D-40 or D-50?

[aminton]

I've recently narrowed my choice between purchasing a Nikon D-40 or D-50. I like features from both that the other does not have. But I am open to other suggestions. Here's some information on what I need...


Budget - About $700 (Looking for multi-lens package).

Size - none

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you? - 6.0

* What optical zoom will you need? - 10x-12x

* How important is “image quality” to you? 10, most likely, though I don't need RAW.

Do you care for manual controls? - YES

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for? - Variety, but not sports.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not? - Few.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? Few.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? - No.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate? - Not impressed with my Nikon Coolpix3200.

Are there particular models you already have in mind? Nikon.

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features?

I like the ability to do wide angle, but I also need strong zoom ability. I plan on carrying a couple of lenses. I also would like the option of making short video clips, like my point and shoots do. Though I don't have a lot of technical know-how, I do know exaclty what I want in a shot (I have the art, though not the science) so I would consider myself not an amateur but a strong enthusiast.


Many thanks,

[toriaj]

I would definitely recommend the D50 over the D40. What features does the D40 have that you prefer over the D50?

The major drawback of the D40 is the lack of autofocus motor. That means that you will have to spend much more on lenses that have their own motor. The D50 is a great camera. I would definitely recommend it to you. Or, if that doesn't work out, I would look at the D80.

DSLRs do not have video ability. If that is important to you, check out the Canon S3 or Panasonic FZ50.

[fionndruinne]

Unless you are going to be looking into certain types of lenses, primes and macros, or larger-aperture zoom lenses for low-light situations, you are not too likely to be affected by the D40's lack of a focus motor. From what you stated, it sounds like a D40 with kit 18-55mm + the new 55-200mm VR DX II is just what you're looking for. That would total out to about $780. You could go for the 55-200mm non-VR (stabilized) for about $80 less, but that could be troublesome, as camera shake could ruin some of your shots at full zoom.

If you are going to be looking into the lenses I mentioned at the beginning, then a D50 would be a better option, although it might be a slight amount of hassle finding one. As far as I know it runs for about the same price as the D40. The same lens setup would do you (although note the D40 kit lens, the DX II, is better than the D50's original DX), but you might end up spending more buying these lenses both separately.

Both cameras are capable of taking magnificent pictures, and don't let people tell you the D40 isn't worth every penny.

[jcon]

Honestly, the D50. Since you mentioned lenses will be important and most importantly, zoom, youll want the autofocusing body(D50). Keep in mind, 10X zoom on a DZLR will be VERY expensive.

I suggest doing alot more reserach before you make your purchase, and find out if DSLR is really right for you. Look at lenses first and foremost, thats what will stick with you after upgrading the body in the future.

The D50 costs the same, if not less than the D40, so why not go with the D50? Its got the VERY important internal focusing that the D40 lacks.

Tori is correct that DSLRs dont take video, altough I STRONGLY dissagree with the Panasonic FZ50 suggestion. That camera isnt one of the best, its horrible with higher ISO and indoor pics are hard to get prints of. You could do better than the Panna FZ50, namely the FZ30. Although, if video is important to you, buy a camcorder, cameras are a compromise when it comes to video.

[fionndruinne]

The 55-200mm VR AF-S provides 11x autofocusing zoom for $250. That's one of the least costly zoom lenses out there, and has very decent results by all accounts.

What is the least expensive you've seen the D50 available for from reputable companies? Amazon lists it for about $650, $100 over the D40.

[jcon]

Least expensive online so far has been from Tri-State Camera for $499. Another online retailer, Norman Camera has the D50 for $529. Doing a simple online search will provide more results too. Just make sure its a safe place to buy from!

My local camera shop is selling it for $560.


And even if you were to pay $100 more for the D50, its well worth it in my eyes as it will save you alot more money on lenses in the long run!


I should point out, Tri-State is on the fence, there have been good experiences and bad experiences, I have not purchased from them but they are listed in the "OK" list on the "where/where not to buy your camera" thread.

[rawpaw18]

The 55-200mm VR AF-S provides 11x autofocusing zoom for $250.


Aminton,
This lens is roughly a 3.6x zoom, be careful not to get caught up in
zoom x, make sure the range of the lenses/camera fit your needs.

[fionndruinne]

"Zoom" is a subjective quantification for SLRs and SLR lenses - coming from point-and-shoots it is very confusing. I'm trying to approximate the reach one would have compared to the 18-55mm lens.

[coldrain]

Most compact digitals (not point and shoots, you can point and shoot with yoru D40) have a lens that starts at about 36mm or 38mm. The 18-55 kilens starts at 28mm, quite a bit more wide angle. If you want to do any sort of comparison, take that into account.

[fionndruinne]

When non-SLR users ask about "zoom", they want to know how much reach the camera will give them. Judging by my 3x Olympus P&S, the 18-55mm gives about the same reach (3x from the naked eye), although with a wider angle on the other end. As far as I am aware, 200mm gives about 10-11x in those terms, am I right?

Compare, say, with a pair of binoculars. Doesn't make sense in lens terms, but it's how non-photographers have been trained to think.

Another way to put this: is 55mm (really ~75mm) about 3x larger than @ 35mm?

Still making sense of the actualities of this myself; thus far I've been comparing in a loose sense, not going by actual specifications.

[rawpaw18]

"Zoom" is a subjective quantification for SLRs and SLR lenses - coming from point-and-shoots it is very confusing. I'm trying to approximate the reach one would have compared to the 18-55mm lens.

It can be confusing allright, the questionaire itself led to the "zoom" wanted without taking into consideration starting a point. It can be very misleading to those new to dslr lenses. Dare I say zoom "?"x is irrelevant when purchasing lenses.

[fionndruinne]

But it's not. People want to know how much of a "telescope effect" they will be getting. I.e. how many times magnification compared to the naked eye.

Think about it... photographers know how much reach their lenses will give them, but it's not commonly listed as a spec, in and of itself. Wouldn't it simplify things a bit if it were?

[toriaj]

Um, I'm a newbie here, so you'll want to get more information on this ...

But in my experience, the level of magnification provided by any lens depends on how close it is to the subject. My 18-55 lens, at the 55 mm end, will only bring subjects closer than the naked eye will, if I am very close to them (within a couple of feet of the subject.) If I'm further away, as in a landscape shot, 55 mm is further than the naked eye.

Maybe that's why they don't provide magnification specs. But once you learn what "18 mm" or "50 mm" or "300 mm" act like, then you'll know how to judge other lenses with the same focal length.

Experts, do I have it right?

[Ray Schnoor]

When non-SLR users ask about "zoom", they want to know how much reach the camera will give them. Judging by my 3x Olympus P&S, the 18-55mm gives about the same reach (3x from the naked eye), although with a wider angle on the other end. As far as I am aware, 200mm gives about 10-11x in those terms, am I right?

Compare, say, with a pair of binoculars. Doesn't make sense in lens terms, but it's how non-photographers have been trained to think.

Another way to put this: is 55mm (really ~75mm) about 3x larger than @ 35mm?

Still making sense of the actualities of this myself; thus far I've been comparing in a loose sense, not going by actual specifications.
The zoom values on P&S cameras have nothing to do with how much magnification from the naked eye the cameras give an object. It only has to do with the focal lengths of the camera.

I will give 2 examples(Nikon 995 and Nikon 5400) because I have these 2 cameras. These are both 4x zoom cameras. The 995 has a 35mm equivalent focal range from 38mm to 152mm(152/38=4x). The 5400 has a 35 mm equivalent focal range from 28mm to 116mm(116/28=4.14x)

Now from these 2 examples, one might think that the 5400 will give more magnification from the naked eye, but in fact it is the opposite since the 995 has a long end of 152mm to the 116mm of the 5400.

This is why the zoom factors on digital cameras is irrelevant. You instead have to look at the effective focal lengths of the lenses involved.

This is also the case for lenses on dSLR's. Take a 28-75mm(78/28=2.8x) lens and a 70-200mm(200/70=2.9x) lens. They are both ~3x zoom lenses, but the 70-200 will give you much more magnification over the naked eye. If you now take an 18-200mm(200/18=11x) lens, this will not give you any more reach/magnification on the long end than the 70-200mm(200/70=2.9x) lens, even though it is an 11x zoom lens v a 2.9x zoom lens.

Now you may say that "when non-SLR users ask about "zoom", they want to know how much reach the camera will give them", but that is not the information that camera manufacturers are giving them when they put a "zoom" value on a P&S camera.

Ray.

[fionndruinne]

Hmm. So perhaps the questionnaire should be reworded to refer to focal length? Either that, or we need to give people some idea of what the focal length of a lens would compare to in non-photographic terms.

... Or just continue answering people's wonderments on the subject with the same info every time they're asked.

[rawpaw18]

Nicely said Ray

[pas49ras]

This is why the zoom factors on digital cameras is irrelevant. You instead have to look at the effective focal lengths of the lenses involved.

A case in point..the new Panasonic TZ3 with a 10x zoom lens..compaired to the TZ1 which also had a 10x zoom. But because the TZ3 has a wide angle lens, it focal lenght is 28-250 where the TZ1 started at 35mm and is a 35-350. Same 10x with different results.

[TomAz]

D50


optical zoom?:eek: ???????? get some good lenses and enjoy...

[page915]

This is my first using of D70s, feel that it is easy to learn and easy to use.

[spoonbb2]

I say get a D50 because I own one. :p

[fionndruinne]

I say a D40 for the same reason.;)