Camera and Lens questions

[Clark White]

So I am looking at purchasing either a Nikon D40 or D40x. Does anyone have experience with these cameras? I'm wondering how much of a difference the D40x's 10.2 mega pixels makes versus the 6.1 of the D40. My expected uses for this camera would be trip photography (ie nature and wild life along the way). I would like to be able to blow some pictures to hang on the wall. What size photos can I expect to get with the D40 v. the D40x while still retaining optimal image quality? While I don't plan to put photos in any shows, I do greatly enjoy photography and having nice photos that I can display on my wall, not just 3x5" in an album.

My lens question boils down to this:I'm either going to get the Nikon 18-135mm AF-S lens, or the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens. For what I would be using my camera for, is the 200mm with VR really necessary when combined with the substantial cost, or would the 135mm be enough, especially with its relatively meager pricing?

My photography experience is limited to black and white 35mm with a cheep all manual camera and 28-70mm lens, and a 7mega pixel Sony PS, so I am sadly unfamiliar with the DSLR cameras of today.

Thank you all for any advice you can give! :chowtime:
Clark

 

[gearbox]

Although I am on a Canon, Nikon makes VERY good stuff. My mom got a P5100 P&S that really surprised me with a multitude of features. You get a lot for the dollar, so don't hesitate to buy Nikon (versus Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, etc..).

That said, I would go for more pixels. There's nothing wrong per se with the 6mp but with a larger photo size you can more easily photoshop artifacts out (linty macros, in-laws, etc..) and they have potential to look a bit better once resized since you were able to have a better perspective during post-processing. Cropping is also a bit more versatile also: take a wide-angle photo of something and decide you want to crop out 75% of it and you'll still be left with a decently sized photo.
I have a 10mp DSLR and I usually shoot it at the full 10mp. However, I ALWAYS resize it well under what a 6mp camera would get me. It's just nice to have a few more bullets in the gun if you see my point.

PS I'm an amateur.

 

[Christian P.]

Clark,

Your posting comes right on time, as I am also looking to buy a DSLR.

My understanding is that the Canon 40D comes with 10.1 megapixels and not 6.1 - just like the Nikon.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I've actually had both the D40 and D40x, long story. Printed image quality is the excellent for both up to about an 8x10, any bigger with the D40 though and you start to notice a little pixelation. The D40x's ISO sensitivity starts at 100, the D40 starts at 200, that's something else you may want to consider. The D40x actually shares the same image sensor with its bigger brothers the D80 and the D200.

As for the lens I would get the 18-200mm VR without question. Image stabilization makes a world of difference especially when you get to that 70-80mm and beyond mark. The 18-200 is a sharper lens as well. I had the 18-135 for a short while and was not really all that thrilled with its performance, thus I upgraded adding a 55-200mm VR, a 18-55mm VR, and the super 50mm f1.8 Nikkor to my set. You'll have to manually focus the 50mm f1.8, but it's totally worth it, especially for the price. If you start looking to go wider than 18mm, you will if you're shooting landscape, the Sigma 10-20mm is also a good buy.

 

[cruiser guy]

Go with the D40x if you can spring for it. I don't have either of the lenses you are looking at. Mine are a 12-24mm, a 24-120mm VR and the 80-400mm VR. The VR feature will be helpful in low light situations.

Be aware that while older Nikon lenses will fit the D40 or D40x only the ones which are silent wave focusing will actually work.

I have the D1 and the D200.

 

[Clark White]

Thank you all! I had been reading up on them, but not being up to date on cameras, it's difficult to tell between publicity and real results. It also helps to hear from people more like my self, shooting pictures like I will be, rather then a professional studio photographer writing the reviews. Sounds like the D40x is the better deal. Guess I better start saving if I'm getting the better body AND lens! :26_34_3:

 

[bajasurf]

Review for Nikon D40

May I butt in and point you to kenrockwell.com for a review of his Nikon D40 plus various Canon cameras( that he loves). Once on his site click on "What's new" and start looking. Currently I am using the Panasonic DMC-FZ7 and getting ready for my move to a DSLR.Actually considering a Pentax because I have a few lens from my Pentax 6x7 that will work on a Pentax DSLR. However those lens are probably bigger than the camera. But the best advise comes right from this forum and I value the opinions that these photographers share with us. I don't think we can go wrong with their advise.

 

[Clark White]

Very good wright ups, thank you! I'm reading them now.

 

[Clark White]

So I am a little confused...I was just looking at the Canon 40D, and it looks like the going price is $1k to $1.5k. However, it's $450 here: http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=902244 Does that seam right to anyone? Why is that sight $500-$1000 cheaper then the rest? Looks like the Canon 40D is an awesome camera though! Might be interested over the Nikon D40x?

 

[Robthebrit]

They are probably gray market imports, you take you chances if you buy them as far as warranty and support go. Opinions go both ways on whether they are worth it. When I bought my 5D (from B&H) I looked at lots of websites that listed the camera for $1000-$1500 but they all seemed dodgy to me. In the end I paid the going rate to be sure I got what I was buying.

Rob

 

[Clark White]

Roger that!

 

[Lost Canadian]

May I butt in and point you to kenrockwell.com for a review of his Nikon D40 plus various Canon cameras( that he loves)

Personally I would take Ken Rockwell's advice with a grain of salt. He has a lot of detractors. I appreciate a lot of what he says but I disagree with many of his views as well, as do others. Thon Hogan is a more respected Nikon guy.

 

[Clark White]

One thing that caught my eye about Kenn Rockwell...he talks about the slow focusing of some of the cheaper Nikon lens, are they really that slow to focus, or is he a persnickety professional who wants it instant?

 

[Clark White]

Note on my previous comments about finding that cheep camera! I did some research, and it appears that website, ShopcartUSA, is a front for CCI, which is apparently a scam. Heres a website talking about them: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gikr . I decided to check them out when I found a Nikon D40x for $200. I know good deals are to be found, but thats a little too good to possible be true!

 

[Photog]

Forget about the "HOT" deals. If you get it within 20% of retail, you should be OK. Buy it locally, if you can. If folks don't support their local shops, they will go out of business. Several around here already have, and now it is hard to find all the little thigs that go with photography.

Now, on to the camera/lens combo. Depending on your price range and brand preferences, these are good choices.

Nikon - D40x, D80, D200 & D300 bodies. The D200 & 300 are better built cameras than the Canons in this price range (this is a bummer, as I am a Canon shooter)

If you get the 18-200mm lens, you will probably not need another lens. You might want other lenses (they are like tires, lockers, winches, etc)

Canon - 30D, 40D, 5D

The closest thing Canon has to compete with the Nion 18-200mm, is the 28-200 & 28-300 IS. The 28-300mm IS is a professional build lens in their "L" line.

Pentax, and Sony also have decent offerings. The Pentax can use som of the older lenses; but you will lose functionality. It is the same for the Nikon D200's.

Does this help?