I've decided which camera, help with lenses?

[annnewjerz]

Okay so after all night going back and forth, reading specs and reviews and looking at pictures...I decided to go with the Nikon D40, apparently it's a good camera for people transitioning from the p&s into the dSLR, even though it is only 6.1mp which is originally a little less than I was looking for.

Now, I have a question about lenses. There is a package that includes only the standard lens which is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens (for about $445) and then there is a package that includes a "better" lens 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens plus two instructional DVDs for $610.

Because I'm a beginner...do I need that lens now or should I hold off and spend the difference on a bag, cleaner, extra memory cards, etc. OR, since it is a great savings on that particular lens (usually costs about $250 for the lens alone)...should I get it now because I will more than likely need it in the future (in addition to a bag, extra memory, etc.)

Suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thank you!
:goodvibes

[H.E. Pennypacker]

6.1MP on the D40 is plenty of megapixels for a DSLR, unless you plan to print poster sized prints. For 4X6 on up to 8X10, 10X15, even larger, a 6.1MP DSLR paired with a decent lens should do you fine. If it were me, I'd probably get the kit with just the 18-55mm. I'm personally not crazy about the 55-200mm lens or kit lenses in general. Again, if it were me, I'd probably go with the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens at some point down the road - $485 on Amazon, normally around $650. You'll miss out on the 55 to 70mm range (well, really the 82 - 105mm range in 35mm equivalent) but I don't think that's a big deal. What you'll gain on the tele end is a zoom equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm camera, which is awfully nice to have, especially with the VR stabilization. Just my opinion. I'm sure you'll get others that may differ to mine.

[ukcatfan]

There is a package that includes only the standard lens which is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens (for about $445) and then there is a package that includes a "better" lens 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens plus two instructional DVDs for $610.



I seriously mean no offense, but this statement makes me believe that you really need to completely scrap your plans and do some more research. Calling the other lens "better" is not an accurate statement. I do not think you understand what the focal length means. That lens has a completely different purpose from the other one. Without knowing what all the specs mean, I would find it impossible to make a brand determination. For example, are you aware of and understand that the D40 does not have a focus motor in the camera and relies on the lens to focus? That limits the number of lenses available for that camera and also means that most of the ones that will work are more expensive than ones without a motor in the lens.

I just think you should take a big step back to make sure you will not regret your purchase in the future.

[annnewjerz]

I seriously mean no offense, but this statement makes me believe that you really need to completely scrap your plans and do some more research. Calling the other lens "better" is not an accurate statement. I do not think you understand what the focal length means. That lens has a completely different purpose from the other one. Without knowing what all the specs mean, I would find it impossible to make a brand determination. For example, are you aware of and understand that the D40 does not have a focus motor in the camera and relies on the lens to focus? That limits the number of lenses available for that camera and also means that most of the ones that will work are more expensive than ones without a motor in the lens.

I just think you should take a big step back to make sure you will not regret your purchase in the future.

Honestly, you might be right. It was late, I was in the mood to just get it out of the way. This morning I woke up and realized I have months to do some research and find the best deal possible. I don't think I would be disappointed at all with picking out whatever camera considering I have nothing to compare it to...but there is no rush. I have a friend with a dSLR and I might just ask her to borrow it to play around, see if it is even what I want or if I should stick with a "bridge" for now.

[InsertWittyNameHere]

You may want to go to the different electronic outlets (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) to actually hold the different cameras in your hand. Feeling comfortable with a camera will go a long way in helping you decide what is best for you.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I seriously mean no offense, but this statement makes me believe that you really need to completely scrap your plans and do some more research. Calling the other lens "better" is not an accurate statement. I do not think you understand what the focal length means. That lens has a completely different purpose from the other one. Without knowing what all the specs mean, I would find it impossible to make a brand determination. For example, are you aware of and understand that the D40 does not have a focus motor in the camera and relies on the lens to focus? That limits the number of lenses available for that camera and also means that most of the ones that will work are more expensive than ones without a motor in the lens.

I just think you should take a big step back to make sure you will not regret your purchase in the future.

With all due respect, I don't think you can make the argument any longer that the D40 or D40x is limited in the number of lenses available. There are over 25 AF-S lenses in Nikon's current lineup of autofocus lenses that will work on the D40, not to mention close to a couple dozen from Sigma and a few from Tamron. For the price of the D40 one-lens and two-lens kits, I don't think it can be beat as an affordable entry point into DSLR's. I do agree that the lens options are often more expensive, but someone just starting out with a DSLR probably isn't going to need more than about 2 lenses to cover about 99% of the situations they'd be shooting. And if and when the OP upgrades from a D40 to a D90, or maybe a D400 or D800 by then, the lenses from their D40 will work just fine. If the OP was a former Nikon 35mm SLR shooter with a bag full of lenses which wouldn't work on the D40, my answer would be different, but the OP is a P&S shooter starting from scratch and I still contend the D40 is more than adequate.

[ukcatfan]

With all due respect, I don't think you can make the argument any longer that the D40 or D40x is limited in the number of lenses available. There are over 25 AF-S lenses in Nikon's current lineup of autofocus lenses that will work on the D40, not to mention close to a couple dozen from Sigma and a few from Tamron. For the price of the D40 one-lens and two-lens kits, I don't think it can be beat as an affordable entry point into DSLR's. I do agree that the lens options are often more expensive, but someone just starting out with a DSLR probably isn't going to need more than about 2 lenses to cover about 99% of the situations they'd be shooting. And if and when the OP upgrades from a D40 to a D90, or maybe a D400 or D800 by then, the lenses from their D40 will work just fine. If the OP was a former Nikon 35mm SLR shooter with a bag full of lenses which wouldn't work on the D40, my answer would be different, but the OP is a P&S shooter starting from scratch and I still contend the D40 is more than adequate.

I still disagree for one main reason. A very large portion of new DSLR buyers are getting in to it because of low light performance. Because the cheapest low light AF lens (for the D40, D40x, & D60) I know about is the $400 Sigma, that totally defeats the point of buying a budget body. If low light is not important to the buyer, then I see no problems with the compatible lenses. But if it is, I could never justify short changing myself the $300 difference for a low light lens compared to a body with AF like the D80. Take that $300 and invest in a better body. Right now the D80 is affordable, but is it going to be around very long now that the D90 is coming out? I am not coming down on Nikon in general. I am coming down on them for failing to make an affordable update to the 50mm f/1.8 with a focus motor.

[MinnieFlute]

For whatever it may be worth, I bought a Nikon D60 back in May, and I do love it. I got the kit lens and then the 2nd lens that was offered for another $100 (the 55-200 VR).

Well, I've got pretty much all the focal lengths I need covered, but not the aperture width. I do have an old 50mm prime Nikon lens that opens up to 1.8, but I have to do everything manually, and I can't use the pop-up flash with it.

So the 2 lenses that you're looking at will probably do most of what you need, but yeah, low-low light might be an issue. I bump my ISO up (but anything over 400 on the D60 gets a little grainy) and do some exposure compensation. My next purchase will be a nice flash, but after that, an AF lens that opens up more than 3.5.

So that wasn't so much help as it was my random 2 cents. Good luck!

[Steve's Girl]

I still disagree for one main reason. A very large portion of new DSLR buyers are getting in to it because of low light performance. Because the cheapest low light AF lens (for the D40, D40x, & D60) I know about is the $400 Sigma, that totally defeats the point of buying a budget body. If low light is not important to the buyer, then I see no problems with the compatible lenses. But if it is, I could never justify short changing myself the $300 difference for a low light lens compared to a body with AF like the D80. Take that $300 and invest in a better body. Right now the D80 is affordable, but is it going to be around very long now that the D90 is coming out? I am not coming down on Nikon in general. I am coming down on them for failing to make an affordable update to the 50mm f/1.8 with a focus motor.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but just offering a different opinion. I don't think the auto focus of the Nikon 50mm lens should be a deciding factor in what camera body to purchase. I do agree that the Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens is a great bargain for low-light. However, I have one and rarely use it because I find the 75mm equivalent focal length too long for most situations. Even though my camera has a focus motor, I still bought the 30mm 1.4 simply because the focal length was better for my intended use.

[Code]

I still disagree for one main reason. A very large portion of new DSLR buyers are getting in to it because of low light performance. Because the cheapest low light AF lens (for the D40, D40x, & D60) I know about is the $400 Sigma, that totally defeats the point of buying a budget body. If low light is not important to the buyer, then I see no problems with the compatible lenses. But if it is, I could never justify short changing myself the $300 difference for a low light lens compared to a body with AF like the D80. Take that $300 and invest in a better body. Right now the D80 is affordable, but is it going to be around very long now that the D90 is coming out? I am not coming down on Nikon in general. I am coming down on them for failing to make an affordable update to the 50mm f/1.8 with a focus motor.

Have to agree with ukcatfan, especially since the Sigma 30mm isn't $400 anymore, it's gone up to the $450-500 range. Also you can say that there are 25+ AF-S lenses, but the only primes on that list are the ultra-expensive telephotos and the 60mm macro.

One other point for the original poster.. if your research still leads you back to the D40, I would recommend looking for a package that includes VR versions of the kit lenses. VR is Nikon's anti-shake feature, like Canon's IS lenses or Olympus/Pentax/Sony's in-body stabilization, and is a very valuable feature, especially on the "slower" kit lenses.

[annnewjerz]

Have to agree with ukcatfan, especially since the Sigma 30mm isn't $400 anymore, it's gone up to the $450-500 range. Also you can say that there are 25+ AF-S lenses, but the only primes on that list are the ultra-expensive telephotos and the 60mm macro.

One other point for the original poster.. if your research still leads you back to the D40, I would recommend looking for a package that includes VR versions of the kit lenses. VR is Nikon's anti-shake feature, like Canon's IS lenses or Olympus/Pentax/Sony's in-body stabilization, and is a very valuable feature, especially on the "slower" kit lenses.


Thanks for the suggestions, I have been browsing still a little today and did see that the VR version of the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR Zoom Nikkor Lens is actually only slightly more expensive than the non-VR...so if I ever do decide to purchase the D40, I will invest in the better lens.

That being said, I went out today on my break from work and tried out the D40 and thought it was really great (considering I know nothing). It was just fun to use, felt nice holding it and even without knowing anything it took nice (but not great yet) pictures. They also had the Canon Digital Rebel XT, which I wasn't able to snap sample pictures with, but I did hold it and it felt a little awkward, like maybe the part that you hold was too small? Maybe I just have big hands though.

For everyone who has said that the D40 doesn't do well in low-light situations I have a few questions:

1. What do you consider low-light...nighttime, dark indoors, fireworks, inside of attractions at WDW?? I would really like to have a camera that works in those "no flash photography" situations and still comes out with a decent pic.

2. What do you consider "bad" in low-light? I have taken pictures with my Olympus 1030SW p&s, as well as my Canon SD300 ELPH on auto mode and they were by no means good, but not horrible either if I sat it on a make-shift tripod...I would imagine they could only be better with a dSLR, right?

3. If this camera doesn't work well in low-light and you would suggest a camera that has the built-in stabilization instead of the in-lens...what one (within my price point...which is about $600 and that was for the D40 with the basic lens and the VR version of the zoom lens mentioned above) would you recommend?

I am not by any means trying to be a professional photographer. What might be considered grainy to someone that really takes themselves and their camera seriously, might be fine for me. I am just starting out and am looking for a camera to get into the swing of things with, to help me learn basics about taking great photos and having fun with our dogs, on vacations, family outings, etc.

After learning all of the ins and outs, maybe one day I will be in a position to want to spend the money to upgrade the lens, or get a higher mp camera, or invest in other items like an external flash...but for now, I just want something that with time and practice will improve the quality of the photos I am getting now on my basic p&s.

Whew...that was a lot.

[handicap18]

Not necessarily disagreeing, but just offering a different opinion. I don't think the auto focus of the Nikon 50mm lens should be a deciding factor in what camera body to purchase. I do agree that the Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens is a great bargain for low-light. However, I have one and rarely use it because I find the 75mm equivalent focal length too long for most situations. Even though my camera has a focus motor, I still bought the 30mm 1.4 simply because the focal length was better for my intended use.

I agree with this. I too have both the 50mm f/1.8 and the 30mm f/1.4 and both my camera bodies have a focus motor.


As for the number of lenses available to auto focus with the D40, D40x and D60... There are currently 37 Nikon, 31 Sigma and 6 Tamron lenses. There are also confirmed rumors that Nikon will be releasing an AF-S version of both the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 (along with a newer 70-200mm f/2.8 with VRII). Granted these wont be inexpensive like the 50mm f/1.8, but we're talking about 1 inexpensive lens.

They did make the view finder bigger on the D40 and D60 than the D50 and D70 had so focusing with a manual lens is easier. The D60 has better ISO performance at 1600 than my D50 has and it also has a push up to ISO3200. This makes using the lesser expensive Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 even better in lower light. Using ISO 3200 at f/2.8 is equilivent to ISO1600 at f/2. f/2 is only 1/3 faster than f/1.8.

Are there any other lenses besides the 50mm f/1.8 that anyone has an issue with in regards to the D40, D40x and D60? I know there are other possible lenses in the Nikkor lineup, but I guess since we tend to recommend this type of lens to people, is this the only reason (a $120 lens) why people have an issue with the Nikon entry level dSLR's?

[Pea-n-Me]

what one... would you recommend?

That, my dear, is a LOADED question. :lmao:

See, you can ask a zillion questions here, and you will get a zillion different opinions. It will make your head spin. Each question generates another question. Nobody minds answering them, but you will go down lots of different paths if you just keep asking questions, IYKWIM.

As we said before (including on your other thread), you really need to take a step back and do more research. Finding your way around with this will help you develop the confidence to choose the one that suits your needs best, whatever they may be. (Not everyone's needs are the same, by any means.)

There's a lot of information out there to wrap your brain around, and it takes a while to sort it all out. All of the entry level dSLRs are good, but all of them are just a little different. Really, nobody can tell you what you should or shouldn't get. It has to come from you.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I agree with this. I too have both the 50mm f/1.8 and the 30mm f/1.4 and both my camera bodies have a focus motor.


As for the number of lenses available to auto focus with the D40, D40x and D60... There are currently 37 Nikon, 31 Sigma and 6 Tamron lenses. There are also confirmed rumors that Nikon will be releasing an AF-S version of both the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 (along with a newer 70-200mm f/2.8 with VRII). Granted these wont be inexpensive like the 50mm f/1.8, but we're talking about 1 inexpensive lens.

They did make the view finder bigger on the D40 and D60 than the D50 and D70 had so focusing with a manual lens is easier. The D60 has better ISO performance at 1600 than my D50 has and it also has a push up to ISO3200. This makes using the lesser expensive Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 even better in lower light. Using ISO 3200 at f/2.8 is equilivent to ISO1600 at f/2. f/2 is only 1/3 faster than f/1.8.

Are there any other lenses besides the 50mm f/1.8 that anyone has an issue with in regards to the D40, D40x and D60? I know there are other possible lenses in the Nikkor lineup, but I guess since we tend to recommend this type of lens to people, is this the only reason (a $120 lens) why people have an issue with the Nikon entry level dSLR's?

I agree. And let's keep in mind that an AF 50mm f/1.8 lens will still work on a D40 with all the functions except auto-focus. There's no rule that says you can't put an AF 50mm f/1.8 on a D40 and manually focus it. Personally, when I'm shooting night parades and dark rides at WDW with my 50mm f/1.8, I'm manually focusing anyway because with such a shallow depth of field, autofocus has a tendancy to focus on the wrong subject. You guys are making it sound like the D40 can't even take a picture in low-light conditions and that's simply not true. Ok, so you may have to manually focus it. Big deal. The point is that it can be done, and with a little practice, you might just find you like the control of manually focusing once in awhile.

[Boo Bear]

I recommend Nikon brand digital SLRs over any other for many reasons, but you need to find a camera thats right for YOUR needs. here are some great sites for information and product comparisons...

dpreview.com

photographyreview.com

[ukcatfan]

I know there are other possible lenses in the Nikkor lineup, but I guess since we tend to recommend this type of lens to people, is this the only reason (a $120 lens) why people have an issue with the Nikon entry level dSLR's?

Yes, and only b/c the average budget DSLR buyer is not wanting to spend $400 on a lens or learn to manual focus. Many of them come from the complete auto p&s world and do not even know the difference between auto focus and auto exposure. While they could probably learn to MF, most would likely give it a few unsuccessful attempts, just give up, and then leave the lens collecting dust in their closet. I try to think about it from the inexperienced point of view instead of mine where I do sometimes use my AF lens in MF on purpose.

And that they do not have to deal with this issue on the other brands, so why subject yourself to it.

[Steve's Girl]

Yes, and only b/c the average budget DSLR buyer is not wanting to spend $400 on a lens or learn to manual focus. Many of them come from the complete auto p&s world and do not even know the difference between auto focus and auto exposure. While they could probably learn to MF, most would likely give it a few unsuccessful attempts, just give up, and then leave the lens collecting dust in their closet. I try to think about it from the inexperienced point of view instead of mine where I do sometimes use my AF lens in MF on purpose.

And that they do not have to deal with this issue on the other brands, so why subject yourself to it.

I guess if they don't know what auto focus is and intend to use a DSLR as a glorified P & S, they likely won't be in the market for a 50mm 1.8 prime lens, which is a rather specialized lens. A 50mm prime lens will be very frustrating to someone who doesn't understand DOF, etc. It is not considered an entry level, P & S type lens. I don't understand why it keeps coming up every time someone wants a simple, easy to use entry level DSLR.

[wenrob]

First let me state I'm nowhere near as experienced as a lot of people on this board. However, I am someone who is learning on a Nikon D40 and I personally think it's a great camera to learn on. I did not buy my camera for low light, I bought it to learn with the added bonus that with a basic lens it is still superior to your average point and shoot or bridge camera. Again, this is my personal opinion but I do own some high quality PnS's as well as a very nice bridge camera. I use them all but when the event is important I take the D40 every time because I want the best that I can do. I chose to save my pennies and get the Sigma as my main subjects are almost three yrs old and I really don't have time to try and manual focus as well as do everything else if I want to get the shot. I'm okay with that for now and it doesn't make me regret my choice of camera. So like others have said, take a step back, think about what you really want in terms of your photos and go from there. Just thoughts from someone who owns and loves her D40.:lovestruc
And as a side note the decision between the D40 and Canon Rebel came down to how they fit in my hands. I have small hands yet the Nikon felt more comfortable.

[Tigger2252]

I just purchased a Nikon D40. I am not an experienced photographer but wanted something better than my Kodak Z740. I love it! It is comfortable to hold and it takes beautiful pictures. As a novice, my expectations are much lower than a professional, but for what I want it to do it works great. I am able to take nice shots indoors, outside at dusk and in near-dark conditions, which I couldn't with the Kodak. I also took some fireworks photos that came out pretty good. I'm sure they would have been better if I knew more about changing settings. I'm taking a digital photography class for the next 6 weeks so hopefully that will help me. I would highly recommend this for the average person shooting family vacations, children's sporting events, etc. I also purchased the 55-200 mm VR lens and am very happy with it too.

[Code]

I guess if they don't know what auto focus is and intend to use a DSLR as a glorified P & S, they likely won't be in the market for a 50mm 1.8 prime lens, which is a rather specialized lens. A 50mm prime lens will be very frustrating to someone who doesn't understand DOF, etc. It is not considered an entry level, P & S type lens. I don't understand why it keeps coming up every time someone wants a simple, easy to use entry level DSLR.

My wife doesn't know anything about exposure, DoF, etc and she really likes using our 30mm & 50mm primes indoors at night.. but I can guarantee she would just give me a funny look and hand the camera back if I told her she had to manually focus them.

[disneyeveryyear]

U might want to look at Ritz .com i got the same thing for i think a cheaper price

But u might want to look ki got the same camera

[ukcatfan]

I guess if they don't know what auto focus is and intend to use a DSLR as a glorified P & S, they likely won't be in the market for a 50mm 1.8 prime lens, which is a rather specialized lens. A 50mm prime lens will be very frustrating to someone who doesn't understand DOF, etc. It is not considered an entry level, P & S type lens. I don't understand why it keeps coming up every time someone wants a simple, easy to use entry level DSLR.

I have nothing against Nikon and I want to make that clear. If every buyer was properly informed, then this would never be an issue. The problem is that most people making the upgrade are not informed, are starting as auto shooters, and have a limited budget. That does not mean that they are always going to be inexperienced though, but the budget might never expand. Thinking about that, I feel that many could end up learning enough to completely understand DOF, AF, AE, etc. and then realize that their equipment cannot do what they want it to do for their budget. If they know what they are getting into up front, then there are no complaints or disappointments down the road. Besides, even though I am a Pentax shooter, I suggested a perspective D40 buyer consider the D80, not the K200D.

Also, DSLRs are practically flying off the shelves even with the bad economy. Many of these people have no idea what to do with them and leave them in auto. I would be willing to bet that as many as 25% of the owners of prime lenses do not even know what DOF is. Then another 25% probably have heard of it, but do not know how to control it. If only experienced users bought them, they would not be able to move the quantities out the door enough to only charge $100. Remember that here on the DIS we only see a tiny fraction of people interested in getting a DSLR. The majority of the uninformed get their info from the salesman that gets them to buy all sorts of things they do not know how to properly use. Would you trust a BB or CC salesman to set you up with a DSLR setup when you know nothing. :scared1: Unfortunately, many do. I have even seen a significant number of posts on various boards where people have been sold that very lens and a D40/D40x/D60 and are on the board asking what is wrong with their lens b/c it will not focus. They are not very happy when told that it will not AF. Then on places like DPReview, they are publicly ridiculed and run screaming.

[amandamousebeat]

I own several Nikon DSLRs and I have to admit that my two favorites are the Nikon D60 (which some people have already reccommended to you) and the D300 (which is way out of the range of what you are looking for). The D60 though is a good start you may consider. It is reasonably fast, produces clean crisp shots and it a good transition point from a point and shot to a DSLR. Check out Costco for good deals, I got my D60 body the 18-55 (VR) and 55-200 (VR) bag and a 1GB SD card for $870 with tax, it was a pretty awesome price and that way you can try two different lens and decide what you like.

Also if you have not already checked out the pictures that a D60 can produce check out the flickr group to see peoples photos with a D60 (there is also a D40 and D40x pool so you can compare)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond60users/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/

Good Luck! :)

[annnewjerz]

I own several Nikon DSLRs and I have to admit that my two favorites are the Nikon D60 (which some people have already reccommended to you) and the D300 (which is way out of the range of what you are looking for). The D60 though is a good start you may consider. It is reasonably fast, produces clean crisp shots and it a good transition point from a point and shot to a DSLR. Check out Costco for good deals, I got my D60 body the 18-55 (VR) and 55-200 (VR) bag and a 1GB SD card for $870 with tax, it was a pretty awesome price and that way you can try two different lens and decide what you like.

Also if you have not already checked out the pictures that a D60 can produce check out the flickr group to see peoples photos with a D60 (there is also a D40 and D40x pool so you can compare)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond60users/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/

Good Luck! :)

Thank you so much for the recommendation. I ended up borrowing a friend's D60 last night and taking some test shots. It was obvious I have no clue what I was doing (they didn't have their manual) but the pictures that they showed me along with the ones I just took on auto-mode I thought came out a bunch better than those with my point and shoot digital camera. I'm going to keep it over the weekend and play with it, see if I can find a manual online.

One quick question....the 55-200mm VR lens, do you think that this is a good choice of lens? If I do purchase either the D40 or D60, I am going to get the basic kit first and then hope to get another lens and that is the one I had been eyeing up. Thoughts?
Lastly, thank you so much for the link to flickr. I went on webshots and was trying to find pictures people had taken with a D40 and D60 since both are in my price range (although the D60 at the upper end of it) and the link you provided me is great. I love seeing the type of pictures everyone else has captured! :goodvibes

Ann

[handicap18]

Thank you so much for the recommendation. I ended up borrowing a friend's D60 last night and taking some test shots. It was obvious I have no clue what I was doing (they didn't have their manual) but the pictures that they showed me along with the ones I just took on auto-mode I thought came out a bunch better than those with my point and shoot digital camera. I'm going to keep it over the weekend and play with it, see if I can find a manual online.

One quick question....the 55-200mm VR lens, do you think that this is a good choice of lens? If I do purchase either the D40 or D60, I am going to get the basic kit first and then hope to get another lens and that is the one I had been eyeing up. Thoughts?
Lastly, thank you so much for the link to flickr. I went on webshots and was trying to find pictures people had taken with a D40 and D60 since both are in my price range (although the D60 at the upper end of it) and the link you provided me is great. I love seeing the type of pictures everyone else has captured! :goodvibes

Ann

Link to D60 Users Manual (http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14511).

The 55-200 is very good lens, especially for its price. It Pairs well with the 18-55mm kit lens. For longer reach and more money there is also the 70-300mm VR lens.

[annnewjerz]

Link to D60 Users Manual (http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14511).



Thanks, this will save me a lot of time and I'll be able to spend more time snapping away! :goodvibes

[originalkk]

Here are a few thoughts from my recent experience. I was in a similar position a few weeks ago. I have used various PnS cameras (and a very old Oly film SLR) for many years, including an Oly 5060 underwater. However, I really wanted the extra speed, flexibility and low light performance of a DSLR (particularly for a trip to WDW). I may also house the camera for underwater use at some point.

My initial decision point was what lens system I wanted to go with, and which camera I felt most comfortable with. I eliminated Pentax, Sony etc because of the greater range of lenses available for Nikon and Canon, plus the greater choice of housings available for these brands if I took it underwater. When moving to a DSLR I believe I am buying into a lens system more than a specific camera body.

I tried a D40, D60, and D80, plus a Canon XSi in various photo shops, and preferred the controls and handling of the Nikons. I eliminated the D60 as it offered few additional features to the D40 (eg still had no focus motor in the body), but cost £100+ more than the D40 here in the UK. At this time the D90 was being launched, but at £800+ with a kit lens, was more than I was prepared to pay for a first DSLR. I discounted the D80, as, even though the prices were coming down, it still was not a cheap camera.

Finally I looked at the D40. Amazon had it for £220 with the 18-55 kit lens. For that price I could buy the kit, and still have enough to buy another decent lens (compared with the XSi or D80) . Also, as I had no legacy lenses, the absence of a focus motor on the camera was not an major issue. I intended that any future lenses I bought would have a focus motor and vibration reduction anyway. The megapixel count was a non-issue to me as the D40 has a good sensor, and I have previously enlarged 5mp shots from my Oly 5060 to a good size with no visible loss of quality.

So I now have the D40, and, for the price, I am very impressed. It is well built, the auto-focus and stabilisation works well, and, as far as I am concerned, it works very well in relatively low light, even with the kit lens. For the price of reasonable PnS, I have a camera that offers far better image quality (especially in low light) than any PnS or Bridge camera. In a year or two I may outgrow the camera body, but I will (hopefully) have learned how to use a DSLR effectively, and can re-use the lenses on any other digital Nikon body.