Recommend me a killer lens:

[Benjamin_T]

I am planning to get the Nikon D40, please recommend me a killer lens to go with it! ;)

Total budget is at US$1500 as usual, and I am only planning to factor in a memory card to the cost that's all. :) I already have two tripods and don't plan to get anything else fancy yet.

P.S., the Nikon D40 is currently weighing more than 50% on my "buy" list compared to the others. :D

[coldrain]

First and foremost, a killer lens doing what? Macro? Wide angle? Standard zoom range? Portrait zoom? Tele zoom? "Ultra" tele zoom for birding? Sports shooting? Portrait prime? An all in one zoom?

Until you have this clear, there is no advicing you.

Secondly, why on earth a Nikon D40?
Do you happen to like that it has no internal motor, meaning that in the categories :
Portrait prime
Portrait zoom
Standard zoom
Macro
"ultra tele zoom"
there actually are no real options that are "killer" that will fit your budget.
If you would get a Nikon D50, D80, Canon EOS 350D/XT, EOS 400D/XTI, Pentax K100D, you actually would have a lot more options, due to the very simple (and very annoying) fact that teh Nikon D40 and D40x miss the internal focussing motor that till now always was present on Nikon DSLRs.

Or do you happen to like it only has a 3 AF sensor AF system? Or do you happen to like it has no mirror lock up, no depth of field check button, no white balance and exposure bracketing, does not come with RAW conversion software that is useful, has no buttons to go to whitebalance and ISO settings? Why this preference for that cut down D40 if you actually want a "killer lens"?

So... I suggest you explain what you are looking for in a lens.
If you just want a snapshot camera with mediocre features and mediocre kit lens quality, then the D40 will do you fine.
A D40 with 18-55 and 55-200 VR would then be ok. Or a D40 with 18-200 VR.
If you want a camera that you can learn with and grow into photography with, where you can get good lenses without having to spend a LOT of money, yet achieving high quality results, I suggest you stop reading the D40 fan mail, and look at what the camera actually is about.

In case people are going to fall over the use of the word mediocre:
mediocre |?m?d???k?r| adjective of only moderate quality; not very good : a mediocre actor.

It does not mean bad, it means what it says, mediocre.

[Benjamin_T]

To make it clear, all those features that the Nikon D40 lacks are no issues to me! ;)

Admittedly the lack of the focus motor is a terrible thing IMO! :eek:

Anyway...I want a high quality lens of course! :cool:

The reason why I choose to go for the Nikon D40 was simple; so that I have more $$$$ for glass. ;)

At the same time based on all my readings, the Nikon D40 have the best high ISO performance of all until ISO 3200. :cool:

And also, the Nikon D40 have the best image quality of all in the 6 mega-pixel kingdom! So great it its image quality that it is as good as 8 mega pixels dSLR quality! ;) (Why want 8 mega pixels then???) [10 mega pixels today also don't have much difference from 8 mega pixels...dSLR wise] - So why want 10 mega pixels then as well??? ;)

I got all this from my readings - dpreview being one of them! ;)

Anyway back to topic;

Generally I will be having the included 18-55 lens when I purchase the Nikon D40, so that will settle the wide end/general lens/walk around solution already.

So feel free to recommend me anything in the longer ranges.

I want to shoot long distance landscapes, portraits, low flying aircrafts, and snip off some candids shots of people from a distance. ;)

Hope all that helps.

[Nickcanada]

Hey coldie stop beating around the bush and get to the point!:D :p

He does have a point though. For me a killer lens would be a large aperature prime (no zoom) lens, like the canon 35mm 1.4L retailing for $1 120 US, for that single lens.

This lens would not be a killer lens for most people though and many people find primes too restrictive and prefer zoom lenses.

Deciding on a lens is very hard and especially when you are looking to get just one!

Perhaps your killer lens might be the 18-200 VR ($750 at B&H), it has a great focal length range. That is great for your initiation to DSLRs.

If you have a specific "need" then let us know and we will steer you in the right direction. For example, do you want to do low light shots of your kids running around the house? Do you enjoy taking pictures of flowers? or landscapes? The list goes on but you get the point.

Good luck!

[coldrain]

The D40's high ISO performance is not better than a K100D or a XT/XTi. That it uses more in-camera noise reduction, yes maybe.
And the D40's resolution is lower than that of an XT/XTi. I mean resolution, not just pixels.

You have to really read more I guess.

But, the D40 is NOT cheaper than an XT or a K100D. Or a D50.
How much money do you think you will save?

Consider this:
If you want to get a BETTER lens than the 18-55 kit lens from a D40 or an XTi or a K100D, what will that mean in price?

It will mean this:
XTi (10mp)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro : $430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II : $450
Tokina 16-50 DX : $500
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG : $350
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di : $400
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM : $1000 (includes IS)
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM : $1000

What will it mean on a Pentax K100D (6.1 mp, same sensor as the D40):
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro : $430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II : $450
Pentax 16-45mm f4 : $330
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG : $350
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di : $400

And what will it mean on a D40?
Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX : $1200 (no IS)
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8 : $1500

So, how much will you have saved?
And do you realize that the D40 is the only one with no good RAW convertor standard? And why do you not care about the D40's missing features? Do you have experience with any of them, so that you know what you will need in future?

It seems a bit small, your basis to choose the D40 over other cameras, simply because of a virtual saving for lenses. You do know the K100D has a lot more features, including in body IS, for a smaller price?

So, to sum up:
D40 is not all that much cheaper. D40 will be more expensive after the buying of the body. When you want to try RAW, you need to spend $150 extra. When you want to upgrade the kit lens, spend lots mor extra $$$$.
When you are starting to miss its missing features, spend extra $$$$ on a D80.

So... the D50, XT, K100D all have a similar or even lower price.
An XTi seems more expensive till you really look at what your future expenses will/may be.

[coldrain]

Worthwhile tele zoom lenses under $1000:

Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro (not for D40) ($220)
Nikon AF-S 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR ($500)
Canon EF-S 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM (not for D40) ($550)
Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM (not for D40) ($600?)
Canon EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM (not for D40) ($1000?)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM ($750?)
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (not for D40) ($800?)
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (not for D40) ($???)
Sigma 134-400mm (not for D40) ($600?)
Sigma 80-400mm OS (not for D40) ($999?)

[Benjamin_T]

The D40's high ISO performance is not better than a K100D or a XT/XTi. That it uses more in-camera noise reduction, yes maybe.
And the D40's resolution is lower than that of an XT/XTi. I mean resolution, not just pixels.

You have to really read more I guess.

But, the D40 is NOT cheaper than an XT or a K100D. Or a D50.
How much money do you think you will save?

Consider this:
If you want to get a BETTER lens than the 18-55 kit lens from a D40 or an XTi or a K100D, what will that mean in price?

It will mean this:
XTi (10mp)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro : $430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II : $450
Tokina 16-50 DX : $500
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG : $350
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di : $400
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM : $1000 (includes IS)
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM : $1000

What will it mean on a Pentax K100D (6.1 mp, same sensor as the D40):
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro : $430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II : $450
Pentax 16-45mm f4 : $330
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG : $350
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di : $400

And what will it mean on a D40?
Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX : $1200 (no IS)
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8 : $1500

So, how much will you have saved?
And do you realize that the D40 is the only one with no good RAW convertor standard? And why do you not care about the D40's missing features? Do you have experience with any of them, so that you know what you will need in future?

It seems a bit small, your basis to choose the D40 over other cameras, simply because of a virtual saving for lenses. You do know the K100D has a lot more features, including in body IS, for a smaller price?

So, to sum up:
D40 is not all that much cheaper. D40 will be more expensive after the buying of the body. When you want to try RAW, you need to spend $150 extra. When you want to upgrade the kit lens, spend lots mor extra $$$$.
When you are starting to miss its missing features, spend extra $$$$ on a D80.

So... the D50, XT, K100D all have a similar or even lower price.
An XTi seems more expensive till you really look at what your future expenses will/may be.

I shall listen to your suggestions, but not necessarily follow them yet before a few questions! ;)

So if I want to have the "BEST" lens my budget can afford. Best in the sense in optical quality, (or) speed (large aperture), or sweet focal length etc...(Any one of those combination) Then which "body" would be ideal for me to get with "that" lens?

Remember, I have a budget of US$1500 ;) , so you (or others) must figure out the best/most ideal "cheapest" dSLR camera body to go with that "Killer" lens of mine. ;)

I can personally go with the Nikon D70s though. :)

What's your take?

[Benjamin_T]

Worthwhile tele zoom lenses under $1000:

Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro (not for D40) ($220)
Nikon AF-S 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR ($500)
Canon EF-S 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM (not for D40) ($550)
Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM (not for D40) ($600?)
Canon EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM (not for D40) ($1000?)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM ($750?)
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (not for D40) ($800?)
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (not for D40) ($???)
Sigma 134-400mm (not for D40) ($600?)
Sigma 80-400mm OS (not for D40) ($999?)

Thanks for that list, I only saw it later on.

BTW, you keep on mentioning the TOKINA 16-50mm F/2.8; I have never seen that lens before...

[DonSchap]

The TOKINA AF 16-50mm f/2.8 was introduced back in Sept 2006 @ Photokina. As fas as I can determine, it still has not been released, unlike the second-half of the pair, the AF 50-135mm f/2.8 which also was introduced at the same time.

23665


I think they felt their manufacturing effort and money was best spent producing this unique focal range. There are very few 50-anythings out there, especially at f/2.8! There certainly are a lot of 70-XXXmm out there to choose from, leaving a gap between the 50-70mm range (on an APS-C sensor effectively 75-105mm) to fill. The above lens would make for an awesome portrait lens, with that kind of range.

[coldrain]

What is your problem with the Nikon D50?
It has that internal motor, is quite compact too, has a better AF system, can bracket exposures and what not.
The D70s is one of the most noisy DSLRs at high ISOs, you before stated that high ISO performance is important to you.

I would advice to look at the D50 with kitlens or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro (or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro), and a Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR.

Or a Canon XTi/400D with Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro (or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro), and a Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM.

Or, even a Pentax K100D with Pentax 16-45mm f4, and for intance a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Or a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG to keep the budget a lot lower.

[r3g]

If you do get the D40 the VR 55-200mm is a must have lens.

[coldrain]

If you do get the D40 the VR 55-200mm is a must have lens.
The 55-200 VR is a cheap lens with VR stuck on. Nice for VR, not great optically. It vignets quite a lot for instance. If you have a low budget and a D40, a 55-200 VR is the option. If your budget is a bit bigger, there are better options, including the 70-300 VR.

[mugsisme]

Are you still thinking of the D40? I would highly recommend the 18-200 if you want one lens that will almost do it all. If you don't mind manually focusing, then get the 50mm f/1.8. It is a sweet lens.

[Benjamin_T]

Coldrain, The Nikon D50 was ideal to me earlier while I was selecting between it and the Nikon D40, but the IQ of the Nikon D40 is superior according to dpreview. ;) Thus the choice...

The Nikon D50 is already discontinued whereabout the Nikon D70s is atill in production. However, if I can can still find the D50, then it shouldn't be a problem to me.

Are you still thinking of the D40? I would highly recommend the 18-200 if you want one lens that will almost do it all. If you don't mind manually focusing, then get the 50mm f/1.8. It is a sweet lens.

Yes of course! ;)

I already have the 50mm f/1.8; nice lens indeed. :cool:

Your post reminded me that I was also considering getting the Nikon D80 with the 50mm F/1.4 version. ;)

Appearantly because of the lack of the build in auto focus motor, the Nikon D40 doesn't seems to have any killer lens choice as far as I can see. Or else, the Nikkor 85mm F/1.4 will be my killer lens choice! ;)

[fionndruinne]

Hmm... if you can afford the D80, I'd say get it - although, from what I hear, its noise reduction feature which kicks in at high ISOs is a bit aggressive, you do lose a bit of detail. I wouldn't think you'd need to shoot at very high ISOs if using the 50mm f/1.8.

You're right about the D40 image quality - it amazes me that Coldrain, being a photographer, doesn't put that high enough on his list to consider anything at all about the camera to be worth it. It is a great camera, though; fast processor, better kit lens than the D50 (and the Canon and Pentax models for that matter), and beautiful high-ISO performance. I've taken some shots at 1600 which I can hardly believe I managed, and with minimal noise. After editing as much out as I can with Lightroom, the remaining amount is not nearly enough to make the photo unattractive.

I'm sure you've done your research, so no one needs to go and list what the D40 does and doesn't have. My experience, though, is that this camera's great in the hand, light and easy to carry, super fast, and takes stunning shots. I have made use of its help features - in some of the more obscure settings the text is quite verbose, so it doesn't leave you hanging with some cryptic comment. Also, the new Nikon "operating system" in-camera is (with a couple of small exceptions) very nice, easy on the eyes and the brain.

But see, I can say that and then go on to say that the Canon Rebels are very nice cameras as well! ;)

[fionndruinne]

Oh, and about lenses! :D

Have you looked at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It's a nice prime with an equivalent of 50mm in a 35mm camera, so a great portrait lens. Only somewhat pricey ($400), and auto-focuses on the D40!

[coldrain]

Have you actually looked at photos of a D40, D50, K100D and whatever camera yourself?

Do you actually see a difference yourself between a D40, D50 or K100D?
You really should do that, instead of being hung up on an apparent line from dpreview.
You will notice that the difference between the K100D and the D40 is so small, you will not be able to tell which camera made what photo. And yes, that includes the samples from DPreview.
Do not forget that what you are looking at are 100% crops. Lenses make a MUCH bigger difference.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page20.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page20.asp

In the same review you can see much bigger differences between an XT and a D40, resolution wise.

Also the D50 and D40 photos are very similar. A diffent lens has a much bigger impact than the differences you can see in those 100% crops.

You can buy whatever you want, but the old rule about what is important to a good photo still stands (in order of importance):
1. The photographer.
2. The lens(es)
3. The body (read: sensor)

This of course this does not cover everything. A full frame EOS 5D will perform better in HIGH ISO lower light situations than a Nikon D2x for instance. And a Nikon D80 will give more tele reach than a full frame 5D. So there are also reasons to be thought of to make the body choice more important than the lens choice.

But, with differences THIS small between the K100D, D50 and D40, your lens choice will make the real difference. All the more if you start shooting in RAW.

And I guess you did read over this line:
"The D40 delivers a clean looking image at both ISO 800 and 1600 which maintains its detail well, although not as detailed as the Pentax K100D images."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page23.asp

Look at the actual images. The 350D seems to be best, but by such a very small margin... all 4 do very good at ISO 800 and 1600, and the Pentax is better than the D40 because it keeps detail better. When you shoot RAW, the difference in noise reduction disappears.
That is just it, the D40's aggressive noise reduction shows less chroma noise, but loses detail. If you run a slight chroma noise reduction on the Pentax photos, it will still give more detail than the D40.

So... all the talk about how teh D40 is better at high ISO is just not true. It is a good performer, but so are the D50 and the K100D (and the XT).

[coldrain]

Oh, and about lenses! :D

Have you looked at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It's a nice prime with an equivalent of 50mm in a 35mm camera, so a great portrait lens. Only somewhat pricey ($400), and auto-focuses on the D40!
A 50mm lens on 35mm full frame is a standard lens, not a portait lens at all.
The portrait lens focal range is about 80 to 135mm.

A 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop sensor camera like a D50 will be 75mm. Then, a 50mm lens can be used as portrait lens since it is quite close to 80mm. On a full frame 35mm, it will just be a standard prime. Not for portraits.

A 30mm lens on the other hand will be 30 x 1.5 = 45mm.

On full frame it is a wide angle lens. On a 1.5x crop camera it is a bit short of standard prime too. Not at all a lens for portraits.

A Nikon 35mm f2 will make a better standard lens (35 x 1.5 = 52.5mm).

So... to recap (on 1.5x crop factor sensor DSLRs). A 30mm Sigma will almost make a standard prime. Not a portait lens at all.
A 50mm lens makes just about a portrait lens.
A 35mm lens comes closest to standard prime.

[aparmley]

A 50mm lens on 35mm full frame is a standard lens, not a portait lens at all.
The portrait lens focal range is about 80 to 135mm.

A 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop sensor camera like a D50 will be 75mm. Then, a 50mm lens can be used as portrait lens since it is quite close to 80mm. On a full frame 35mm, it will just be a standard prime. Not for portraits.

A 30mm lens on the other hand will be 30 x 1.5 = 45mm.

On full frame it is a wide angle lens. On a 1.5x crop camera it is a bit short of standard prime too. Not at all a lens for portraits.

A Nikon 35mm f2 will make a better standard lens (35 x 1.5 = 52.5mm).

So... to recap (on 1.5x crop factor sensor DSLRs). A 30mm Sigma will almost make a standard prime. Not a portait lens at all.
A 50mm lens makes just about a portrait lens.
A 35mm lens comes closest to standard prime.

:eek:

Can't you take a portrait with which ever lens you want? Why do you force us to always play by your rules. Gosh!:(

[cdifoto]

My portraits are all over the map as far as focal length goes.

[coldrain]

:eek:

Can't you take a portrait with which ever lens you want? Why do you force us to always play by your rules. Gosh!:(
What kind of response is this?

If someone says that a 30mm lens is 50mm on an 1.5x crop lens, and therefore perfect for portait lens, that is just plain wrong.

That is not my rule, that is just a fact. Whether or not you like to make portraits in wide angle or with 500mm zoom, that is your creative choice and no one is talking about that.

Pointing out that it is not a portrait lens is just pointing out the fact, andy.

The poster confuses that with a 50mm lens you get a "portrait lens" because the 50mm gets to be 75mm.
Thsi does not mean that a 30mm lens which gets close to 50mm is a portrait lens. Pure and simple.

[cdifoto]

What kind of response is this?

If someone says that a 30mm lens is 50mm on an 1.5x crop lens, and therefore perfect for portait lens, that is just plain wrong.

That is not my rule, that is just a fact. Whether or not you like to make portraits in wide angle or with 500mm zoom, that is your creative choice and no one is talking about that.

Pointing out that it is not a portrait lens is just pointing out the fact, andy.

The poster confuses that with a 50mm lens you get a "portrait lens" because the 50mm gets to be 75mm.
Thsi does not mean that a 30mm lens which gets close to 50mm is a portrait lens. Pure and simple.

A portait lens is anything you take a portrait with. If I want a "traditional" portrait, then yeah I'll bust out the longer lenses. But that doesn't mean a shorter lens used for a portrait isn't a portrait lens.

There is only one "wrong" in photography, and that is direct flash as main. :eek: :D

[coldrain]

You know as well as I do what constitutes a portrait lens.
And that is not the fact that it does not break when you make a photo with it with a human in the frame.

As you have said a few times yourself, you can live for now without that 85mm f1.8 because of portrait work and weddings you still have your 70-200.

I can not believe you want to attack the definition of what is meant with portrait lens, what lenses are especially suited for portraits. You know it. And you also know why they are suited for that work.

Anyway, in case the absurd discussion above has put doubt or confusion in some readers minds, here are some websites about portrait photography and what consitutes a good portrait lens and more.
http://www.photo.net/learn/portraits/
Typical "portrait" lenses are therefore between 90 and 135 millimeters long (for 35mm cameras).

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=portrait%20lens
A portrait lens is any lens with a focal length between 80-135mm (for a 35mm camera). This allows portraits to be taken with a slightly flattened perspective, flattering the subject's features and improving the aesthetics of their face (a wider lens will make their nose/ears look huge, a longer lens makes the face look unnaturally flat).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_Portrait_Lenses
Canon makes several lenses for the EF lens mount meant for portrait photography. These lenses are mild telephoto lenses meant to compress facial features.

[Riley]

Portrait with D80, Sigma 30mm 1.4

[cdifoto]

You know as well as I do what constitutes a portrait lens.
And that is not the fact that it does not break when you make a photo with it with a human in the frame.

As you have said a few times yourself, you can live for now without that 85mm f1.8 because of portrait work and weddings you still have your 70-200.

I can not believe you want to attack the definition of what is meant with portrait lens, what lenses are especially suited for portraits. You know it. And you also know why they are suited for that work.

Anyway, in case the absurd discussion above has put doubt or confusion in some readers minds, here are some websites about portrait photography and what consitutes a good portrait lens and more.
http://www.photo.net/learn/portraits/


http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=portrait%20lens


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_Portrait_Lenses

You could, like, maybe read my entire post for once.

[coldrain]

I did read it all, Don.

"But that doesn't mean a shorter lens used for a portrait isn't a portrait lens."


Just because you can shoot a portrait with a lens does not make that lens a portrait lens. It just means it is a lens you shot a portrait with.
Shooting a portrait with a 600mm lens does not make a 600m lens be a portrait lens. It just makes it a 600mm tele lens you usd to make a portrait with.
The 600mm lens will have flattened the features a lot. The 30mm lens will have exaggerated the nose (as you can see very well in Riley's post).

There are many "portraits" made with fisheye lenses. This does not make a fisheye constitute a "portrait lens" though. I never dispute that you can put a face or a person on a photo with a 600mm lens or with a 18mm lens.
Like I said before, a portrait lens is not any lens that does not break when you have a person in the frame.

And if you are still unsure about what the term portrait lens is used for, and why, all I can do is to point for instance above sources, or any photography education, or any photography book.

It does NOT mean that you can not make portraits with other lenses. It just means that short tele lenses give a flattering slight flattening effect, and this is desirable for portraits. And that is why the 80-135mm range is considered the ideal "portrait range". And I did not think that up.

[cdifoto]

Coldy you never cease to amaze me, although the amazement is getting predictable. :)

[swgod98]

Post count tally:

coldrain: 10
the masses: 16

Looks like the masses are having a difficult time staying ahead!! But, I always root for the underdog. Go coldrain!!

[Nickcanada]

:eek:

Can't you take a portrait with which ever lens you want? Why do you force us to always play by your rules. Gosh!:(

I know you know this already Andy, but I'll just throw it out for the sake of the discussion.

Longer focal lengths like 85-135mm are considered "portrait" lenses because they offer a slight sliming effect and are apparently the lenses which are the most flattering to your subject. However using a wide angle lens can also produce some great results. By including some of the surroundings in a scene you give some scope and depth to your picture. It's a matter of personal preference.

Here is a portrait I did at 12mm, not the greatest I know but you get the idea.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_9387.jpg

Notice how fat her arm looks because of the lens distortion. That is how I understand why longer focal lengths are generally considered portrait lenses.

[Riley]

The 30mm lens will have exaggerated the nose (as you can see very well in Riley's post).


like this ?

[aparmley]

Geez, you make a joke to lighten the mood and shit goes south real fast!:cool:

[cdifoto]

Geez, you make a joke to lighten the mood and shit goes south real fast!:cool:

Language barriers; gotta love 'em.

[fionndruinne]

Awesome! I got the pit bull ravening again!

Oh, and although I should probably stop now, I want to clear this bit up:

That is just it, the D40's aggressive noise reduction shows less chroma noise, but loses detail.

The D40 has the option of turning on noise reduction - I've never used it. All of my ISO 1600 shots have been NR off.

[Nickcanada]

Awesome! I got the pit bull ravening again!

Oh, and although I should probably stop now, I want to clear this bit up:



The D40 has the option of turning on noise reduction - I've never used it. All of my ISO 1600 shots have been NR off.


Way to take the high road.:rolleyes:

[Rooz]

My portraits are all over the map as far as focal length goes.

unless you are in a studio, they invariabley are. this is the same as saying what is a zoom lens or what is a telephoto lens or what is a wide angle landscape lens ? the concepts of this have changed and evolved as lens' give greater flexibility than ever before.

of course, if someone is a budding pro who is gonna work in a studio then there are obvious portrait lens options, the 50/85/105mm lens' are ones that come to mind straight away. but really, there is no limits to what you can do nowadays. as an example, i have seen great portraits come out of the nikkor 70-200 f2.8.

however, some will always be stuck on lab tests, formulas and textbook definitions.

[Riley]

30/1.4 is around in 4/3 mount too, and in that format is well within being a portrait lens, and i suspect this may be the cause of some of the confusion.

[achuang]

Awesome! I got the pit bull ravening again!

Oh, and although I should probably stop now, I want to clear this bit up:



The D40 has the option of turning on noise reduction - I've never used it. All of my ISO 1600 shots have been NR off.

All cameras use noise reduction when they use higher ISOs but what nikon is referring to is long exposure noise reduction. When shooting night shots with long exposures hot pixels sometimes come up as coloured pixels maybe red or blue or purple. The noise reduction i think you're referring to is that one. But all of the consumer nikons use noise reduction to smooth over noise while trying to keep detail. The higher end nikons can turn off noise reduction though.

[aparmley]

All cameras use noise reduction when they use higher ISOs but what nikon is referring to is long exposure noise reduction. When shooting night shots with long exposures hot pixels sometimes come up as coloured pixels maybe red or blue or purple. The noise reduction i think you're referring to is that one. But all of the consumer nikons use noise reduction to smooth over noise while trying to keep detail. The higher end nikons can turn off noise reduction though.

I think whats being referred to here is Nikon's "High ISO" Noise reduction which can be set to "OFF", "Normal", or "High." This applies to all images shoot using ISO 400 or higher. This has nothing to do with long exposure noise reduction, completely independent from that.

[aparmley]

What kind of response is this?


This was a joke; more to the point a response designed specifically for you! ;)

[coldrain]

...I want to clear this bit up:



The D40 has the option of turning on noise reduction - I've never used it. All of my ISO 1600 shots have been NR off.
Not sure what that clear up, as pointed out above the noise cancelation you do not turn on for long exposures has little to do with the tests from dpreview that have been refered to in regards to the D40's apparent noise superiority.

Dpreview tested in JPEG with standard settings, and as such the D40 showed less detail according to them (feel free to verify for yourself from their sample pictures) than the K100D, and all 4 compared cameras perform almost the same in ISO 800 and 1600 (D50, D40, XT, K100D).

If you really want to see what the in-camera noise reduction does, you will have to shoot RAW with all 4 cameras and then will have to use the same RAW convertor. Most probably you will be amazed at how the same all 3 6.1mp Sony CCD cameras actually perform.

[Riley]

if it is how the theorists have it
that greater photosite density has a propensity for noise
then the larger crop of the Nikon, 1.5x v/s 1.6x of Canon's smaller APS C
and being the lesser in Mp at 6Mp v/s variously 8 and 10Mp of others
clearly it should be as it is reported 'to have lower noise'
and this IS how it appears

indeed. of all the supposed deficiencies of the D40,
noise must be the most illogical argument against it

[cdifoto]

if it is how the theorists have it
that greater photosite density has a propensity for noise
then the larger crop of the Nikon, 1.5x v/s 1.6x of Canon's smaller APS C
and being the lesser in Mp at 6Mp v/s variously 8 and 10Mp of others
clearly it should be as it is reported 'to have lower noise'
and this IS how it appears

indeed. of all the supposed deficiencies of the D40,
noise must be the most illogical argument against it

Yeah unfortunately it's not that simple. My 1D is noisy above ISO800. Usable, but noisy. Probably noisier than most, if not all, current Nikons. 4MP 1.3x CCD sensor. My 1D II is cleaner by a good margin. 8.2MP 1.3x CMOS sensor.

There are just too many variables involved to just say "you need X to have clean images."

The ISO gap is closing quickly and some just don't want to face it. It's called progress.

[Rooz]

what does killer lens mean anyway ? killer lens for flexibility ? certainly the 18-200VR is your lens. this is a THE killer lens regardless of camera system for its unbelievable versatility but it is NOT a killer lens for IQ. to use an old saying..."it's a jack of all trades but a master of none."

when i say "killer lens" i think in terms of IQ and the 70-200f2.8VR or 80-200f2.8 would be my weapons of choice. hardly what you;d use day-day though. i WILL have one of them one day though. :D

[Rooz]

The ISO gap is closing quickly and some just don't want to face it. It's called progress.

as i suggested to jcon, from what i understand the d80 is a better iso performer than the d200 as it was a later model which benefited from nikon finally responding to demand for better noise performance. so according to the "progress theory" which i agree with, i wouldn;t be surprised if the d40 is a better iso performer than the d80.

and the d30 and Xtp or whatever the hell the new ranges are called are almost guaranteed to have better iso's than the current crop. body's ae becoming alot more dispensible nowadays due to the technology curve being so steep. all the more reason to make sure your glass is good.

[Riley]

Yeah unfortunately it's not that simple. My 1D is noisy above ISO800. Usable, but noisy. Probably noisier than most, if not all, current Nikons. 4MP 1.3x CCD sensor. My 1D II is cleaner by a good margin. 8.2MP 1.3x CMOS sensor.

There are just too many variables involved to just say "you need X to have clean images."

The ISO gap is closing quickly and some just don't want to face it. It's called progress.

as you alluded the age of the camera will have something to do with the application of noise reduction firmware and no doubt the architecture of the chip. Its a tad annoying, if not completely suspicious to see this constant malignment of an otherwise good performing camera at high iso, with a cancelling claim that it must be due to NR, as though in this case its something different.

[cdifoto]

as you alluded the age of the camera will have something to do with the application of noise reduction firmware and no doubt the architecture of the chip. Its a tad annoying, if not completely suspicious to see this constant malignment of an otherwise good performing camera at high iso, with a cancelling claim that it must be due to NR, as though in this case its something different.

Hey now. I only bash Nikon in jest. I reeeeeally want a Coolscan! :D :p

[Riley]

Hey now. I only bash Nikon in jest. I reeeeeally want a Coolscan! :D :p

its a commentary not necessarily directed at you
MLRS is on call ;)

[coldrain]

Riley, not sure why you are obfuscating matters again.

The Pentax K100D and the Nikon D40 do not use a new sensor design. In fact, it is the 6.1mp sensor that has been used for years now by KM, Nikon and Pentax.

If you actually read what is written, you will find:
1. That no one is saying that the Nikon D40 has bad high ISO performance.
2. That there are links to the actual test where someone refered to, which when you actually care to look at the samples given, show that the D40 is not better than the others in HIGH ISO noise performance, contrary what was being put forward.
3. That the Pentax K100D uses the SAME sensor as the D40 and
4. That the Pentax shows less detail in ISO 200 in JPEG, yet more detail at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 in JPEG.

The simple conclusion will be: The D40 is NOT better at high ISO.

And what is being said about the D80 and D200 sensor, that the difference in noise is due to "progress", that is not at all that simple.
How the cameras treat the signals coming from the sensors will be different for as number of reasons. The A100 from Sony is younger than the D200 for instance. Tests found online always seem to only look at JPEG results for noise.

As anyone can easily find out themselves, the A100 is the most noisy (yet shares sensor design with the D200, D80, K10D). It shows a lot of chrominance noise. The D200 shows a lot more luminance noise.
It is as if the D200 filters the chroma noise (gets rid of odd colours) resulting in more luminance noise.

If you have noise reduction software on your computer, you can try this yourself. Turn off all smoothening and softening, and filter chroma noise. You will end up with more luminance noise in the affected pixels.

The D80 seems to perform best in JPEG when you measure noise. Yet, if you look at D80 photos from ISO 400 and up, you will notice that it loses detail, noise reduction algorythms at work.

If you want to say anything about how sensors actually perform noise wise, then at least shoot in RAW and process the photos from the same cameras in the same software.

[Riley]

Riley, not sure why you are obfuscating matters again.

The Pentax K100D and the Nikon D40 do not use a new sensor design. In fact, it is the 6.1mp sensor that has been used for years now by KM, Nikon and Pentax.

If you actually read what is written, you will find:
1. That no one is saying that the Nikon D40 has bad high ISO performance.
2. That there are links to the actual test where someone refered to, which when you actually care to look at the samples given, show that the D40 is not better than the others in HIGH ISO noise performance, contrary what was being put forward.
3. That the Pentax K100D uses the SAME sensor as the D40 and
4. That the Pentax shows less detail in ISO 200 in JPEG, yet more detail at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 in JPEG.

The simple conclusion will be: The D40 is NOT better at high ISO.

And what is being said about the D80 and D200 sensor, that the difference in noise is due to "progress", that is not at all that simple.
How the cameras treat the signals coming from the sensors will be different for as number of reasons. The A100 from Sony is younger than the D200 for instance. Tests found online always seem to only look at JPEG results for noise.

As anyone can easily find out themselves, the A100 is the most noisy (yet shares sensor design with the D200, D80, K10D). It shows a lot of chrominance noise. The D200 shows a lot more luminance noise.
It is as if the D200 filters the chroma noise (gets rid of odd colours) resulting in more luminance noise.

If you have noise reduction software on your computer, you can try this yourself. Turn off all smoothening and softening, and filter chroma noise. You will end up with more luminance noise in the affected pixels.

The D80 seems to perform best in JPEG when you measure noise. Yet, if you look at D80 photos from ISO 400 and up, you will notice that it loses detail, noise reduction algorythms at work.

If you want to say anything about how sensors actually perform noise wise, then at least shoot in RAW and process the photos from the same cameras in the same software.

after the last 2 engagements with you coldrain, in the matter of 4/3rds
where you were absolutely and irrefutably proven wrong in you entire discussion.

your advice to me in these matters is

~ no longer required ~

[cdifoto]

If you want to say anything about how sensors actually perform noise wise, then at least shoot in RAW and process the photos from the same cameras in the same software.

I suggest you take your own advice. :)

You're pretty much the only one spouting all this ISO stuff, oftentimes when it's not even the original topic of the thread.

[coldrain]

I suggest you take your own advice. :)

You're pretty much the only one spouting all this ISO stuff, oftentimes when it's not even the original topic of the thread.
Nonsense Don, don't troll.
If you want to know why noise performance of a D40 compared to alternatives came up, just read the thread.
It was the OP who brought it up, and there really is NOTHING wrong in me clarifying the ISO results that the OP referred to (the dpreview review of the D40).

If you are too lazy or un-interested to actually read and or verify things, that is fine. But don't troll around like this.

The dpreview review has noise graphs, noise samples of gray, black, and their post stamp shot, and later on high ISO samples of their studio shots.
Those are what earlier claims were based on.

My RAW comment was not about any D40 or whatever, but the D80/D200 being brought up by someone else.

[cdifoto]

Nonsense Don, don't troll.
If you want to know why noise performance of a D40 compared to alternatives came up, just read the thread.
It was the OP who brought it up, and there really is NOTHING wrong in me clarifying the ISO results that the OP referred to (the dpreview review of the D40).

If you are too lazy or un-interested to actually read and or verify things, that is fine. But don't troll around like this.

The dpreview review has noise graphs, noise samples of gray, black, and their post stamp shot, and later on high ISO samples of their studio shots.
Those are what earlier claims were based on.

My RAW comment was not about any D40 or whatever, but the D80/D200 being brought up by someone else.

Look in a mirror Coldy, I'm not the one trolling. ;)

[Djzleite]

Can´t give you tips other than Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens.

[T06]

[QUOTE=Rooz;218347]. but really, there is no limits to what you can do nowadays. as an example, i have seen great portraits come out of the nikkor 70-200 f2.8.

QUOTE]

Hey thanks Rooz, obviously you saw the pic the wifey took of me with the 2.8VR then.:D :D :D :D