Hit me with your best (Nikon) shot

October 5, 2007 12:37 AM

Nikon owners: persuade me...! brand new Nikon D40 (kit lens) or refurbished D50 (1 yr warranty, kit lens) or 2nd hand D70s?

Ah yes, it's the old 'which DSLR' conundrum... Currently: Sony H2 - love it, but want to move on up.

The D40 (and D40x) has superb reviews but the manual focus issue on non AF-S lenses worries me. Superb in low-light though. The D50 had great reviews when it came out but I've got the impression it's been left behind by newer models. The D70 gets great write-ups for its age. I've read all the articles, looked at all the photos and the specs, handled each, know all the good and badb bits, and I'm just stuck.

Most use: children, partic indoors; people; the odd bit of scenery. I do want to add lenses as time goes on but the budget just ain't there atm.

So I'm left with emotional persuasion. Owners of any of these, make your most impassioned pleas for your own cameras, please! Show me your best shots, gush and criticise, and convince me one way or ther other...

posted by humuhumu to sports, hobbies, & recreation (25 comments total)

I don't have a Nikon camera (although I have been thinking about investing in one), but I though that this page may interest you.

Flickr > Camera Finder > Nikon

I sorted the list by Rank, which shows the most popular camera by Nikon as the D80, followed closely by the D50 and then the D70. The only cameras that out-shine the Nikons are the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT and XTi.
posted by B(oYo)BIES at 12:49 AM on October 5, 2007

I've got a D40 - very happy with it. As you said, manual focus is only an issue on some lenses and those are the ones I take my "artsy" shots with anyway (like the 50mm f1.4 I most recently used for macro shots in my flickr stream.) Those shots always take time to compose no matter what you use. However, the D40 has a focus indicator which lights up when I've manually focused the camera to the optimal length, which greatly expedites the process.

If you're shooting children and indoor parties, the kit lens will do everything you need it to do. If not, then you can always spring for an AF-S lens if you feel it isn't covering you in some area.

The D40 is also much lighter and smaller than any of the other bodies you mentioned. It has a very large screen too, and is priced at a very competitive point. I'd also consider getting the SB-600 strobe, which you can aim upward for bounce flashes - a critical factor in composing good party photos.
posted by dendrite at 2:51 AM on October 5, 2007

ps) my flickr stream linked above also contains some shots from my iPhone. I think it's obvious which ones are which.
posted by dendrite at 2:54 AM on October 5, 2007

I have the D40 (not the D40x) and the D50. I'm happy with both cameras but I don't use the D50 anymore. I have virtually the same feedback as dendrite (smaller, lighter, good kit lens, large LCD) and virtually the same uses as you (kids, travel, family gatherings, and the odd artistic shot). I also think the user interface on the D40 is an improvement over the D50, though neither is bad. Aside from picture quality (which to my eye is the same between the D40 & D50) the weight and size are the things that won me over. I also print large scale prints (11"x14") and all three of my cameras give beautiful results.

Backstory: I had the D50 first. The shutter mechanism jammed on some unknown impact. With an estimate of $325 to fix I decided to get a new camera instead of repairing the D50. Only thing I wish is that they sold the body only for the D40 since I already had the lens from the D50. Anyway, about a week after I got the D40, my husband picked up the D50 and fixed it in about 15 minutes.

My sense from your post is that you'd be happy with a D40 and wouldn't push the D70 to its limits and so the cost wouldn't be justified. I can go for weeks taking about 40 pictures a day and I didn't see the need to spring for the D70 when I already knew the high quality I'd be getting from the D40/D50.

Some sites that helped me decide on the D40 instead of another D50 (Rockwell's esp. has "emotional persuasion" I think):
- Ken Rockwell's review(s)
- Thom Hogan's review
- dpreview

You can see my flickr site here. I'm not a great photographer and the vast majority of photos are private. But of what is public, the oldest set is all D50 (in which I was also experimenting with different settings); the Cape Cod set is all Canon Powershot SD700 IS (which I bought as a well-researched point'nshoot when I was in between the D40 & D50 and which I'm very, very happy with btw); and the most recent set is all D40. But those are weird panoramic stitch shots of construction and not very indicative of what the D40 is about. I'd say the shots from the D50 are more informative of what you'd get from the D40.
posted by cocoagirl at 4:26 AM on October 5, 2007

cocoagirl, would you mind emailing me about the shutter fix? I have a similar problem and would like to know more... Email's in profile. Thanks!

For my two cents on the original question, I would say get the D40 or D40x, whichever suits you (6MP CCD vs 10MP CMOS). This way you'll be getting a 1 year warranty, and the most recent firmware & software. I have a D70 and it's still a great camera, but the D40 is almost the same thing and you can get it new.

Nikon is making almost all their lenses AF-S today, so the only focusing issues would be with older lenses, where you'd probably want to be using manual focus anyway.
posted by knave at 4:59 AM on October 5, 2007

You're right: at times it's frustrating not being able to buy relatively cheap AF lenses. On the other hand, the good thing about having the limitations of the D40 is that it discourages you from buying a whole bunch of new lenses that you really don't need when you're just starting out, as tempting as that gets after a few months. If it's your first SLR you will be spending enough time learning how to set white balance, aperture/speed and exposure compensation for each shot (while trying to get good composition), and I think that getting a good handle on the basics is more important than having a cornucopia of interesting glass.
posted by cardboard at 5:33 AM on October 5, 2007

Cost being equal or similar for all models listed, then go for the D70(s). No question about it.

The D70 is a far superior camera in terms of features, and if you're buying a DSLR, what's the point of selling yourself short? If you get into it at all you'll resent not having those features in the D40/D50. The only argument for the D40 would be the "new" status and the warranty, but honestly, that's not much of a factor. These cameras (and especially the D70) are built like tanks, and they're famously reliable. The odds are extremely good that nothing would go wrong with even a well-used D70, unless you were to drop it, and even then it'd probably be alright. And dropping/breaking it would not be covered by the warranty on the other models anyway.

What I'm saying is that the D70 is better and is a long(er) term solution. And it's a low-risk purchase, even being used. I bought my D70 used from someone on the FredMiranda.com classified forums and it already had about 10,000 clicks on the shutter. I got it for $500, with the 18-70 kit lens. Prices are even better now. Since then I've taken a lot of shots, probably another 10k, and the thing still looks brand new and works flawlessly.

The only way I'd recommend a D40 is (a) if it was significantly cheaper than the D70 (a used D40 might be worth looking at if it was a great deal), or (b) as a backup body to a D70/80/200.
posted by sprocket87 at 6:28 AM on October 5, 2007

Oh, and all that being said: It'd be prudent when buying a used camera, D70 or otherwise, to get as much info as you can and to use a trusted resource. FredMiranda's forums are almost entirely pros or very serious enthusiasts that are respected and aren't trying to rip anyone off. You can read seller reviews as well, which is important. It'd also be good to ask for the shutter count (# of clicks) on the camera as well as detail of the history (Purchased new? Any warranty left? ANY problems? Cosmetic blemishes? Dropped or bumped?)

If you use common sense and get a feel for the seller and the camera in question, you'll get something good that will last you for years to come.
posted by sprocket87 at 6:32 AM on October 5, 2007

I can only speak about the D40. I got one recently, and I love it. The manual focus lens thing may or may not be an issue. If you don't already have lenses, just buy the ones that work. If you already have lenses, and/or can't afford the ones that auto-focus, the D40 does give a confirmation beep even with manual focus lenses.

Disclaimer: I only have the kit lens, but I used a friend's manual focus lens briefly, and the confirmation beep seemed to work fine. There is no split-screen so focusing by eye can indeed be tough. The friend has been a bit frustrated with the manual focus, but she has never used a manual focus camera.

The D40 just came down to $549, so that makes it pretty attractive.
posted by The Deej at 6:41 AM on October 5, 2007

Isn't the kit lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6?

To me, f/3.5 seems not wide enough to get good indoor non-flash shots if the light is low.
posted by kathryn at 8:13 AM on October 5, 2007

I have a D80 and love it. I don't know as much about the other models, but I know some of them have the same sensor and take just as great pictures, but are cheaper because they don't have as many "extra" features.
posted by doomtop at 8:17 AM on October 5, 2007

Isn't the kit lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6?

The D40 kit lens is. I was referring to the D70 kit lens (18-70mm), which is a superior lens: It adds an extra 15mm of telephoto range (that's a lot for a kit lens), great optics, and much better build quality. The 18-55mm is plastic, from the casing to the bayonet mount, and has slow autofocus. Don't listen to Ken Rockwell's superior review of the 18-55 than the 18-70; he claims being made of cheap plastic is better because it's lighter. Sorry, that's just foolish.

If you have extra money, the 18-135mm has a great range and would be a clear "next step" from either the 18-55m or the 18-70mm. Even more money gets you the 18-200mm VR II, which is absolutely tremendous for an all-in-one walkabout (I own it :)), and arguably worth skipping the 18-70 and 18-135 for, if you can get by with the 18-55 while you save for it.

To me, f/3.5 seems not wide enough to get good indoor non-flash shots if the light is low.

I disagree here. f/3.5 is barely passable in low-light environments. You're talking shutter speeds of 1/20-1/50th of a second, depending on how well-lit the room is. And that's being generous; in truly low-light (which many formal dinner occasions, etc are), 1/4 second would be lucky.

I have a Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 which is fantastic but even that struggles to get fast enough exposure in low-light environments. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are much better suited for really low-light stuff. Remember, even if you can hold a camera still at 1/8th, you'll probably still have action blur from the subjects.

Let's be honest; all of the kit lenses (18-55, -70, -135) are great, economic walkabout packages for everyday stuff. But they're not perfect, and they're not fast. But they ARE cheap enough that you could get one and a fast prime to go with it for low-light stuff. The 18-70 can be had for $100 easily on the used market, and the 50mm f/1.8 goes for the same or less. So for less than $200 you can cover a LOT of scenarios very well.

The D40 just came down to $549, so that makes it pretty attractive.

Only if you insist on buying new. Again, it is easy to get a D70 in excellent condition for $400. I don't see paying $150 extra for a camera with less features and abilities, regardless of the 1-yr warranty, which won't make a lick of difference as they're both reliable as could be.

It really all comes down to what your goals for photography are, how much money you're willing to spend, and how long you're going to stay with it. I just advise not to sell yourself short in the beginning, or else you'll constantly be selling your inferior equipment to finance upgrades to what you probably should have bought in the first place. I can say this with confidence, as it's exactly what I did :)

Though, there is something to be said for "learning the ropes" hard-knocks style ;-)
posted by sprocket87 at 8:36 AM on October 5, 2007

Edit to my last post: I just realized kathryn said she didn't think f/3.5 was wide enough for low light. I misread that to the opposite effect - sorry. I absolutely do agree with you, as my comments revealed :)
posted by sprocket87 at 8:37 AM on October 5, 2007

Whew, for a second I thought I was being crazy, sprocket87.

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are much better suited for really low-light stuff.

And unfortunately, those are two of the ones which are manual focus on the D40. A shame, since the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is a lot of bang for the buck at $100 or so.
posted by kathryn at 8:54 AM on October 5, 2007

Not a problem on the D70 (hint hint!!!) :-)

Yes, the 50mm f/1.8 is a true gem, especially for the cost.
posted by sprocket87 at 9:04 AM on October 5, 2007

This is great. You're rehearsing all my arguments for and against each camera but you lot actually know what you're talking about!

I was all swayed by the D40 for the first half of the thread and now I'm back on the D70... I do want to play around a lot with this camera and learn what I can, and I think the limitations of the D40 mean that I'll probably have to trade up again in the future. But keep it all coming, please! The more posts, the more I learn...
posted by humuhumu at 9:42 AM on October 5, 2007

Ha! Well, I should temper my previous arguments FOR the D70 by saying the following:

No matter which you finally decide on, they're all great cameras. Just because the D70 has some features that the D40 lacks doesn't mean the D40 is a poor camera or a bad choice. So if you decide for whatever personal reason that the D40 is a better fit for you right now, don't constantly second-guess your decision just because a couple outspoken MeFites suggested otherwise :)

I just want to reiterate that buying a DSLR is an invesment in the manufacturer line that you decide on, and you should plan accordingly. Fast forward 12 months, 24 months, etc and reflect on how you think you'll be using the camera - or if you even will be! That should influence your decision somewhat.

To throw another (decision-frustrating) wrench in the works, consider this: Say this DSLR thing really takes off and in 12 months you want a much more pro camera, like a D200 or D300. It'd probably be easier to justify that jump from a (clearly entry-level) D40, whereas justifying a D70 > D200 jump might be a bit more difficult.

But if you get to that point, it won't make a difference :)
posted by sprocket87 at 9:52 AM on October 5, 2007

The D40 would be a fine camera but for the lens limitations (as others have already mentioned) and the awful kit lens. Go for a D50 body and spring for a decent 50mm prime or at least a marginally better zoom.
posted by aladfar at 10:30 AM on October 5, 2007

I'll third the comments about the kit lens and the relatively poor performance in low-light. I think that is my only real complaint with the lens and I've been working on justifying the 50mm 1.8 to myself for awhile now.

The biggest beef I have with the d70 body is the usb 1.0 transfer speeds. With a 2GB mem chip full of photos, it takes quite awhile to get them over to the computer.

That being said, I could just pick up a $10 card reader.. but I'm lazy.

Obviously those two complaints are easily (and cheaply) solved.. Otherwise I love this camera.

As for the d40, I personally find that I don't like the smaller size. To me, the d70 is perfect and I have very small hands. But this is completely a personal preference.
posted by mbatch at 10:43 AM on October 5, 2007

For what it's worth, I've never once plugged any of my cameras straight into a PC. I always, always, always use a card reader. Hence, I've never noticed the D70's USB 1.0 speed :)
posted by sprocket87 at 10:49 AM on October 5, 2007

sprocket87, what lens got you these shots?
posted by humuhumu at 11:51 AM on October 5, 2007

f/3.5 is barely passable in low-light environments.

This is so true I just wanted to jump in and second it.

In addition, the way modern SLRs are designed (mechanical aperture control), the lens goes on the body and is locked at full aperture (wide-open). The reason is so the AF sensors can get as much light as possible before actually taking the shot.

Many Canon and Nikon bodies have groups of AF sensors that will not be used unless you are shooting at f/2.8 or faster. When people complain about slow AF, the first thing I recommend is that they get fast glass. f/3.5 is most decidedly not fast glass. It's not just "dark" scenes you have to worry about--even indoor shots taken at high-noon are barely passable with f/3.5 @200 ISO. And if you're not using a USM lens, the AF speed is going to be LOUSY.

As for the D70's USB1.0 limitation: I agree with sproket87. Unless you're tethered to a computer, you're going to be using CF. And if you're using CF, you get yourself a cheapo card reader and be done with it. I wouldn't want to be constantly connecting/disconnecting the teensy-tiny mini-USB cable to the camera body, anyway! Those things are fragile, and you're likely to wear out the minuscule contacts with continuous use.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:01 PM on October 5, 2007

That would be the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 micro. If you can get one of these lenses, DO IT. I got a steal of a deal on it: $200 with the Nikon PK-13 extension tube (for serious macro work). It was used, but lived it's entire life on an X-Ray copy stand (used by a radiologist for X-Ray macros and duplications). It's unlikely you'll find one quite that cheap (and mint), but if you see one floating in the ether, snag it!

It's a beautiful lens: Sharp as sharp can be, oodles of resolution, and relatively fast (f/2.8). Great macro lens, but I use it more for portraits and everyday use. Portraits with this thing are droolworthy: See a couple shots from a recent wedding for some examples (I recommend you click "All sizes" and view them at Original Size - you'll see how sharp this lens can be!).

It's hardly left my D70 since I got it (I also have the Nikon 18-200mm VR II and the Sigma 10-20mm) - the quality of the output makes up for the lack of zoom. And you get used to using a prime 90% of the time.

I'm assuming you're impressed by how well the f/2.8 did in an extremely dark environment, but I have to warn you that it's not that fast. I mean, it's no f/1.8 or f/1.4 - most of those shots were taken at 1/10 or 1/15th of a second, which is very slow for shots with movement (as band members usually are). But I have to say that I've had a bit of experience shooting in near-pitch-black bars for all sorts of live shows, so I understand how to use the lens and camera on manual mode to maximize the quality of my output. It's a lot harder than setting it to "Program" mode, pointing and shooting. But it's clearly possible to get good low-light, flash-free results with an f/2.8 lens.

I should invest in a 50mm f/1.4 for concert shots, but as long as I can squeeze that type of stuff from my 60mm, I'm a happy. I'll never, ever get rid of that 60mm :)
posted by sprocket87 at 12:07 PM on October 5, 2007

Regarding the new D40 vs. used D70... I dunno... Personally I am leery of buying a used digital camera. It may be irrational, but I'd rather have a warranty.

As far as the included 3.5 lens. Yes, I'd love a faster lens. I have a Yashica Electro 35mm camera with a 1.4 lens and I love being able to shoot handheld in low light with it. However, on the plus side for the D40, you can kick up the ISO to 800 and there really is very little noise added, so the net result is similar.

Just food for thought.
posted by The Deej at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2007

I bought a D50 when this question came up for me. I've never been happier with a camera.
posted by pjern at 8:30 PM on October 5, 2007