom. No zoom of the same aperture and covering the same focal length on the same format will be as small as a prime.
>> Anonymous
>>170449
There's a big difference in making a DSLR body and a DSLR body with sensor-shift VR, too.

Oh, and Canon makes a 17-55/2.8 with IS, which somehow sells for $300 less than Nikon's.
>> Anonymous
>>170458
continues
>>170455
>> Anonymous
>>170456
>and AGAIN, i've never argued about cost, use or quality. i'm talking about numbers

Then you're arguing the wrong thing. It wouldn't matter to any of us if tomorrow Leica came out with a $50,000 10mm full frame Noctilux.

>the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

I think, in disputing this statement, you're confused with what "significant" means. It doesn't mean "large." It means important. And most of Nikon's important lenses, especially most of the lenses important to a typical, non-high-paid-professional, are not AF-S.
>> Anonymous
>>170456
ac has not said it can af with less lenses, it just said it cant af with a significant portion.
>> Anonymous
>>170455Yes, which is why I have counted out the long telephotos, the ultra wides, and Nikon doesn't make any f/1.2 lenses right now. If they did, I'd count those out, too.

why would we selectively discard lenses? that doesn't make sense

>>Because we're tallying lenses for the purpose of making a purchase recommendation.

uh, no we're not, maybe YOU think you are

i'm arguing about ac's statement:

>> the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.

>> and there are not five fucking wide primes for the D40

they are within 14mm and 35mm, they are wide primes. some of them just turn into normal because we're used to crop cameras

>> The 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 could work well together, the 20 as a wider option and the 24mm as a main lens for someone who likes a slight wide perspective, but there's no reason to own two zooms that cover the same area.

so it's okay to own a 20mm and a 24mm but not a 17-55 and 18-200?

i never put the lenses in a "real life use" scenario, you did

but see why it gets stupid? it boils down to personal use, so why factor in that variable?

>> This is silly on two counts: if you have a $1,000 lens and it isn't insured, you're doing it wrong.

deductible costs more than the price of the lens

>> And I don't know how else to do it except repeat myself, literally. Stop looking at lenses as a set of focal lengths and apertures and MTF results and start looking at them as tools to use. The f/2.8 prime is tiny. The f/2.8 zoom is huge, especially on a D40.

"i've never argued about cost, use or quality. i'm talking about numbers"

there are more AF-S lenses than AF
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170456
>for the fifth time now, there's a big difference from saying it can't use fast primes to unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.
NO THERE FUCKING ISN'T GRAAAARGH.

Fast lenses are a significant portion of the lens lineup. Both numerically (i.e., there are a bunch of 'em) and in terms of usefulness. It doesn't fucking matter that there are more f/2.8 AF-S zooms out there because people are only going to get a normal zoom, a tele zoom, and maybe a wide zoom. Then they'll want something to let them shoot in low light when the extra photons are more important than the convenience of a zoom and they WON'T BE FUCKING ABLE TO because NIKON DOESN'T SELL ANY.

FAST PRIMES ARE SIGNIFICANT.

I think my head's going to explode.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170467
(Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and upcoming 50mm f/1.4 aside. I don't count the first because of an irrational anti-sigma bias, and I don't count the latter because it's still vaporware)
>> Anonymous
>>170377Also, I'm an unrepentant canonfag, so I prefer to phrase it in the way that makes it look worse. ;)

he said it himself

even if he did not mean significant as a number he should have phrased it so not to confuse novices into thinking it

but he did mean to make it sound bad
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170465
>>Because we're tallying lenses for the purpose of making a purchase recommendation.
>uh, no we're not, maybe YOU think you are
Reread the fucking OP. He was asking for a purchase recommendation. My statement was in relationship to that purchasing recommendation request.
>> Anonymous
>>170474

exactly

OP: xt or d40
ac: the D40 has the dubious distinction of being unable to autofocus even with a significant portion of Nikon's currently-selling autofocus lens lineup.
me: that's just wrong
ac: i know lulz, i wanted to make it sound bad
other anon: there are more AF than AF-S lenses because i only count primes

the argument with the other anon has nothing to do with OP buying a camera
>> Anonymous
>>170465
>why would we selectively discard lenses? that doesn't make sense

Because we're discussing what entry-level DSLR is best suited for most artistic or hobbyist photographers. They will not have any use for a 400/2.8, or the budget for one. It might as well not even exist for them.

>they are within 14mm and 35mm, they are wide primes. some of them just turn into normal because we're used to crop cameras

Godfuckingdammit. I suppose a 135mm mounted on a large format view camera is a telephoto? Or a 50mm on a Hasselblad is a normal?

"Wide" and "normal" focal lengths depend on the format. On a 6x crop compact, I suppose 35mm is a still a wide lens, in your book?

>so it's okay to own a 20mm and a 24mm but not a 17-55 and 18-200?

Yes. Because people use primes and zooms differently. Someone would use their 24mm lens as a general walkaround. But say they're in the mood for a wider field of view one day, so they put the 20mm on.

Have you shot at one set focal length as your main lens for any length of time? If not, you won't get what I'm talking about.

>but see why it gets stupid? it boils down to personal use, so why factor in that variable?

Because that's what matters when we're out taking photographs, not whatever crazy lenses the Nikon engineers have dreamt up and the marketers have sold to professionals to whom a $4,000 lens is a business expense, just like their plane ticket to the job.

>there are more AF-S lenses than AF

Okay. That's a fact But it is a completely and totally meaningless one.

>>170467
>I think my head's going to explode.

Yours too?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170478
>>170472
>even if he did not mean significant as a number he should have phrased it so not to confuse novices into thinking it
It IS significant as a number. It's fucking 40%. For every five Nikon lenses, two of them can't AF with a D40.

And personally, my kit consists of:
50mm f/1.8
35mm f/2.0
18-55 IS
80-200
If I were shooting Nikon, that would be fully half of my lenses that don't have equivalents that can autofocus on the D40.

My "unrepentant Canonfag" comment was a joke. Anyone who doesn't need to lurk more knows that I have no real problems with the Nikon system. Hell, I own two Nikons film cameras. If I were buying my first digital SLR today, I'd be more likely to buy a D80 than I would a Rebel XSi. But I stand by my "significant portion of Nikon's current AF-lineup can't AF" comment. If you don't think that's true, then the only explanation I can think of is that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'significant'.
>> Anonymous
>>170472
>but he did mean to make it sound bad

Well, it is bad. It's a bad design decision, plain and simple.

>>170478
>the argument with the other anon has nothing to do with OP buying a camera

It has everything to do with it. Because the OP will want to use lenses that:

1. Are useful for the sort of photographs he wants to take.
2. He can afford.

And there are more non AF-S lenses that meet that criteria than AF-S lenses.

Because of that, the OP shouldn't get a D40.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>170486
Agreed, About half of my lenses wouldn't AF if I downgraded to a D40 or D60. Of course I don't plan on doing that, but out of the 12 lenses I have only 6 of them would work.
Though the more I buy lenses the more I only get af-s ones, they are generally optically better as well as the faster AF is nice.

In a couple years I think all new lenses will have some sort of micro-motor or af-s equivelant in them
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170490
>Well, it is bad. It's a bad design decision, plain and simple.
It's not a bad design decision given the market the D40 is targeted at. Lets Nikon sell a cheaper body than Canon's XT, which means the Wal Mart shoppers who want a big, impressive camera and who have no intention of ever buying another lens--and certainly not one that has 0x zoom!--will pick the D40 over the Canon Rebel XT. Or more likely the D40x or D60, because lolmegapixuls.

It's a good design decision over all. It's just means that it's not a good camera for people who buy it as an entry into the Nikon system rather than an end in itself.
>> Anonymous
>>170498
True. Let me revise my statement:

It's a good design decision from a marketing standpoint, but a bad decision from a lets-turn-out-a-quality-product standpoint.

God I hate what capitalism has devolved into.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>170490
How on earth can you say the D40's lack of an AF motor is a bad thing when ALL Canon bodies lack motors?! Yes, the D40 is AF-S only. It still mounts all the old F-Mount lenses, everything from the 60s on. Nikon chose to move on and modernize by removing screwdriver-type AF designs from their cameras and lenses, just like Canon did, but at least Nikon kept their mount the same.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170510
I can see where you're coming from, but even then, I'm not entirely sure I agree.

I'm reasonably certain that Nikon will eventually update all of its lenses with in-lens AF motors. This'll give 'em better autofocus across their whole line--a motor designed specifically to focus one particular lens will probably do a better job of it than a jack-of-all-trades AF motor. Also, electrical connections between lens and body are cheaper and more reliable, so it's win-win.

My guess is that the D90 won't have an AF motor, but that its release will coincide with a whole host of new AF-S primes. The D400 and D4 will probably still have an AF motor, just like the D200 and D300 can still meter with MF lenses, but I wouldn't count on one in the D500.

Canon made the same sort of transition when they went from the FD system to the EOS system. They just did it all at once and screwed over everyone who'd bought into the manual-focus Canon line (especially T90 owners). Nikon's just doing it more gradually and screwing over people a little at a time, mostly at the low end where they won't feel it as much.
>> Anonymous
>>170519
Because every single autofocusing EF-mount lens will autofocus on every single EOS body. Every single F-mount lens should be able to exercise all its built-in capabilities with every Nikon body. Don't you wish you could pick up some cheap old AI-S glass and have it meter on your D50?

I'm not talking "Lol Canon versus Nikon." I'm just of the opinion that throwing away capability is never a good idea.
>> Anonymous
>>170523
>

Canon made the same sort of transition when they went from the FD system to the EOS system. They just did it all at once and screwed over everyone who'd bought into the manual-focus Canon line (especially T90 owners). Nikon's just doing it more gradually and screwing over people a little at a time, mostly at the low end where they won't feel it as much.

And to elaborate on this a bit: The EOS system was all-new. There was no reason, except stupid brand loyalty, for someone who had shot Canon FD to go to Canon EOS over any of the other new autofocus cameras. His lenses were just as useless to him on a Nikon F4 as they were on a EOS. So if he wanted to upgrade to autofocus, he had to go to a different system regardless. The EOS system is completely distinct from the FD system; the only thing they have in common is that Canon made both of them.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
hey, i've got a question. what do you guys at circuit city and whoever else do with the discontinued cameras? send them back to the manufacturer? sell them to employees? dumpster?
>> Anonymous
>>170533
in general i notice stores sell discontinued items at discounted prices. many times under the name of a "clearance sale."
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170539
>"clearance sale."
At which point the big box stores' prices get down around to the prices you could find on the Internet the day it was released. ;)
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>170539

hmm. i've never seen this. i'd love to score a discontinued camera, but they seem to completely disappear from the store the day the next model gets in.
>> Anonymous
>>170561
usually because the employees will know about it first and since theyre already there, they can stash it away to buy later.
>> Anonymous
>>170459
The canon 17-55 is also a EF-S lens, so it wont work on full frame. Talking about full frame , you can get the 25-102L for around the same price as the 17-55.
>> Anonymous
i got my xt in december for 399 (that's euros) with the kit lens. it was the hell of deal, if you're asking me...