Nikon questions

rantasam

rantasam

Suspended / Banned
Messages
31
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.

Can anyone offer any advice please? I've been looking at various websites and seem to have confused myself quite comprehensively. :)

I bought my Dad a Nikon D40 a while back for his birthday, and in looking at the various makes and models at the time, inadvertently re-lit my own interest in photography. I used to have an old EOS 1000F many years ago, but I am a complete 'noobie' with digital photography. I've decided to buy myself a DSLR too, and want to go down the Nikon route so I can share lenses with my old man. I'm struggling with the lens choice... as far as I can work out, only AF-S and AF-I will allow the D40 to autofocus - apparently it does not have a built in motor so has to rely on the lens having one? Is this correct? Would this mean I would have to restrict myself to AF-S and AF-I lenses?

I have a budget of around £700 - 800, and ideally would like to spend the bulk of this on lenses, as these will benefit my dad as well as me. I have had my eye on the Nikon 70-300vr lens, and also fancy a fifty after seeing some of the images on here. This comes to around £430 on the jessops website, leaving around enough for a D60. Would this be a good choice? Is the D60 much of an improvement over the D40? Any thoughts?

Could you also please clarify whether the D60 has the in-built autofocus motor that the D40 lacks? I'm struggling to find this info.

Thanks in advance for any responses. I know I'm probably asking basic and obvious questions, but I throw myself at the mercy of your experience! :)
 
Unfortunately the D60 also lacks the in-built auto focus motor. Personally this would put me off it - I find it very frustrating on the D40. Might be worth keeping an eye out for a 2nd hand D80?
 
I have the nikon D40X with 18-55 kit lens, 55-200 VR lens (has image stabilisation in the lens), 24mm AF-D 2.8 wide angle lens, (Manual focus only on D40 or 60, but very easy to manual focus on this lens), and 50mm AF-D 1.8 nifty fifty, (also very easy to manual focus). I use a Raynox close up lens on nifty fifty for close up photos (flowers etc). I was considering getting a D80 as it had motor in the body and would enable AF with my two prime lens, but they are so easy to focus I decided not too.
I find that the 55-200 is my least used lens as I like to shoot landscapes and candid street shots and I do not find this longer lens much use for this.
 
Wild idea; near mint second hand D200 for 450 and a Nikon 18-200mm for 400.

Or, D40 at 240 with cashback, 70-300 VR for 300 and a bunch of bells, whistles and photography books.

The lack of built in motor doesn't matter much except for that ever-loving nifty fifty...
 
Jamougha said:
Wild idea; near mint second hand D200 for 450 and a Nikon 18-200mm for 400.

Or, D40 at 240 with cashback, 70-300 VR for 300 and a bunch of bells, whistles and photography books.

The lack of built in motor doesn't matter much except for that ever-loving nifty fifty...
Click to expand...

There's just no problem focusing the nifty fifty - it's soooooooo eeeeeasy - with MF.:thumbs:
 
Wow, thanks for the fast replies!

Ahh, so the D60 doesn't have the autofocus motor either then. Seems a bit stingy on Nikon's part! It seems Canons appear to offer more features at the lower range DSLRs then? I was also looking at Liveview, but again it appears that only Canon offer it at the lower end of things. Bit of a shame really.. I did have my heart set on a Canon, but it would be daft to get a lens system that I couldn't share with my dad.

Fair enough.. I might sit down in a bit and figure out whether the extra cash for the D60 is worth it over the D40 then. Am I limiting myself in any way by going for the AF-S/AF-I lenses long-term? If one day I decide that my ability in this hobby has outgrown the camera and I went out and bought a swanky all-singing Nikon, would these lenses still be compatible? Does having an on-lens motor have any bad points? Again, sorry if I'm asking the obvious.
 
Jamougha said:
Wild idea; near mint second hand D200 for 450 and a Nikon 18-200mm for 400.

Or, D40 at 240 with cashback, 70-300 VR for 300 and a bunch of bells, whistles and photography books.

The lack of built in motor doesn't matter much except for that ever-loving nifty fifty...
Click to expand...

Wild indeed! :p Hehe. I had thought about getting a higher-spec 2nd hand camera, but I always hear people saying they'd rather have a £100 camera and £1000 lenses, than £1000 camera and a £100 lens. I guess I just figured I was better spending more on the glass proportionally. Unless you have a D200 going cheap that it... :D
 
AF-S lenses would still work on a Nikon with a built in AF motor, It just disables the cameras motor.

Twentyten:thumbs:
 
rantasam said:
Wow, thanks for the fast replies!

Ahh, so the D60 doesn't have the autofocus motor either then. Seems a bit stingy on Nikon's part! It seems Canons appear to offer more features at the lower range DSLRs then? I was also looking at Liveview, but again it appears that only Canon offer it at the lower end of things. Bit of a shame really.. I did have my heart set on a Canon, but it would be daft to get a lens system that I couldn't share with my dad.

Fair enough.. I might sit down in a bit and figure out whether the extra cash for the D60 is worth it over the D40 then. Am I limiting myself in any way by going for the AF-S/AF-I lenses long-term? If one day I decide that my ability in this hobby has outgrown the camera and I went out and bought a swanky all-singing Nikon, would these lenses still be compatible? Does having an on-lens motor have any bad points? Again, sorry if I'm asking the obvious.
Click to expand...

I think that you will find that you get a much better quality entry level camera with the Nikon than the Canon. The AF-S lenses will still work OK if you upgrade. The advantage of the D80 upwards is that you have a better choice of lenses which will Autofocus. It may be worth getting the D40X which I have as it is 10 MP instead of 6 MP. The advantage of this is that with these extra pixels you can crop your photos more and still get decent resolution. I often do this in preference to carrying my 55 -200 zoom around.

Some of the D60 bundles now come with the 18-55 VR lens, but be careful as there are 2 different bundles, some only with the normal 18-55 kit lens. I personally find this fine, but the VR does allow you to hand hold in much lower light conditions.

I believe that Nikon made the D40 and D60 without an in body motor to keep the camera as lightweight as possible, and of course to save themselves money.
 
rantasam said:
Wild indeed! :p Hehe. I had thought about getting a higher-spec 2nd hand camera, but I always hear people saying they'd rather have a £100 camera and £1000 lenses, than £1000 camera and a £100 lens. I guess I just figured I was better spending more on the glass proportionally. Unless you have a D200 going cheap that it... :D
Click to expand...

Well the D200 has the same image quality as the D40X, but the D200 is much more user-friendly, the autofocus and metering are better, the viewfinder is larger and brighter and so on. (Also the D200 is much heavier, which is a killer for some.) Personally I'd rather have a big increase in convenience than a small increase in image quality, but peope differ and so I've no idea about you.

Also, while the sentiment is true, it's a lot less true than it was in the film days. High ISO capabilities and VR reduce some of the need for expensive f/2.8 glass, and better manufacturing has brought the level of the consumer gear up.

So, it comes down to whether you prioritize convenience, weight, ultimate image quality, maximum flexibility...
 
Hi, I also have a D40X. I would recommend you go for something better if you are certain your interest in photography's not going to be short term thing. However, in terms of glass, the Nikon 18-200VR lens is probably the best all-round lens you can buy for the money. That would be the first thing I would get, then get a body with whats left, be it a D40X, D60, D80 or D200. Good luck mate!
 
Hey, I've got a Nikon D40 and the camera not having a focusing motor means I am limited to an AF-S lenses but for the price, I think its a cracker, especially as you have only just ignited your interest,

I would say, go for the cheap body and spend more on lens that way, if you want to upgrade, the money you put into the glass will still be with you.
 
You can get a 2nd hand D200 body from the likes of Parks for £425-£475, and add glass to suit... Leaves you 3 or 4 hundred pounds for lenses - nifty fifty, 2nd hand 18-70mm Nikkor (£110-ish) and a Sigma 70-300mm APO?

All good-quality, and won't break the bank!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top