 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Turning the new low cost Nikon D40 Digital SLR into a powerful one lens, wide angle to telephoto, 11x super-zoom camera.
Now that Nikon has come out with the very compact and very affordable Nikon D40 Digital SLR, there are a lot of EVF camera users who are contemplating the move to the Nikon D40 Digital SLR. The base package price is of course very reasonable and the lens being offered in the package looks to be fairly adequate for most purposes, especially when the fairly inexpensive AFS DX Nikkor 55-200 lens is added to the system. The big question is of course, what will it cost to upgrade to a longer zoom range lens, so that it can be used as a one lens camera, just like the EVF super-zoom cameras it is replacing for many users. As you can see from the illustration above the AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED fits the bill very nicely, but the cost of the lens alone is nearly double the price of the camera (with the basic kit lens). For more of this article ......... http://dpmac.com/nikon-d40/d40superzoom.html > Now that Nikon has come out with the very compact and very affordable > Nikon D40 Digital SLR, there are a lot of EVF camera users who are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > For more of this article ......... > http://dpmac.com/nikon-d40/d40superzoom.html Were I to go for a DSLR, the D40 would be high on my list (light and low-cost), and a long zoom with image-stabilisation would as well. Hence D40 + 18-200 VR would also be my choice. What would be missing (for my use) would be a very wide angle (perhaps I could likve with just 24mm eq.) and a vey fast lens for low-light use (perhaps 50mm f/1.8 - but would need to be an AF-S version). David > Were I to go for a DSLR, the D40 would be high on my list (light and > low-cost), and a long zoom with image-stabilisation would as well. Hence > D40 + 18-200 VR would also be my choice. What would be missing (for my > use) would be a very wide angle (perhaps I could likve with just 24mm eq.) > and a vey fast lens for low-light use (perhaps 50mm f/1.8 - but would need > to be an AF-S version). I'm pretty sure that the 50/1.8 would not work on the d40. I think Nikon aimed this body at a market that would fit a consumer zoom (eg 18-55, 18-70 or 18-200) and pretty much never change lenses or use primes. cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk >> Were I to go for a DSLR, the D40 would be high on my list (light and >> low-cost), and a long zoom with image-stabilisation would as well. Hence [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > aimed this body at a market that would fit a consumer zoom (eg 18-55, 18-70 > or 18-200) and pretty much never change lenses or use primes. Metering will work on (Non AF-S) AF lenses, but AF won't. >> Were I to go for a DSLR, the D40 would be high on my list (light and >> low-cost), and a long zoom with image-stabilisation would as well. Hence [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm pretty sure that the 50/1.8 would not work on the d40. The 50/1.8D will work fine on it but won't autofocus, since the body doesn't have the "screwdriver" coupling required for that. > I think Nikon aimed this body at a market that would fit a consumer zoom > (eg 18-55, 18-70 or 18-200) and pretty much never change lenses or use > primes. The kit lens is a prime lens, of course. You mean fixed focal length (FFL). I'll be using my 10.5mm fisheye on my D40. That won't autofocus either, but with that much DOF who needs it. Neil [ . . . ] > Were I to go for a DSLR, the D40 would be high on my list (light and > low-cost), and a long zoom with image-stabilisation would as well. Hence > D40 + 18-200 VR would also be my choice. Nikon's new 70-300 VR looks more attractive to me and is a lot less expensive than the 18-200. Deliveries are supposed to start this month -- I've got my order in for one. > What would be missing (for my use) would be a very wide angle Yes indeedy. The 12-24 is a bit too pricey for me, but I'm fervently hoping Nikon is working on getting a lower priced ultrawide zoom in production. In the meantime, the 10.5 fisheye "de-fishes" very nicely with Nikon Capture 4. > (perhaps I could likve with just 24mm eq.) Not me. That's not enough wider than the 27mm (equiv.) you get with the kit lens. > and a vey fast lens for low-light use (perhaps 50mm f/1.8 - but would need > to be an AF-S version). Yes. I have the 50/1.8D, great on the D70s but of course won't autofocus on the D40. I'd be happy if Nikon would produce something around that f.l. in a reasonably priced macro (Micro, in Nikonspeak) lens. It wouldn't be f/1.8 of course, but I'd be content with a stop or so less in a real macro lens. Neil > > What would be missing (for my use) would be a very wide angle > > Yes indeedy. The 12-24 is a bit too pricey for me, but I'm fervently hoping > Nikon is working on getting a lower priced ultrawide zoom in production. In > the meantime, the 10.5 fisheye "de-fishes" very nicely with Nikon Capture 4. I'm usually very anti-3rd party lenses but these days most people consider the Tokina 12-24 a much better choice than the Nikon. It's half the price (just under $500) and has nearly the same optical quality. >> > What would be missing (for my use) would be a very wide angle >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > consider the Tokina 12-24 a much better choice than the Nikon. It's half > the price (just under $500) and has nearly the same optical quality. Yes, I've been thinking about that one too. I've owned many third-party lenses over the years and still do own several (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) in the Minolta A mount. Since switching to Nikon, though, I've stayed with Nikon lenses so far. I would rather pay some extra bucks for Nikon glass, just not that *many* extra bucks. I'm still hoping Nikon will produce something more reasonably priced. Of course anything like that will be secret until they're ready to announce it, so who knows? Maybe I will get the Tokina, which will probably result in a lower-priced Nikkor appearing the following week. :-/ Neil > Now that Nikon has come out with the very compact and very affordable > Nikon D40 Digital SLR, there are a lot of EVF camera users who are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the fairly inexpensive AFS DX Nikkor 55-200 lens is added to the > system. I showed a D40 yesterday, and the customer tried to use the LCD screen to compose, and asked about the video mode. They asked why it was $100 more than the D50 > Now that Nikon has come out with the very compact and very affordable > Nikon D40 Digital SLR, there are a lot of EVF camera users who are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > For more of this article ......... > http://dpmac.com/nikon-d40/d40superzoom.html The D40 serves very little purpose except to cut costs of production for Nikon. Why buy it over a D50? > The D40 serves very little purpose except to cut costs of production > for Nikon. Why buy it over a D50? Depends on how important size and weight is for you. If they cut out the mirror stuff, make it 2cm flatter and give it a movable LCD screen I'll buy one too. Even if it increases in price. Lots of Greetings! Volker >> The D40 serves very little purpose except to cut costs of production >> for Nikon. Why buy it over a D50? > Depends on how important size and weight is for you. > If they cut out the mirror stuff, make it 2cm flatter and give it > a movable LCD screen I'll buy one too. Even if it increases in price. Eh? If "they cut out the mirror stuff" that would pretty drastically change the camera, don't you think? Neil >>> The D40 serves very little purpose except to cut costs of production >>> for Nikon. Why buy it over a D50? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Eh? If "they cut out the mirror stuff" that would pretty drastically change > the camera, don't you think? Yes. Volker |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.