Canon 300D v Nikon D40

[Abercrombie]

During the last couple of years I've owned some of the best fixed lens prosumer cameras and last week I purchased a 300D as my first DSLR.

I know the 300D is now out-dated, but it's my first DSLR and I got a very good price on it.

Having spent the last week testing the camera I am very pleased, and although I can already see some of the cameras weaknesses, I still like the 300D.
In fact, it's made such an impression on me that I have today been looking for lenses and a flash unit, but whilst looking for online deals I came across the Nikon D40.

Having read many reviews I have to say that there's a lot about this camera that I like the sound of, and I'm now wondering whether I should sell the 300D and purchase a D40.
I'd have to pay an extra £80 on top of what I can get for the 300D but I'm happy with that.

What would you guys do? Keep the 300D or pay a little extra and buy the D40?

Thanks.

[jcon]

Honestly, I would say keep what you got. The D40 is limited in what lenses you can buy, if you dont mind to manual focus, then it wont matter to you. This is because the D40 and D40x dont have a focusing motor. So when it comes time to upgrade to a decent lens, you are left with very expensive lenses to choose from. Sure the D40 is a nice little camera but it is limiting.

Now if you were talking the Nikon D80 and wireless flash photography, things would be different.....

[pagnamenta]

The 300D is a great camera. Yes, if you compare it to today's models it's outdated, but it still performs most tasks.

I've never played around with the D40, but the only advantages I see are that it has faster start up time. It also has a slightly larger, 2.5 inch lcd screen.

The disadvantages are that it cannot use a lot of lenses because it doesn't have an AF motor. It shoots at 2.5 fps and only has 3 AF points where the 300D has 5.

I say stick with the 300D because you have access to Canon's amazing lens line up. In time, as you learn more, you'll be able to upgrade the body. The important thing is that glass is more important than body. Investing in good lenses will set you on track.

[Abercrombie]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I'm aware of the focus motor issue. The main attraction to the camera for me is the unlimited continuous shooting, and the 2.5 inch, 230,000 pixel LCD is a nice touch.

More feedback is appreciated.

[cdifoto]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I'm aware of the focus motor issue. The main attraction to the camera for me is the unlimited continuous shooting, and the 2.5 inch, 230,000 pixel LCD is a nice touch.

More feedback is appreciated.

Looks like you're sticking with the 300D since you're asking about lenses [here (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30347)]. If you don't plan on staying with it, then please don't waste the good folks' time asking about accessories.

[Abercrombie]

I don't mean to be rude but you seem a little uptight. How am I wasting the good folks time when asking for their opinions to aid my choice in cameras.
I haven't made any decision as yet, I'm doing my research and weighing up everything between the two cameras.
Perhaps you should be a little more welcoming to the new people instead of jumping on them before you know the facts

[cdifoto]

I don't mean to be rude but you seem a little uptight. How am I wasting the good folks time when asking for their opinions to aid my choice in cameras.
I haven't made any decision as yet, I'm doing my research and weighing up everything between the two cameras.
Perhaps you should be a little more welcoming to the new people instead of jumping on them before you know the facts ;)

Not really. It's just that people come in here asking about all kinds of lenses and accessories and we all jump in and help, and they end up buying something completely different anyways...so our time was wasted.

It's annoying more than anything. No offense intended at all.

I did recommend a few lenses in your other thread though. The 300D is a fine camera for portraits with the right lenses attached to it so I personally would go that way than taking a loss to move laterally into the D40. It's not really a step up.

[Abercrombie]

Right now it's all about education for me. I am a club promoter and until recently only used my camera to take photos of clubbers in my clubs. However, during the last year or so my interest in photography has grown and I'm now looking to develop my skills and enhance my knowledge with a very good business idea in mind.

To be honest, I wouldn't have posted for advice on 300D accessories until the above posts lead me to think that I may be better sticking with the 300D.

Regardless of whether I keep it or replace it, I still walk away with a little more knowledge thanks to the feedback I get here.

I can assure you that your time is not wasted and very much appreciated.

[cdifoto]

Right now it's all about education for me. I am a club promoter and until recently only used my camera to take photos of clubbers in my clubs. However, during the last year or so my interest in photography has grown and I'm now looking to develop my skills and enhance my knowledge with a very good business idea in mind.

To be honest, I wouldn't have posted for advice on 300D accessories until the above posts lead me to think that I may be better sticking with the 300D.

Regardless of whether I keep it or replace it, I still walk away with a little more knowledge thanks to the feedback I get here.

I can assure you that your time is not wasted and very much appreciated.

I can understand that. Either system would be good...since the bodies are always temporary and the lenses are what really count for image quality. I just think a D40 would be a lateral move rather than a step up. You gain some features, you lose others. All in all it ends up being a wash.

[jcon]

Photos inside a club would require a fast lens. Make sure you get a lens with a constant aperture of ATLEAST 2.8!

[some guy]

why would you want to downgrade to a d40? Am I missing something here? You likey 3-pt AF? crappy build? no bracketing, no AF for some Nikon lenses , no status LCD, no dedicated buttons for ISO or WB, no D0F preview,6mp, no RAW+Jpg...??? ;)

[Abercrombie]

Point taken lol

I was pulled into a discussion on another forum which suggested the D40 as a nice camera for portrait photography, if you can live without autofocus.
Most reviews are positive, it's a nice price and as I said, the unlimited continuous shooting was very appealing to me.
However, I now see that it's no replacement for a Digital Rebel... Especially the XT.

I'm going to check out the 350D tomorrow. I will most likely bring it home with me.

Thanks for your feedback.

[fionndruinne]

"Crappy build" is just a baldfaced lie. Let we who own a D40 judge its build quality.

Another of those odd people who can't stand the D40... after talking to numerous real people, none of whom are so virulent, I've come to the conclusion that the people who post such disparaging things about this camera are actually AI constructs deployed by Canon.

[r3g]

I wouldnt say the D40 has crappy build quality in a million years. But ive never used a 300D so i have no say in this thread :D

[Rooz]

crappy build?

what a crock of shit.

[swgod98]

what a crock of shit.

What's dissapointing is that someguy is spreading lies to honest people who don't know any better. That pisses me off.

[some guy]

I apologise that my passionate posting on an inferior product from an otherwise great photography company illicit potential buyers remorse. Perhaps from now on I will encourage people to accept and part their money on on mediocre products.

[swgod98]

I apologise that my passionate posting on an inferior product from an otherwise great photography company illicit potential buyers remorse. Perhaps from now on I will encourage people to accept and part their money on on mediocre products.

He'll definitely have buyers remorse if he buys a 300D. Why don't you stop talking out your ass and be a little more objective in your posts.

[fionndruinne]

Tonight, after a great day of shooting (I'm estimating about 1000 exposures - on one battery charge), I'm happier and more confident than ever in my D40. This guy is a champ, especially at low-light photos with ISO 1600. 1600! From experience I can tell you that ISO 800 is pushing it normally for an XT/XTi (350D, 400D).

Dam' hard to find a real complaint with this camera. Maybe those who are looking for advice ought to listen to those who own the product.

(and we could go into: who cares about more AF points, or DOF preview, or status LCD - unless you're a pro who's gotten used to relying on these things. But that'd just be another round of spitting)

[Rooz]

I apologise that my passionate posting on an inferior product from an otherwise great photography company illicit potential buyers remorse. Perhaps from now on I will encourage people to accept and part their money on on mediocre products.

it has nothing to do with passion and everything to do with you being completely innacurate and as another poster so eloquently put...talking out of your ass.

the review of the D40 from THIS site. most other places make similar comments and indeed it recieves great reviews everywhere.

"And speaking of the Rebel XTi, the D40 feels a lot more solid in your hands than that camera -- no cheap plastic here. Build quality is also better than the Rebel, with higher grade plastics and an overall more solid feel."

the construction and feel of this camera is excellent. i have held it in my hands and shot with it. have you ? no DOF ? sure. no internal AF motor ? true. these are all things that are arguabley "cons" of the camera and they have another thing in common, they are FACTS. how about becoming familiar with the meaning of the word.

[Abercrombie]

Wow... You fellas really take your cameras seriously.

I've owned many prosumer fixed-lens cameras during the last two years and each one had its own weaknesses and strengths.
I didn't expect the DSLR market to be any different. And for every good user review there's always going to be a bad one. It's all down to personal choice.

[fionndruinne]

We'll easily own up to some shortcomings of the D40's... the lack of a focus motor being the main one. But it's a lovable camera, as well, takes gorgeous photos, and is a powerhouse of a deal for its price. Goes against our grain to see people bash it up and down for no real reason, that's all.

I suspect that the very idea of a truly inexpensive entry-level DSLR bugs some people... people who've gradually accepted, say (most often) the Canon Rebel XTi. But it's a hard game to get into in terms of marketing and critical opinion. As to consumer opinion, well, we love the little guy.

[coldrain]

Point taken lol

I was pulled into a discussion on another forum which suggested the D40 as a nice camera for portrait photography, if you can live without autofocus.
Most reviews are positive, it's a nice price and as I said, the unlimited continuous shooting was very appealing to me.
However, I now see that it's no replacement for a Digital Rebel... Especially the XT.

I'm going to check out the 350D tomorrow. I will most likely bring it home with me.

Thanks for your feedback.
There really is nothing extraordinary or special about the Nikon D40, it is just a DSLR. So I would not have the faintest clue why it would be particularly good at portrait photography. It in fact seems to be the least likely candidate, particularly because it lacks an internal motor that Nikon DSLRs till now always have had, which means that you will not be able to buy a portrait zoom for it that will actually auto focus, for under...... get ready for it.. $1500. That is the price you will have to pay for the Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8. Nor can you buy portrait range primes for it... the Nikon 50mm f1.8 and 1.4, the Nikon 60mm 2.8, the Nikon 85mm f1.8, all these lenses rely on that MISSING internal motor.

Any other Nikon, Pentax or Canon will be better equiped... even the old Canon EOS 300D.
If you for instance look at what lenses in portrait range you can use with the Canon EOS series (which of course includes the 300D and 350D):
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 50mm f1.2 L (expensive)
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 85mm f1.2 L (very expensive!)
Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM (around $1100)
Canon 70-200 f4 L
Canon 70-200 f2.8 L
Sigma 28-70 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro

The range of good portrait lenses for for instance a Canon 350D is huge. I really have no idea why anyone would recommend a D40 for this purpose, but threads on forums just bring out the weirdest arguments in defence of a brand people have chosen for, at times.

The continuous shooting on the 350D is faster than on D40 btw. 3 fps vs 2.5fps. And do you really think you ever would want to shoot an entire card full continuously? It is just a figure on paper.

If you intend to grow with the DSLR, a 350D is a better idea than a D40. The D40 is for the snapshooters and proverbial soccer moms who intend to just get 1 or 2 lower end zoom lenses, and will not upgrade those in future (even Nikon's marketing says this about the D40). Those people will not care about its missing features.

[fionndruinne]

I have faith in you, coldrain. One of these days you'll wake up and smell the coffee. Such a good photographer has just got to.

There is something special about the D40 - it costs about the same as the top range of consumer ultrazooms, but has the photo quality pretty nearly of its big brothers, like the D80, in the glory-strewn SLR world. The better part of that world, too, being better with photos than budget SLRs like the Olympus E500.

P&S price, SLR pictures, SLR quality, SLR adaptability. That is rather special.

3.0 vs. 2.5 seconds, oh the humanity! I'll live with that, and remember the much larger buffer on the D40.

You know, time will prove you completely in error about who the D40 is "made for". Facts of the matter being, no camera is "made" for anyone - certain people purchase it. I am sure that we will see more and more of a talented (but POOR! Like ME!) crop of new SLR users doing great things with this camera, and to relegate it to a status so-called "built for" non-photographers is nonsensical. You truly do need to get off of your high horse.

[Abercrombie]

I've just been out to buy a 350D but guess what... Didn't like the feel of it.
It's light and small, but perhaps slightly too small. My hand didn't fit the grip as comfortably as I'd like. And the light plastic casing feels very cheap with a hard plastic grip instead of the comfortable rubber on the 300D.

I don't want to let these minor cosmetic flaws put me off the camera, at the end of the day it's what's inside which is important. But the whole idea of replacing the 300D was to be in whole more satisfied with my first DSLR. I guess it's a matter of price at the end of the day. I know I'm never going to get the quality I'm really looking for without raising the budget.

I'm going to do a little more research online this afternoon before I decide.

[coldrain]

I have faith in you, coldrain. One of these days you'll wake up and smell the coffee. Such a good photographer has just got to.

There is something special about the D40 - it costs about the same as the top range of consumer ultrazooms, but has the photo quality pretty nearly of its big brothers, like the D80, in the glory-strewn SLR world. The better part of that world, too, being better with photos than budget SLRs like the Olympus E500.

P&S price, SLR pictures, SLR quality, SLR adaptability. That is rather special.

3.0 vs. 2.5 seconds, oh the humanity! I'll live with that, and remember the much larger buffer on the D40.

You know, time will prove you completely in error about who the D40 is "made for". Facts of the matter being, no camera is "made" for anyone - certain people purchase it. I am sure that we will see more and more of a talented (but POOR! Like ME!) crop of new SLR users doing great things with this camera, and to relegate it to a status so-called "built for" non-photographers is nonsensical. You truly do need to get off of your high horse.
Lets get some facts straight.
The XTi/400D is only a little bit more expensive that a D40. It is cheaper than a D40X.

Yet, it is more complete and faster.

The XT/350D is faster too, and it will fill up a card continuously if you like that sort of thing. The only reason I mentioned the speed is (if you could quit being so defensive, you would have noticed it yourself) it was brought up as a plus of the D40 in some thread the poster mentioned.
I never ever have said that the 2.5fps of the D40 is one of its downsides, i actually only complain about its real downsides.

And since you apparently have taken your time to look at some of my photos (thanks for the hidden compliment by the way), you may also have looked at my signature, noticing the lenses I use myself.

Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM. Very good, much less heavy than the 2.8 70-200's from Canon, Sigma, Minolta, Nikon. And not all that expensive either. No alternative for it on the D40/D40X.

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC. Most affordable of the standard zoom range f2.8 bunch. The new "macro" version has improved optics even.
Only alternative to it on a D40/D40X: Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX. Would cost a nice $1200.

Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP macro. Very good and affordable macro lens. Alternative I would consider also: Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro. Both are under $500 in the US. Both are very sharp and contrasty.
Only alternative on a D40/D40X: Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR. With a price of about $800, quite a bit more expensive. And it does not have the resolution nor the contrast of the Tamron and the Canon. Its only plus is the VR.

Tokina 12-24 f4. I chose it because of its sharpness and contrast, and lack of vignetting. Alternatives for Canon: the very nice but a bit more expensive Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM, and the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM. The Sigma vignets too much for me, that is why I did not consider it.
Again a lens I can not use on a D40/D40X. Only alternatives on a D40/D40X: Sigma 10-20mm (vignets) and Nikon AF-S 12-24 f4 DX ($1100).

So, lets see, this poster cares about portrait stuff apparently... look at the lens problem you will have in quality lenses on a D40.

And look at my lens choice. You can hardly accuse me of being unrealistic and elitist in my lens choice, yet all I have chosen would be impossible on said D40.

Now what is that something special about the D40 again?
The EOS 350D costs about the same, has a 7 point AF system (which AFs faster too), mirror lock up, faster FPS, white balance bracketing and fine tuning, exposure bracketing, DOF function, 8mp vs 6mp, same size and weight as a D40, very good image quality itself... and a good FREE RAW conversion software.

So, to follow your train of thought:
P&S price... DSLR pictures... DSLR quality... better DSLR features... better DSLR adaptability (much bigger and wider lens choice). That is rather MORE special.

Same can be said about the Pentax K100D. More in just about any sense, but for less pricewise. If you talk about "poor" (it is not like I spent ridiculous amounts of money on my 350D over the 2 years I have had it anyway), the 350D and K100D make a lot more sense.

[Rooz]

that may be the case, but the 350/400D still feels like crap in your hands. the thing's made for dwarves and schoolgirls with petite little hands who like the feel of leftover plastic from a hyundai factory. :D

[coldrain]

I've just been out to buy a 350D but guess what... Didn't like the feel of it.
It's light and small, but perhaps slightly too small. My hand didn't fit the grip as comfortably as I'd like. And the light plastic casing feels very cheap with a hard plastic grip instead of the comfortable rubber on the 300D.

I don't want to let these minor cosmetic flaws put me off the camera, at the end of the day it's what's inside which is important. But the whole idea of replacing the 300D was to be in whole more satisfied with my first DSLR. I guess it's a matter of price at the end of the day. I know I'm never going to get the quality I'm really looking for without raising the budget.

I'm going to do a little more research online this afternoon before I decide.
That is the one gripe some people have with the 350D (and, to sort of the same extent, the 400D). I never let it bother me since I never do A - B comparisons since you in effect only use one DSLR, but I know it can be different for others.

The Canon 20D is a lot bigger, but will also cost more. The Nikon D50 is out of stock just about everywhere. If you for now can live comfortably with the 300D, you of course can have a lot of joy with it. Another option could be to have a peek at a Pentax K100D. It is a bit bigger than the 350D and D40, while still being compact.
It does not have the stripped down functionality of a D40, and is capable of very good IQ too. Only if for some reason 5 photos in a row is not enough for you (what will you use this for?) it would not be a good idea to look at the K100D. With 3.4 fps it is fast though.

[Abercrombie]

I hadn't looked at the K100D until now... Damn you for throwing another number into the equation! lol

The 300D went this morning. I'm now looking for a camera which I can build on, invest into, and develop my skills with.

At present the 350D is at the top of my list since I really did like the 300D and have something to work on. If I was happy with the 300D performance then I'm only going to be even more pleased with the XT... Assuming I can live with the size and feel of the camera.

The dealer I visited this morning has a D50 in stock, but I didn't really like the look of the camera so that was that.
He also recommended an Olympus E-500 for the same price as the 350D. He said that the Olympus models seem to appeal to the semi-pro, SLR experienced photographers, whilst the Canon Digital Rebels do well with the people making the jump from point-and-shoot to DSLR.

I generally don't listen to sales assistants in electrical stores and so came home to ask you good people. But now, I have a third option within my budget.

Thanks for taking time to reply. I'll look into it now.

[Rooz]

have you looked at the sony a100 ? wouldn;t wnt to confuse you more but i think its in your price range.

[some guy]

Hahahaha I love the ass comment because for once my ass is actually speaking at the level of some people's brain levels. :D
In terms of facts I've already posted the d40's castrated "features" in the other topic. If yoe enjoy the d40 and generally leave it in the Green Box or "Running Man" mode, I'm sure u'll be thoroughly happy.

[swgod98]

for once my ass is actually speaking at the level of some people's brain levels. :D

I'm sure you speak for yourself only.

[Abercrombie]

have you looked at the sony a100 ? wouldn;t wnt to confuse you more but i think its in your price range.
Yeah I'd already looked at this. There's a lot I like the sound of with that one, 10.2 million effective pixels, 3:2 aspect ratio, 9 point autofocus, unlimited continuous shooting, super anti-shake system, anti-dust system. Yes, very appealing, but there's no lens kit available for less than £400 and that's my maximum budget for the month.
The Rebel made quite an impression on me... It's set the bar pretty high. If it hadn't been for the dodgy plastic grip on the XT I'd have bought it.

[Abercrombie]

Okay guys here's the million dollar question before I buy...

350D or Olympus E-500?

It's one of those two and I've found great deals on each.

350D (silver) 18-55mm lens kit + 4GB CF = £320.00
E-500 14-45mm (28-90mm) f3.5-5.6 + 40-150mm (80-300mm) f3.5-4.5 = £345.00

Both new models.

Which should I buy?

[some guy]

Both are excellent choice Abercombie.

Remember that you are buying into the system so don't just look at an SLR. The lens collection, the flashguns, support etc. The Oly-500 was one of my choice when I was looking into a dSLR eons back. But the noise performance is subpar. the 4/3rd format is actually more geared towards digital printing. But they Oly's 4/3rd lens collection is nowhere near the Canons or Nikons.
XT and XTi are great buys. If grip is an issue, then add a new/used battery grip. Problem solved.

[some guy]

I'm sure you speak for yourself only.

oh such great come back... :rolleyes: :D

[r3g]

Yeah I'd already looked at this. There's a lot I like the sound of with that one, 10.2 million effective pixels, 3:2 aspect ratio, 9 point autofocus, unlimited continuous shooting, super anti-shake system, anti-dust system. Yes, very appealing, but there's no lens kit available for less than £400 and that's my maximum budget for the month.



then save for another month then get it =D

[Abercrombie]

Both are excellent choice Abercombie.

Remember that you are buying into the system so don't just look at an SLR. The lens collection, the flashguns, support etc. The Oly-500 was one of my choice when I was looking into a dSLR eons back. But the noise performance is subpar. the 4/3rd format is actually more geared towards digital printing. But they Oly's 4/3rd lens collection is nowhere near the Canons or Nikons.
XT and XTi are great buys. If grip is an issue, then add a new/used battery grip. Problem solved.
So you're telling me to get the Canon... But are you speaking from an indepenent and professional perspective, or as a slightly biased Canon owner?

[Abercrombie]

then save for another month then get it =D
I've owned 3 cameras in the last 3 weeks... Do you seriously think I'm the kind of guy who can wait a month without a camera? lol

[some guy]

So you're telling me to get the Canon... But are you speaking from an indepenent and professional perspective, or as a slightly biased Canon owner?

hahahaha.... If the choice is a D50 or D80 I'd tell u to get those too. BTW, the Sony A100 shares the same sensor as the Nikon D200 FWIW. And with the A100 you inherit the same mount from the Konica/Minolta line which opens up the lens selection big time. So as u can see with all these wonderful well featured entry dSLR, I do not see the rationale behind a D40 unless:

1) price
2) sucked in by the salesperson at store (read: lack of research)
3) Neo-Nikon worshipper who can't afford a D80 and yet do not want a used D50.

[fionndruinne]

Of course there's nothing we can say to a anti-D40 AI construct - they're preprogrammed and don't respond to attempts at reprogramming.

We'll just show them up with a lot of great pictures. That's the reason right there; for its price range it takes the best photos.

I haven't any experience with the Olympus; have you tried it out? For some reason it says 'budget' to me every time I see it, but if it handles well, then it could be a good choice. I think your pictures would be marginally worse with it than with a Canon or Nikon (or Sony I'd imagine) though. High-end Olympus models still seem to be excellent, but in general their recent consumer stuff hasn't been on par with my four-year-old Olympus Camedia P&S in terms of quality.

[te1221]

Have you ever thought about flashing your firmware on your current 300d to unlock a lot of the settings? I think that mixed with a relatively inexpensive prime is your best bet. :)

[jcon]

I wouldnt suggest the D40(X) to anyone. Thats not to say it cant take good pictures, because it can. It's just a limiting camera.

With that said, "Some People(guy)" need to keep their bias based BS to themselves and not brainwash people that look to you for input on major purchases. If youre going to point out the negatives of one brand(Nikon) make sure you do the same for the other(Canon) or you will come across as what you truly are, a Canon flamer.

Changing to the D40 doesnt make sense, Like I mentioned on page 1. I would suggest the D50, but since you didnt like the look, thats out. If you could afford the D80, I would suggest that. I dont need to cover the Canon side because thats been covered over and over already,lol.

I heard a long time ago that when there is brand arugeing going on, its usually the Canon user badmouthing the Nikon gear. I wonder why Canon users need to rip on Nikon so much. You dont see it the other way around.

[fionndruinne]

I heard a long time ago that when there is brand arugeing going on, its usually the Canon user badmouthing the Nikon gear. I wonder why Canon users need to rip on Nikon so much. You dont see it the other way around.

That's true. Odd, though.

But why would you not recommend the D40 to anyone? It isn't a limiting camera to those who will only operate within its boundaries (any many people will, at least for their first SLR - if you figure on such lasting 2-3 years before new technology makes another model more convenient in some way).

[jcon]

That's true. Odd, though.

But why would you not recommend the D40 to anyone? It isn't a limiting camera to those who will only operate within its boundaries (any many people will, at least for their first SLR - if you figure on such lasting 2-3 years before new technology makes another model more convenient in some way).


Most people dont like to manual focus and dont want to shell out loads of cash on lenses. There are bodies out there that are equal to if not better in quality than the D40, some at the same price level, and they will autofocus all lenses. Namely the D50, which I feel is a better body. Its the same price, some places cheaper. Sure, its hard to find, but its out there.

I know I have had some harsh things to say about the D40 but it is a nice little body and does have its small place in the market. Please dont think I am trying to say anything negative abouit the D40 owners.

If you go 3 years without wanting/needing to upgrade I would be surprised, I cant last that long. Im already looking to upgrade my D200 to whatever model is its upgrade,lol.

[fionndruinne]

Those who don't want to manual focus might be thought of as largely those who don't put a terrible amount of effort into the mechanics of photography, but are rather the kind who use the auto settings on the mode dial. These people might also be less inclined to acquire a collection of lenses.

As for upgrading, heh... I went 3-1/2 years on one P&S, but that was more out of necessity than preference. Still, I think it likely that, given how new the D40 is, I might have several years before it's terribly outdated, unless I feel the need to upgrade for more features.

[jcon]

Those who don't want to manual focus might be thought of as largely those who don't put a terrible amount of effort into the mechanics of photography, but are rather the kind who use the auto settings on the mode dial.


Maybe maybe not. I prefer not to manual focus, but everything else I do manually. Most that I have spoken to in person prefer not to manual focus.

Anyway, I dont want to get off track from the OPs question. Although it already has, thanks to "some people(guy)".

[fionndruinne]

Heh, true. Most of the photographers I know like to manual focus, though. As do I.

[some guy]

pointing out the obvious is not a biased anti d40 hating fascist. If the OP was deciding on a D50 or D80 I'd say go for it. Some folks really are over-sensitive here. Canon hasn't sunk that low with a castrated XT.... yet. But if they will trust me I'll give my 2 cents!

[Rooz]

pointing out the obvious is not a biased anti d40 hating fascist. If the OP was deciding on a D50 or D80 I'd say go for it. Some folks really are over-sensitive here. Canon hasn't sunk that low with a castrated XT.... yet. But if they will trust me I'll give my 2 cents!

the point was that you gave innaccurate feedback based on your ASSumption rather than any valid information. most people point out the shortcomings of the d40 based on fact. you said it had crappy build which is completely false. if you consider the d40 has crappy build then the 350d build must be catastrophic in comparison.

[Abercrombie]

Have you ever thought about flashing your firmware on your current 300d to unlock a lot of the settings? I think that mixed with a relatively inexpensive prime is your best bet. :)
Yes, I had the hacked firmware, but decided to restore v1.1 following one or two slight problems.

Makes no difference now anyway, I got rid of the 300D yesterday. Which is why I'm so keen to select my next model... Right now I have no camera!

[fionndruinne]

The horror!

[Abercrombie]

T'is horror... I'm due to work tomorrow night. No camera, no work, no pay!

[cdifoto]

Those who don't want to manual focus might be thought of as largely those who don't put a terrible amount of effort into the mechanics of photography, but are rather the kind who use the auto settings on the mode dial. These people might also be less inclined to acquire a collection of lenses.

You're completely full of shit right there. I hate to manually focus if/when I don't absolutely need to. I have a top end dSLR, top end lenses, and I only ever shoot in Manual. And I put quite a bit into the mechanics of photography.


Your broad brush strokes are no better than a D40 basher. I don't love or hate any particular camera company but I do hate when people judge others based on assumptions about their shooting style or equipment. I could just as easily say you're the one who is lazy and/or apathetic about photography because you didn't invest in a top end body and lenses.


As for build quality, that's subjective opinion, and doesn't need to be based on facts. There are no facts. Just like Jeff's statement that it feels built better than the XT isn't fact. That's his opinion. Oh and yes the XT is built pretty crappy. I also think the 30D is built crappy compared to what I have now. I don't need any facts to back it up. ;)

[fionndruinne]

Watch your mouth. I said largely, as while most photographers who enter into the complexities of their work are forced to familiarize themselves with manual focus, those who use their SLRs like big point-and-shoots usually couldn't be prevailed upon to do so. And much as you may hate it, most of the photography fans I know in person (not-quite-photographers, as they usually have at least one other equally important hobby - but are very decent at it nonetheless) do like to focus manually. You'll find this to be true. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it, for it goes against my program code. :D

You're kind of strange to take the above as "bashing". Obviously it was not intended as such, and I doubt that it came across that way to others who may have read it. That post of yours was kind of worthless, and I am sorry for that. But there's always next time.

[Abercrombie]

Why argue about it? Who cares if somebody wants to "bash" a camera. Are there any moderators in these forums?

[Rooz]

christ...if a photography forum needs a moderator we're in a world of hurt !

[coldrain]

All the manual focus nonsense is... just that, nonsense.
It is VERY hard to judge focus, that is why AF got so popular in the first place.
And if you would actually know anything about manual focussing, you would know that manual focus cameras have some soft of split screen focus aid to help the photographer judge correct focus.

Without a splitscreen focus screen you are going to struggle big time. Yes, it is possible, and yes it is hard and you will have a lot of crap results while trying.

fionndruinne, I am pretty sure you never manual focus with your D40 and the kit lenses you have. 1st because of the fact that the lenses actually have that AF motor, 2nd because you do not have a split screen mat screen in your D40 (if you would put one in it would hinder AF...), 3rd because with your kitlenses and their not so green MF action it would be hard to hit focus in the first place.

It is pretty simple... AF, on an APS-C camera with smaller view finder, without splitscreen, is just very hard and only in some cases, like macro photography (because of the very shallow depth of field) it is actually possible to judge focus accurately. And it even then takes a lot of time to do.

[Ray Schnoor]

While manual focus is definitely harder for some than others and definitely harder than AF, the D40 does not strip away all of the attributes of AF with non AF-S lenses.

The following is just supposition since I have not actually checked this on a D40, but with my D70 it is true. How bout you D40 owners, does the same hold true?

When manual focussing, the camera will tell the lens motor(in this case the person holding the camera) when the camera thinks the shot is in focus by turning the green dot in the viewfinder a solid green instead of a flashing green. This is no less accurate than the camera actually focussing the lens itself since it uses the same AF camera sensor. Not the motor, but the same AF sensor. Yes, it may take a little getting used to, but to say that there are no indications as to when the camera/lens is in focus is at the least misinformed or at most a flat out lie. And no, it is not that hard.

So in this sense I do agree with CR that all of this manual focussing nonsense is just that... nonsense.

Ray.

[coldrain]

A camera can NOT see when something is in focus. Often the "green dot" will go on when you actually have not reached the best focus.
The only way for a camera to "judge focus" is to look at the contrast of a "snapshot". Then, when you move the focus a bit, it again takes a "snapshot" and compares the contrast to the snapshot before. If there is more contrast, we are more in focus. it is impossible for the camera to know when you are as good in focus as possible.

The way this is resolved with AF, is that the camera waits till the AF motor actually overshoots focus. Then, with the 2 last readings, it will judge how much the motor should move back to achieve best focus. And then it will say the scene is in focus at the AF point in use.

Judging focus with manually moving the focus of the lens is just guess work for the camera. As you probably can imagine, if focus judging was not done by comparing 2 contrast samples, how on earth can a camera say something is in focus with a lens that is not one of the sharpest lenses? the camera has no knowledge about how sharp a lens is.
In short: you can not really rely on the green dot with MF.

[Ray Schnoor]

You are probably right. Since the lens motor is not actually focussing the lens, the camera can't possibly use the same algorithm to tell whether or not the contrast in the shot is getting better or worse and then trigger the green focus dot. You are probably right that Nikon added an algorithm to just make that green dot turn solid at random. Funny, though, how it always seems to match exactly with the AF motor. Sorry, my mistake.

There is definitely no possibility that Nikon would have made the green dot flash when you go past focus to let you know to turn the focus ring in the other direction back towards focus. And then turn solid when you hit focus, just as if the lens motor was focussing. It sure seems as if that is what happens during manual focus on a D70. Sorry again, my mistake for misinterpreting that.

Although CR is positive it is not happening on a D70, how bout you D40 owners. Does this seem to describe manual focus on a D40?

Ray.

[cdifoto]

While manual focus is definitely harder for some than others and definitely harder than AF, the D40 does not strip away all of the attributes of AF with non AF-S lenses.

The following is just supposition since I have not actually checked this on a D40, but with my D70 it is true. How bout you D40 owners, does the same hold true?

When manual focussing, the camera will tell the lens motor(in this case the person holding the camera) when the camera thinks the shot is in focus by turning the green dot in the viewfinder a solid green instead of a flashing green. This is no less accurate than the camera actually focussing the lens itself since it uses the same AF camera sensor. Not the motor, but the same AF sensor. Yes, it may take a little getting used to, but to say that there are no indications as to when the camera/lens is in focus is at the least misinformed or at most a flat out lie. And no, it is not that hard.

So in this sense I do agree with CR that all of this manual focussing nonsense is just that... nonsense.

Ray.

This actually defeats the purpose of manually focusing in some situations (ie where you cannot trust AF to be accurate).

[Ray Schnoor]

This actually defeats the purpose of manually focusing in some situations (ie where you cannot trust AF to be accurate).
But not where AF is unavailable, which is what I thought this debate was about. It just adds an aid to assist in focussing where many have said none existed, but have instead insisted that manual focussing would be next to impossible to achieve. I will agree that AF is not 100 percent accurate and this is the main reason I predominantly use MF when shooting macro.

After browsing the Nikon website, Nikon confirms that you can use this method in "all" of their dSLR manuals.

Ray.

[cdifoto]

But not where AF is unavailable, which is what I thought this debate was about. It just adds an aid to assist in focussing where many have said none existed, but have instead insisted that manual focussing would be next to impossible to achieve. I will agree that AF is not 100 percent accurate and this is the main reason I predominantly use MF when shooting macro.

After browsing the Nikon website, Nikon confirms that you can use this method in "all" of their dSLR manuals.

Ray.

I think you have that backwards. The debate is that with certain Nikkor lenses you'd be forced to MF because of the lack of in-body focus motor. At least that's how I read it. Unless the discussion went off on a tangent and I missed the exit. :eek: :D

[Ray Schnoor]

I think you have that backwards. The debate is that with certain Nikkor lenses you'd be forced to MF because of the lack of in-body focus motor. At least that's how I read it. Unless the discussion went off on a tangent and I missed the exit. :eek: :D
I think that we are pretty much saying the same thing. You say that "you'd be forced to MF" while I say that "AF is unavailable". No difference. What some others are saying is that it is next to impossible to MF, but this is not the case if you use the focussing aid in the camera. Not that I have found it all that hard before I even realised it was there.

Ray.

[coldrain]

You are probably right. Since the lens motor is not actually focussing the lens, the camera can't possibly use the same algorithm to tell whether or not the contrast in the shot is getting better or worse and then trigger the green focus dot. You are probably right that Nikon added an algorithm to just make that green dot turn solid at random. Funny, though, how it always seems to match exactly with the AF motor. Sorry, my mistake.

There is definitely no possibility that Nikon would have made the green dot flash when you go past focus to let you know to turn the focus ring in the other direction back towards focus. And then turn solid when you hit focus, just as if the lens motor was focussing. It sure seems as if that is what happens during manual focus on a D70. Sorry again, my mistake for misinterpreting that.

Although CR is positive it is not happening on a D70, how bout you D40 owners. Does this seem to describe manual focus on a D40?

Ray.
Focussing works the same with every DSLR. You can try and think about it yourself. How on earth can a camera know something is in focus? It just can not. So, that is why AF sensors (on Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or whatever camera make you can think of) work by just looking at differences in contrast... more contrast means better in focus. And to determine best focus, you need to OVERSHOOT the focus so contast gets less again. Only in that way you can see you had best contrast. And that is exactly what happens... also in your Nikon D70. And then the motor gets told to move a percentage back, depending on how the contrast has changed over the last 3 samples or so. Lenses that "back" and "front" focus need the motor calibrated (or just have an awkward focus mechanism the internal Nikon motor misjudges with the last step back in focussing).
If it really was just possible for the camera to judge focus for real, all lenses and every shot would have perfect focus every time.

And yes, with MF the camera just guesses, and sometimes guesses quite wrong (ie: giving an "in focus" green "spot" when the best focus is in fact not reached).

[Ray Schnoor]

Focussing works the same with every DSLR. You can try and think about it yourself. How on earth can a camera know something is in focus? It just can not. So, that is why AF sensors (on Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or whatever camera make you can think of) work by just looking at differences in contrast... more contrast means better in focus. And to determine best focus, you need to OVERSHOOT the focus so contast gets less again. Only in that way you can see you had best contrast. And that is exactly what happens... also in your Nikon D70. And then the motor gets told to move a percentage back, depending on how the contrast has changed over the last 3 samples or so. Lenses that "back" and "front" focus need the motor calibrated (or just have an awkward focus mechanism the internal Nikon motor misjudges with the last step back in focussing).
There is nothing to argue about. I agree that this is how dSLRs focus. And this is exactly what the focussing aid in the D40 does. You move the lens and the contrast gets better until it hits focus and the green dot "blinks" as you overshoot and contrast gets worse. This is the camera telling the motor(you) to reverse direction. The green dot then turns solid when you reverse direction and then "hit" focus(maximum contrast) or blinks as you once again overshoot and need to reverse direction again. No biggie. I'm glad we agree.:eek: :D

If you don't think that this is what is happening, how do you explain that no matter how hard I try, while manual focussing, I cannot get the green dot to go solid without first blinking to let me know that I have overshot focus and have to reverse direction. The camera is using the same change in contrast method as in AF. Is it so hard to believe that the same method can be used without an AF motor? For all I know, the camera is still sending the electronic signals to the non-existant AF-S motor, but there is just nothing to receive it. It can, however, tell when maximum contrast has been reached even when manually overshooting/reversing direction while focussing the lens.

Ray.

[some guy]

the point was that you gave innaccurate feedback based on your ASSumption rather than any valid information. most people point out the shortcomings of the d40 based on fact. you said it had crappy build which is completely false. if you consider the d40 has crappy build then the 350d build must be catastrophic in comparison.

both are polycarbonate bodies. And yes same with the d80. If you want to talk about build quality anything short of mag alloy are pretty cheap feelly. Again refer to my other post which I listed the d40's short comings straight out of various review sites. I fully admit the XT/XTis do feel like they are made from left over Tonka Truck plastics. So? At least it has all the necessary ingredients of a proper decent entry level dSLR. Why are Neo-Nikonians so insecure?
I like to see how one MF with a d40 with a viewfinder the size of finger nail....:rolleyes:

[coldrain]

Build quality and how the material feels are two different things all together. The build quality of an XTi is good. If you don't like the feel then say that.

[r3g]

The internet gods make forums not for the purpose of sharing info, but for pure entertainment. Because thats what this thread is :p

I know im a SLR newbie and my opinion probably means diddly to you guys but in fionndruinne , I wouldnt be surprised if he did MF sometimes. As i stated in another thread I MF more often then i ever thought i would simply because 1) its a skill i believe all serious photographers should have and 2) when you get a good picture using MF you feel more accomplished (or at least i do). Given all the things i MF on are not alive or moving ;)

[swgod98]

I fully admit the XT/XTis do feel like they are made from left over Tonka Truck plastics.

And yet you rated them well above the D40. You're losing some serious credibility in my eyes. Not only that, but you're making yourself look foolish with every post you make.

[coldrain]

And yet you rated them well above the D40. You're losing some serious credibility in my eyes. Not only that, but you're making yourself look foolish with every post you make.
Why? This is about a CAMERA. You know, to make photos with. And the XTi (as he explained quite clearly) is a much more complete camera. With a lot more possibilities, much better lens selection, and a lot higher resolution. And a better software package even!
Now you may guess why he rated it well above the D40?

[cdifoto]

I think that we are pretty much saying the same thing. You say that "you'd be forced to MF" while I say that "AF is unavailable". No difference. What some others are saying is that it is next to impossible to MF, but this is not the case if you use the focussing aid in the camera. Not that I have found it all that hard before I even realised it was there.

Ray.

I got a little bit retarded there. :o

[swgod98]

Why? This is about a CAMERA.

If you've been following the posts, It's about someguy making a fool of himself claiming the D40 has worse build quality than the XT/XTi. Sure, one can easily claim it as opinion...

Just like I think my Subaru Impreza has better build quality than a BMW 330i :rolleyes:

[Abercrombie]

For the record... The D40 was evicted from the equation some time ago. It was a recommendation which was quickly ruled out as a serious purchase.

I'm going with the XT. I can live with the small and cheap plastic body for now. I'll likely upgrade the body within a matter of weeks.

Thanks for the input (those of you who did actually try to answer my question).

Much appreciated.

[some guy]

If you've been following the posts, It's about someguy making a fool of himself claiming the D40 has worse build quality than the XT/XTi. Sure, one can easily claim it as opinion...

Just like I think my Subaru Impreza has better build quality than a BMW 330i :rolleyes:

Classic response from Neo-Nikonians... rather attacking the posters than discussing the merits of a product. Very D40 class-like. Also very entertaining as someone posted earlier.
To the OP, there's nothing to add anymore as your independant research will lead you to the right decision for a camera that is right for YOU.

[cdifoto]

Just like I think my Subaru Impreza has better build quality than a BMW 330i :rolleyes:

Depending whether the Beamer was made on the day shift or the night shift, it could be true! :D

[swgod98]

Classic response from Neo-Nikonians...

You just don't stop, do you?

[coldrain]

Depending whether the Beamer was made on the day shift or the night shift, it could be true! :D
Haha, you don't know half how true that is! Right now BMW is refusing to acknowledge that the new 3 series has a big problem when braking when wet. It takes 1 to 2 seconds for the breaks to set in! EEEK

BMW claims it is normal that in wet weather disc breaks always show a somewhat diminished capacity and advice 3 series drivers to break regularly when it is raining. Don't drive behind BMW drivers I guess... they may just break to make the discs dry... and don't drive in front of them in case of an emergency break!

[cdifoto]

Haha, you don't know half how true that is! Right now BMW is refusing to acknowledge that the new 3 series has a big problem when braking when wet. It takes 1 to 2 seconds for the breaks to set in! EEEK

BMW claims it is normal that in wet weather disc breaks always show a somewhat diminished capacity and advice 3 series drivers to break regularly when it is raining. Don't drive behind BMW drivers I guess... they may just break to make the discs dry... and don't drive in front of them in case of an emergency break!

Heck even my old POS Ford Minivan has no problems braking in the rain. Same goes for my 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass! :eek:

[fionndruinne]

Heh... this topic is seriously out of hand, and I apologize to the OP if it bugs him (as it very well could).

As for manually focusing, I really don't know what the whining is about. I've only used it a few times in the past (on my friend's XTi and my cousin's 20d - I think it is), but never had trouble doing it. When I got my D40, I tried a few manually focused shots (not a whole lot yet, as I haven't really been drawn to many still shots yet, most of them have been action shots). This is one of the first:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_00580001.jpg

There's no problem for me using the D40's viewfinder to focus, and the focus dot works just as has been stated - although I use my eyes more than the dot.

[cdifoto]

Heh... this topic is seriously out of hand, and I apologize to the OP if it bugs him (as it very well could).

As for manually focusing, I really don't know what the whining is about. I've only used it a few times in the past (on my friend's XTi and my cousin's 20d - I think it is), but never had trouble doing it. When I got my D40, I tried a few manually focused shots (not a whole lot yet, as I haven't really been drawn to many still shots yet, most of them have been action shots). This is one of the first:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_00580001.jpg

There's no problem for me using the D40's viewfinder to focus, and the focus dot works just as has been stated - although I use my eyes more than the dot.

That's daylight. Try it in less than optimal conditions. I couldn't do it at all on an XT. I could do it with mixed results on a 10D & 30D. I can do it with a better success rate than all of the previous with a 1D, but still not perfect every time.

[coldrain]

Hmm... so now all of a sudden AF is needed with non-static subjects.

This all of a sudden does make the missing AF motor a bigger deal doesn't it. unless you thoroughly hate photographing people, animals, nature in general, planes, cars and what not.

So, if you want more than just a 2 kit lens system, with better lenses that still are relativily affordable, the advice remains: avoid the D40. And then we are still ignoring the other features it misses.

[fionndruinne]

Be happy, guys, I just took some pictures, uploaded them, resized them, uploaded them to Photobucket, and post them just for you!

Sub-optimal lighting (make sure and say hello to my D40 instruction manual!):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05870001.jpg

This exposure wasn't perfect, but it was handheld after all. As far as focus it's fine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05880001.jpg

Moving subject (not drastically of course, but she's a kid, they do a lot of moving. Not as sharp as it should be; shutter speed was not terribly fast):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05890001.jpg

Better with flash:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05940001.jpg

All manual, and they took me only a little longer than auto-focus would. For the photos of my young cousin I relied on the focus dot, since it was harder to judge sharpness with the eye. She was sitting in more shadow than the other two subjects. The focus dot, once attained, blinks a lot on a moving subject, which is evidence that it is doing its job quite well.

[cdifoto]

Be happy, guys, I just took some pictures, uploaded them, resized them, uploaded them to Photobucket, and post them just for you!

Sub-optimal lighting (make sure and say hello to my D40 instruction manual!):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05870001.jpg

This exposure wasn't perfect, but it was handheld after all. As far as focus it's fine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05880001.jpg

Moving subject (not drastically of course, but she's a kid, they do a lot of moving. Not as sharp as it should be; shutter speed was not terribly fast):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05890001.jpg

Better with flash:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/DSC_05940001.jpg

All manual, and they took me only a little longer than auto-focus would. For the photos of my young cousin I relied on the focus dot, since it was harder to judge sharpness with the eye. She was sitting in more shadow than the other two subjects. The focus dot, once attained, blinks a lot on a moving subject, which is evidence that it is doing its job quite well.

1/4 of a second? 1/3 of a second? Whoa. You're steadier than I am if those are sharp at full size! :D

[fionndruinne]

Not as sharp as could be at full size, but not terrible:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/cropped0001.jpg

Some EXIF: ISO 800, 1/4 sec. f/4.5

The other three: ISO 800 1/3 sec. f/4.5; ISO 800 1/10 sec. f/4.5; ISO 400, 1/60 sec. f/4.5 (this is the flash one)

[r3g]

Very D40 class-like.


wow wow wow lets not start generalizing D40 owners.. thats probably not what you were trying to do but thats how it looks :)

i too have been playing with MF and find that though its not always easy it sure as hell isnt hard enough to want to avoid at all costs..

[cdifoto]

Not as sharp as could be at full size, but not terrible:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/fionndruinne/Nikon%20D40/cropped0001.jpg

Some EXIF: ISO 800, 1/4 sec. f/4.5

The other three: ISO 800 1/3 sec. f/4.5; ISO 800 1/10 sec. f/4.5; ISO 400, 1/60 sec. f/4.5 (this is the flash one)

That's pretty much what I expected and what I'd end up with. ;) :)

[cdifoto]

wow wow wow lets not start generalizing D40 owners.. thats probably not what you were trying to do but thats how it looks :)

i too have been playing with MF and find that though its not always easy it sure as hell isnt hard enough to want to avoid at all costs..

D40 owners are poo-poo heads! :eek: :D :p

Either the D40 has an exceptionally nice viewfinder for its class, or you guys have better vision than I. Maybe a little of both.

[r3g]

D40 owners are poo-poo heads! :eek: :D :p

Either the D40 has an exceptionally nice viewfinder for its class, or you guys have better vision than I. Maybe a little of both.


well im only 19 and im not wearing my glasses so i doubt my vision is all that better then yours. cant comment on the quality if the viewfinder compared to other SLRs but i can say that its pretty clear when your in focus if you concentrate a bit.

all in all i can see why many cameras are better then the D40 when you look at the big picture theres no doubt about that. but it is by NO MEANS a bad camera and thats pretty much what a lot of people here have been saying about it. i believe the OP already said hes getting the XT like 2 pages back so feel free to end this topic mod [:

as for the poo-poo comment.... i hope for your childrens sake you dont have any pets[/endthreat] ;)

[DonSchap]

You might just be better off springing for the "Katz-Eye (http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Katz-Eye-Focusing-Screen-for-the-Nikon-D40-D40x--prod_D40.html)" solution, which will provide you some kind of manual aid to focus with ... rather than shooting in empty air.

A clue ... for those without one. LOL :D

[fionndruinne]

I'm 22; my vision is decent. I'm not very steady though - I'm used to finding support of some sort.

I like the D40 viewfinder; you know it actually helps for manually focusing that there are only three AF points. The XTi's get in the way I've found. Seeing as the D40's are horizontal, there's a lot of unobstructed space above and below them.

I agree there are better cameras... they're quite a bit more costly though, and this is what I could afford. People need to open their minds to the concept of the D40's class of SLR: budget but not cheaply made. Sacrificing some features seems inevitable in view of that. I can live with it - for a couple of years at least.

[cdifoto]

I can live with it - for a couple of years at least.

I thought the same about the XT when I got it. Most of the other regulars know where I am now... :eek: :D

[Abercrombie]

In case thread followers are interested... I just purchased the XT.

[fionndruinne]

That cruel XT (and XTi) doesn't allow for spot metering.

I like spot metering.

[cdifoto]

In case thread followers are interested... I just purchased the XT.

Like any other entry camera you'll love it either

A) Forever if you don't become obsessed or
B) For at least a few months if you do become obsessed.

Invest in a battery grip (BG-E3) and it'll feel a little better in your hands.

:D

[cdifoto]

That cruel XT (and XTi) doesn't allow for spot metering.

I like spot metering.

Me too, although partial is usually good enough in most cases. Or at least it was. :rolleyes: :p

[fionndruinne]

Happy shooting!

[r3g]

have you shot with it yet? cant wait to see some pics

[some guy]

That cruel XT (and XTi) doesn't allow for spot metering.

I like spot metering.

there is a reason why there are more than one type of metering. <sigh> Most importantly most users don't even know when to use which one. I just educated d80 & d200 user the other day about metering. And now this. Deja vu. :)

[fionndruinne]

You know, I haven't used enough SLRs to tell whether the D40's viewfinder is particularly good for its class, but I just tested it against my friend's XTi tonight, and the XTi is quite a bit darker.

[coldrain]

You know, I haven't used enough SLRs to tell whether the D40's viewfinder is particularly good for its class, but I just tested it against my friend's XTi tonight, and the XTi is quite a bit darker.
Does your D40 have 9% spot metering? No? What a shame when you need a bigger spot to meter with any sense. If you can imagine at times you may benifit from a 3% spot, you should aslo be able to imagine you can benifit at times from a bigger spot.

I like a DOF button.

I like AF on affordable good zoom lenses and primes.

I like AF points covering the frame, when tracking an object.

I like exposure bracketing.

I like WB bracketing and fine tuning.

I like hard settings buttons for WB, AF mode, metering mode and ISO settings.

I like mirror lock up.

I like the extra 2mp of my 350D over the D40's 6.1mp.

I like a good RAW convertor with the camera. Which you can download updates for for free. My 350D came with version 1.6 I believe. Now I downloaded version 3.

I guess you would not like any of all this.

I also like the lenses I have, which all AF, and which all were quite affordable for what they offer, and which all would not be possible on a D40.

[fionndruinne]

Coldrain, give it a rest, guy. Seriously.

The current vein of this discussion had to do with manually focusing, and pointing out that the D40 is pretty decent for that kind of use. It wasn't a comparison of what camera is better, but you still feel the need to tout the XT(i).

[coldrain]

Coldrain, give it a rest, guy. Seriously.

The current vein of this discussion had to do with manually focusing, and pointing out that the D40 is pretty decent for that kind of use. It wasn't a comparison of what camera is better, but you still feel the need to tout the XT(i).
Uhmm... you just want to disregard that you yourself posted this (and that was what I reacted to)? :
That cruel XT (and XTi) doesn't allow for spot metering.

I like spot metering.

I do not believe that had anything to do with AF/MF. Sorry that my pressing the quote button on the wrong post threw you off.

[fionndruinne]

No, but metering came to my mind as a result of focusing on some of those inside shots. Again, it wasn't recalling an XT/D40 war, just stating a fact (one I find odd, since with all the bevy of settings on the XTi you'd think spot metering would be there). Certainly wasn't the kind of thing to provoke another of your lists of every gripe you can think of about the D40.

G'night.

[coldrain]

No, but metering came to my mind as a result of focusing on some of those inside shots. Again, it wasn't recalling an XT/D40 war, just stating a fact (one I find odd, since with all the bevy of settings on the XTi you'd think spot metering would be there). Certainly wasn't the kind of thing to provoke another of your lists of every gripe you can think of about the D40.

G'night.
The XTi and XT have a spot to meter with, just 9% compared to 3% of your D40. You really do not get that? And the use of the word "cruel" was just part of being factual?

And on those inside shots, what did you exactly spot meter on? You are aware of the fact that metering must be done on a midtone if you use spot metering, that you can mess up metering too (as you can see in one of the cousin photos, not the best exposure ever). Spot metering, whether it is a spot fo 9%, 3% 1% or whatever, is a tool that has to be used correctly. The other metering modes on your camera have not been invented for nothing.
Using a 9% spot metering on the non-flash cousin photo correctly would have exposed her better. With the metering made you used (the matrix mode?) the bright window left your subject under exposed. And the bag photo is
1. under exposed
and
2. impossible to judge if focussing was accurate.

Not a great example.

It is not night here... but I wish you sweet manual focus dreams.

[swgod98]

coldrain, the fact of the matter is, you defend the XT and XTi to the death whenever a single point is mentioned that is not presenting either camera in a positive light.

It's the same thing people do with the D40. But, what gets me is that the XT and XTi don't need defending...because nobody is trying to put them down. A single point was made about the viewfinders and you respond with a slew of reasons why the XTi is better than the D40?!?! Only some of which had anything to do with manually focusing the camera...which is what fionna was discussing before you blindsided him.

It's ok that the XTi isn't the best at everything. It really is.

P.S. sorry fionna (I was too lazy to check the spelling of your name) :p

[fionndruinne]

Heh... you can call me Andrew if you really want to. :cool:

[fionndruinne]

As for the pictures, I agree they weren't terribly good, they were just going to prove that I had not much trouble manually focusing in low light. The bag picture was in extremely dim light, under a small table, and getting even close focus was something.

The D40 has matrix, spot and center-weighted metering, the latter being I would think close to what the XTi uses (~9% spot). Having the addition of 3% spot is nice, there's no real argument, or shouldn't be, because there are times when I want to get the dramatic effect when most of the photo is over-or under-exposed. There's a place for each.

[coldrain]

As for the pictures, I agree they weren't terribly good, they were just going to prove that I had not much trouble manually focusing in low light. The bag picture was in extremely dim light, under a small table, and getting even close focus was something.

The D40 has matrix, spot and center-weighted metering, the latter being I would think close to what the XTi uses (~9% spot). Having the addition of 3% spot is nice, there's no real argument, or shouldn't be, because there are times when I want to get the dramatic effect when most of the photo is over-or under-exposed. There's a place for each.
No, center weighted metering is close to... guess what? Centerweighted metering on the XT or XTi. It takes the whole frame into account, but weighs the center more.

The D40's spot metering is just close to.... the slightly bigger spot the XT and XTi have, which Canon refers to as partial metering. It is less hard to mess metering up with the 9% spot than with a smaller spot, if you dont know how to use spot metering, anyway.

And the reason I mentioned your pictures, because you claimed that the spot metering remark you made about the XT (your "I like spot metering" post, remember) came out of your manual focus shots from this thread. While you didn't use spot metering :confused: ...

And swgod, my list of things I like about the XT was a reply to this person's "I like spotmetering" post. As I have explained already....

[r3g]

Dammit right when the start calmed down.. -_-


Let see we covered why the XT is good, we covered why the D40 is good, and we covered that its quite possible with practice to MF in good conditions without going crazy. Now lets talk about something we can all agree on... pie :)






Oh and something that i think needs to be brought up about AF lenses being affordable for the D40. In the kitlens range and wider yes those lenses are crazy expensive, but of all the D40 owners ive talked to they all say the same thing "im keeping my kitlens". Maybe nikon realized that when releasing the D40 so they made it so they kitlens doesnt need to be replaced. a good zoom lens can be had at anywhere $200-400, thats pretty affordable imo. NOT TRYING TO FLAME ANYONE, just thought that needed to be said. My plan is the VR 55-200 ($240), 30mm 1.4 (rougly $300), and 10-20mm ($500). Granted the 10-20 is a bit pricey but its nowhere near the 1000+ dollars people speak of when pointing out the D40s lens selection. With a combined range of 10mm to 200mm in your bag I dont see much that a person wouldnt be able to do minus macro but im not super into macro and extreme telephoto.

[fionndruinne]

If Coldrain is trying to prove that I made an unprovoked attack on the XT, now that's just plain ironic.

And for the record, again, I like your lens choices.

[some guy]

It's the same thing people do with the D40. But, what gets me is that the XT and XTi don't need defending...because nobody is trying to put them down.

i agree. the xt and xti don't need defending. It an award winning camera for years and the drebel literally opened the doors for regular folks into the DSLR world. Without the Drebel, we prolly won't be here. Drebel/XT/XTi are proven cameras in this segment.
To use the BMW illustration despite that nothing is perfect, it is the standard in which its competitors are still trying beat.

[fionndruinne]

Hey, I'll even agree with that. The XT/XTi has been the flagship for the concept of affordable, quality DSLRs. I highly doubt that my D40 would even exist if it weren't for the previous existence of the XT/XTi.