I have a Nikon D40, my friend has a D80 and a D300 and he takes great shots. I asked him for some advice on his portrait shots and candids. He told me to lose the D40 and not get anything less than a D80. Is he just trying to sell me his old D80 do you think or is there some truth to the D40 not being enough to handle a few portrait shots at military gatherings and some candids and such.
I have a D40 and love it, and did discuss getting a D200 with a very knowledgeable portrait photographer who owned one, while at the time I still had a P&S. Generally, his take was that if you have an eye, you can get a good pic with any camera. My top two pics on my homepage was taken with the P&S.
More pragmatically, what is YOU want to do with your camera? I'm happy being an amateur that sells the occasional stock photo, so the D40 meets my needs just fine. I know there are cams out there that can shoot 6 frames a second and probably more, and the D40 'only' shoots 2.5 frames/second...but hey, if it gets what I want, so much the better!
Basically imho the D40 is a great transition camera from P&S to DSLR, it's coming down in price, and it gets decent shots.
Hope this helps,
Susan
Edit to add: on your profile page where it lists your camera, click on where it says Nikon D40. You will be taken to a page showing absolutely gorgeous pics taken with D40s.
Cameras are like pallets of paint, you can paint with just two colors or more, oils, water colors, or acrylics. The model and type of your camera is the type of paint, canvas, and the number of colors you use. Brushes too.
If you are a poor painter, having more colors will just confuse you. If you want to paint a sunset above a field of red flowers it will be hard to do with black and white paint.
It depends on what you need. The D40 is a great camera, and it is possible to take great photos with P&S cameras.
One disadvantage of the D40 is the lack of a motor drive, which means that Nikons earlier AF lenses will not auto-focus. Which can affect the popular 50mm f/1.8. However some people prefer manual focus all the time anyway.
The best way to answer your question is with another question, what is it that you are trying to do, that you are unhappy with the result?
just to add... IF anyone who has a D40 really wants to use the AF and AF-D lenses that will not Autofocus on the D40, you don't even have to spend a penny to fix teh problem... A used D50 is worth practically the same as a used D40... and from what I know, the results are similar (I think they are both 6.1 megapixels... as long as you don't mind the smaller LCD on the D50)... you could sell teh D40 and pick up a D50 for practically the same price... Just a suggestion for anyone who has a D40 and wishes they could autofocus on those AF / AF-D lenses and can't afford a D80/D200...
You can produce good images with a D40 but you will get more out of something better. Your images will be sharper and over all allow you to produce high quality images.
You can produce good images with a D40 but you will get more out of something better. Your images will be sharper and over all allow you to produce high quality images.
Ture... For now, learn on the D40... THEN buy something new... skip the D80... get the D90... it's a D300 WITH the video feature at a fraction of the price (as long as you don't mind a plastic body...)
You can produce good images with a D40 but you will get more out of something better. Your images will be sharper and over all allow you to produce high quality images.
Ture... For now, learn on the D40... THEN buy something new... skip the D80... get the D90... it's a D300 WITH the video feature at a fraction of the price (as long as you don't mind a plastic body...)
I completely agree with the above.
I started out with a D50 (my first DSLR) and it literally took thousands of photos before I could truly point out where the camera was lacking. I upgraded to a D200 and because of my experience with the D50 I'm able to use it that much better. In my opinion, unless you understand the limitations of a camera there is absolutely no point in spending your money on something that is twice as expensive. Yes, the D80 CAN take higher quality photos that the D40, but unless you know HOW to take advantage of that, it's basically the same camera. You're better off, in my opinion, spending your money elsewhere like a flash for example, which would be more useful than a D80 for portraits.
And what kind of advice is "get a better camera" anyway?!
So to answer your question, the D40 can DEFINITELY handle portraits, candids, and whatever else you want to throw at it.
Thanks, I appreciate the responses. I am going to stick with the D40 until I can outshoot it. I was basically asking him for some pointers on what lens, flash etc etc to get started with. I think he was trying to sell me his D80 by making me think that I NEED it. I definantly dont need it, the D40 is fine with where I am in photography. Maybe some day I will outgrow it. Until then though I need to get another lens and a flash and go to town. Thanks again!
I agree with most of the above. The D40 was my first SLR after I upgraded from a Sony DSC-H1. It can take some great pictures. Having a good lens can make a big difference on this camera. Remember the D40 (as well as the D80), has a defective meter and tends to overexpose. Set the exposure comp. down to either -0.3 or 0.7.
I cannot show you my close up people shots due to privacy reasons but here are a couple of my favorite wildlife shots I took with the D40. These were with the Nikkor 55-200mmVR:
I am holding out for a camera with night vision and super low lux capabilities. Maybe x-ray as well.
I purchased my camera body and kit lens for $300(refurb), my Tamron 20-300 for $98 and a 50mm 1.8 was a gift for Christmas. That is all I have, and I find a new way to use it every time I shoot. Sometimes I wish that my base images came out sharper, and I sometimes have been able to see the limitations of my camera, but now I am becoming so familiar with it that I know what I need to do to get the shot. If I changed cameras to a certain degree I would have to learn all over again.
Just look at the portfolio of IreneM and you will see it's *NOT* the camera.
Ah but IreneM shoots mostly/all studio shots with very controlled lighting. Just like if you are painting a red flower you don't need blue paint. :)
However trying to catch a shot of a Ruby Crest Swisher at dusk will require an entirely different approach.
But yes, getting good shots is not dependent on the camera used.
The photographer, the scene, and the camera need be compatible with one another to come together to form a functioning unit. The better the camera, usually means the more scenes are compatible. The easier a camera is to use, usually means the more photographers are compatible. And finally the more skilled the photographer the easier they can combine the other two.
