File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Anything I should know before I hit the "BUY IT NOW" button?
>> Anonymous
If you don't need the 10mpix, you can get the 6mpix version and save a lot of cash.
>> Anonymous
yeah, get the D40 instead. same body with less noise at a higher ISO, 175 bucks cheaper. 175 bucks will then get you 3/4 of the way to the terrific 55-200 VR.
>> Anonymous
I know, but my parents are paying for it, so I want those extra mps.

Have you heard any bad reviews or anything that would make me not want it?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm buying it with the 18-135 lens and the 70-300mm.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:01:11 12:25:16Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width190Image Height190
>> Anonymous
>>74987
nearly every dslr out there is very good and you can't really go wrong (very nice situation)

People only quibble about minor things, and if the camera feels good in your hands and does what you want, you won't be disappointed. The only exception is the four thirds system IMO, especially with full-frame sensors coming within pro/amateur reach in the next 5 years.
>> Anonymous
>>74987
> I want those extra mps.
Why?
>> Anonymous
I fucking love my D40x
>> Anonymous
As said, the tradeoff of megapixels is this:

More megapixels means that a little bit more detail can be put into the file because, well, there's more points for it to record onto. The difference is minor enough not to matter except in extreme crop situations, which are the other advantage of more megapixels: more area to work with on cropping.

The disadvantage is that, all other things with the sensor being equal (and AFAIK, they are between the D40 and D40X), the sensor with more megapixels will have more noise.

The one to get depends on your own particular balance between those three factors.
>> Meatbread !gFRG2WW112
>>74993
>>Why?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Why indeed.
>> Anonymous
Just buy it fagort.
>> Anonymous
perfect entry level camera, helps out newbies with the help displays etc

no more threads about the D40
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Buy a D40 (not "x"). Use extra money to get better lenses. ?????. Profit.
>> Anonymous
Why NOT D40x then?
>> Anonymous
>>75343

Not worth it. Way too expensive and doesn't give any real reasons to buy d40x instead of d40.
>> Anonymous
I mean, if you want 10mpix, buy D80 or D200.
>> Anonymous
I'm actually in the process of looking for/buying a Digital SLR and I decided to go with the Nikon D40X because I DO want 10MP but if I were to go with a D80 I would be spending like 900-1,000...when I can get a D40X for around 600.
>> Anonymous
I have a D40x. It's great. For my uses the only problem is the inability to use fast prime lenses. The D40 doesn't have that either.

The D80 is another good choice which is just a little more expensive than D40x.

Extra megapixels is not a good reason to get the D40x instead of D40. However, it gives you a bit more flexibility to crop images and also print them larger.

Also consider Canon Rebel XT as a cheap 8 MP DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>thread

he's a newbie
it's a cheap, easy to use camera
your parents are paying, so buy the damn thing
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
You don't need 10 megapixels. It's doubtful that you even need 6. The D40x is a marketing move by Nikon to be able to match Canon MP for MP at the camera counter of Best Buy, because megapixels are the only things consumers and salespeople (at least the ones at big box stores like Best Buy) understand.

Just get a D40, spend the rest on the real stuff, good lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
>>74986
THAT IS ALL.
SERIOUSLY.
>> Anonymous
>>75362

Damn straight.

Quit worrying about "ZOMG megapixels" and get good glass instead. The latest & greatest CCD is useless if you can't get good light into the camera.
>> Anonymous
>>75347
Fast prime lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>75458
"Fast" is photospeak for a lens with a large maximum aperture (small f number), I can only assume because they let you use a faster shutter speed.

"Prime" is photospeak for a non-zoom lens, a lens with only one set focal length. Most photographers prefer them to zoom lenses, for four reasons.

1. Zoom lenses have to be designed to be good at a bunch of focal lengths. Primes, only at one. A zoom designer has to compromise both to get a halfway decent lens at, say, 35mm and 50mm. A designer of two primes can make both perfect.

2. Primes, being of simpler design, can usually be made faster than zooms.

3. Shooting with a prime teaches the photographer and forces the photographer to work in a way that (for most people) produces better photographs.

4. Many famous photographers, for the above reasons and often because they were the only lenses available at the time that weren't shit, used primes.

1, 2, and 3 are all good reasons. 4 isn't really.
>> Anonymous
>>75465
also because of the design of a prime versus a zoom lens, prime lenses are smaller and lighter.
>> Anonymous
>>75467
Yes, I forgot to mention that.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
There's some nice Sigma primes you can use with your D40, since they have a built-in motor that I think they designate (don't quote me on this) with HSM. The 30mm f/1.4 has this for sure, and it's a terrific lens.
>> phesarnion
>>75465
But there's always a tradeoff: for many, it isn't feasible to carry a 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 150mm and 200mm all in the field, which is where zoom lenses come in, as youcan fit all those focal lengths into one lens. Zooms have improved massively in the last few years, but don't tend to be quite as sharp and with more distortion than a prime lens, simply due to compromises in the design. However, as always there are exceptions, where high-end zoom lenses can be just as sharp as equivalent primes
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I have recently gotten a prime (50mm) for my camera (A100), basically the difference between it and the kit lense (which is better than yours anyway) is stunning. Colours are much deeper, it can be used in a lot more situations and 2nd hand ones are a lot cheaper.


PICK A SYSTEM, GET GOOD GLASS, GET BODY.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>75472
I believe that all of Sigma and Tamron and so forth's lenses have motors built in nowadays.

(This belief is based on the fact that they use basically the same lens for Canons and Nikons, and Canon doesn't have a motor-in-the-body option at all)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>75480
Truth. If you're going to get a zoom, make sure you do your homework. I picked up the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron, and it's absolutely fantastic. It's so sharp and contrasty that it gives every prime in that range I've used a serious run for their money. In fact, the only advantage my primes have are speed. The image quality is that good. So, shitty kit lenses suck, and shitty consumer zooms suck. Get a f/2.8 zoom and you're in business. It'll cost you, but it's worth it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>75485
Negatory. Most of them still use screwdrive AF.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Bear in mind, I'm speaking for Nikon gear only... I'm not totally experienced with Canon stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>75485
Sigma's HSM is the equivalent of AF-S on Nikon. And aren't all Canon systems use in body motors already, the USM types?

Yeah, I know jack shit about Canon systems, but are EF-S and Ls actually incompatible?
>> Anonymous
>>75533
Disregard that. I suck blocks. I meant in-lens motors as in USM type dealies.
>> Anonymous
I think the ideal lens for an APS-C size sensor would be something like the Leica Tri-Elmar: Three primes built into one lens body, in this case in a wide (I'm thinking 35mm equiv.), normal (~43 equiv., the "true normal"), and some medium telephoto focal length.

The flexibility of a zoom with all the advantages of a prime, though the two Tri-Elmars are slow for Leica lenses (f/4). I'm sure if constant aperture f/2.8 zooms are feasible, an f/2.8 Tri-Elmar type lens is possible.
>> Anonymous
What good prime lenses are for a D40 when shooting panoramics (stitching the photos together) and shooting inside dimly-lit clubs/bars?
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>75595
i borrowed a 20mm f/2.8 for a long time, it was a great prime. Obvious choice is 50mm f/1.8
in before: CANT AF WITH PRIMES (seriously, get over it /p/ )
>> Anonymous
>>75595
> shooting panoramics and shooting inside dimly-lit clubs/bars?
..what? Those are completely different things.

In one you want small aperture in other you'll need big, in one you want wide angel in other you'll need telephoto.
>> Anonymous
>>75561
If your magic 2.8 lens existed it'd be called a Tri-Elmarit in Leicaspeak (: