Which digital camera do you have? - Page 5

BarryR · 03-30-2007, 09:39 PM

Nikon D40 (wonderful camera)
SB-440 flash
Sigma 10mm-20mm F4.5

I'm also keeping a Canon G2 around.

PeterK · 04-03-2007, 09:52 PM

What do you guy's think of your D40 cameras?
i'm debating getting one. only, i wanna get the nice VR lense with it and it costs more that the camera!
anyone compared it to the D50?

Man-Fai Wong · 04-04-2007, 02:35 AM

I haven't tried the D40 myself, but it should be quite similar in quality to the D50 -- and not really lower image quality than most other higher end Nikons unless you need the higher MP count of the D80 or D200. Haven't heard anything to say otherwise. The main diff seems to be smaller size for the D40, but at the sacrifice of AF capability when used w/ older style non-AFS lenses -- well, the D40 AF system is also only 3-point vs 5-point, but I don't think that matters much in actual practice.

The non-AFS sacrifice shouldn't matter to you if you have no intention to use any old style non-AFS lenses, which includes nearly all of the currently available Nikon fixed focal length primes and a few, good, affordable AF zooms on the used market that some folks like. I personally couldn't live w/ that sacrifice since I use primes all the time, but then, the D40 wasn't really made for my kind of uses. If you only intend to use the 18-200VR -- that's the one I assume you mean -- then that should make a very nice match for the D40. And even if you eventually decide you want to add a prime or two, Nikon may well have new AFS primes to meet your needs by then. And if not, there's still the possibility to add a split prism manual focus screen to aid manual focus, if that suits you for those older lenses.

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--K...-prod_D40.html

As for lens price, well, at the low price of the D40, it's not hard for a lens to cost more.

If the 18-200VR is all the lens you need, then it's really not much to spend on lenses anyway since most folks spend at least as much on lenses as on the camera body.

_Man_

BarryR · 04-04-2007, 07:50 PM

I chose a Sigma 10mm-20mm because it lends itself to architecture and interiors, which is my main use at this time.

Overall the D40 has an excellent feel of quality, and is a joy to use. The only drawback perhaps is that some people may find it smaller to grip than other Nikon models.

Scott Merryfield · 04-05-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

I chose a Sigma 10mm-20mm because it lends itself to architecture and interiors, which is my main use at this time.

This type of wide angle lens is also great for landscape photography. I have a Canon 10-22mm lens for my Canon 350D, and it's a really fun lens. I got some great shots last year in the Canadian Rockies with this lens -- including one of Moraine Lake that turned out so well that we had a 30x20 print made to hang in our family room.

Man-Fai Wong · 04-05-2007, 10:41 AM

Now that you guys mention it. Anyone compared these superwide zooms to the Tonica 12-24 f/4? I like the constant f/4 max aperture of the Tonica, and the narrower 12-24 range might be more versatile for me than the wider 10-20 range. With a 12-24, especially w/ f/4 capability upto 24mm, I'd probably not need my 18-70DX at all since I usually also have my trusty 35 f/2 w/ me -- and could bring along a 50 f/1.8 and/or 85 f/1.8 to round things out.

Also, do you really use the <18mm wide end *that* much for landscapes? I can see needing it for some shots, but can't really imagine the superwide end being used quite that much for landscapes. Most good landscape images I see are actually not even wide angle at all, but I don't generally shoot landscapes myself, so ...

_Man_

Ron Connolly · 04-05-2007, 11:03 AM

Canon PowerShot A510 Not bad for quick snapshots. I would like to have a 10X zoom like my Sony Mavica had.

Scott Merryfield · 04-05-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

Now that you guys mention it. Anyone compared these superwide zooms to the Tonica 12-24 f/4? I like the constant f/4 max aperture of the Tonica, and the narrower 12-24 range might be more versatile for me than the wider 10-20 range. With a 12-24, especially w/ f/4 capability upto 24mm, I'd probably not need my 18-70DX at all since I usually also have my trusty 35 f/2 w/ me -- and could bring along a 50 f/1.8 and/or 85 f/1.8 to round things out.

Also, do you really use the <18mm wide end *that* much for landscapes? I can see needing it for some shots, but can't really imagine the superwide end being used quite that much for landscapes. Most good landscape images I see are actually not even wide angle at all, but I don't generally shoot landscapes myself, so ...

_Man_

I think you mean "Tokina". For Canon mount systems, the Tokina gets very good reviews, and usually it and the Canon 10-22mm are considered about equal in image quality, with the Sigma 10-20mm coming in third (Sigma seems to have quality control problems with their Canon mount lens versions). I went with the Canon over the Tokina for a couple of reasons: (1) my "walk around zoom" goes to 17mm on the wide end, so I wanted the wider 10mm over Tokina's 12mm, and (2) when cost, IQ and functionality are close, I've decided to stick with Canon-brand lenses over 3rd party lenses, due to compatibility concerns with some 3rd party lenses and the Canon system.

While I do not use the 10-22mm for the majority of my landscape shots, I have found numerous instances where the extra width really helped with a shot, so for me the lens is worth the expense and the space it takes up in my travel kit. That kit currently includes the 10-22mm, a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and a Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.

I'm thinking of adding a longer telephoto for a summer trip to Yellowstone this year, but have not decided if I'll get enough use out of it to justify the expense. I'm looking at the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L prime ($1,000), the Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS ($1,400), and Tamron 200-500mm f/4.5-6.3 ($870).

The 10-22mm should also be very useful in the hot springs / geyser areas of Yellowstone for this summer trip. I've been there 3 times previously, and always wished for a wider angle lens in those areas.

BTW, I do own one Sigma lens -- a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 semi-macro zoom. I did not have any quality issues with this copy on my Canon dSLR, but I do read about a lot of people having problems with Sigma - Canon combos -- mostly auto-focus issues. Sigma does not seem to have this issue on Nikon mounts, though -- at least, from what little I've read.

Man-Fai Wong · 04-05-2007, 04:45 PM

Oops! Yeah, I meant Tokina. "Tonica" must've somehow slipped out from that subconscious side of me that's recently been devoted to the violin/viola, LOL -- not that I actually used or even tried out any Tonica strings on my instruments.

Yeah, after some brief look-see on dpreview.com's Nikon lens forum, it does sound like the Tokina's a winner though it's not completely free of its own share of flaws, eg. CA/purple fringing. Yeah, I guess if I had a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I would probably prefer something wider too. But I don't think I'll be going for any of the 17-55-ish f/2.8 zooms for my D200 since I prefer to just stick w/ my primes in that range for the forseeable future -- I may add something like the Sigma 20 f/1.8 at some point, if nothing more compelling comes out.

_Man_

Michael D. Bunting · 04-11-2007, 11:31 PM

Okay guys, after being a previous Nikon D50 owner...I've now stepped up to the D80!

I've had very little time to put the D80 through any shoots as of yet, but am hoping to get some quality time with it this upcoming weekend.

I would like to hear your thoughts/opinions on what photo editing software to use. Shoudl I spend the $123.90 and order the Nikon Capture NX software from amazon? I do plan on shooting in RAW format, especially later on down the line once I become more familiar with the D80 and how it shoots.

So, what are your software rec's? Thanks!

And, I'll get some D80 shots up on my website here soon - as I'm in the process of re-designing my personal site...so stay tuned

GarboForever · 04-12-2007, 10:52 AM

sony