File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I want a budget DSLR, and was thinking about Nikon D40, but I've been hearing that it's a shitty camera, even for the 450e with the kitlens that I'd be paying for it. Is this true, /p/?
>> Anonymous
would the 450 euro be worth it, compered to 600 euro for a canon eos 400D (digital rebel XTi, amerifags)?
>> Anonymous
I can already feel the Pentax and Olympus people coming.

Anyway, you could get the 400D body and buy the 18-55 IS separately.

But if you want Nikon, there's not much choice other than getting used gear. The D80 is still a big step up in price.
>> Anonymous
>>106065
I'd go for a used D50 or D70 if you're stuck on Nikon.

Otherwise the 400D is fine too.

Honestly it doesn't really matter, except the D40 limits your lens options unless you want to MF everything.
>> Anonymous
I have the D40. It's really for entry level/beginners like I am. For the most part, I feel that it's just a step up from P&S. It takes photos just fine and don't start tripping on how the camera sucks because I've seen a lot of great composed shots already done with P&S.

The main focus would be the lens use. Unless you are thinking of diving into the world of photography and getting the equipments to give yourself some hands-on, the D40 will be fine for you. It's great for casual use without much to worry about settings.
>> Anonymous
>>106093
I went with a 400D and picked up a used 50mm f1.8 on the cheap, I'm still learning tho, but its a good setup for someone like me...
>> Anonymous
That's funny... they have manual focus glass on D40's promo picture :D
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>106254

im seriously considering getting that lens cuz the 18-55mm really doesnt cut it when shooting indoors or at night. unless u use flash, but it looks terrible with flash anyways.

is manual focus really that difficult to use tho? do u get attachments that can make it easier to focus? like a magnifier for the vewfiender or something?
>> Anonymous
>>106093

You can't recommend the 400D to everyone, because the smaller grips are hell for people with large hands, and especially difficult for large hands + gloves.

At least, that's my experience.
>> Anonymous
>>106254
Well, that's not an official promo pic. The guys at DPreview use the standard 50mm lens on all the cameras they test or something.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106260
I have huge hands and the XTi feels fine to me. Even in gloves.
>> Anonymous
>>106256

You just can't see the focus if you use apertures below f2.8 ... so the fast f1.4 glass becomes pretty pointless. Of course the focus indicator light helps a bit, but still.. it's a nuisance.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>106256
I can say that manual focus on the d40 is pretty easy, and in less than a week I've gotten much better at it, but my lens only goes to f2.8. Relying on the focus indicator would slow the process down immensely, and that wouldn't work well for shooting people, so expect to practice a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>106356

Would you also say Nikon fucked you over by selling you a castrated camera?
>> Vincent
>>106356
Try F1.8 or F1.4 glass and you will just give up on Manual Focus, Even on the D200 (which has a much bigger and brighter viewfinder) I find it impossible to accurately gauge where the Focus is.

D50 still wins as the best buy in the cheap Nikon Lineup.
>> freak !!BgvYtRzHZrf
>>106369
I do. I'm mostly angry that there isn't a way to override the metering with non-cpu lenses. You can't tell me there isn't a way for them to have it set up like a digital light meter.
>>106389
As with manual focus, I prefer it, and have no problems with it even with my 50mm f 1.8. I was a projectionist at a movie theater for about three years so I've plenty of tricks in my bag for quick, efficient, and accurate focusing
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106431

Do share your secrets. I've been guessing distance and focusing on that.

So far i've been a good judge.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>106389
Fair enough.
>>106369
Not in the least. I rarely shoot people or moving things, so autofocus isn't a true necessity for me. Hence the macro lens that I have to manually focus, which only goes down to f2.8, but hell, as Vincent said, below that sucks even on the d200, so it's a moot point. I also bought this as a camera to learn on, and it's been great for that. It's just an issue of needs and priorities.
>>106431
Hey yeah, any tips would be awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>106319
>>106389
>>106445

What are you nimrods talking about? Manual focusing becomes easier the wider the aperture you use. An f/1.8 lens is EASIER to manually focus than an f/2.8 lens. Brighter lenses produce brighter focusing screen images and lenses with less wide-open DOF snap into focus better.

I find my D200 works pretty well with manual focus lenses, though it's still a far cry from my F4. I've heard that some aftermarket focusing screens (Katz Eye, Satin Snow) make a big difference, but haven't tried one. I'm not sure if they make one for the D40, but it's doubtful.

Your best bet is to just get a D50 and not be limited by the lack of motor bullshit.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>106446
I've never manually focused with less than f2.8, so I don't have the experience of it, I just know what the specs say, and what these others have reported. But manually focusing with the 2.8, as I've said, is just fine.
>> Anonymous
>>106446
Katzeye's are made for the D40 and I'm seriously thinking about getting one. I'd like to know if it really makes a big differance though.

And it easier to focus the higher f stop you use. Cos you have a bigger depth of field. So at f/22 you'll have a bigger in focus area than you have on f/1.8.

You can have a look yourself at the DOF calculator here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
It's explained really well there.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106485
>I'd go with a Canon 350D (Rebel XT), it's barely any more price wise, has 2+MP more, and has a built in AF motor. And the kit lens is quite decent.
The XT doesn't have an AF motor in the body. Just that Canon has always (well, since the first EOS camera) used in-lens focusing motors, so all (except for the TS-E lenses and one highly specialized macro lens) Canon lenses have their own motor.

Also: The kit lens is widely regarded as being worse than the Nikon equivalent.
>> Anonymous
>>106465
Perhaps it's just not possible to see the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.5 in terms of depth of field in a viewfinder. Your claim sounded dubious, so I tried it on a D200 and an FM2 and I can see no appreciable difference in DOF from f/1.8 until I get to f/4. Both cameras look the same.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106488

I agree with ya that the D40 could be a first step in Nikon moving to AF-S (nikon's USM) in all their lens line up which will take AF motors out of the cameras and make the camera slightly cheaper.

But boy are they taking their sweet ass time making new lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>106498

well at least they have 18-200 VRs available again. god damn, they took their sweet time makin those.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106506

LOL, not falling for you troll. :D
>> Anonymous
Pentax K10D... now stop your bitchin'.