Nikon D60

Reply
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    317

    curious to see why no one has recommended the nikon d40...i picked one up for around 3400hkd with crappy bag/tripod/kit lens 18-55mm...

    i've had it for abotu 3 weeks, and have learned about the basics from researching and practice.

    i think it's perfectly fine/good for ppl like me- who want to have better quality pictures, and better understanding of photography....that being said...

    due to nikon d40 (and many other nikons) lack of internal focus motor- the lenses i have to get are slightly more expensive (if you want auto focus). so...if i want to get a 50mm af lens f1.8, then i'm paying about 2500hkd for it. whereas my friend who has a canon (don't recall which one, but was lowest on the tiering) picked up the same lens for 900hkd..


    i'm sure there are more details to it than just that, but from my preliminary research in search of better 'bokeh', i've come to realize it's going to be an expensive hobby!


  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    in a little hole
    Posts
    1,229

    the canon 50mm f1.8 you are talking about is known as the "plastic fantastic" for good reason. it is cheap, plastic and basic, but yes, amazing images for the price, and bokeh is pretty acceptable for a cheap lens.

    however, if you want a rounder and more pleasing bokeh in a 50mm lens, you still need to get the 50mm f1.4 or better (it has more blades on the aperture, ie rounder orifice), and that cost $2.5k, just like the nikon equivalent does.

    i still beleive whe it comes to DSLR, it is your glass not the camera that really makes the biggest difference in your pics, FWIW.


  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    9,917

    That last opinion is seconded. It's pretty much a standard response from more experienced photographers that the camera body itself is not terribly important- it's really down to the choice of lenses. If you want great photos, get good lenses and learn how to shoot. If you want to obsess over features and gizmos, concentrate on buying a wizz-bang body.

    This was illustrated to me recently on a trip where one guy had a brand new Canon 450D with a kit lens. The lens was pretty decent for kit, but when he tried my 15 year old 80-200 F2.8 L lens, he was amazed. The difference in contrast and colour were apparent even through the LCD panel.


  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57

    are there any photography course that we can take up? for beginner like me to learn photo-taking with a SLR camera?


  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    859

    I also agree that it's in the lens' and not the body.

    FWIW, your body will be worthless in 3yrs yet you will still find a decent resale value for your lens. I chose to buy an affordable body that could do mostly what I needed (300D) and use most of my budget to buy lens, with the expectation of upgrading the body at a later date. I got myself the 50 1.8 (super value), 17-40 F4L, 70-200 F4L IS and will be able to use those on whatever body I choose to upgrade to when that time comes. Don't buy the most expensive body you can afford now and skimp out on cheaper lens'....you'll regret it when you want to upgrade.

    You should decide what type of pictures you take mostly as that will, then determine which system (Canon vs Nikon) has the best range of lens for your needs.


  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by wayland
    I also agree that it's in the lens' and not the body.

    FWIW, your body will be worthless in 3yrs yet you will still find a decent resale value for your lens. I chose to buy an affordable body that could do mostly what I needed (300D) and use most of my budget to buy lens, with the expectation of upgrading the body at a later date. I got myself the 50 1.8 (super value), 17-40 F4L, 70-200 F4L IS and will be able to use those on whatever body I choose to upgrade to when that time comes. Don't buy the most expensive body you can afford now and skimp out on cheaper lens'....you'll regret it when you want to upgrade.

    You should decide what type of pictures you take mostly as that will, then determine which system (Canon vs Nikon) has the best range of lens for your needs.

    maybe i didn't make myself clear, either that or i'm not understanding camera technology.

    to have a 50mm f1.8 prime lens with AF functionality on the nikon d40, i'm paying about 2.5k hkd. why? cuase the focus motor HAS to be in the lenses for the nikon d40 (and a lot of other nikons).

    canon's however, put all of their focus motors in the body. so the lenses don't need these 'motors'. the price of the equiv. lens for the canon is cheap.

    that's all i'm saying.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by campas12
    maybe i didn't make myself clear, either that or i'm not understanding camera technology.

    to have a 50mm f1.8 prime lens with AF functionality on the nikon d40, i'm paying about 2.5k hkd. why? cuase the focus motor HAS to be in the lenses for the nikon d40 (and a lot of other nikons).

    canon's however, put all of their focus motors in the body. so the lenses don't need these 'motors'. the price of the equiv. lens for the canon is cheap.

    that's all i'm saying.


    campas12, I wasn't disagreeing with you about anything. I was simply trying to give chubbysan some more factors to consider when buying his camera.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    in a little hole
    Posts
    1,229
    Quote Originally Posted by campas12
    maybe i didn't make myself clear, either that or i'm not understanding camera technology.

    to have a 50mm f1.8 prime lens with AF functionality on the nikon d40, i'm paying about 2.5k hkd. why? cuase the focus motor HAS to be in the lenses for the nikon d40 (and a lot of other nikons).

    canon's however, put all of their focus motors in the body. so the lenses don't need these 'motors'. the price of the equiv. lens for the canon is cheap.

    that's all i'm saying.
    I didn't realise Canon had AF motors in the body. I though they were all in the lens, which is why you can get different levels of AF on the one camera. The old micromotor lenses (the 50mm f1.8 etc) are slow and noisy compared to the USM lenses that have a different, more powerful, faster and heavier AF motor. Correct me if I am wrong, but this means the motor is in the lens, yes?

    I'm pretty sure it has been this way since the late eighties when EOS first appeared...

    PS: the question is rhetoric.. i know the motor is in the lens
    Last edited by dropdedfwed; 27-10-2008 at 02:59 PM.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    9,917

    Ah, I love it when a thread goes completely tangental

    Yup, DDF is right. All modern Canon lenses incorporate the motor in the lens, the question is simply whether the motor is ultrasonic (USM) or mechanical (as in the 50mm 1.8).

    Older (non digital, 1990s) Nikons had the motor built into the body, and there was a small 'screwdriver' blade that interfaced with the lens to move the focal elements around. This was why some older Nikon lenses focussed with the speed of a drunken cow (e.g. the Nikon 80-200 2.8)- the tiny screwdriver couldn't move the weight of the focussing elements fast enough.

    Back then, 3rd party (e.g. Tokina, Sigma) lenses that were available for both Canon and Nikon saw an additional cost for the Canon lenses, just because the Canon versions had to incorporate a motor. This cost was pretty minor though- maybe 10% over the Nikon-compaitible versions. Leading me to believe that (mechanical) motor costs is an insignificant part of lens price.

    I don't know what the current state of Nikon technology is though, beyond that it's obviously caught up with Canon on most fronts.

    Canon does not, and to my (limited) knowledge, *never* had AF motors built into the body. This is pretty easy to visually verify- just take your lens off the body and see if there is a mechanical coupling that can drive the focal elements. There won't be any- just a bunch of electrical contacts that signal the motor built into the lens body.

    Last edited by jgl; 27-10-2008 at 03:52 PM.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by jgl
    Ah, I love it when a thread goes completely tangental

    Yup, DDF is right. All modern Canon lenses incorporate the motor in the lens, the question is simply whether the motor is ultrasonic (USM) or mechanical (as in the 50mm 1.8).

    Older (non digital, 1990s) Nikons had the motor built into the body, and there was a small 'screwdriver' blade that interfaced with the lens to move the focal elements around. This was why some older Nikon lenses focussed with the speed of a drunken cow (e.g. the Nikon 80-200 2.8)- the tiny screwdriver couldn't move the weight of the focussing elements fast enough.

    Back then, 3rd party (e.g. Tokina, Sigma) lenses that were available for both Canon and Nikon saw an additional cost for the Canon lenses, just because the Canon versions had to incorporate a motor. This cost was pretty minor though- maybe 10% over the Nikon-compaitible versions. Leading me to believe that (mechanical) motor costs is an insignificant part of lens price.

    I don't know what the current state of Nikon technology is though, beyond that it's obviously caught up with Canon on most fronts. Canon does not, and to my (limited) knowledge, *never* had AF motors built into the body. This is pretty easy to visually verify- just take your lens off the body and see if there is a mechanical coupling that can drive the focal elements. There won't be any- just a bunch of electrical contacts that signal the motor built into the lens body.
    this is from dpreview.com

    "'d40 has no internal focus drive motor, and hence no mechanical focus drive pin'"

    to all others- sorry- didn't mean to sound like i was mad or anything- i suck at projecting emotion over typed words!


Reply
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast