Show me your camera gear!!!!
#901
Yeah, it's not a big enough jump to warrant the outlay at that point.
Probably the best cost/performance value in Nikon right now, aside from the D700, is the D5000 -- same sensor as D90 and D300, very close to to D90 in specs, reasonably priced, and has the flip LCD which can be useful in some situations.
A bit higher up the ladder, I would expect the D300 to start dropping in price soon as the D300s starts hitting the shelves. Don't know if they'll blow it out like the Best Buy D200's a few months back, but you never know. That was a hell of a deal -- at one point they were under $500, for a $1600 camera only a year or so back.
Probably the best cost/performance value in Nikon right now, aside from the D700, is the D5000 -- same sensor as D90 and D300, very close to to D90 in specs, reasonably priced, and has the flip LCD which can be useful in some situations.
A bit higher up the ladder, I would expect the D300 to start dropping in price soon as the D300s starts hitting the shelves. Don't know if they'll blow it out like the Best Buy D200's a few months back, but you never know. That was a hell of a deal -- at one point they were under $500, for a $1600 camera only a year or so back.
#902
Also, sorry for all these different posts, I can't multiquote on the iPhone.
#903
Depends on how many actuations are on the camera.
Last edited by Neebs; 08-13-2009 at 04:42 PM.
#905
Well haha, just go check out my flickr and look at the 'more properties', about 8/10 of my shots are way faster than 1/250. Even some are f/11 1/800. Also a lot of times I shoot mid day and I have to kill a lot of ambient, so it really does make that big of a difference.
Thing is though, go take a look at some of the pros who are shooting the kind of stuff you want to get into, like Zack Arias, and ask yourself how are they getting their results without ever getting close to the speeds you're using. In Zack's case, he's only ever that high usually shooting natural light, and all his lit stuff is 1/250 and under b/c he shoots a D3 and 5D2. And in a lot of cases, he's down as low as 1/30 or slower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything -- there's no right or wrong; you use what ya got to get the job done, it's just that you're not going to be in a D40 always, and for certain there's a lot of benefit to eventually move up at some point, so maybe it's wise to also consider other ways of managing the light to get the same results under the same conditions w/o the super-high shutter speeds. It's just something to think about and experiment with.
I also think that glass > body.
The only other lense I want is the 50 1.4, and that will af with my d40.
A lot of people say the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM is excellent too, maybe even better, and it's HSM so your D40 will have no problems with af. Just another option to check out.
#906
I remember reading once a bit back that a good part of the design ideal behind those bodies (D40, D60, etc) is to tailor them for women. The idea being women tend to take the most pics in a typical household (kids etc.), and they don't want the bulk/weight, but do want the image capability. That's a very Japanese way of thinking about product design, and you see it in other items as well all the time over there.
#907
Looks like you answered yourself just fine there then. If you've got the capability in the body might as well use it, nothing wrong with that at all.
Thing is though, go take a look at some of the pros who are shooting the kind of stuff you want to get into, like Zack Arias, and ask yourself how are they getting their results without ever getting close to the speeds you're using. In Zack's case, he's only ever that high usually shooting natural light, and all his lit stuff is 1/250 and under b/c he shoots a D3 and 5D2. And in a lot of cases, he's down as low as 1/30 or slower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything -- there's no right or wrong; you use what ya got to get the job done, it's just that you're not going to be in a D40 always, and for certain there's a lot of benefit to eventually move up at some point, so maybe it's wise to also consider other ways of managing the light to get the same results under the same conditions w/o the super-high shutter speeds. It's just something to think about and experiment with.
Oh, don't even get me started on that myth, we'll leave that for another day.
Yup, that's a good one -- on a crop camera it's a nice focal length for portraits and such. I've heard there's some problems w/ CA on it that some people have issues with, but probably depends on your useage. YMMV
A lot of people say the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM is excellent too, maybe even better, and it's HSM so your D40 will have no problems with af. Just another option to check out.
Thing is though, go take a look at some of the pros who are shooting the kind of stuff you want to get into, like Zack Arias, and ask yourself how are they getting their results without ever getting close to the speeds you're using. In Zack's case, he's only ever that high usually shooting natural light, and all his lit stuff is 1/250 and under b/c he shoots a D3 and 5D2. And in a lot of cases, he's down as low as 1/30 or slower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything -- there's no right or wrong; you use what ya got to get the job done, it's just that you're not going to be in a D40 always, and for certain there's a lot of benefit to eventually move up at some point, so maybe it's wise to also consider other ways of managing the light to get the same results under the same conditions w/o the super-high shutter speeds. It's just something to think about and experiment with.
Oh, don't even get me started on that myth, we'll leave that for another day.
Yup, that's a good one -- on a crop camera it's a nice focal length for portraits and such. I've heard there's some problems w/ CA on it that some people have issues with, but probably depends on your useage. YMMV
A lot of people say the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM is excellent too, maybe even better, and it's HSM so your D40 will have no problems with af. Just another option to check out.
And yes, I know you're not trying to "start anything" or something haha, no worries :hugs:
Well the story is, I was actually going to get a Canon Rebel XT/XS, but I decided late, and my mom already had purchased the D40 (graduation present)
I'll definitely check out the Sigma 50 1.4, and it will definitely be a while before I purchase it haha.
Nah, they didn't fail, they just kept to the status quo of keeping their two bottom end bodies minus the af motor. I'm sure part of that is to get you to pony up for at least a D90 if you really need/want that capability, but probably also to do with the fact they want to keep those bodies very small and you can't easily do that with the af motor needing extra space.
I remember reading once a bit back that a good part of the design ideal behind those bodies (D40, D60, etc) is to tailor them for women. The idea being women tend to take the most pics in a typical household (kids etc.), and they don't want the bulk/weight, but do want the image capability. That's a very Japanese way of thinking about product design, and you see it in other items as well all the time over there.
I remember reading once a bit back that a good part of the design ideal behind those bodies (D40, D60, etc) is to tailor them for women. The idea being women tend to take the most pics in a typical household (kids etc.), and they don't want the bulk/weight, but do want the image capability. That's a very Japanese way of thinking about product design, and you see it in other items as well all the time over there.
Hahaha jk.
But yes, I guess it makes sense, but I still wish the D5000 would have had the AF motor.
#910
You know one of those days where you just want to take pictures of something but youve already taken pictures of every thing in your house? This was all I came up with out of my boredom...
My dog was all pissed off cause I was in her face with the camera
This one I took out last night came out OK minus the shadow I couldnt get rid of.
Shot all of them in auto mode again. I tried that aperture priority thing Kyle suggested but didnt really see a difference in the pictures.
My dog was all pissed off cause I was in her face with the camera
This one I took out last night came out OK minus the shadow I couldnt get rid of.
Shot all of them in auto mode again. I tried that aperture priority thing Kyle suggested but didnt really see a difference in the pictures.
#911
Zoom in all the way (to 55mm)
then put it in aperture priority, and put the aperture at 5.6 (lowest it will go)
Then get real close to stuff and take pictures, you will have a really shallow depth of field. DON'T use the flash either!
You might need a tripod unless you're outside (for low light purposes)
#917
What do you think of these? I think they came out decent, it was night time by the time I got home so I couldnt get any outdoor pics.
All shot at 70mm f/4.5
A tiny bit blurry...
All shot at 70mm f/4.5
A tiny bit blurry...
Last edited by qbmurderer13; 08-15-2009 at 10:59 PM.
#918
I'd keep your ISO around 100-200. You have it at 1600 for those pictures and it tend to put a lot of noise in them thus making them not smooth.
The max for ISO before any grain shows is 800.
The max for ISO before any grain shows is 800.
Last edited by Neebs; 08-15-2009 at 11:03 PM.
#919
That was 70mm, 1/250@f2.8, 640iso.
Last edited by Chikubi; 08-16-2009 at 12:15 AM.
#920
Thanks for all the tips. Do you recommend I lower the ISO? I need to do some reading and figure out at what times would I change the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, etc. A tripod is the next purchase on my list. still trying to learn all these settings. Its overwhelming