Topic: Nikon D40 DigiCombo #3

[FiKe]

Thinking real serious about getting this combo anyone have any experience with the Nikon D-40?? This looks to be a pretty complete starter package I still have a smallish Fuji film digital around somewhere to take into shows with me but I'd like to upgrade and possibly get into the porn business.



                Phillip

               

[Shawn]

I'd like to upgrade and possibly get into the porn business.                

[phanophish]

The D40 is a nice camera with a few caveats.  Most importantly.  It does not have an internal focus motor, so you must buy lenses that have motors in them.  Some of Nikon's best lenses for concert photography do not have a motor.  Also it does not have a LCD back light, which does not sound like a big deal until you are trying to see what your setting are in the dark and then it really sucks.

I'm a Nikon shooter and if I were starting from scratch I'd also take a very close look an Canon's offerings if concert photography is something you will be doing much of.  Currently Canon's sensors tend to have better low light performance

[FiKe]

I had a friend that sold me a Canon XTi body for 250$ so I went and bought a canon 100mm f2.8 macro.and a Quanterary (sp?) flash.
I haven't gotten a chance to use it yet however.When I put the whole thing together to mess around with it I never could get it to read the Compact Flash card I bought a card reader and that proved the card was good so I thought it must be something in the camera as it turns out one or two of the card pins were bent so I shipped it off to canon today they said it was still under warranty so it looks like I still may make out ok. I'm kind of glad I didnt go with the Nikon d40 at this point . I've talked to a few people that are into photography  and they all agreed the XTi was a good deal and if I can get it fixed for not a lot of bucks it will be a great deal.


 Phillip

[phanophish]

If all that is wrong is a few bent pins it will probably be less than $200 to get fixed and even at $450 an XTi is not a bad deal.  FWIW you might want to go look around for a 50/1.8  That 100/2.8 will be pretty good, but depending on the show it might be a bit long if you are shooting from up close.  You can probably track down a used 50/1.8 for less than $75 and should be able to find a new one for not much ($10-25) more.

[FiKe]

Thanks for that advice on the 50/1.8 lens I will certainly look into one.Yeah it might be possible that I can get the body fixed under warranty and if thats the case I will have really made out . Looking forward to getting the body back and learning a new hobby or possibly another addiction . I have been cruising the Canon forum and looking at shots taken with various cameras and that has really stoked me for this new hobby.

 Phillip

[phanophish]

Another great digital photo resource if fredmiranda.com  Great forums for photography....

[Frank in JC]

The D40 is a nice camera with a few caveats.  Most importantly.  It does not have an internal focus motor, so you must buy lenses that have motors in them.  Some of Nikon's best lenses for concert photography do not have a motor.  Also it does not have a LCD back light, which does not sound like a big deal until you are trying to see what your setting are in the dark and then it really sucks.

I'm a Nikon shooter and if I were starting from scratch I'd also take a very close look an Canon's offerings if concert photography is something you will be doing much of.  Currently Canon's sensors tend to have better low light performance

I'm kinda late to this topic, but...

Good advice... and yes I've heard the same about Canon's low-light performance. 

However, I discovered something surprising this weekend with one of Nikon's newest digital SLR lenses, the consumer-grade AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX VR.  (For those who don't know, AF-S means the lens has a built-in ultrasonic motor, so it'll work on the D40/D40x which doesn't have its own motor.  All the Nikon lenses designed for their DSLRs have their own motors, but very few older lenses do, and those are usually quite expensive.) 

I haven't done a comparison, but depending on how you look at it, it's possible that it's a better lens in some ways for concert photography than the ubiquitous 80-200mm f/2.8 ED!  The difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 is two stops, but the VR lens allows you to shoot at least THREE stops slower. Another factor is that shooting at f/2.8 on what is effectively a 300mm lens is going to produce very little depth of field and be a little soft in the corners, which could be very good or very bad. It's easy to fall in love with fast lenses, but like everything else we're making a compromise in the processs.  Don't get me wrong though, I love fast lenses like everybody else.

Oh, the best part... the 55-200 f/4-5.6 is only $250. 

My advice is that anybody shopping for a long lens forget anything that doesn't implement a vibration-reduction system unless you want to shoot from a tripod.  Where Nikon "digital" lenses are concerned, the best "concert" lens (and all-around lens) would be the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 DX VR, but nobody has them in stock, so the 55-200 f/4-5.6 becomes a good choice even though it doesn't go wide.  If you want to go really wide, the Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX is sweet.

Take a look in Rig Pictures, WSP @ Radio City for some examples.  My pics were posted by both Craig T and me.

-Frank

[phanophish]

I'm kinda late to this topic, but...

Good advice... and yes I've heard the same about Canon's low-light performance. 

However, I discovered something surprising this weekend with one of Nikon's newest digital SLR lenses, the consumer-grade AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX VR.  (For those who don't know, AF-S means the lens has a built-in ultrasonic motor, so it'll work on the D40/D40x which doesn't have its own motor.  All the Nikon lenses designed for their DSLRs have their own motors, but very few older lenses do, and those are usually quite expensive.) 

I haven't done a comparison, but depending on how you look at it, it's possible that it's a better lens in some ways for concert photography than the ubiquitous 80-200mm f/2.8 ED!  The difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 is two stops, but the VR lens allows you to shoot at least THREE stops slower. Another factor is that shooting at f/2.8 on what is effectively a 300mm lens is going to produce very little depth of field and be a little soft in the corners, which could be very good or very bad. It's easy to fall in love with fast lenses, but like everything else we're making a compromise in the processs.  Don't get me wrong though, I love fast lenses like everybody else.

Oh, the best part... the 55-200 f/4-5.6 is only $250. 

My advice is that anybody shopping for a long lens forget anything that doesn't implement a vibration-reduction system unless you want to shoot from a tripod.  Where Nikon "digital" lenses are concerned, the best "concert" lens (and all-around lens) would be the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 DX VR, but nobody has them in stock, so the 55-200 f/4-5.6 becomes a good choice even though it doesn't go wide.  If you want to go really wide, the Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX is sweet.

Take a look in Rig Pictures, WSP @ Radio City for some examples.  My pics were posted by both Craig T and me.

-Frank

FWIW there is no substitute for fast glass.  While VR/IS may help eliminate camera shake that a slower shutter speed makes apparent, it does nothing to stop the motion of a moving subject.  If, under a typical concert shooting situation, you are shooting at 1/100 with a 2.8 lens, dropping the 2-3 stops to a slower 4.5/4.6 lens means that the same exposure requires a 1/25 shutter speed.  While VR may help compensate for the hand held camera shake you will see significant motion blur from the performers due to the slow shutter speed.  The new Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX VR is a great little lens for what it is but it's not a substitute for proper fast glass.  Most of my concert shooting I do with a 18-50/2.8 Sigma and my Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR, I also use the Nikon 50/1.4 sometimes, but at 1.4 DOF gets very shallow and focus gets tricky.. 

Second the crop factor does not directly impact DOF at a given focal length, but since less focal length is required at a given distance for an equivalent crop it does impact the image indirectly.  The result when using a crop factor camera actually has the effect of greater depth of field because of the shorter focal length needed for the same effective crop. 

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/crop-factor-depth-of-field.html

[Frank in JC]

FWIW there is no substitute for fast glass.  While VR/IS may help eliminate camera shake that a slower shutter speed makes apparent, it does nothing to stop the motion of a moving subject.  If, under a typical concert shooting situation, you are shooting at 1/100 with a 2.8 lens, dropping the 2-3 stops to a slower 4.5/4.6 lens means that the same exposure requires a 1/25 shutter speed.  While VR may help compensate for the hand held camera shake you will see significant motion blur from the performers due to the slow shutter speed.  The new Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX VR is a great little lens for what it is but it's not a substitute for proper fast glass.  Most of my concert shooting I do with a 18-50/2.8 Sigma and my Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR, I also use the Nikon 50/1.4 sometimes, but at 1.4 DOF gets very shallow and focus gets tricky.. 

Second the crop factor does not directly impact DOF at a given focal length, but since less focal length is required at a given distance for an equivalent crop it does impact the image indirectly.  The result when using a crop factor camera actually has the effect of greater depth of field because of the shorter focal length needed for the same effective crop. 

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/crop-factor-depth-of-field.html

I know this point got lost in my post, but given the performance of Nikon's pro and consumer grade AF-S DX lenses, most people do not need to worry about having an SLR body with its own AF motor.  It's good that you mention it as a caveat, but a novice with a budget that will only allow for a D40/D40x is still in very good shape. 

The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR must be a wonderful lens for concert photography, but nobody working security is going to believe you're an amateur!  I was surprised I got my D200 and lenses into Radio City, but I made sure there was a physically small lens on the camera.  As I'm sure you're well aware of, many people get their panties in knots over photography, especially when you have good equipment and look like you know how to use it.

Thanks for the clarification about depth-of-field... that makes perfect sense.  I've been shooting slides for years, but have only been doing digital for a few months now.  I still have a bunch of things to learn.


-Frank

[phanophish]

I know this point got lost in my post, but given the performance of Nikon's pro and consumer grade AF-S DX lenses, most people do not need to worry about having an SLR body with its own AF motor.  It's good that you mention it as a caveat, but a novice with a budget that will only allow for a D40/D40x is still in very good shape. 

The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR must be a wonderful lens for concert photography, but nobody working security is going to believe you're an amateur!  I was surprised I got my D200 and lenses into Radio City, but I made sure there was a physically small lens on the camera.  As I'm sure you're well aware of, many people get their panties in knots over photography, especially when you have good equipment and look like you know how to use it.

Thanks for the clarification about depth-of-field... that makes perfect sense.  I've been shooting slides for years, but have only been doing digital for a few months now.  I still have a bunch of things to learn.


-Frank

Great information, I'm just not a huge fan of the D40 because of the limits with lenses, it has a great sensor, arguably one of the best you can get from Nikon, but with the lack of an internal motor it can be limiting.  I'd be unable to use my 50/1.4 or my 18-50/2.8.  Ironically the 70-200 VR would work just fine. It is a beast to shoot with though, and as you said it is not subtle.  I shoot a fair amount with a photo pass so it is not an issue, but most people don't have that option.  The 50/1.4 and the 18-50 however could probably get in anywhere you are able to take a DSLR.  I think they will work on a D40 just without auto focus.

The Depth of field thing is confusing as all hell, at least for me.  that's why I gave the simple answer and let the full article explain the why because all I would do is mess up the explanation

[BayTaynt3d]

f/2.8 and below is pretty much required for concert photography, image stabilization just makes it that much better, but it doesn't make 4-5.6 useable in those situations really. Remember, you'll probably already shooting at ISO 1600, so if you've got stops to spare, then you'd use them to bring down your ISO, not to use slow glass. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the affordability thing, everyone has to start somewhere. That said, there is no substitute for fast glass...

[FiKe]

 This has been a good thread for me I've learned a lot. As I mentioned earlier I got a good deal on a Canon XTi body and Canon really treated me well on repairing the bent compact flash card pins. My first lens I bought was a 100mm f 2.8 macro . The reason I bought this lens was in the research i did prior to buying , I found that I really liked macro photography and that lens came highly recommended for that type of work , my next lens purchase will probably be something more suited to concert photos, then will come a landscape or general purpose lens.
 I bought a Magic Lantern Guide for the XTi at Wolfes I'm going to read that cover to cover and research lenses on the Fred Miranda and Canon boards then I will spring for some lenses.
 Thanks for all the advice and posts you guys have been a big help.


                    Phillip
 + T's all the way around