My timing was impeccable!

[Ramesses]

Hi:

Since I am brand new, I really do not know if my topic belongs in this forum or sub-forum. If it doesn’t, I apologize.

After so many weeks of analysis and tribulations, I made up m mind to order the Nikon D40 on March 4, in the evening. I wake up, the following morning to find out that Nikon released the news of the new, 10.2 MP - D40X, on March 5 (for about $200 more.) After hours of sheer agony, I decided to stick with the D40 taking in consideration Ken Rockwell’s advice on his website.

I cannot praise high enough Joel Weiss from “The Imaging World” – the dealer I bought the D40 from. He was fantastic and very understanding of my dilemma. A very honest dealer – a rarity now days.

The best news, in my opinion, was the announcement of the new Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor for $250.00. This lens rocks, considering the price and that all these variable aperture zoom lenses range from f/3.5-5.6. The combination of 18-55 DII and 55-200 VR is very nice, in my humble opinion, (the only drawback is that there are two lenses instead of one.) The alternative would be the 18-200 VR and for only $900.00 (I prefer to buy the D80 or with a bit more the D200 with that kind of money.)

I personally do not like to shoot with flash. Maybe it is because I never learned how to use it properly. Therefore, I need lenses with of at least f/2.8 and f/1.4 or f/1.8 – preferably. However, I’m still making the transition from film and might not be correct in my assessment. What about auto focus? Well, my AE1, the first automatic camera with a microprocessor – a breakthrough at the time – was always on manual. J

Best regards,

Ramesses

 

[MikeR]

I personally do not like to shoot with flash. Maybe it is because I never learned how to use it properly. Therefore, I need lenses with of at least f/2.8 and f/1.4 or f/1.8 – preferably. However, I’m still making the transition from film and might not be correct in my assessment. What about auto focus? Well, my AE1, the first automatic camera with a microprocessor – a breakthrough at the time – was always on manual. J

Best regards,

Ramesses

Come on, blame it on the flash, most other people would :lmao:
Enjoy the gear!

 

[xfloggingkylex]

Are you looking for advice here? or just stating what you have purchased?

sorry, I just dont want you to be asking a question and everyone ignore it.

how much is the D40x? seems like a poor idea when the D80 is so new.

 

[Ramesses]

Are you looking for advice here? or just stating what you have purchased?

sorry, I just dont want you to be asking a question and everyone ignore it.

how much is the D40x? seems like a poor idea when the D80 is so new.

Hi:

I just wanted to get a discussion going. You are right. When I posted my message, I did not understand the purpose of it either. That is why I said, I had no idea if I was in the right forum or not.

The only reason I posted the message was to vent on “paper” what I went through. No one, but no one, around me cares about photography.

The price of the D40x kit (with the 18-55 DII lens) is going to be around $799.00. I have no idea why they didn’t name it the D60. Maybe they have something up their sleeves by Christmas time.

Best regards,

Ramesses

 

[xfloggingkylex]

well I for one feel the D40X Nikon running in place. The lack of auto focus points (it has 3 AF points compared to canons 9 and Pentax's 11) any form of dust removal/prevention and lack of lens compatibility are all fine for its little brother, the D40, but for a 10 MP camera it certainly isn't on par.

The D40 is a beginners camera. It is very easy to use and has help features galore, something no other camera has done. The lack of features also helps to stream line the camera so that users who are switching over from point and shoots don't have to spend months learning the in's and out's of the camera.

To add a 10MP sensor and a 200 dollar price tag just makes it a more expensive beginners camera that takes up more memory per picture. The D80 is a stellar camera and the extra money it costs to get that over the D40X is worth it many times over.

I wonder, if you have the D40X and you set it to take medium sized pictures (6MPs) would it lose the X?

 

[Ramesses]

Come on, blame it on the flash, most other people would :lmao:
Enjoy the gear!

Hi Mike:

Thanks.

The two main reasons I do not like the flash is because it produces, in my opinion, artificial pictures and the light reflects off everything. However, a lot of people use it very successfully. Conclusion: it is me.

Best regards,

Ramesses

 

[Ramesses]

well I for one feel the D40X Nikon running in place. The lack of auto focus points (it has 3 AF points compared to canons 9 and Pentax's 11) any form of dust removal/prevention and lack of lens compatibility are all fine for its little brother, the D40, but for a 10 MP camera it certainly isn't on par.

The D40 is a beginners camera. It is very easy to use and has help features galore, something no other camera has done. The lack of features also helps to stream line the camera so that users who are switching over from point and shoots don't have to spend months learning the in's and out's of the camera.

To add a 10MP sensor and a 200 dollar price tag just makes it a more expensive beginners camera that takes up more memory per picture. The D80 is a stellar camera and the extra money it costs to get that over the D40X is worth it many times over.

I wonder, if you have the D40X and you set it to take medium sized pictures (6MPs) would it lose the X?

Hi:

Thanks for your response.

To answer your question, No I would not take the D40X to drop the X. On the same token, I would not take the D40 to add the X. Trust me on this, I almost cancelled the order. It was not an easy decision, at least for me. The main reason was if I decided on a 6MP camera, in the first place, why bother when Nikon came up with the X.

I'm getting the camera by Monday.

I’m just getting back to photography and I have a lot to learn. Film and Digital are two different mediums and I know nothing about digital and forgotten everything about film – it has been 20 years.

I still have the AE1 and my father’s A1, which is in mint condition – almost better than new. I could fire the A1 ($88.00 to service it,) but the hustle and expense with film. Or, put everything I can gather towards the D200, if I seriously pursue this hobby. I love the D40 as a second camera or travel camera, though.

Best regards,

Ramesses

 

[bnz506]

I have the D40 and Im fine with it. When the D40x was first leaked the first bit of info that came out was the 10mp upgrade, I was like OH hell no (assuming it was the same price), then more information was released the biggest one was the price 799.00... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU** that!!! 800 dollar camera that cannot focus AF lenses? get outta here. If I could afford a 800 dollar camera back then (or now) I would have coughed up a little bit more for a D80 (which is sooo beautiful).

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was simply saying that if you shot the D40X at medium sized photos (which is 6 mps) would there be any difference at all between that and the regular D40.

Personally, I think the D40 is a great camera to learn on. You will want to upgrade, but the D40 is affordable to the point where once you upgrade it can be a nice backup camera.

If I already knew about photography using film, I wouldnt even look at the D40 or the D40X. They lack features that come in handy at the expense of user friendlyness, which if you know how to use the camera, you dont really need anymore. Thats not to say it isn't a nice camera, but I would turn my eyes to the D80.

 

[Ramesses]

I have the D40 and Im fine with it. When the D40x was first leaked the first bit of info that came out was the 10mp upgrade, I was like OH hell no (assuming it was the same price), then more information was released the biggest one was the price 799.00... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU** that!!! 800 dollar camera that cannot focus AF lenses? get outta here. If I could afford a 800 dollar camera back then (or now) I would have coughed up a little bit more for a D80 (which is sooo beautiful).

Hi BNZ:

Thanks for your nice comments. I went through a similar range of emotions – I just placed the order for the D40 the day before the news broke out. I’m fine with it now.

How do you like the 18-55 lens that came with your camera? (I am assuming that is the lens you are using. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.) I’m pursuing the 18-70 in eBay. If I can get it, then I will sell the 18-55 – brand new, never used with blank warranty card, etc. That will give me the ability, in a year or two, to strike at the D80 or D200 (or whatever similar camera trots out there) body only. I cannot see either camera with the 18-55. Is it a mistake in your judgment and the 18-55 is more than enough?

I love the D40 light weight and feel – grip of a big camera. I carted the AE1, literally around the world – which is not that heavy – and by the end of every day it felt like the adage: “A stone around my neck.”

Thanks,

Ramesses

 

[bnz506]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was simply saying that if you shot the D40X at medium sized photos (which is 6 mps) would there be any difference at all between that and the regular D40.

Personally, I think the D40 is a great camera to learn on. You will want to upgrade, but the D40 is affordable to the point where once you upgrade it can be a nice backup camera.

If I already knew about photography using film, I wouldnt even look at the D40 or the D40X. They lack features that come in handy at the expense of user friendlyness, which if you know how to use the camera, you dont really need anymore. Thats not to say it isn't a nice camera, but I would turn my eyes to the D80.

My comments wasnt directed towards anyone, It was just related to the topic (I think) from my point of view.

How do you like the 18-55 lens that came with your camera? (I am assuming that is the lens you are using. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.) I’m pursuing the 18-70 in eBay. If I can get it, then I will sell the 18-55 – brand new, never used with blank warranty card, etc. That will give me the ability, in a year or two, to strike at the D80 or D200 (or whatever similar camera trots out there) body only. I cannot see either camera with the 18-55. Is it a mistake in your judgment and the 18-55 is more than enough?

Thanks,

Ramesses

Im new to the world of DSLR so im not an expert in this field youre better off asking someone else on this forum.

I recently got the 18-135mm lens for 100 dollars (about 200 dollars off) I couldnt resist.

I felt the 18-55 was good enough but since the 18-135mm lens was so cheap I bought it for the extra range. I am disappointed that I have to be further away at 18mm to focus on a object with the 18-135 then I did with the 18-55.

Point is the 18-55 is good enough IMO you can save the money and wait for the 55-200mm VR thats coming out for about $250 (I think) which is cheaper than the 18-70, gives you more distance, and VR!!!

 

[Ramesses]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was simply saying that if you shot the D40X at medium sized photos (which is 6 mps) would there be any difference at all between that and the regular D40.

Personally, I think the D40 is a great camera to learn on. You will want to upgrade, but the D40 is affordable to the point where once you upgrade it can be a nice backup camera.

If I already knew about photography using film, I wouldnt even look at the D40 or the D40X. They lack features that come in handy at the expense of user friendlyness, which if you know how to use the camera, you dont really need anymore. Thats not to say it isn't a nice camera, but I would turn my eyes to the D80.

Hi:

Thanks for your response

I apologize for misunderstanding your comments. I fully agree with you. I’m afraid I might outgrow the D40 and for that matter the D40X. If that happens, it is good. That means I really got into photography with both feet. If it doesn’t happen, it is also good. It means the opposite and look at all the money I saved. J

I personally do not consider 6MP or 10MP that important. (However, Nikon shocked me – they just introduced the D40.) It does not mean that I’ right, though - just a value judgment. As I see it, 4MP extra means 200 pixels on either side more. There is another issue which is the compatibility of the peripherals. I do not intend to upgrade my printer to a photo quality printer, in the near future. I have Ulead Photo Impact software, which is OK, I guess. In addition, I do not plan to print that many pictures. I have the experience. What do I do with them? I’ll have to pay people to come and see them. Yes, I intend to upload, once in a while, photos in this site. Therefore, beyond my 17” screen, I do not know.

Thanks,

Ramesses

 

[Ramesses]

My comments wasnt directed towards anyone, It was just related to the topic (I think) from my point of view.



Im new to the world of DSLR so im not an expert in this field youre better off asking someone else on this forum.

I recently got the 18-135mm lens for 100 dollars (about 200 dollars off) I couldnt resist.

I felt the 18-55 was good enough but since the 18-135mm lens was so cheap I bought it for the extra range. I am disappointed that I have to be further away at 18mm to focus on a object with the 18-135 then I did with the 18-55.

Point is the 18-55 is good enough IMO you can save the money and wait for the 55-200mm VR thats coming out for about $250 (I think) which is cheaper than the 18-70, gives you more distance, and VR!!!

Hi BNZ:

Wow! $100.00 for 18-35! That is a tremendous buy! The only reason that I’m not pursuing the 18-135 is because it is a very popular lens and tends to be a bit pricey. The 18-70 is fine (Thom Hogan loves it.) However, it is lacking the 135 (35mm) focal length. The main reason is that there are so many of them for sale.

Yours is a very interesting comment about the 18-55 compared to the 18-135. I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks.

I agree that the 55-200 VR is great and a tremendous companion to the 18-55. Another thing to keep in mind.

Thanks,

Ramesses

 

[grafiks]

Ramesses,

Even though I prefer to shoot in natural light, a flash can produce nice results when used the right way. Forget the built in flash. Use a good flash, like the SB-800. I almost always use a mini soft box on it, like Gary Fong's Dome. Or just bounce the light off the ceiling (if you have a ceiling). The flash comes with recommended ways to use it. What I'm saying is... Flash can be good if you get a good flash and spend just a little time learning how to use it.

Nice to see you are enjoying the forum!!! :thumbup:

 

[Ramesses]

Ramesses,

Even though I prefer to shoot in natural light, a flash can produce nice results when used the right way. Forget the built in flash. Use a good flash, like the SB-800. I almost always use a mini soft box on it, like Gary Fong's Dome. Or just bounce the light off the ceiling (if you have a ceiling). The flash comes with recommended ways to use it. What I'm saying is... Flash can be good if you get a good flash and spend just a little time learning how to use it.

Nice to see you are enjoying the forum!!! :thumbup:

Hi Grafiks:

Nice to hear from you again. You are right. I never learned how to use the flash nor did I ever have a good flash. I have the Canon Speedlight 155A. However, if I pointed the flash to the ceiling, I would have also taken a photograph of the ceiling – it is fixed. That is a very good idea though – never thought about it – but it has to be a good flash. The type you use to get people you do not like in the eyes J.

Best regards,

Ramesses