The D40x has no focus motor inside the camera body, so it severly limits your 3rd party lens selection and your Nikor lens selection too. Otherwise, they're essentially the same camera. 10MP, 3 frames per second.

So if you want a 50mm f/1.8, Go Canon....You won't be able to use the Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens on your D40x b/c of the focus motor issue.


[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:13 AM. Reason : ]

12/11/2007 12:07:01 AM

Do you know if the lack of an internal focus motor affects this lens? http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18200_diII.asp

12/11/2007 12:57:30 AM

Tamron's "di II" lenses will work on the d40/d40x

12/11/2007 1:36:04 AM

My bf got me two new lenses - one for birthday, and one for Christmas.

I had a quickie with the macro just a few minutes ago

12/18/2007 3:44:32 PM

12/19/2007 9:19:44 PM

god i need a real camera

what's a decent setup cost nowadays? (nice pro/semi-pro camera, good zoom, good flash, good macro, good all-around, etc.)

12/19/2007 9:21:26 PM

I want to get into photography, too bad it's so damn expensive.

12/19/2007 10:51:15 PM

^^ Newegg had the Digital Rebel XTi with a 18-55mm kit lens + 1GB CF card for about $580 a couple of weeks ago. That is a lot of camera for that price.

12/19/2007 11:35:30 PM

well I know that I am not getting a flash for Christmas so I am going to buy one today. Just about the only other thing I want for a while. Really want it NOW before I take holiday pictures anyway.........

12/20/2007 7:23:38 AM

gosh i love my D80

[Edited on December 20, 2007 at 7:37 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2007 7:36:52 AM

Hey guys, I'm trying to buy a lens for my XT. Does anyone know of the best place to get it online? I usually shop from http://www.17photo.com, and sofar have been unable to beat their prices (not including ebay, dont want to buy there). Anyone know of anything better than that? I am still up in the air between a zoom and a macro though....

For example: Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 USM III -58mm- USA is $180

and the other one I like

Canon EF 50mm F2.5 Compact Macro SLR Lens -52mm is $240

Are these good prices??? Thanks!


Edit: the XTi kit is $614 on there... is that a good price?

[Edited on December 28, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/28/2007 3:33:36 PM

I just got a D40x for Christmas...havent figured out all the bells and whistles yet, but so far, it seems like an awesome camera.

12/28/2007 3:57:12 PM

i would get a zoom before i would a macro depending on what type of photography you like. the zoom you listed would be a good walk around lens.

17photo has some great prices by the way.

12/28/2007 3:58:50 PM

I adore macro, and I've used my zoom lens more (both back home, and here in Chicago) than my macro lens. Duh

12/28/2007 4:32:53 PM

XTi as xmas present. waiting on 50mm f1.8 lens to come in the mail...

someone recommend me a good (not too expensive) zoom lens --


http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=6473A003-

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/416564-REG/Tamron_AF015C700_55_200mm_f_4_5_6_Di_II_LD.html

help please

12/28/2007 5:21:56 PM

I'm trying to talk my wife into a dslr before we have a baby in july (therefore, last chance to buy a gadget for a while). The research I've done points me in the direction of the nikon D40 - I cut my teeth on a 70's era nikon FM body, not that that really has anything to do with anything - and go with the 18-55 VR lens when it's available or step up to the d40x but with the non-VR lens.

My question is this: all the 35mm photography I ever did was with manual primes. There's no portrait (or wide) prime with an af motor available (at least afaict for my foreseeable budget). Will I miss having a (sharper, faster) prime given the performance of the kit lens?

12/28/2007 5:50:06 PM

Kit lenses aren't very good. If you're looking for great fast shots, you'd probably want to buy the body and a nice walk-around zoom lens. Considering that the kit lenses are usually softer than higher quality lenses, if you want sharp pictures at low stops, you'll want that more expensive lens.

Just don't go out buying a kit-quality lens separate from the kit like I did. Primes still provide the best quality, however are usually reserved for the high-quality glass and can be prohibitively expensive. The exception being the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, which I've heard is good quality for the price.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ has helpful reviews of most lenses, of course most highly reviewed lenses are L lenses for Canon, putting the price out of range for most college students.

12/28/2007 6:55:56 PM

Bleh.

Found a 4GB for decent sale, thought my d50 would support it, had my mom do some googling to make sure, and she said yeah. So I bought it.

I get it formatted externally on my bf's computer (FAT32), put it in, and CHA error. Everything I'm finding online says that as long as the card is formatted externally, the camera can write to it.

...

12/29/2007 1:59:34 AM

did you do a full format or just the 'quick'

sounds stupid, makes a huge difference.

There's also a program from HP that does low-level formatting to FAT16 or FAT32 that's made specifically for USB devices... i'll see if I can locate it. You have to use it to install some copies of linux to USB disks.

12/29/2007 2:03:08 AM

Full.

12/29/2007 2:03:45 AM

If I'm not mistaken, 4GB cards have to be FAT32 to access the full size... can't the camera just format the card itself?

12/29/2007 2:13:27 AM

Quote :

"can't the camera just format the card itself?"

Uh...


Do a quick google of 'D50 4GB' and then take the steps necessary to save yourself some embarassament

12/29/2007 2:19:22 AM

oh... it's one of those SD vs. SDHC card things. Forgot that some cameras still use SD over CF

12/29/2007 2:24:44 AM

i got the flash and a new monitor last week..................................my god what an improvement in indoor shots!! All I have taken are family pics which I don't want to put on T-dub. Just what I needed to get to another level in photography.

12/29/2007 9:19:44 AM

Direct flash is your enemy.


Remember that.

12/29/2007 12:35:38 PM

Okay, I'm going to buy a zoom lens this afternoon.

Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 USM III -58mm $190
or
Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 III -58mm $160

Only difference is USM, and I have done a little research on it and know what it is, but is there any huge advantage of that over the one without? BASICALLY, is it worth $30 to get USM???

Thanks!

12/29/2007 2:30:06 PM

reindeer!

12/29/2007 5:03:05 PM

fuzzy wuzzy was a deer
fuzzy wuzzy needs more beer

12/29/2007 5:05:31 PM

I got a Canon 75-300mm 4-5.6 III USM lens for christmas from my parents. It does not have IS, and I took some pics at the game today. Obviously a lens with IS is superior, especially for handheld, quick movement shots. Here is a pic I took at the game:




Now my question is, how much would the lens with IS help? If it would only slightly improve performance, than it's not worth the $350+ difference in the two lenses. But if the difference I'd see is monumental, then I'm considering upgrading (but its $texas for me). Thanks for your suggestions.

12/29/2007 6:10:21 PM

IS will help a little, but you're not dealing with camera shake I think. Your main problem is the lens being too slow. IS does not compensate for that. I'd suggest buying a faster lens (either constant f/4 or f/2.8) with less zoom. Shooting at 5.6 sucks if you're not in the sun.

Quote :

"Okay, I'm going to buy a zoom lens this afternoon. Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 USM III -58mm $190 or Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 III -58mm $160 Only difference is USM, and I have done a little research on it and know what it is, but is there any huge advantage of that over the one without? BASICALLY, is it worth $30 to get USM??? Thanks!"

Neither. I'd save my money and buy something better, possibly even a decent prime. Lenses with a lot of zoom like that tend to be lower quality, slower, and less sharp. If you have your heart set on one of these, I'd definitely go with the USM. Faster and more accurate focusing will be a plus, no doubt. I'd look into some tamron or sigma lenses if you're on a budget. But remember, your camera body means nothing without quality glass on it. Instead of buying mediocre lenses now and regretting it in the future (which you will if you stick with photography), I'd save and only buy once. I know some third party companies have some pretty good alternatives. Either way, I strongly suggest you buy a faster lens, even if it means sacrificing some of the zoom or some more money.


[Edited on December 29, 2007 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2007 7:00:55 PM

so ronny you'd recommend the 70-200 F4 L over the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS

these are the two I'm looking at very very hard and cannot decide. I've played around a little with the 70-300 and it seems like an ok lens, and I think I'd like the extra 100, but the more I read the more people say to go with the L glass. with them both being in the same price range it makes the decision harder. I do like the fact that the 70-200L doesn't extend when zooming.

I'm shooting right now with a 17-85 with IS and enjoy it but need something with greater reach, and I can't quite afford to drop the money for the 70-200L 2.8 or the IS L glass.

I'm also looking at the 50 f1.4 as well. I will have at least the telephoto before the alaska trip this fall.

12/29/2007 9:11:35 PM

[Edited on December 29, 2007 at 9:40 PM. Reason : n/m misread the post]

12/29/2007 9:38:02 PM

Listen to Ronny, he knows what he's talking about. I second everything he said.

12/30/2007 4:26:09 AM

Quote :

"so ronny you'd recommend the 70-200 F4 L over the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS"

Yeah, I'd say the faster lens is a better bet, no doubt. The f/4 70-200's look funny though, like toys or something.

12/30/2007 10:48:53 AM

yeah and they do stand out a little more. I'm still up in the air... maybe i'll rent both for a few days and see which one i like better

12/30/2007 11:30:48 AM

aight Ronny/others... here is the lens I got for Christmas:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169269-USA/Canon_6472A002_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_USM.html

can u link me to something that's not $texas more than that lens, but is a decent zoom and would be better? I just dont have an extra $600 to add for a nicer lens, although that would be great. thanks for the help

12/31/2007 1:00:08 AM

The 70-200 f/4 is a fantastic lens when I had it. Fairly light for an L lens and it gave crisp and sharp pictures. I would still have it if I didn't upgrade to the f/2.8 IS version and that's a heavy lens. I plan on getting the 300 f/2.8 IS and a new body in the next few months so I gotta start saving up. Shits expensive.

12/31/2007 5:51:22 AM

i guess i'll just keep what i have until i have $$$ to upgrade it. ^ that lens is ~$700, and with IS it is more like ~$1200+


the lens i got cost like ~$200

12/31/2007 7:48:41 AM

Quote :

"XTi as xmas present"

me too and i love mine. it takes great pictures. i need to shoot some of me and update my photogallery

1/4/2008 8:51:31 AM

51 bottles of beer on the wall
51 bottles of beer

take one down, pass it around,

[Edited on January 4, 2008 at 9:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/4/2008 9:18:26 AM

i've got some nice pictures on my new D40 that i just downloaded. i have so many pictures that need to be put on flickr, uhhhhhh...i just hate sitting at my PC when get home after sitting at a PC all day.

im really starting to like this camera. i just wish i could find a way to lock down the info screen no setting window on the top of the camera kinda annoys me but im still getting used to it and im sure it will be a non-issue soon.

1/4/2008 9:23:38 AM

Don't you use the filckr uploadr?

1/4/2008 9:26:53 AM

yeah, and thats a really nice feature. i guess i forgot to mention how much time i spend post processing and editing.

i wish i could get away with doing some of it here in the office

1/4/2008 9:35:27 AM

how much does flickr cost? is it free? what are some good places to upload photos for free. i really dont want to pay and tww isnt really a good place to keep them

1/4/2008 9:36:59 AM

^ then you can tell I'm a noob, I just filter out the what's blurry or extra.

1/4/2008 9:37:58 AM

well...flickr is either or. free or not. i pay for the service so i can upload as many as i want but i cant remember what i paid. it wasnt that much though

google has a good free service so i hear. and yeah...dont use TWW to upload photos that you want to share. TWW will kill the quality of your photos

1/4/2008 9:38:38 AM

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 2:33 AM. Reason : l]

1/5/2008 2:27:51 AM

I like the 2nd one.

IIRC, it's $25 for a year's pro membership.

1/5/2008 2:29:58 AM

I just picked up the sigma 30mm 1.4 for nikon.
Gotta say it's pretty baller. I love working with this Fov, it's much cozier than my 50mm, and for night shots its much easier to frame. It kinda blows that it's difficulte to release a true 50mm 35 prime lens for digital. It would equate to a 33.3333mm lens in DX format. correct?

1/5/2008 2:53:51 AM

These two seemed to go together well.

[Edited on January 7, 2008 at 3:49 AM. Reason : l]

1/7/2008 3:48:40 AM