# Illogical purchase.



## passerby (Feb 12, 2008)

There are always good and bad in buying second hand goods. But when we shed plenty of money so we can use the seconhand goods, than to me it is illogical move.

Here is what we heard from reading around. 

_It is wrong move to buy the nikon d40 because it is restricted with newer lenses only. There are milllions of nikon lenses out there waiting to be snatched at bargain prizes_. 

So people spend something like almost $1000 more, or more than $1000 for the camera that can utilizes the old lenses? I don't get it.

Ok let see what you think.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Feb 12, 2008)

The reason is that the D40 is a consumer camera; it was never intended for the person that is going to be putting much more than the kit lens or a new lens on it.

Most people I know that have it bought the 18-200 mm and never change the lens.
Now I am not saying that it is not a capable camera, it is, but it is just restricted to the newer lenses with the motors built into the lens if you want auto focus, if not you can use any lens on it.


----------



## Boltthrower (Feb 12, 2008)

I have a Minolta 7D that uses lenses from 1985 
it's called not shooting yourself in the foot 

when a manufacturer changes the mounts on the cameras pretty much lock out their old user base forcing them to either buy another brand or replacing all their glass

Honestly if Minolta (now Sony) does that I'd scrap them in a heart beat and go with canon I have 6 good lenses that are the Minolta AF mount I'd be pissed if they changed the mount or locked me out of using my old Glass.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Feb 12, 2008)

They did not change the mount, they just did not put an auto focus motor in the body.  All of the old lenses work, but are manual focus.


----------



## fightheheathens (Feb 12, 2008)

i think your question is "why use an old lens on something new"
the idea being that old lenses are inherently bad....

well, that is not true.  Nikon (and im sure canon and pentax) has not changed the design on some of their lenses in 20+ years. 
for example, nikons new 20mm f2.8 prime lens uses the same 12 elements in 9 groups as their 1980 version. Their 50mm lens has not changes in something like the last 50 years. the old 105mm f2.5 nikon lenses are considered to be some of the nicest lenses ever made. So i can buy a used 50mm lens on ebay that has the exact same optics as their newest 50mm lens. and honestly, in some cases, the older lenses have better build quality. I would much rather have a 20mm f2.8 AIs from the 80's then the new 20mm AF lens. The older one has better build quality, and the exact same optics.


----------



## Boltthrower (Feb 12, 2008)

oh the way it was typed along with the way I read and understood it was that the older lenses could not be used at all

Still sucks for the owners of all the original glass though. I'd still be pissed if all my AF lenses suddenly became MF lenses cause they changed the design.


----------



## ScottS (Feb 12, 2008)

Boltthrower said:


> oh the way it was typed along with the way I read and understood it was that the older lenses could not be used at all
> 
> Still sucks for the owners of all the original glass though. I'd still be pissed if all my AF lenses suddenly became MF lenses cause they changed the design.


That is why it is always good to know what your are buying when you buy it. 

I love the people that buy the D40 and then get pissed when they cant use their dads lenses on it...:lmao:


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 12, 2008)

I feel like the D40 (& D40X) is a scam, Nikon lures you with a super cheap camera, then wants you to spend big with $1000 lenses.


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 12, 2008)

hmm I have a d40 and do not think its a illogical purchase.





*AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) Lenses*AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED - NEW! AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR - NEW! AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - NEW! AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mmf/2.8G ED - NEW! AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED - NEW! AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR - NEW! AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR - NEW!  

I have 18-55mm, 55-20mm, 50mm 1.8, and so far very pleased with the options of lens available for the d40. I can use almost lens on the camera just fine, then again I do not really care for the autofocus since I have gotten really good manually focusing with my lenses.  

My next purchase will be a nikon 10.5 fisheye or a sigma 12-20 wide angle lens. 

Plus buying this entry level dslr has taught me many things about shutter speeds and apertures and stuff I did not really know before. It basically kept  me interested in photography and did not intimidate me.  If i went off and spent the $900-$1,000 on the d80 kit i would probably be kind of put off or something. I really dont seeing the d80 a big enough difference for the photography i need. besides the 10.2mp and 6mp difference even though ive printed 11x14s from my 6mp and was amazed by the quality and clarity. Don't get me wrong I would love to own a d80 but I am very pleased and happy with my d40.

I look at it this way as buying a car. Sure you can buy the ferrari(d300) or the aston martin(d80) but im happy with my 350z(d40) sure it can not perform as good as the other 2 but it still has some HP for a reasonable price. But then again thats just a point of view from a d40 owner


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 12, 2008)

The D40 viewfinder is not a good viewfinder for manually focusing, even if you have 20/20 eyes. I just hate everything about the D40, D40x , and the new D60 I believe it's called.

and it's more like
Point and shoot = used 1980s economy hatchback
D40 = 10 year old corolla (NOT a 350z) gets the job done but has a problem that lets you down every now and then
D80 = New Rx-8 or 350z has its fun moments and will serve you in many many application
D300 = BMW M5 = bells and whistles galore, does everything that you could have ever wanted with performance to boot
D3 = money is no option, should I take the Lambo or Ferrari to work today?


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 12, 2008)

any pictures i taken with the d40 manual focus comes at sharp as a ginsu knife. I dont see how its not a good viewfinder for manual zoom.

For Example: this was  manual focus at night





This was manual focus in day





so i dont know how its a bad viewfinder for it, please elaborate.


----------



## EManza (Feb 12, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> The D40 viewfinder is not a good viewfinder for manually focusing, even if you have 20/20 eyes. I just hate everything about the D40, D40x , and the new D60 I believe it's called.
> 
> and it's more like
> Point and shoot = used 1980s economy hatchback
> ...


 
I like to think of my D40 as my SRT-4 Neon; Cheap gets the job done and hurts the feelings of many car owners that paid thousands more just to get manhandled by a Neon. :er:

I'm assuming your extensive use with the D40 has validated your silly claims that the D40 is hard to manual focus with... I have no problem manually focusing AIS primes with its sub-par viewfinder and my less than 20/20 vision.


----------



## MarcusM (Feb 12, 2008)

XtremeElemenT said:


> any pictures i taken with the d40 manual focus comes at sharp as a ginsu knife. I dont see how its not a good viewfinder for manual zoom.
> 
> For Example: this was  manual focus at night
> 
> ...



Not trying to get into an argument, but that shot is far from "sharp as a knife" - the words "The Peabody" are extremely blurry and the edges of the building look soft to me. It is a nice shot, though, don't get me wrong - I just wouldn't say the focus is sharp as a knife.


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 12, 2008)

i was not focusing on the hotel then, i was shooting at f/3.5 so i had a little dof. I really wanted the hotel to be real blurry and keep the sidewalk and front lamps in focus but i was not able to do that with the kit lens. I could go out and re shoot it with my new 50mm f/1.8 and achieve the look i wanted but i had to do with what i had.


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 12, 2008)

XtremeElemenT said:


> so i dont know how its a bad viewfinder for it, please elaborate.



apparently, you've never handled a manual focus 35mm SLR. Of course you'll post your best results, how often do you get these tack sharp results first try, or better yet, how many shots have you lost due to not being able to focus quick enough? My 20d has a pentaprism and it is hard to manually focus with simply due to the fact it's a modern day DSLR (they're simply not good MF cameras), and it has both a better made focusing screen and viewfinder than the D40. The 20D is closer to the D80/ D200 viewfinder.

As for an SRT-4 = D40.......... buahaha. As a car guy, I know that comparison is false. Because you're saying performance for dollar, the D40 is the best yet (as the SRT4 is a bargain for its performance), I'm sorry, not to start a Canon Nikon debate, but at least for entry level, I believe the Rebel can use any lens that top of the line 1Ds MK III can use, I'd say that's a better value for the money.

The D40 is a horrible idea (not a bad camera, just from an overall standpoint/ value for dollar/ what you could be spending money on) and anyone owning one defending it to their grave saying it's not that bad just wants to justify to themselves that they didn't make a mistake getting a no AF motor/ 3 AF point, 3FPS, 6MP, not fist in class of anything in its market niche, camera. [/end rant]

I love Canon, I love Nikon, I love Pentax, and no brand is better than the other,m however, Nikon's entry level DSLRs are horrible scams (post d50 that is).

Don't even get me started on the D40x, a huge price increase for a few lousy MP making people think they're buying a mini D80.....


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 12, 2008)

Here is, once more, the reasoning behind the D40:


- People who own several good lenses already and have been shooting for years will not want a "beginner's" camera. They probably own one or more way more expensive models.

- People who are just getting into photography with a tight budget are not likely to buy new lenses.

- Either way, there are lots of lenses out there that auto-focus with a D40.

- Instead of waiting until you think you are ready to invest $2000 for a "real" camera and lens, you can get a D40 now and take tens of thousands of pictures until you decide to invest more money into photography.

- It is cheap and small, everyone from pro to beginner can find a use for that.


I'd say that if you hate the D40 for what it _is_ (as opposed to what it isn't), you are doing something wrong and maybe you should have picked a Canon back then .

Do i own one? Yes.
Do i think that manual focusing in low light is troublesome? Guess so but i am very new to that (and shooting moving subjects/handheld).
Do i like the D60? Not really, for various reasons, and i wouldn't be surprised if competition squashed it (or it is just ignored in favor of the D40).

All these silly car analogies - ok, you can use your Bugatti to pick up the kids from school and go to the movies, but most people would just use one of their city cars. I wouldn't casually throw a D3 & 70-200mm f/2.8 lens in my backpack when going for a bike ride, either.





MarcusM said:


> Not trying to get into an argument, but that shot is far from "sharp as a knife" - the words "The Peabody" are extremely blurry and the edges of the building look soft to me. It is a nice shot, though, don't get me wrong - I just wouldn't say the focus is sharp as a knife.



Considering the distance and long exposure time, not the best shot to argue about sharp focus. Otherwise a great shot.


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 12, 2008)

those pictures are far from my best photos, and yes i have used and still own a 35mm slr camera by nikon. It's what i started with but film is not for me. Of course a d80 peforms better than a d40( i believe i already stated that in my car comparison) but i dont think i really needed to pay the extra 300-400 dollars for a camera. Im just trying to say that a d40 is not a illogical purchase. for $450-479 you can get a great camera with a good quality lens and take great photos.  The only photos i have really lost in the d40 is due to my handshake and thats my fault for setting a wrong shutter speed or forgot i was shooting at a higher iso. I have nothing against canons but im sure if nikon would of raised the price and added a internal focusing motor it would of been great. But they decided to cut the price to make a dslr camera more affordable for people wanting to own a dslr and i believe they made the right choice. This also cut down on the size and weight of the camera which is one of the reasons i also went to nikon over a canon 350d.


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 12, 2008)

I just think these 2 points counter each other



			
				Tasmaster said:
			
		

> - People who are just getting into photography with a tight budget are not likely to buy new lenses.
> 
> - Either way, there are lots of lenses out there that auto-focus with a D40.



those lenses that do atofocus on the D40 ARE the new lenses that "most people won't buy". What good is the D40 body if you, the average D40 user, isn't going to buy any lenes for it?

We can agree to disagree but I think it is mean to the average consumer who sees that the D40 is super cheap, buys one, and gets raped with priced skywards of $800 for the only lenses that will work with it.


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 12, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> I just think these 2 points counter each other
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

um but aren't you forgetting any lens that works on the d50,d70,d80 etc.. also work on the d40??  The af-s lenses are reasonably price for the quality you are getting anyways.


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 12, 2008)

XtremeElemenT said:


> um but aren't you forgetting any lens that works on the d50,d70,d80 etc.. also work on the d40??  The af-s lenses are reasonably price for the quality you are getting anyways.



no, I'm not forgetting that. I'm just saying, I'd rather spend an extra $100 on the camera body to get 100% out of all of those lenses instead of 50% (or lower depending how many shots you're losing to only having manual focus as an option). LEts say you own 4 lenses and a D70. You paid for thos elenses and that camera. Your D70 breaks, you buy a D40, now, the lenses you paid for, aren't utilizing features that was part of the total of the price of that lens, so even buy getting a gem of an older lens to save money, you are STILL LOSING DOLLAR VALUE. The D40 is an economic paradox for the standard consumer, and a complex income multiplier for the producer hidden in a luring deceiving marketing approach.


----------



## shorty6049 (Feb 12, 2008)

I'm going to try and keep this as unbiased as i can here (since nobody else seems to be...) 

I think that the D40 is an ok camera for beginners. The major downfall is the lenses though. Although there are plently of lenses around for the camera, they're mostly expensive or poor quality (relatively). I have held and used a d40, and i agree the viewfinder isnt good for manual focusing at all. It just feels very small and hard to really see things through. My brother bought a d40 a while back and ended up selling it for a Sony A100 because he could buy and use old minolta lenses for it. He had one lens besides the kit lens for his d40 and it was an old zoom lens wich he had to manually focus, manually set aperture (via the aperture ring on the lens) as well as guessing the exposure because metering didnt work either.  For amature shooters (the main group using a d40) the lenses arent really practical if you want to upgrade at all.

i wouldnt say its an illogical purchase, but i would say that it would be wise to really think about it before you jump into it. if you were to want more lenses, you would have to know that it'll cost ya, or you'll be manually focusing and metering . Some people bring up the point that its not that hard, but would you really want to have that hurdle to jump over every time you used your camera?


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 12, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> those lenses that do atofocus on the D40 ARE the new lenses that "most people won't buy". What good is the D40 body if you, the average D40 user, isn't going to buy any lenes for it?



I don't quite understand your logic; most people who are looking for a cheap dSLR are not looking for new lenses. If and when they look for them, the lenses are there.



> We can agree to disagree but I think it is mean to the average consumer who sees that the D40 is super cheap, buys one, and gets raped with priced skywards of $800 for the only lenses that will work with it.


Couple of important points here:

- You don't _have _to buy the D40, especially if you are already looking for lenses. People know what lenses it can take beforehand.

- Please stop trolling and lying. The 18-200mm VR actually costs below $700, and that is still a 18-200mm lens with vibration reduction. Every lens will _work _with the D40 (with couple of older obscure professional lens exceptions i believe), not every lens will auto-focus, been said enough times already.

Edit: 



DSLR noob said:


> Your D70 breaks, you buy a D40



Eh? No, unless your only point is to prove a stupid arguement on a forum, you buy a D80 or maybe another D70, or any other camera that will take your lens collection. This is the one case where you should explicitly avoid the D40.


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 12, 2008)

Well, I put plenty of thought into my decision making into buying my d40 as i bet other people who have bought the d40 have done as well.  Ive gotten a nice af-s ed 55-200mm dx lens 2 weeks after i bought my d40 for $75 and have not regretted it. Then not to long after that i purchased my 3rd lens a 50mm 1.8d for $129 (paid retail to support local camera store) and fell in love with it. It meters but have to manual focus and i love it. DSLRnoob You act like manually focusing is the hardest thing in the world.  You make it seem like the most impossible thing you can do in the dslr world.  Just because you can't do it doesnt mean others cant.

My decision was Canon 350d = $650 stuck with kit lens
or Nikon d40 =$450 be able to buy maybe 2 lenses.

I decided and made my decison. Grab the inexpensive d40 and buy lenses now that I could use later if i plan to upgrade to a d80 or whatever.

The d40 is an affordable camera that is great for someone who wants to take great looking photos but does not want a P&S and does not plan to change and upgrade lenses.

It is also great for someone like me that wants to step into DSLR world and get their feet wet and see if they want to take the full dive in. Im able to buy lenses now with the money i saved and see how they work and whats the best environment/situation to use them in.  I can make beautiful 11x14 prints which i think is plenty big for me.

So now if i do plan on purchasing a d80 I will have a few extra lenses for it. Simple as that.

I learned about using different filters and see what they do from diffusers to UV's to polarizing.  If i purchased ( lets say) a d80 back then I would be stuck with the kit lens still and would be limited to my exploration through dslr and would yet have to wait longer to purchase a decent zoom/telephoto lens then would of been even longer to have purchased the 50mm and probably forever till i purchase the 10.5 fisheye or the sigma 10-20mm.  I am very happy with the choice I have made.


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 12, 2008)

No, I'm not _just_ trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I *THINK*!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer.  Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that *I* don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 12, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that *I* don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.



No, you are making up false facts and deliberately posting inaccuracies and lies to support your opinion. That's called trolling right there. That's in addition to you being a proper noob (who would replace a D70 and lens system with a D40 and then cry about it - RTFM!), but that is beside the point :mrgreen:.

If you have an opinion that's fine, if you really want to support your opinion you'd better resort to posting facts, not nonsense.



> I hate your camera


That one made my day! Well know sir, that from this day on, my camera hates you too! Dare not walk in front of my lens, or my D40 will take pictures of you so out of focus that they will ruin your internet life!


----------



## shorty6049 (Feb 13, 2008)

i think the whole "i hate your camera" thing may be a bit harsh, but i do agree with him on the manual focusing issue. It may not be the hardest thing in the world or anything, but but when you pay that much for a camera, why would you want to have to settle for it? That, in my opinion is the biggest limitation to the d40. Sony, has its own limitations, such as , i pretty much HAD to buy the Sony flash, becasuse nobody else makes a good one that'll fit on my camera and work properly because of sony's hotshoe design. also though, sony didnt have a lot of lenses out when i bought my first alpha. BUT, there were used minoltas all over the internet for decent prices, and they all work flawlessly with my camera. This isnt just my opinion though, its also my brothers and what caused him to switch brands. Just definately something to keep in mind.


----------



## elemental (Feb 13, 2008)

passerby said:


> There are always good and bad in buying second hand goods. But when we shed plenty of money so we can use the seconhand goods, than to me it is illogical move.
> 
> Here is what we heard from reading around.
> 
> ...



If by spending $1000 more you mean buying into someone else's system, then yes, this is exactly what I did. I didn't spend a penny more, in fact, I spent less. I think most entry-level DSLR buyers are more likely to substitute horizontally rather than vertically, looking to something like a Rebel, A100, or K100D rather than a D80. I liked the D40 a lot, and buying into a huge family like Nikon seemed like a nice idea, but once I found out they had cheaped out on the AF motor, I moved on. It seems to me that a good deal of planning went into this decision, and I did not want to be boxed into one segment of Nikon' lenses because I bought the "cheap" camera. Turns out, I found a camera I liked a lot better anyway with the addition of a huge selection of 100% compatible excellent used lenses.


Plus, once I found out that the majority of photography discussion is Canon vs. Nikon arguments over and over, year after year, I was overjoyed to realize I didn't have a side. I would gladly choose the dark horse any day.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 13, 2008)

passerby said:


> _It is wrong move to buy the nikon d40 because it is restricted with newer lenses only. There are milllions of nikon lenses out there waiting to be snatched at bargain prizes_.
> 
> So people spend something like almost $1000 more, or more than $1000 for the camera that can utilizes the old lenses? I don't get it.
> 
> Ok let see what you think.



This is misguided. Here's why.

A large number of the lenses Nikon CURRENTLY produces will not autofocus on the D40/D40x.

Basically, for the autofocus feature to work, it has to be an AF-S lens.

If you look at the AF-S line, you basically have two types of lenses.

1) Plastic "consumer" grade lenses of various quality form "OK" to excellent, and with the exception of one true bargain (the 55-200 VR) they are all expensive for what you get.

2) Professional lenses, which are built and priced accordingly.

If you set aside the kit lenses (the 18-55 non-VR and the more expensive VR) and the nice little 55-200, all the rest of the lenses in the line cost more than the cost of the body of the camera... many of the "consumer" lenses cost a LOT more than the body.

There are similar lenses in the current Nikon line, of as good or better quality, for cheaper prices than the AF-S lenses. Excellent choices like the inexpensive but excellent 50mm f/1.8 at $120 will not autofocus with the D40.

Another excellent consumer lens, the 70-300D runs about $120... but it won't autofocus either.

This is a trend.

Additionally, there are a ton of brand new third party lenses that will not autofocus on the D40's. Forget about anything from Tamron or Tokina. Some Sigma's (the HSM's and a few others) will work with the D40's in full autofocus, but most will not.

I get tired of the "every lens will work" argument on the D40. That is nonsense. While you can mount non-autofocus lenses on the D40 just fine... they will technically "work"... the metering system does not function with them. 

Basically, you have a fully manual D40 with no autofocus and no light meter, as well as no metered flash.

Welcome to 1959.

I own a D40. It takes GREAT pictures. I also own a whole bag full of very expensive Nikon lenses (which I had before I got the D40). I have a D80 and a D300.

The D40 takes as good of pictures as the D80. It is not nearly as versatile as the D80 (no flash commander mode, no depth of field preview, etc) but that is to be expected. It has one big advantage over the D80 in that it has a really great 1/500th of a second flash sync speed.

The D300 kicks the D40's butt fourteen ways from Sunday in just about every respect, as you would expect from a $1700 camera.

Basically, I don't recommend D40's because you either have to buy Nikon AF-S lenses (good, but expensive to the point of being quite limiting to most people's budgets) or buy lenses that don't fully work on your camera.

Manual focus went out of style in 1986.


----------



## jwkwd (Feb 13, 2008)

Sabbath, manual focus went out of style in 1986? Crap I have been out of style longer than a good number of people on this forum have been alive!


----------



## Socrates (Feb 13, 2008)

> Additionally, there are a ton of brand new third party lenses that will not autofocus on the D40's. Forget about anything from Tamron or Tokina. Some Sigma's (the HSM's and a few others) will work with the D40's in full autofocus, but most will not.


In my case, the reason why I switched to Nikon years ago was because I wanted Nikon glass. To me, the third-party lenses are a non-player.



> I get tired of the "every lens will work" argument on the D40. That is nonsense. While you can mount non-autofocus lenses on the D40 just fine... they will technically "work"... the metering system does not function with them.


Has anyone ever determined which lenses the D40 owners REALLY buy? My OPINION is that the majority will stick with the kit lens.  If I'm correct, your point is moot.



> It has one big advantage over the D80 in that it has a really great 1/500th of a second flash sync speed.


Gee, that's strange. My D80 will sync the flash at ANY shutter speed. It's called FP flash.


----------



## petey (Feb 13, 2008)

It chaps my hide that Nikon didn't make this camera to fit all the older design, screw drive, motored lenses. My God, what were they thinking when they created it?


----------



## adolan20 (Feb 13, 2008)

Well they cut out the motor to cut cost to the consumer.  Although I do not like the D40 because of this, I can say if feels a hell of a lot better than the Xti.


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 13, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> when you pay that much for a camera, why would you want to have to settle for it?



That much?? Which part of -->*CHEAPEST*<-- dSLR is so hard to understand? Once again, get your facts straight people. If you want to complain about something you can complain about, say, bracketing - which is far more useful to a beginner, costs nothing, and doesn't make the camera bigger.

I am starting to believe the whole "D40 haters are blinded by jealousy" thing here! It's a baby dSLR, get over it and go take some pictures.


----------



## Mystwalker (Feb 13, 2008)

passerby said:


> There are always good and bad in buying second hand goods. But when we shed plenty of money so we can use the seconhand goods, than to me it is illogical move.
> 
> Here is what we heard from reading around.
> 
> ...


 
Not sure about accuracy of statement.  Older lens will work with D40 - I think you must get AF-S if you want autofocus.  I guess only the newer lens are classified as AF-S and are more expensive.

So ... if you get a D40 (D40x) and want autofocus, you must buy new AF-S lens.

In regards to your statement ... people who spend $1000+ are buying the higher end cameras which can use older lens.  These cameras are higher end then the D40 anyways.  Do not think they are buying the higher end camera just to get autofocus capability without having to buy AF-S.

I played with a D40x before deciding on 30D.  Nikon worked beautifully, but it didn't feel "right".  Basically, 30D (to me) felt more substantial, but D40x inner mechanism seemed smoother.  All this was before I learned about lens and such.  Probably would have gone D80 if I had been able to test one.  Today, it's Canon all the way for me :thumbup:


----------



## ghpham (Feb 13, 2008)

We had this discussion about the D40 already.  Like it or don't like it, get over it.


----------



## shorty6049 (Feb 13, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> That much?? Which part of -->*CHEAPEST*<-- dSLR is so hard to understand? Once again, get your facts straight people. If you want to complain about something you can complain about, say, bracketing - which is far more useful to a beginner, costs nothing, and doesn't make the camera bigger.
> 
> I am starting to believe the whole "D40 haters are blinded by jealousy" thing here! It's a baby dSLR, get over it and go take some pictures.


 

yeah, it may be one of the cheapest, but when other camera makers have similarily priced cameras with less compatability issues, then you start to see how its not as practical. The d40 is a great camera if you dont plan on doing much more than using the kit lens, or a couple low end lenses. But i know, when i started out with my a100, the only lenses i've bought for it were sigma and used minolta glass because sony's lenses are too expensive for me. The problem is, a lot of people dont know about the lens issues with the d40 and then they end up having problems when they buy lenses that arent compatable. To each his own, but i'd just rather not have to worry about it.


----------



## ghpham (Feb 13, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> No, I'm not _just_ trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I *THINK*!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that *I* don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.


 
Are you saying the average consumer is stupid and don't know what they are buying into??


----------



## lifeafter2am (Feb 13, 2008)

ghpham said:


> Are you saying the average consumer is stupid and don't know what they are buying into??



Your not serious with this right?  The AVERAGE consumer has no clue what they are buying except what the sales person tells them.  The AVERAGE consumer does not do research, except maybe price research.


----------



## Mystwalker (Feb 13, 2008)

ghpham said:


> Are you saying the average consumer is stupid and don't know what they are buying into??


 
I would not use the word "stupid", but answering for myself when I was shopping ... errr, YES!

I think uninformed is more accurate.  NOOOB if you like.

I wanted a DSLR because shutter lag on P&S was frustrating.  I looked mainly at speed of photo, then I looked at MP - 10.1mp > 8mp type of deal.  Only went 30D because xti and d40x didn't feel right - like toys maybe?


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 13, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> yeah, it may be one of the cheapest, but when other camera makers have similarily priced cameras with less compatability issues, then you start to see how its not as practical. The d40 is a great camera if you dont plan on doing much more than using the kit lens, or a couple low end lenses. But i know, when i started out with my a100, the only lenses i've bought for it were sigma and used minolta glass because sony's lenses are too expensive for me. The problem is, a lot of people dont know about the lens issues with the d40 and then they end up having problems when they buy lenses that arent compatable. To each his own, but i'd just rather not have to worry about it.



First of all, anyone who buys some kind of expensive gadget without knowing what it does, deserves all the woes. There is simply no way to not know about the lens issue unless you avoid reading anything related to the D40 on purpose. It is mentioned everywhere.

As for the competition: by all means get a Canon, Sony, Pentax or Olympus.

For me it was this simple: 

a) i was on a really tight budget, wanting a dSLR
b) the D40 appeared
c) i held a D40; i held a Digital Rebel; i held a k100; i had only one choice

There is more to a camera than the specs.


----------



## MarcusM (Feb 13, 2008)

lifeafter2am said:


> Your not serious with this right?  The AVERAGE consumer has no clue what they are buying except what the sales person tells them.  The AVERAGE consumer does not do research, except maybe price research.



I fully agree with that. I think the average consumer mostly looks at MP and Zoom when buying their first camera...I have found researching my next camera to be one of the toughest purchasing decisions ever made. Tougher than buying a car! (But that could just be because I'm not really into cars - way more into photography - just give me a car that will get me from point a to b for several years w/no problems and I will be happy)

You have to do so much research to find out what you really will be happy with - MP do play a small factor, but then there's:
-will the body I want support lenses I'll be happy with?
-Will the body I want have ISO settings that will allow me to accomplish my goals?
-Do I want a full frame or will a smaller frame work?
-CMOS or CCD?
-Shutter speeds?
-FPS?
-Is the interface intuitive?

There are so many things to think about to be sure you're not stuck with a camera that you will have for years while wishing you would have bought a different one.

I think the average consumer has no clue what they're looking for when making their first "serious" camera purchase, unless they have really done some thorough research.


----------



## Jam_Man (Feb 13, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> No, I'm not _just_ trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I *THINK*!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that *I* don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.


 
You are entitled to your opinion but its rather arrogant to think your opinion is fact and people shouldnt be happy with what they have.

Well Ive got a D40 and am happy with it.

Its my first DSLR and Im a total noob and wanted to move into DSLR photography after enjoying taking pictures with compacts.

My camera with 18-55 kit lens cost me £270 whereas a D60 costs £450 and a D80 costs £499 (Body only!)

At the time I had no idea whether it was a fad or whether something I would really get passionate about so paying almost double would have been foolish.

Im more than happy with the D40 whilst I learn the basics and am certainly not defending it to make myself better.

Whilst I will upgrade at some point I do not regret in anyway not spending the extra £230 and will probably ebay the D40 and recoup most of the money I paid anyway, ebay shows they sell for £230 which is only £40 I paid for mine a year ago.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 13, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> Considering the distance and long exposure time, not the best shot to argue about sharp focus. Otherwise a great shot.


 
Definately. The cement floor 4 feet in front of the camera is nice and sharp... everything else is soft. The contention I make is that becuase of this viewfinder, the shooter could not tell what was tack sharp, and what was out of focus. The object that they wanted in focus (the building), ... was not and it was difficult to see via the viewfinder.

I'd put the blame on the viewfinder before the operator in this case... but then again, 90% of all viewfinders in most modern digital cameras are not very friendly when it comes to manual focusing.

As far as "illogical purchases", what seems illogical for one is logical for another. There is no one right answer for everyone and we all need to inform ourselves BEFORE we make our purchases. To not do so... is illogical.  :lmao:

The D40 is an excellent beginner dSLR with a broad range of lenses available for it... it is also a camera made for a lower end market and in that end, they did not include the motor to drive older lense focusing mechanisms as a concession. It is the responsability of potential purchasers to inform themselves and how it will affect them. For some it will be a deal breaker, but for most... it will make no difference at all. 

If you leave your choice in the hands of someone else... well its time to grow up and learn that not all sales people are interested in educating you about what is the best choice for you. That is the buyer's responsability for themselves. The seller's is to make or exceed quota, NOTHING else.

As far as the statement of old lenses being bad... thats a very broad statement. In some cases it is true but the vast majority of time if we compare known high quality prime lenses of the 60's and 70's to today's known high quality prime lenses... there are no real optical advantages to be found. Good glass will always be good glass.


----------



## ghpham (Feb 13, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I fully agree with that. I think the average consumer mostly looks at MP and Zoom when buying their first camera...I have found researching my next camera to be one of the toughest purchasing decisions ever made. Tougher than buying a car! (But that could just be because I'm not really into cars - way more into photography - just give me a car that will get me from point a to b for several years w/no problems and I will be happy)
> 
> You have to do so much research to find out what you really will be happy with - MP do play a small factor, but then there's:
> -will the body I want support lenses I'll be happy with?
> ...


 
All I can say is if you are willing to throw out $500+ for a camera and don't do research, then you cannot cry that you got ripped off.  Let's face it, the D40 is marketed toward the beginner who might or might not get serious into photography to wet their feet, nothing more, nothing less.  By far, it is one of the better selling camera's in the Nikon line.


----------



## BuZzZeRkEr (Feb 13, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> No, I'm not _just_ trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I *THINK*!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that *I* don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.


 

*"I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake."*

This quote has to make the idiots hall of fame.

I got a D40x package with 2 lenses....18-55mm kit and 55-200mm VR lense with body, case, and sd card for $850.00

I love this camera, you simply cannot get a better camera, and lens package for the price.  The quality of pictures, featues, ease of use is absolutely superior.  I have returned my original D40X because of a dead pixel issue and was refunded %100 percent of my money.  What did I do?  Bought the exact same D40X package.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 13, 2008)

BuZzZeRkEr said:


> *"I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake."*
> 
> This quote has to make the idiots hall of fame.


 
Not sure if it makes the "hall of fame" but it does prove that there is no one same answer for all people. :mrgreen:

It also shows that some people did not do their homework and now regret their purchase.  That to me is the biggest mistake you can make... period.


----------



## shorty6049 (Feb 13, 2008)

buy a mac


----------



## shorty6049 (Feb 13, 2008)

haha... well i guess that shut everyone up


----------



## usayit (Feb 13, 2008)

passerby said:


> There are always good and bad in buying second hand goods. But when we shed plenty of money so we can use the seconhand goods, than to me it is illogical move.



Define plenty of money.  There are some people in the world that think $100 is pocket change....  it is all relative.



> So people spend something like almost $1000 more, or more than $1000 for the camera that can utilizes the old lenses? I don't get it.



* Just because the lens is old does not necessarily mean that it can't produce wonderful photos
* Just because the lens is old does not mean that newer lenses are better.
* Just because the lens is old doesn't mean that one needs to replace it with a newer one

Some people are heavily invested in some really nice and expensive glass from yesteryears.  It makes no sense (financially or practically) to replace all of it with the newer glass.  

Some photographers on tight budgets are more than happy to buy an older lens (fast telephotos for example) used for a bargain price that normally couldn't fund the newer (and much more expensive) version.

Some photographers have develop a taste for how a certain older vintage lens renders an image.

Basically.. it means more choices.... thats what the extra $$$ buys yah.


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 13, 2008)

BuZzZeRkEr said:


> *"I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake."*
> 
> This quote has to make the idiots hall of fame.



I'd believe you if you didn't own one yourself. However, _everyone_ who counters me is a D40 owner, that screams to me that they need to prove themselves something, if it was actually true, then the D40 would have more protectors in the Nikon family, but no, ask any good 'ole Nikonian and they'll happily tell you to look for a D50. I mention that I think it's an assumption, and the fact that the only 4 people arguing with me actually own the camera we're talking about justifies the basis upon which I made that statement and you have henceforth, proved it.


----------



## elemental (Feb 13, 2008)

BuZzZeRkEr said:


> *"I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake."*
> 
> This quote has to make the idiots hall of fame.
> 
> ...





Isn't this the kind of statement that's getting us into trouble in the first place? 

You know, the kind that this whole argument of a thread started with?


----------



## patrickt (Feb 14, 2008)

I shoot with a Pentax. I enjoy taking pictures. I enjoy the process. A few months ago I saw a tourist with a Pentax DSLR. It was the first I'd seen and I was excited. I introduced myself and asked if he'd tried one of the new lenses with the focus motor built in. I got a blank look. He'd bought the camera with a kit lens and had been happily taking pictures on fully automatic ever since.

We sometimes forget that not everyone is like us and has our interests and might, just might, have totally different needs.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 14, 2008)

I don't know what the needs of others are, but if they are going to invest their money without researching their purchase, they deserved what they got and have nothing to complain about.


----------



## adolan20 (Feb 14, 2008)

Jeez is this still going on? Let's close it:
The D40 is a good camera BUT it will not autofocus with many lenses YET.  I bet Nikon will produce more AF-S lenses at a lower cost.  Manual focus is still possible, I did it on my D40x when I had it.  It is not marketed towards "pros" it is a low end consumer camera, most of these people may only use the kit lens and the 55-200 VR.  Others may like it so much they get more and use it for jobs and such.


----------



## passerby (Feb 15, 2008)

usayit said:


> Define plenty of money. There are some people in the world that think $100 is pocket change.... it is all relative.


 
In this days and age yes almost pretty much. Few years it was common to use "Thanks a million" for grateful expression. I think ten millions sound more fitting today.



> Some people are heavily invested in some really nice and expensive glass from yesteryears. It makes no sense (financially or practically) to replace all of it with the newer glass.


 
That is the logical buy, I would do the same move if I have old lenses from the old expired cameras.



> Some photographers on tight budgets are more than happy to buy an older lens (fast telephotos for example) used for a bargain price that normally couldn't fund the newer (and much more expensive) version.


 
This is what I meant illogical. The d40 is not really designed to work backward. The difference between d40 body and d80 body is over than $500 to $800 depending of the shops. Let alone the d200 or d300 for that matter. It does not make sense paying that so much differences in dollars to buy and utilize older lenses to save the dollars. 

I don't know other cameras but if I have to do professional works I am sure the d40 is capable to do it, it is very advanced technologically - just like many of todays dslrs.



> Some photographers have develop a taste for how a certain older vintage lens renders an image.
> 
> Basically.. it means more choices.... thats what the extra $$$ buys yah.


 
I think that applies to anything: House, cars, computers, phone etc etc. I have learned something from this:
Don't be dogmatic with technology, it is moving fast, and it will leave the emotionally wrecked enthusiast way behind.

Thanks ten millions or more for your replies guys, inflation is rampant. :mrgreen:


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 15, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I
> Gee, that's strange. My D80 will sync the flash at ANY shutter speed. It's called FP flash.



When the D80 syncs with anything above its 1/200th flash sync using FP, the output of the flash is (effectively) greatly reduced because of the the shutter speed. It is reduced (effectively) proportionally with the speed of the shutter.

If you were to fire a D80 and a D40 at 1/500th of a second with the same flash (with the D80 set to FP), the difference in the coverage range of that flash is astounding. I know, I have done it.

Only a specific fraction of the light is hitting the CCD using FP mode, so the flash guide number actually reduces dramatically as you raise the speed (as opposed to the true sync).

While this may not matter if you are shooting in a closed room or something close, it maters a whole bunch when you are shooting outdoors sports at night at maximum flash ranges (which is what I do a lot of). It also maters even more when you are shooting in bright daylight at a distance needing fill (say, for example when shooting a backlit subject at a medium range) and you want to use higher shutter speeds to give you the most flexibility to choose the best depth of field with your aperture settings. High natural sync speeds on flashes are a big help on daylight flash shooting, another thing I do all the time.

BTW this only applies to the D40 not the D40X which has a lower sync speed but cannot use FP, giving you the worst of both worlds.


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 16, 2008)

ghpham said:


> All I can say is if you are willing to throw out $500+ for a camera and don't do research, then you cannot cry that you got ripped off.  Let's face it, the D40 is marketed toward the beginner who might or might not get serious into photography to wet their feet, nothing more, nothing less.  By far, it is one of the better selling camera's in the Nikon line.


The average consumer does not research items they purchase.  An example is a friend of mine.  He purchased a Rebel XTi.  Why did he choose the XTi?  Because he wanted a camera that "takes nice pictures".  He bought the XTi because it was the most popular.

Why is it "the most popular"?  Reading this forum, you can see it is popular, but definitely not the "most" popular.  It is the most popular because to my friend, it has the most exposure to the consumer market.  You see it in magazines, you see it in every store from Walmart to Staples to Target.  You see it all over the internet at Amazon and on E-bay.  Search for "dSLR" and you would probably get the most hits for the Rebel XTi.

Does my friend know what he wants from a camera?  Yes, he wants a camera that "takes a nice picture."  He purchased his from an E-bay store for approximately $1000 because it came with several lenses, tripod, 2 camera cases, filters, etc.  He called the actual store before buying to talk to someone.  They talked him into an extra $500 because they told him that he needed a "digital lens" over the lens that came with the package.  Why a "digital lens"?  Because a "digital lens" works better, according to the store.  So, off to swipe the credit card for a $1500 camera because he wanted to take "nice pictures."

When asked about how the camera does, the response was, "It's great!  Everything is automatic, EVERYTHING!"

Indeed, the consumer does NOT do any research.  This guy I outlined above spent $1500 on a camera that could have been done with a $200-300 camera.  Research?  The most people do with researching is to look at reviews online, probably user reviews mostly at sites like Amazon or Walmart.  If someone were to look at the D40 over the XTi because of price, I'm sure they will see hundreds of user reviews stating that the D40 "takes great pictures" without understanding that those reviews are probably done with only a kit lens because the average consumer doesn't understand what a "kit lens" even is.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 16, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> I'd believe you if you didn't own one yourself. However, _everyone_ who counters me is a D40 owner, that screams to me that they need to prove themselves something, if it was actually true, then the D40 would have more protectors in the Nikon family, but no, ask any good 'ole Nikonian and they'll happily tell you to look for a D50. I mention that I think it's an assumption, and the fact that the only 4 people arguing with me actually own the camera we're talking about justifies the basis upon which I made that statement and you have henceforth, proved it.



I own a D80 with SB-600 and two N80s with an SB-28.  Eight lenses total (all Nikon glass).  Stroboframe flash bracket.  Half-dozen filters.  I do not own a D40.  I consider the D40 to be the best DSLR value on the market today.  I did not purchase it myself because the D80 has some features that are important to me.


----------



## DSLR noob (Feb 16, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I own a D80 with SB-600 and two N80s with an SB-28.  Eight lenses total (all Nikon glass).  Stroboframe flash bracket.  Half-dozen filters.  I do not own a D40.  I consider the D40 to be the best DSLR value on the market today.  I did not purchase it myself because the D80 has some features that are important to me.



there, that's all I needed. I hate the D40 sliiiiiiigthly less. I don't agree with that statement, but I find it easier to believe. (I hope my logic in this sense is understandable)


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 17, 2008)

I purchased a D40 because for me it was better than every other camera at the price range.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 17, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> When the D80 syncs with anything above its 1/200th flash sync using FP, the output of the flash is (effectively) greatly reduced because of the the shutter speed. It is reduced (effectively) proportionally with the speed of the shutter.



Is the flash output "greatly" reduced or is it "proportionately" reduced?


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 18, 2008)

Actually I will never prefer D40/D40x because of its limitations on lens, small viewfinder and small size. But I have adviced it to my friends which were to buy SLR-like cameras. It's price is likely the same by like cameras and I think D40/40x is better than any DSLR-like camera (as my opinion). The D40 users which I know use only one lens and find it enough so I think it is OK for them. But as I mentioned at the beginning, I don't like and think will never buy a D40/40x for myself but will respect to the D40 users choices.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Is the flash output "greatly" reduced or is it "proportionately" reduced?



Instead of looking at the generalities, let's look at specifics.

What the FP does, basically, is that it fires a bunch of "short", low powered high duration flashes instead of one big hard "long" flash. Not only is the total amount of energy used by each flash much smaller, it is also "undocumented" by Nikon, so we don't know what an SB-800's actual guide number is when shot at 200 ISO at 1/2000th of a second.

However, to make this system work, it has to provide nearly the same amount of light for all of the flashes in the series. It must use the same ISO.

Therefore, each of these flashes MUST have greatly reduced power limiting the range... the higher the shutter speed, the less flashes, the less range.

I have found in using my D80 that the range of an SB-600 at 1/500th of a second has about one third of the range that it has at 1/200th of a second (full flash). With the D40, it has full-range at 1/500th.

So, if I can properly illuminate something at 100 feet with the SB-600 at 1/200th, I can only illuminate it properly at about 40 feet in FP mode.

I don't know if that qualifies as "proportionally" but to me it makes the mode of very limited use, since I shoot a LOT of stuff in the 80-100 foot range.

If you shoot up close on targets that are not moving, it really doesn't matter that much. If you shoot longer distances, it is the difference between being usable and not.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 18, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Instead of looking at the generalities, let's look at specifics.



I know EXACTLY how it works.  I've personally designed similar systems and the correct word is "proportionally."  However. there are very few photographers that "need" flash distances of eighty feet.  FP mode might be "limited" with your usage but it's entirely satisfactory with the vast majority of photographers.

By the way, I never claimed that FP is equal to "regular" sync at high shutter speeds.  I merely stated that it exists.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I know EXACTLY how it works.  I've personally designed similar systems and the correct word is "proportionally."



I wish you would have just said that, would have saved me a bunch of typing. I have no idea your expertise level is, and am not psychic.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 18, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> I wish you would have just said that, would have saved me a bunch of typing. I have no idea your expertise level is, and am not psychic.



I was challenging your semantics.

By the way, the "one big flash" is NOT "long" and that's the problem.  It's too darned short!  In fact, one millisecond (1/1000 second) is a lengthy electronic flash.  Back in the days of bulbs, there was an FP bulb.  Bulb fires, then shutter opens, then shutter closes, then bulb firing finishes perhaps 1/60 second later!  That's "long."


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I was challenging your semantics.
> 
> By the way, the "one big flash" is NOT "long" and that's the problem.  It's too darned short!  In fact, one millisecond (1/1000 second) is a lengthy electronic flash.  Back in the days of bulbs, there was an FP bulb.  Bulb fires, then shutter opens, then shutter closes, then bulb firing finishes perhaps 1/60 second later!  That's "long."



That's why the "long" was in quotes... "long" in flash terms is really not very long, obviously. I was saying quote-unquote long.

As far as challenging the semantics with a question... I read that as if you were asking me a question. I have a very literal mind, which can be good at times and bad at times.

Someone with a literal mind reads: "Is the flash output "greatly" reduced or is it "proportionately" reduced?" as an either/or question to be answered, and I tried to answer it as best I could realizing that this is the beginners forum where everybody isn't an engineer, including myself.

I don't know the formulas, and I don't know the numbers. I am not a flash guru, nor do I pretend to play one on the internet. All I do know is that using FP gives you about a third of the amount of light at 1/500th than it does at 1/200th because when I take pictures, that is what it looks like.

I will gladly leave the engineering to others, shut up, and go do some post processing on my pictures from yesterday.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 18, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> All I do know is that using FP gives you about a third of the amount of light at 1/500th than it does at 1/200th because when I take pictures, that is what it looks like.



That's about right.

As you've stated, it's insufficient for your purposes but I believe that it should be satisfactory for most users.  Going a bit further, I doubt if most users really need such a high speed sync but, if they do, a true 1/500 sync is unquestionably better than an FP sync.  For me, the primary value to FP is fill flash in daylight and, for that, just about any light at all is "good enough."  (How's that for getting away from the engineering tech-speak?)

BTW, I do very little, if any, post-processing but that's because my mentality is still film.  Just can't shake it.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> BTW, I do very little, if any, post-processing but that's because my mentality is still film.  Just can't shake it.



I do very little as well... tonight is RAW conversion night at my house, no way to really get around that moving from RAW to sending photos off to Mpix.com for printing.


----------



## skyvue2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Umm...Hi DSLR noob....I have a D40 and love it. Am I allowed to love my camera? IS that OK with you? Or should I just throw it in the trash and commit suicide? 

But that's OK..I am a total noob and don't know any better.....

....ahh, ignorance is bliss!


----------



## shorty6049 (Mar 8, 2008)

SHHHH!


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 8, 2008)

fightheheathens said:


> So i can buy a used 50mm lens on ebay that has the exact same optics as their newest 50mm lens. and honestly, in some cases, the older lenses have better build quality.


Amen to that. Seriously, I heve never owned such a nice piece of precision equipment as this 50mm Asahi from 1975:





I started a different topic on this already, but no modern lenses can touch the build quality. And the optics are perfect, even for being 33 years old.


----------



## eminart (Mar 9, 2008)

Wow, the D40 continues to stir up controversy.  

How about if a D40 does everthing you need, buy one.  If it doesn't, don't and don't worry about those that do?  

I'm a complete newb who opted for a D80. But I've seen a lot of shots from D40's that are well beyond my capabilites at the moment. So I'm not bashing them.


----------

