According to Adrian Boliston <adrian@boliston.co.uk>:

    For most shots with my D70 I let the AF do its thing -- but I
have the focus zone locked on the central zone, instead of letting the
camera pick its own choice (e.g. whatever happens to be closest).
Occasionally I will personally move the autofocus zone, but usually I
will point the camera to center what I want to focus on, then lock the
focus in with a half-pressed shutter release.

    There are times when manual focus is preferred -- the macro mode
of the 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 for example where the autofocus does not work,
and certainly with the lenses which don't *have* AF, or something on a
bellows or extension tubes for macro work.

    If I *do* have an AF capability in the lens, I want to have it
work -- even if I choose not to use it from time to time.

    Most of my shots are a case of spotting an image, whipping up
the camera and capturing it.  For these, AF is a bonus.  However, in the
few carefully set up shots, yes, manual focus is sometimes preferred.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

According to louise  <louise@invalid.invalid>:

    [ ... ]

    O.K.  That is a valid reason for selecting the D40x.

    At least for autofocus to function, yes.  Without it you do
still have manual focus.

    Hmm ...  that 50mm f1.4 would be particularly useful taking
photos in low light.  Which lens (or lenses) do you have with your D40x?
If you have the 18-70mm which was the kit lens for the D70, and I
believe also with the D200 -- I don't see much point to holding onto the
35-70 -- unless it is a faster lens.  The 70-210 might well be worth
holding onto, as the price of the 70-200 mm f2.8 with VR is probably
twice what you paid for the camera body alone.  (If you choose not to
keep it, *I* might be interested in acquiring it for my D70. :-)

    A few tricks to help with manual focus:

1)    Turn on the grid in the viewfinder.  Once it is on, aim the
    camera at a flat image (a wall with no details, the sky without
    clouds, or something similar) and adjust the eyepiece correction
    to get the sharpest image you can of the grid -- and the
    autofocus zone identifier.  Once you are trying to focus on
    something else, make sure that it is sharp at the same time as
    the grid or AF zone identifier, to assure that your eye's focus
    has not been pulled by the out-of-focus image of the subject in
    the viewfinder.

2)    Use the AF zone and the little green light in the lower left
    corner of the viewfinder to get reasonable focus.

3)    The only one which will cost you money -- get a Katzeye
    replacement focusing screen, which has the kind of visual
    focusing aids which SLRs used to have by default for manual
    focusing.

    At least try to use the above tricks and see how good a job you
can do focusing that way.  Only after that fails (if it does)would I
bother trying to sell the lenses.

    As others have already suggested, the old camera body is
unlikely to bring in much.  A 6006 wasn't it?

    The first one I found in eBay has a buy-it-now price of $49.00
and no bids.

    The second has a price of $17.48 after five bids with two days
left to go.

    There is one at about $99.00 which is being ignored.

    And another which is at $1.30 with two bids and 3 days 1 hour to
go.

    You might track these and see if any one of them actually
closes at a price which you would be willing to accept.  The two
cheapest ones seem to be offered by a used dealer, which will probably
make them a more reasonable estimate of value than the ones offered by
owners with fond wishes.

    The prices on the 70-210mm f4-4.5 seem to be a lot higher --
*without* the camera body.

    So -- check out what eBay users are selling these for and decide
whether you *really* want to sell the body for that little.

    Good Luck,
        DoN.

Be aware that if the 70-210 is an f4-5.6 AF D, it could sell for close
to US$500 if it's in pristine condition. (the "D" version is not very
common - and sought after by some as it is the only compact screw-driven
zoom of this focal length range that focuses fast)  If it's not a "D" (a
plain f4-5.6) then it's still a good lens optically, but worth a lot
less.  The 50mm f1.4 AF should also be worth good money used.  The 35-70
is probably reasonably valueless.

Of those, the 35-70 probably wouldn't be of much use to you with the D40x,
but the other two might be if you don't mind manual focusing. I have a
couple of Nikkors with the mechanical AF coupling (50/1.8 and 10.5 fisheye)
and I find manual focusing easy enough on the D40 with the focus indicator
in the viewfinder, though of course it's slower than AF and not as
convenient as having a split-image rangefinder in the viewfinder.

Admittedly I much prefer autofocus with those lenses, and so I mostly use
them on my D70s where they do autofocus.

In your place I guess I'd sell them all on eBay, they should be easy to sell
as long as you have good feedback, and for about $170 I'd buy the Nikon DX
55-200 which is the perfect mate for the 18-55 you've already got. (I *did*
buy the 55-200 for just that reason, for my D40. It's a delightfully compact
and lightweight lens, hardly any bigger than the 18-55 in fact.) Or if not
the current 55-200, I'd wait for the new VR 55-200 which is supposed to sell
for about $250 when it does appear, and sounds like a great bargain at that
price.

That still leaves you without a fast fixed focal length normal of course,
but there isn't much out there for the DX format anyway except the Sigma
30/1.4 which is quite pricey and of course not a Nikkor. I'm hoping that
Nikon brings out a similar fast normal, and my guess is that sooner or later
they will.

Neil

You're saying that the little green dot never comes on to indicate correct
focus? That really amazes me. My 50/1.8 and 10.5/2.8 fisheye, focusing
manually, both activate that focus indicator just fine in my D40.

Well, good luck whatever you decide to do. In your place I'd sell 'em all on
eBay, but you may not be willing to get into that if you haven't done any
selling on eBay before.

Neil