Thinking of a D40x - Have many, many requirements for extras

Skullfish1 · 18 Nov 2007 at 22:20

Ok, I'm hoping to get a DLSR at some point early next year and after fooling around in a camera shop for half an hour, the D40x felt by far the best in my hands so I'm thinking of going for that one.

I've been using a Canon S2 IS for a couple of years now and *think* I've cut my photographic teeth on it, at least I can compose a picture alright. I'm now bumping my head on the limits set by a bridge/super-zoom camera, so want to make the big leap.

The two areas that interest me most are low-light photography and landscapes, with portraits a close third. I don't see myself having a massive use for a telephoto right now, though who knows what the future will hold. Also after using the S2 IS I couldn't go back to a non-stabilzed lens, so it'll need VR. I'll be shooting a friends wedding in August, so any hints on the sort of lenses that are good for that would also be excellent.

Is there any lens in the world that'll do this all for me? I was thinking of buying body only and trying to find someone to do me a deal as the kit lenses I've found don't fill me with joy. Is this a good idea?

I'd quite like to find a good wireless flash to use as well, both at the wedding and in my own interior stuff. Unfortunately I've no idea what I'm looking for.

The saddest thing is, I've already chosen my crumpler bag... :rolleyes:

Messiah Khan · 18 Nov 2007 at 23:11

Whats your budget for the lens? You could look at the Nikon 18-200VR. As for the wireless flash, the D40X doesn't have a commander unit so you'd need to either get a flash with a commander unit (SB800) or some pocket wizard type transceivers.

Skullfish1 · 18 Nov 2007 at 23:22

The lens budget depends on the deal I could get by buying body-only, not ridiculous in any case given that this will be my first SLR foray and I'm a student. I know the type of photography I've described generally dictates more expensive lenses, but I was wondering if there were any low-mid budget ones that scraped under the radar or concessions I could make?

For my first flash, would it be worth it going wireless then, or make do with a cabled one? Near the price of the camera body seems a lot for a flash straight off the bat.

King4aDay · 18 Nov 2007 at 23:54

For landscapes it' really better to accept the need for a tripod and then not worry about VR. You could get an ultrawide lens for landscapes and then a nice cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for low-light/portrait shots. Not VR but fast. You'd probably still want a mid-range zoom of some sort though. 18-200 as already suggested if you really want VR. Or maybe the 55-200 if you want something cheaper.

buzzby · 19 Nov 2007 at 07:57

I have just bought a d40x and i would suggest buying it with the kit lens. Where i bought mine the body was only £9 cheaper than the body with kit lens.

Thne you wouldn't have to buy a lens straight away and you could see what works right out of the box

SteveOBHave · 19 Nov 2007 at 08:17

I may be way off target here but have you considered the Canon 400D - it's about £20 - £30 more than the D40x and is every bit as capable a camera as the Nikon D80. Lenses can cost you a little more but the initial outlay presents a better package than the D40x.

I don't think that it has the remote flash capability that the D80 has but it's still quite a nice package. I'm a D80 man myself and would never look back but I have a few friends with the 400D and they love it (I'm sure there is veiled D80 envy there tho

haha)

Another mate just got a D40 and he loves it so either will make for a great purchase. Whichever you get you love, SLR photography is very rewarding.

alexisonfire · 19 Nov 2007 at 09:08

Messiah Khan said:
Whats your budget for the lens? You could look at the Nikon 18-200VR. As for the wireless flash, the D40X doesn't have a commander unit so you'd need to either get a flash with a commander unit (SB800) or some pocket wizard type transceivers.

AFAIK, he would still need to buy something like the SU800 to use the SB800 wireless on the D40x, otherwise theres no way of the camera to communicate with the flash. The built in commander unit on the SB800 is for controlling other flash guns. ( I might be wrong on this though, it was just my understanding

)

Ideally, you would be looking to get a Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for wedding work, but on a tight budget the Nikon 18-200mm VR could work.

p.s. go for the D80

Messiah Khan · 19 Nov 2007 at 09:19

alexisonfire said:
AFAIK, he would still need to buy something like the SU800 to use the SB800 wireless on the D40x, otherwise theres no way of the camera to communicate with the flash. The built in commander unit on the SB800 is for controlling other flash guns. ( I might be wrong on this though, it was just my understanding )

Ideally, you would be looking to get a Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for wedding work, but on a tight budget the Nikon 18-200mm VR could work.

p.s. go for the D80

Sorry I wasn't clear, but thats what I meant. I meant the OP would need to use the SB800 as the commander unit and get another flash for as the wirless one. Although that would probably be a bit overkill and it would be more sensible to get the D80 as you said.

robmiller · 19 Nov 2007 at 10:35

It's not as clear cut as it seems, though; having two flashes is great in and of itself. It's one flash + better body vs. two flashes + worse body, which could go either way depending on what you shoot.

I know I'm buying another flash gun as soon as I can afford one...

Skullfish1 · 19 Nov 2007 at 11:22

What are the advantages of the D80 over the D40x that make any difference. As already pointed out it has a wireless controller built in, but anything else to justify it as a first DSLR? Wouldn't it be better to put that cash towards more lenses?

A D80 would be completely out of my budget right now, but who knows in a few months. I might get lucky.

Does it matter that the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor isn't AF-S or -I being a prime?

Messiah Khan · 19 Nov 2007 at 11:34

Skullfish1 said:
What are the advantages of the D80 over the D40x that make any difference. As already pointed out it has a wireless controller built in, but anything else to justify it as a first DSLR? Wouldn't it be better to put that cash towards more lenses?

A D80 woul dbe completely out of my budget right now, but who knows in a few months. I might get lucky.

Does it matter that the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor isn't AF-S or -I being a prime?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...ebyside&cameras=nikon_d40x,nikon_d80&show=all

There you go. but the main feature that are different;

Better autofocusing
Inbuilt focus motor (The 50mm f1.8 isn't AF-S btw so you would have to manual focus with the D40X)
Battery grip support
Generally better built

Skullfish1 · 19 Nov 2007 at 11:48

So if I went for the D80 I'd have access to second hand lenses as well? Hmmm, tempting...

Alright, cheers guys. Choices ahead.

this_is_gav · 19 Nov 2007 at 12:51

Yeah, I love the D40x myself, but in retrospect I guess I would have gone for the D80 just for that greater flexibility.

As for a prime for the D40(x), the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM autofocuses on them apparently, and is highly recommended. About to order myself one, just need to decide which macro lens to go for too (resting on the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 at the moment (which for the record doesn't autofocus on a D40(x), but you'll not want to autofocus on macro shots anyway)).

Have a couple of SB600s ready and waiting for an SB800 too. I didn't research enough when I purchased them... oops.

Messiah Khan · 19 Nov 2007 at 13:15

this_is_gav said:
As for a prime for the D40(x), the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM autofocuses on them apparently, and is highly recommended. About to order myself one, just need to decide which macro lens to go for too (resting on the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 at the moment (which for the record doesn't autofocus on a D40(x), but you'll not want to autofocus on macro shots anyway)).

Ive got the 30mm f1.4, and I highly reccomend it. Great field of view (45mm after crop factor, so near the 50mm of 'normal view'), very fast at f1.4 and pretty damn sharp as well.

As for a Macro lens, I would not reccomend the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. Ive not got one myself, but looking at the specs it only does a magnification of 1:3.8, not the 1:1 that you need for an actual macro lens. I would suggest the 150mm f2.8 HMS that I use. It autofocuses on the D40X (As you say, most people manual focus when doing macro work, but its still usefull to have AF when doing non macro work with the lens) is super sharp (Like really really sharp) and has a magnification of 1:1.

alexisonfire · 19 Nov 2007 at 16:48

Messiah Khan said:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...ebyside&cameras=nikon_d40x,nikon_d80&show=all

There you go. but the main feature that are different;

Better autofocusing
Inbuilt focus motor (The 50mm f1.8 isn't AF-S btw so you would have to manual focus with the D40X)
Battery grip support
Generally better built

Autofocus on the D80 is miles better than the D40/x, 11 AF points vs 3 AF points respectively. It allows you to be far more creative with your composition, especially with rule of third. It also has an electronic grid display option, to help with rule of third and horizontal/vertical lines. Some other points are:

On body Autofocus/Manual focus switch
Tons of function buttons on the body (instead of digital options on screen).
The viewfinder is larger
It has exposure bracketing
MC-DC1 and battery grip support
Better ergonomics

The D40/x are brilliant cameras don't get me wrong. Everything they do, they do it very well. But its the stuff they don't have that lets them down. No commander unit and IAFM are a big no no

BUFF · 19 Nov 2007 at 17:02

Depending upon when you intend to take the plunge there may be other options as well e.g. Sony are due to replace the A100 in Q1 of '08 & that should have in-body stabilisation so that all lenses become stabilised which is good for low light shooting (although at really slow shutter speeds you then become at the mercy of subject movement).
Lots of s/h Minolta AF fit lenses available too.

Pentax K10D & Olympus E510 also are good cameras with in-body IS.

this_is_gav · 19 Nov 2007 at 19:40

Messiah Khan said:
As for a Macro lens, I would not reccomend the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. Ive not got one myself, but looking at the specs it only does a magnification of 1:3.8, not the 1:1 that you need for an actual macro lens. I would suggest the 150mm f2.8 HMS that I use. It autofocuses on the D40X (As you say, most people manual focus when doing macro work, but its still usefull to have AF when doing non macro work with the lens) is super sharp (Like really really sharp) and has a magnification of 1:1.

Hmm, bit more expensive, but I've seen some of your macro work, and it's pretty damn awesome. You may have just swung me. Cheers.

Skullfish1 · 19 Nov 2007 at 22:13

After doing some more reading around (to the detriment of essays!) I think the D80 might actually be the camera for me. Its remarkable how fast your impressions of relative price change when you start looking in depth at photo gear. :rolleyes:

So, unless something better is released before March (time of birthday) how do you guys think a D80 with the 18-200VR and a large aperture (i.e. 'fast?') 50mm prime would stack up for the wedding in August? Hopefully I'd be able to afford an SB-800 before the wedding as well.

How would that do me for low light stuff as well, both portraits and cityscapes etc? I'd look to get something like the Sigma 10-20mm for landscapes another time.

alexisonfire · 20 Nov 2007 at 02:26

Skullfish1 said:
After doing some more reading around (to the detriment of essays!) I think the D80 might actually be the camera for me. Its remarkable how fast your impressions of relative price change when you start looking in depth at photo gear.

So, unless something better is released before March (time of birthday) how do you guys think a D80 with the 18-200VR and a large aperture (i.e. 'fast?') 50mm prime would stack up for the wedding in August? Hopefully I'd be able to afford an SB-800 before the wedding as well.

How would that do me for low light stuff as well, both portraits and cityscapes etc? I'd look to get something like the Sigma 10-20mm for landscapes another time.

If you use the 18-200mm VR for the wedding i think you will have to fight between an iso of 1600+ or use fill flash. Regarding the flashgun, i wouldn't bother with the SB800 at the moment. If you go for the D80, it has a built in commander unit meaning you can use an SB600 wireless. The SB600 should be oodles powerful enough to fill even the biggest rooms when bouncing it.

I would recommend for the following for a wedding on a budget:

Nikon D80
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM EX MACRO (The macro is terrible, but i said it just so you knew i meant the latest version)
Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8 (The sharpest zoom lens nikon make.)
SB600

BUFF · 20 Nov 2007 at 17:52

alexisonfire said:
I would recommend for the following for a wedding on a budget:

Nikon D80
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM EX MACRO (The macro is terrible, but i said it just so you knew i meant the latest version)
Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8 (The sharpest zoom lens nikon make.)
SB600

By my reckoning that lot will come to ~£1700 which I suspect is more than the OP's idea of budget?