i know all there is to know

[Bifurcator]

I thought you were doing fine...

 

[Overread]

Not that I'll be saving for anything like that any time soon. New lenses make more more of a difference in pictures than the body so I'm gonna go with getting a fisheye, micro lens, and better zoom lens.

That is the right way of thinking
Go for the best lenses you can afford/save up for and they will help you far far more than a new body - the body records the sight, but to see it it needs a photographer to spot the sight and a lens to see through. Hence the body is at the bottom end of the pecking order - after user and then lens.

One thing that might help you is to look at RAW shooting. That would at least give you a good safty line with exposures - getting it right in camera is the best you can do and is the only real way forward, but RAW editing can provide a good aid as well - though I don't know how confident you are with editing in general.
For a good RAWvsJPEG and a series of articles on editing and some on shooting take a look here:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
its a lot, but easy to read and well worth taking time to read

 

[Mav]

OK well if you want a faster frame rate that's fair enough because yeah, the D40 is pretty slow for an SLR at 2.5 fps. The cheapest way to get something faster is a used Canon 30D at 5fps, or a D200 that also does 5fps. The newer Canon 40D and Nikon D300 are even faster. Color wise though, it's not the camera. All of the photos in that post were straight off of my D80 untouched, which has the same exact on-board processing as the D40. A lot of the scenes you're shooting have drabby and flat looking color, so of course they're going to look drabby and flat off the camera too. Try setting a custom picture style and set the color mode to IIIa and Saturation to + and see if it improves a bit. Newer cameras like the D300 do give you a wider range of color adjustments, but a new D300 is $1600+ whereas some mild saturation adjustments afterwards can be done for free. You might want to post-process some of these anyways.

For cooler skateboarding shots I think you'd be much better off getting a 10.5mm fisheye than a different camera body. The Nikon one you'll have to manually focus on the D40, but the depth of field with a fisheye is so huge that it probably won't even be an issue. Sigma also makes a fisheye for Nikon and has their HSM motor, so it'll give autofocus support but I've never seen a review of that lens so no idea if it's any good.

 

[Helen B]

...
For a good RAWvsJPEG and a series of articles on editing and some on shooting take a look here:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
its a lot, but easy to read and well worth taking time to read

The 'Why Raw' article on that website has some fairly important (and glaring) factual errors and misleading statements concerning the differences between Raw and JPEG, so don't trust it too much. Shame really. Why don't these guys ask for a peer review of their articles before posting them?

Best,
Helen

 

[Overread]

Helen, I would be interested in hearing your views on the errors with the RAW article. I admit to my own lack of indepth understandings about photography so whilst I do find a site like the one I posted useful I will admit that many a time they talk about things that I do not fully understand when explaining the background behind ideas - I like many others, just have to trust the site author.

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

For cooler skateboarding shots I think you'd be much better off getting a 10.5mm fisheye than a different camera body. The Nikon one you'll have to manually focus on the D40, but the depth of field with a fisheye is so huge that it probably won't even be an issue. Sigma also makes a fisheye for Nikon and has their HSM motor, so it'll give autofocus support but I've never seen a review of that lens so no idea if it's any good.

If I ever plan on getting a new body that doesn't require AF-S shouldn't I just get the Nikon fish and work with the manual focus until then?.. because I've heard that one is better than the Sigma.

 

[reg]

i know all there is to know

Dude! I'm impressed!

Couldn't help you with the dull colors and stuff though, the D40 seems decent to me. But I guess you'd be the one to figure it out.

 

[Easy_Target]

For the sports shots, were those focused manually? It appears that the focus is set to the area behind the skaters. This could explain why they're looking a bit "dull."

The showerhead and the doorknob, I personally think have to do more with the lighting that you used than the camera itself.

The two sunset shots are underexposed.

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

yeah the skating pictures were focused manually. should they be on autofocus?

 

[keith204]

yeah the skating pictures were focused manually. should they be on autofocus?

If you use manual focus, be sure you predict the shot well. If autofocus, chances are that as they're coming towards you, they will be out of focus by the time you finish clicking the button. However...try out AI-Servo mode in AF.

 

[Easy_Target]

yeah the skating pictures were focused manually. should they be on autofocus?

I used to do some photographer for trickers. Here's a tip, when doing it, if you know what path they're going to take, have someone stand there first and focus on approximately where they're going to be, then shoot when the person is actually passing through the frame. If you adjust the focus when nobody is there, then you're adjusting for the background, which is not what you want. This is especially crucial when you have a narrow depth of field.

 

[iknowdatalfabat]

ohh ok.
and i don't think i can do AI-Servo mode on my camera.

 

[sabbath999]

Dull colors on a D40.

Right.

Um humm...

I shot this last week with my D40. I ain't saying this picture it is art, or even good... but I am saying that the D40 can take pictures without dull colors...

 

[Bifurcator]

Man! Are those colors dull!