File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
sup /p/, newfag to photohraphy here.

is Ken Rockwell a failure? Im buying a DSLR soon and I read his comparison of the D40 to the D40x here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

The D40 take 6MP pictures and the D40x takes 10.2, even though they have the same sensor. Ken mentions of the D40x: "It's the same as the D40 with a few more pixels". 4 million pixels is not "a few".

He also mentions of the D40x's cons: "Slower default ISO: only ISO 100 compared to D40's ISO 200", but according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D40), he is totally wrong, the D40 ISO range is 200-1600, and the D40x ISO range is 100-1600.

so is he a big noob or is his shit worth reading?
>> Anonymous
get what ever you want d40 is fine d40x is slightly better.
>> Anonymous
Ken Rockwell is a fucking idiot. He isn't totally wrong though, you're just reading it incorrectly. He is an idiot for believing that a bottom end of 200 ISO is somehow better than 100 ISO. The opposite is true - you want maximum flexibilty with ISO.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>141127
Quite possibly the only real reason to get the d40x over the d40 is the change in iso. The difference in mp isn't much of an issue unless you tend to heavily crop your photos. The d40 actually has surprisingly nice image quality in general because they aren't cramming too many pixels into the same size space; 6 is about the best for an aps-c size sensor in terms of noise and image quality. But it is a smaller image.
>> Anonymous
I don't like calling other people "failures" outright, but Ken Rockwell is not someone to be taking photography advice from.

The D40x has four more megapixels and, somehow, more dynamic range despite that. (Megapixels and dynamic range usually work against each other.)

And for once, Ken Rockwell is right, with regard to the ISOs. The minimum normal ISO of a digital camera is always the optimum sensitivity to be running it at; anything lower you can go through ten menus to get to is actually lower quality. Unless you do a lot of studio flash work, or like shooting wide open at high noon, a higher optimum ISO is better.
>> Anonymous
Oh, and those four megapixels don't matter for most print sizes. It might sound like a lot, but in practice, most users won't see any benefit from going any higher than six.
>> Anonymous
I've never gone wrong using Ken Rockwell as a resource on a purchase.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>141254

LOL... the biggest mistake i made was thanks for Ken Crockwell. The 18-200 was single handedly the worst mistake i've made.

Mainly cause i paid a premium for it thanks to the stupid hype that Crockwell contributed to.
>> Anonymous
>>141255

I have it too, what's wrong with it?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>141280

Too expensive
IQ was not great for the price
Terrible Distortions at the wide end
Soft beyond 120mm
Barrel creep
Slow compared to comparative lens in the range eg. 18-70

But like i said, the issue i have with it is actually Crockwell. That cunt essentially sold the lens for me saying how it was the shit and didn't need anything else.

His review of that lens was just ridiculously biased, and I was starting out at the time looking for some decent advice... unfortunately i took his word.
>> Anonymous
it's the greatest lens ever if you only have one
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>141383

no, i agree completely. i still get probably 90% of my info from books.

the nikon compendium does pretty much exactly what ken rockwell aspires to do, only much, much better.

similarly, if everyone just picked up a copy of light, science and magic like david hobby keeps telling everyone to, he wouldn't have much of a blog anymore.

wanna learn how to do everything you possibly can do in a darkroom? pick up "the darkroom handbook".

need to know how to expose correctly everytime? ansel adams' "natural light photography" or minor white's "zone system manual".

it's funny how only a few good books can replace a hundred blogs, forums and soapboxes.
>> Anonymous
>>141375

I bought a d40 before looking seeing Crockwell's article. Went for it because of the weight/convenience and mediocrity. I'll just spend the other $$ on lenses, since I'm still a noob.

>>141364

So which is better? the 18-70mm or the 18-200mm?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>141375
>he somehow doesn't understand what's wrong with stating an opinion as fact.
Do you start out every statement of opinion with "This is just my opinion, but..."? No, you don't. Nobody does that. Go take a look through /p/ and see how many times people specifically state that it's just their opinion when they state their opinion.

Why? Because it's fucking understood that when someone writes an opinion that it's just their opinion.

And, if that weren't enough, here's the first three sentences of the first paragraph of kenrockwell.com's "About" page:
>This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. This site is purely my personal opinion.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>141406

>>So which is better? the 18-70mm or the 18-200mm?

With in the 18-70 range the 18-70 is much much better. It's faster, much less barrel distortion on the wide and lens pincushion on the long. Also much better CA performance.

But obviously the 18-70 doesn't have a 70-200 range

>>141414

Yeah but that's one of his contradictions... he states that it's all his opinion that statements which are factually erroneous... then proceeds to contradict his own opinions...

But let's get off this topic... i think we've all gotten trolled again hahaha
>> Anonymous
>>141171Unless you do a lot of studio flash work, or like shooting wide open at high noon, a higher optimum ISO is better.

????
>> Anonymous
>>141428
What is it you don't understand?
>> Anonymous
D40x is the worst "upgrade" nikon has ever made. 4 more megapixels and iso 100 is not worth the extra cost.

D40x is for soccer moms who think megapixels equal image quality.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>141508
Yes and no, for us "real" photographers its utterly pointless but from a marketing point its quite a sensible decision.
>> Anonymous
>>141428
Studio flash work is usually done with lots of light. There's lots of light at high noon. ISO 200 is kinda fast for both of them, especially at larger apertures.

For everyone else, it's nice to be able to get the best performance possible out of the chip at twice the amount of sensitivity as other cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>141508

lol how about the d60?
>> Anonymous
again i must stress this to anyone that hasnt actually printed pictures larger than a few inches x a few inches. the mp count does make a difference.

these are the threads that really show that p is more interested in numbers than photography when they get all but hurt over the fact that the cameras they bought a year ago now have better, cheaper successors.

just use the camera you have and educate your eye.