# Is a Nikon D40 capable...



## laylooo (Feb 13, 2008)

of taking pictures such as the ones taken by Rachel Fellig on this thread?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111612

I just received the D40 as a birthday present (so I'm a complete beginner), and I'm really wanting to take pictures like those!


----------



## XtremeElemenT (Feb 13, 2008)

as a d40 owner myself, i can say that the d40 is capable of taking photos like that.


----------



## jols (Feb 13, 2008)

i would agree.

its getting the location right and the light.

im am going to ask her some questions in a thread watch out for it


----------



## laylooo (Feb 13, 2008)

that's good to hear!
I've been taking pictures of things in my room and it didn't come out so great, maybe I will have better luck taking pictures outdoors.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 13, 2008)

No camera will make you into a good photographer. Crap photos are crap, good photos are good, regardless of the tool used.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 13, 2008)

laylooo said:


> of taking pictures such as the ones taken by Rachel Fellig on this thread?
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111612
> 
> I just received the D40 as a birthday present (so I'm a complete beginner), and I'm really wanting to take pictures like those!


 
Absolutely yes but you will need the correct lens.  Note the "selective focus" in many of the shots.  Subject crystal clear but background blurred.  To do that, you need a lens that opens up fairly wide.  Generally, this will not be a zoom lens.  (You "zoom" by moving closer to or further frum the subject.)  As a wild guess, I'm thinking that the lens was a 50 mm f/1.4 (US$350).  You could probably do almost the same thing with the amateur version, the 50 mm f/1.8 (US$90).

Be forewarned that neither of these lenses will focus automatically on your camera.  You need to rotate the ring yourself until the subject appears clear.  The camera has an indicator that will confirm that the focus is correct.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 13, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Absolutely yes but you will need the correct lens.  Note the "selective focus" in many of the shots.  Subject crystal clear but background blurred.  To do that, you need a lens that opens up fairly wide.  Generally, this will not be a zoom lens.  (You "zoom" by moving closer to or further frum the subject.)  As a wild guess, I'm thinking that the lens was a 50 mm f/1.4 (US$350).  You could probably do almost the same thing with the amateur version, the 50 mm f/1.8 (US$90).
> 
> Be forewarned that neither of these lenses will focus automatically on your camera.  You need to rotate the ring yourself until the subject appears clear.  The camera has an indicator that will confirm that the focus is correct.


A telephoto lens will give similar results as well at (often) more reasonable distances.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 13, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> A telephoto lens will give similar results as well at (often) more reasonable distances.


 
Depending on what you mean by "reasonable," I pretty much agree. In my case, I have a 50mm f/1.4 lens for indoor portaits at roughly 8 feet and an 85mm f/1.8 for outdoor portraits at roughly twelve feet or so. (I never actually measured.)  I wouldn't choose a zoom because the max aperture isn't sufficiently large.

Of course, in the digital age, I also have to mention that my camera has a DX-sized sensor (18X24).


----------



## Socrates (Feb 13, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> No camera will make you into a good photographer. Crap photos are crap, good photos are good, regardless of the tool used.


 
I agree with your first sentence but not with the second.  The quality of a photo is limited by both the ability of the photographer AND the capabilities of the tool.

Ask Ansel Adams to take a picture of a black cat on a coal pile at midnight.  Give him a camera with no flash, one shutter speed (1/125), one aperture (f/22) and ASA/ISO 25.  Of course, he's dead so it really doesn't matter but, hopefully, you see my point.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 13, 2008)

Those pictures don't look like f/1.4 pictures - they more like f/3.5 to f/4 pictures.

What lens did you get? You can probably achieve the same depth of field with your lens, or near enough.

A decent photo editing program would be useful, in addition to the camera. What do you have, if anything, at the moment?

Good luck,
Helen


----------



## laylooo (Feb 13, 2008)

on the lens, it says 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 GII ED....
completely clueless to what those numbers mean


----------



## elemental (Feb 13, 2008)

laylooo said:


> on the lens, it says 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 GII ED....
> completely clueless to what those numbers mean



18-55mm is the range of focal lengths. When you rotate the lens to zoom in or out, this is the range it moves over. 18mm is the "zoomed out" end, which is a fairly wide angle shot (meaning if you were to draw lines extending on the edge of your field of view, they would meet at a fairly wide angle- think of this as "zoomed out"). 55mm is the "zoomed in" end, which is fairly close to what we perceive as "normal." Different lenses offer different focal lengths. A 50-200mm, for example, starts at about the zoomed in end of your lens and zooms in even further. This is the great part of digital SLRs- there's a lens for everything.

1:3.5-5.6 is the aperture range. This determines how wide the lens opens, meaning how much light it lets in. The lower the number, the larger the aperture an the more light gets in, meaning shorter shutter times. The reason smaller numbers correspond to larger opening is that the number is actually a ratio- in this case, f/3.5 means the aperture opening is 1/3.5 the size of the focal length (obviously larger than 1/5.6 or 1/22). The reason this is a range is it will go to f/3.5 at the 18mm end, but as you zoom in, the minimum gets higher, up to f/5.6. You can always set higher than this (smaller opening) at any focal length.

This is probably very confusing now, but I can't think of a better way to explain. If I am wrong about anything, I am sure someone will correct me (I got my first DSLR less than a year ago, so I'm pretty new as well). The implications of aperture are significantly more subtle than focal length, and will take a lot more explaining and experimenting, but that's the general idea.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 13, 2008)

You will not be able to get exactly the same depth of field and angle of view that you see in Rachel's pictures. You can get the same angle of view, but at a smaller aperture.

The aperture is the 1:3.5-5.6 number -  1:3.5 (also written as f/3.5) and 1:5.6 (also written as f/5.6) are apertures. 1/3.5 is larger than 1/5.6, of course. These are the maximum apertures the lens is capable of.

The aperture being the size of the 'hole' in the lens that the light gets through. The smaller the aperture the more is in focus.

Your lens is an f/3.5 lens at 18 mm focal length (the wide end of  the zoom) and an f/5.6 lens at 55 mm (the narrow, or tele, end of the zoom).

The best way to understand this is to go out and take some pictures. Look at how the depth of field changes as you change the aperture and the focal length (zoom) of the lens.

If you wanted shallower depth of field (less in focus, subject more isolated) then you might look into getting the 50 mm f/1.8 lens, or the 18-70 AF-S zoom. The 50 would give you shallower DoF than you see in Rachels' pictures but you would have to use manual focus with focus assist. The 18-70 is a good all-round lens that I often use on my D40x. It would give you about the same DoF and angle of view you see in the pictures you link to. Lenses can always be 'stopped down' to give more depth of field than they give at their maximum aperture.

As already explained, Rachel's pictures are not just about the lens and the camera. Lighting, exposure, composition, relationship with the subject and post-processing all come into it.

Best,
Helen


----------



## laylooo (Feb 13, 2008)

oo okay that explains a lot, thanks!


----------



## adolan20 (Feb 13, 2008)

I think any DLSR with the right person behind them and good glass in front is capable of anything.


----------



## Sultan AlZaabi (Feb 13, 2008)

What Nikon D40 can do check down here.. ^__^

-----








*click here to see the black&white photo*​

Nikon D40 | NIKKOR VR 105mm f2.8G IF-ED SWM
ISO 100 | f-stop 4 | length 105mm​ 
----

AbuDhabi Archive

*Emirates Palace Gate*

01
-----





-----
-----


-


02
-----





-----
-----

Nikon D40 | NIKKOR DX 12-24mm f4G IF-ED SWM


----------



## laylooo (Feb 13, 2008)

wow, but for those, it will definitely require a different lense than the one included in the kit right?


----------



## Jam_Man (Feb 13, 2008)

Ive got a D40 as well and been using it for about a year, a novice like yourself 

If you look onthe flickr site you can actually search for shots taken using the D40 by other people and its amazing what they get out of it.

Ive taken a lot of pictures and am getting better as I go along and learning all the time.

The way I look at it is its like one of these people who are learning to play the guitar and complain their guitar isnt any good. An experienced guitarist comes along and makes it sound fantastic showing just where the limitation is!

The D40 is clearly capable of good things its learning how to wield it and understanding lighting and composition etc.

The learning can be frustrating, but it can also be extremely rewarding at the same time!


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 13, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Ask Ansel Adams to take a picture of a black cat on a coal pile at midnight.  Give him a camera with no flash, one shutter speed (1/125), one aperture (f/22) and ASA/ISO 25.  Of course, he's dead so it really doesn't matter but, hopefully, you see my point.


no problem, I'm sure Ansel himself is smart enough to be able to set up a continuous light source scheme bright enough to shoot at that setting. All he'd have to do is backlight it and presto! Black cat! 


He wouldn't have used any sort of strobe or flash, he'd have enough or bright enough light sources to shoot at f/22 ISO 25. The camera didn't make the decision to use the lights, Adams did!


----------



## ghpham (Feb 13, 2008)

laylooo said:


> on the lens, it says 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 GII ED....
> completely clueless to what those numbers mean


 
I'd suggest you purchase the book "Understanding Exposure".  That will go a long way helping you achieve pictures like those...any decent DSLR is capable of making those shots, but you need a good eye for composition and a keen sense of using the lights.


----------



## nhsmitty (Feb 13, 2008)

I've had a D40x for a couple of months.  I'm a novice at photography and I've enjoyed my D40x.  

Read as much as you can about photography and shoot as many photos as you can, indoors and out.  Take not of the settings and numbers for pics you like and also the ones you don't like.  While I have the 55-200 lens I haven't even mounted it on the camera yet because I want to learn one lens at a time.

Don't let all the talk about which lenses won't work on the D40 get you down, just shoot with what you have for now and enjoy.

Main thing...  Read as much on photography in books and on the internet as you can.  And then read it again!!


----------



## f8lranger4x4 (Feb 13, 2008)

It's not the camera that makes the picture it's the photographer and their skills!


----------



## SamSt (Feb 13, 2008)

Someone look at the EXIF info so we can figure out what the aperture is!!


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 14, 2008)

Hello; As a beginner your 18-55 kit lens will be enough for you and as my opinion by that lens, at good light conditions you can shoot excellent photos. By time you will learn much more (if you are interested by photography of course) and then will need to make lens choices according your photograph purposes and you will have a lot of lens opportunities because of the great range of Nikon compatible Lenses (even by D40). So my advice is not to worry and begin to practice by your D40 which is capable to shoot any kind of photo .


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 14, 2008)

laylooo said:


> wow, but for those, it will definitely require a different lense than the one included in the kit right?


 
Not only a different lens, but there was a TON of post processing done to the landscape pics.

This points back to another thread where a newbie asked a similar question and someone posted some HDR pics.  Poor newbie user went out and bought the "suggested" camera thinking they would just go out and shoot HRD style pictures.

I am not a big fan of people that post super-processed pictures and say "see what my camera does", its so far from reality that it is TOTALLY unfair to the OP.  In these cases, the responder is more stroking their ego than helping someone.

To answer your questions, if you practiced enough, there is no reason you could not take pictures as good as the ones in your suggested thread (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111612).


----------



## adolan20 (Feb 14, 2008)

laylooo said:


> wow, but for those, it will definitely require a different lense than the one included in the kit right?



They have been enhanced a bit in photoshop so that's another way to get great photos.  But I'd rather start with a great photo and edit a little bit than a bad one and edit a lot.


----------



## passerby (Feb 14, 2008)

laylooo said:


> of taking pictures such as the ones taken by Rachel Fellig on this thread?
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111612
> 
> I just received the D40 as a birthday present (so I'm a complete beginner), and I'm really wanting to take pictures like those!


 
Most definetely yes. That includes my coolpix l10, nokia n73 and one of  an unknown brand I bought from ebay - and ofcourse my stolen sony cybershot. I have used them all for family portrait - for adult and children.

Children are very willing participants in photography, therefore by right it supposed to make life easier for those who are taking the shots.

When I just bought the L10 I took a shot of my sister with her husband sitting on the squeezy verandah. Than I turned around and shoot my other brother in law at the opposite corner. Than I gave my sisters the printed results and she said: Oh what camera did you use? it look so good.

Yet, when I took a shot of my friend at work he look like someone ready to strangle me. I will give him the print soon - for him to know himself what he does look like when he does not smile .

Shoot the children outdoors (no flash here), let them play, pure natural shoots and no editing. 

What you see is what you get, no more and no less


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 14, 2008)

Since nobody mentioned it yet, most pictures in that thread are at f/3.5 or higher. Only two of them are f/1.8 (girl dancing). Yes, your camera and lens can handle such shots easily, but it is up to _you _to create them.

As for the extremely post-processed ("photoshopped") pictures, i think they are confusing and not helping, especially a beginner. Posting the originals along with these would be way more helpful to show what you can do with digital photography in general.

Layloo, i suggest reading up on the technical basics of photography like exposure, ISO sensitivity, shutter speed, aperture and depth of field. It's no big deal, just spend 5 minutes to understand what these things are and you will see how many options your camera gives you - getting them right is tha hard part! I'd say any beginner's website will do to get you started (avoid lengthy analysis with formulas and such, you don't need that). You can even read up a bit on composition tips for making your photos more interesting.


 95% of the time Auto mode will give you good results, until you feel comfortable to take more creative control. Try to not use the flash unless there is no other option - you can experiment with it and see the difference. Experimenting is a good thing!


----------



## Helen B (Feb 14, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> Since nobody mentioned it yet, most pictures in that thread are at f/3.5 or higher. ...



Well, I did mention it in post #10. It's obvious just by looking at the pictures.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 14, 2008)

Yes it is. I should have been more clear, that was the exif data i posted.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 15, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Those pictures don't look like f/1.4 pictures - they more like f/3.5 to f/4 pictures.



We'll never know for sure but, at what appears to be roughly 10 foot distance, I disagree. Perhaps f/2 or f/2.8?  Obviously, we're both taking educated guesses AND we don't know the sensor size!


----------



## Sultan AlZaabi (Feb 15, 2008)

newbie << 

God there is somebody thinking of him self that he is the super star of photography.. man just keep it down

And all backs to the Photographer.. don't think you will get a magnificent shot result by own camera setting.. Even the profassionals photographers are processing their photos, yes it was HDR.. and the boy been processed, if you don't know how to process your photos just be silent please, and ask me to teach you how to process your photos : )

None nice or great lens with person whos talking.. just bla bla bla

Maybe two lenses are good - Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 - Nikkor AI-S 35mm F/1.4 - but the others are only for continue of his life.. none sharpping none colors.. 

To tell you something the body camera and the lens you are using is helping you to have the best results.. i swear to god that i'm using now D300 but it's not the same result colors and sharp of the Nikon D40, only to give you some attention, that i prefer Nikon D40 on the D200 you have and on D300 i have ^__^ but the problem i'm facing is the 6 mp..

Say by your self that what is the camera result that i can't get..

Don't think your self that you will shot your photo and leave it in your hard drive for 10 years and saying it's a camera result, i can't just show it for the people.. if all the profassional photographers will go on your way none of processing by lighting and photoshop , beleive me none of photographers will sale his products

Only something more my friend.. shot your photos and save it for your rest of your life.. it's will be batter for you to be happy of your camera result :mrgreen:...

Poor kid

Best regards : )


----------



## ghpham (Feb 15, 2008)

Socrates said:


> We'll never know for sure but, at what appears to be roughly 10 foot distance, I disagree. Perhaps f/2 or f/2.8? Obviously, we're both taking educated guesses AND we don't know the sensor size!


 
The exif indicated that the f-stop is at f/2 at least for the picture of the boy swinging around the post.  Just curious....How did you arrive at the 10 foot distance?  exif also indicated Nikon D50.  
I'm not sure knowing the f-stop will help.  Each shooting scenario will be different.


----------



## Sontizzle (Feb 15, 2008)

Sultan AlZaabi said:


> newbie <<
> 
> God there is somebody thinking of him self that he is the super star of photography.. man just keep it down
> 
> ...


dude no offense but you english sentence composition sucks. i have no idea what you just said.


----------



## CanadianMe (Feb 15, 2008)

Sontizzle said:


> dude no offense but you english sentence
> composition sucks. i have no idea what you just said.



I had no problems with it, he is Arabic and the website linked in his signature has some just stunningly awesome photos. Give him credit he tries, it is somewhat broken but take your time you may comprehend what it is he is saying.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 15, 2008)

CanadianMe said:


> he is Arabic. Give him credit he tries, it is somewhat broken but take your time you may comprehend what it is he is saying.


 
Definately! I had to slow down a touch, but I had no issues comprehending what they wanted to say. We have to take into consideration that this is an international board, and not everyone has English as a primary language.

If they spoke Arabic as well as he speaks English, that would be an interesting change in mindset for some, I am sure!


----------



## Tasmaster (Feb 15, 2008)

Sultan AlZaabi said:


> newbie <<
> 
> God there is somebody thinking of him self that he is the super star of photography.. man just keep it down
> 
> ...



Not sure if this was directed at me, but it doesn't really matter. This thread has nothing to do with post processing. Your pictures were very misleading (not deliberately i'd guess). I can sure make pictures taken with a D40 look as good as i want. There is probably an action or a plug in out there somewhere that turns even your 3/5 megapixel tiny sensor and lens cameraphone photos into masterpieces that National Geographic would beg you for, at least that's how they look at low resolution. The OP didn't ask for that, she asked what the _camera _can do, and what you posted was terribly misleading and not helpful at all for a beginner. I am guessing the tottaly unprovoked and childish ego trip isn't helping her much either, but there are other good posts here. Nice pics btw.


As for Socrates, look at the metadata man, it's all there!


----------



## Sultan AlZaabi (Feb 15, 2008)

Tasmaster, Thank you very much for understanding.. : ) you are not the one i meant..


----------

