difference between various Nikons

[stsinner]

If I'm not mistaken, the D90 does video recording with sound..

 

[chrisburke]

i guess if you consider no AF not working then NO, there are a bunch of len's that wont WORK with your 40x... (or 40 or 60 for that matter) however, as someone who loves to save money, i really don't mind having to manually focus... and to say that no AF means a lens doesnt work, your pretty close minded and rely to much on autofocus

 

[PatrickHMS]

Okay, forget about the word "work".

Let's change the term as used in this subject to "fully compatible" or "partially compatible".

 

[ANDS!]

i guess if you consider no AF not working then NO, there are a bunch of len's that wont WORK with your 40x... (or 40 or 60 for that matter) however, as someone who loves to save money, i really don't mind having to manually focus... and to say that no AF means a lens doesnt work, your pretty close minded and rely to much on autofocus

In certain situations manual focus just doesn't cut it. Not to mention the reason we have manual focusing is because it has been refined to such a point as to duplicate the best a person could do manually - in less time.

Personally, after handling a D60 over the weekend, I would not want to go back that route, and if I were considering a D40 or D60, I would just go with a used D50.

 

[Kendo]

If I'm not mistaken, the D90 does video recording with sound..

The first dslr to have video. In HD too. Mono sound though.:er:

 

[Tolyk]

Yeah, but for a nifty 50, and a couple of non Nikon 2.8 zooms I plan to buy, most of what I would ever buy will be Nikon " DX " lenses which will be fully compatible with any Nikon DSLR that I have, or would ever buy.

When I say work, for me, I want it to function fully, fit, take a good pic, zoom, meter, and AF.

These old soon-to-be 59 year-old eyes are too weak to worry about manual focusing.

The nifty 50 doesn't AF, but that is worth it for now, until I decide to get the newest DX 1.4 if price ever drops in the future.

Not to be a stickler, but for accurate information, it isn't the DX factor that makes your lenses auto focus with the D40/x/60 series. It's the AF-S motor. DX doesn't matter, they're fully compatibile with FX lenses, as long as they have AF-S, the 70-200 AF-S for instance. It's a FX lens, but due to the internal motor on it, auto focuses fine on the lower end bodies.

 

[PatrickHMS]

Not to be a stickler, but for accurate information, it isn't the DX factor that makes your lenses auto focus with the D40/x/60 series. It's the AF-S motor. DX doesn't matter, they're fully compatibile with FX lenses, as long as they have AF-S, the 70-200 AF-S for instance. It's a FX lens, but due to the internal motor on it, auto focuses fine on the lower end bodies.

Yeah, I might have misquoted that, but all the DX lenses I have that work on D40/X/60 are also compatible with D200 and D90, etc.

 

[kundalini]

Since we'd like to do this together, and maybe get into a business of weddings, family photos, etc,

If that is a true statement, I would think the D300 or above is the route to take.

The first dslr to have video. In HD too. Mono sound though.:er:

With significant limitations. IMO it's a feature that wouldn't influence my decision to purchase a dslr.

 

[sabbath999]

With all due respect, if you are going to do weddings with Nikons you and are getting ready to buy equipment to do that, the MINIMUM you should buy is a pair of D700s, a pair of SB-600's, a f/1.4 50mm, a 70-200 VR and a 24-70 f/2.8.

Yes, I am talking about ten thousand dollars worth of equipment... but I am also talking about the the proper Nikon equipment it would take to shoot weddings PROFESSIONALLY, and not just be "that guy who takes wedding pictures sometimes."

If you are going to take money for shooting people's weddings, DO IT RIGHT.

 

[Early]

Yep! And if you think you're having fun with the D40X, wait till you get your D700.:thumbup:

 

[djacobox372]

d80 = similar sensor and IQ to the d40x, but with autofocus motor, and more external controls
d200 = basically the same as the d80 but made out of metal, and fully compatible with older non-cpu lenses, uses compact flash memory--also shoots faster then a d80
d300 = improved 12mp sensor that reduces noise at high-iso's, 5 times the autofocus points, live view, same pro build quality as the d200, and compatible with non-cpu lenses.
D90 = similar to the d300, but with plastic construction, and hd video support, not compatible with non-cpu lenses
D700 = basically a d300, but with a D3's full-frame sensor, compatible with non-cpu lenses
D3 = Nikon's "most awesome" camera.
D3x = Nikon's attempt to rip people off--seriously $8000 for a dslr that will be obsolete in a few years. LOL

If I were you I'd be considering either a d200, d300, or d90 depending on budget and if you want the ability to make movies. The d80 isn't a good choice, when the superior d200's are so cheap and available, and the d700 is probably a bit more camera then you need.

 

[PatrickHMS]

If I wanna make a movie, I will leave my D90 in the bag and use a camcorder...

But, out of all the different models of camera bodies within Nikon, Canon, plus others, etc., there is surely a DSLR that will appeal to everybody on here and out there.

You just have to choose what "system" you want to invest into.

 

[manaheim]

If you want to do anything professionally, I wouldn't recommend less than a D80/D90, and honestly I'm kind of wincing at anything less than a D200.

CAN you do professional work with less than a D200? Yes. Will you be limited and/or annoyed? Yes, occasionally. The further down you go, the more you will be annoyed.

Put it this way, I had a choice to pickup a D40x for very cheap as a potential backup camera to my D300, and I decided not to bother and to stick with my D100 instead. The D100 is ancient, slow, and only 6MP, but every control I need is external and quick and easy to manipulate... not so with the sub-bodies...

Not to mention the lack of the AF motor, the focus points, yadda yadda yadda. Not to mention the fact that if you're working with your camera, you're likely to bang it around now and again, and the D200/300/700s will take a hit WAY WAY WAY better than anything lesser.

Seriously, the D40/50/60 bodies are filled with serious compromises that are going to hurt. If it's all you can afford, then fine, go with that... if you can afford more, do so. Try real hard to squeeze at least a D200. You'll be glad you did.

 

[ShutterSpeed]

d80 = similar sensor and IQ to the d40x, but with autofocus motor, and more external controls
d200 = basically the same as the d80 but made out of metal, and fully compatible with older non-cpu lenses, uses compact flash memory--also shoots faster then a d80
d300 = improved 12mp sensor that reduces noise at high-iso's, 5 times the autofocus points, live view, same pro build quality as the d200, and compatible with non-cpu lenses.
D90 = similar to the d300, but with plastic construction, and hd video support, not compatible with non-cpu lenses
D700 = basically a d300, but with a D3's full-frame sensor, compatible with non-cpu lenses
D3 = Nikon's "most awesome" camera.
D3x = Nikon's attempt to rip people off--seriously $8000 for a dslr that will be obsolete in a few years. LOL

If I were you I'd be considering either a d200, d300, or d90 depending on budget and if you want the ability to make movies. The d80 isn't a good choice, when the superior d200's are so cheap and available, and the d700 is probably a bit more camera then you need.

This is really helpful. The d90 is my current pick. It will be a few months, I have to get through christmas first.

I'm already starting to get frustrated with the D40x. I've been really working with it for just a few weeks. If there is plenty of natural light available, then the images it can take in RAW can be wonderful.

But in a dark setting - i really love night photos, the image becomes extremely grainy under certain circumstances (which I haven't yet identified which). I'm using the maximum quality, but for some reason, some images are becoming very very grainy in a night photo, but others aren't.

My biggest concerns is budget. I'm in the midst of a move to Brasil where Nikons actually cost 3-4x more. Our photographer friend who i mentioned earlier actually owns the d3 - i forgot which one. He bought it through us, so that he wouldn't have to pay 3x more for an already expensive piece of equipment. But now that we're going, I'm concerned about my ability to buy one there.

Someone mentioned the equipment needed for a wedding. I appreciate that knowledge, but i'm a long way from even being ready to start buying that stuff. When I get to brazil, we're going to spend time with that photographer who will teach us his techniques, etc and maybe we'll eventually partner with him to create a franchise (since he's become a prestigious photographer). so, in the future, i now know what to look for. The D40x has been a great gateway for us into the world of photography..and since we're relatively new, just learning the basics on a decent camera is exciting.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ to be honest, your issues with night photography may be more you than the camera in that case. (not that I want to overly defend the D40, but I wouldn't want you to spend $1000 on a camera and find the same results.)

Question... are you shooting your dark photos in Auto mode, perchance? Or manually turning up the ISO?