[DieselFan]

Thanks Deky. I wanted to know Indian ebay or ebay.in. How reliable are the camera sellers. Do the sell refurbished ? All have advertized as brand new but give dealer warranty and not manufacturer's. Would appreciate a response from a EBAY.IN buyer.

Thanks.

[drpullockaran]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

D40 is a junk camera as has been mentioned quite a few times. Please search to know more. It doesn't autofocus a majority of nikon lenses and is quite kludgy to use overall. The high ISO performance is not great either - there's significant amount of noise at ISO 800.


The only reason the D40 has been kept alive by nikon is to grab market share. Folks with limited budgets who've not done enough background study are suckered into buying the D40 after looking at the low price tag.

Please note that Knightrider and majority of us beginers want and can afford an entry level cmaera thats in production.
For Rs19800 in the grey market you can get for yourself the D40 camera and the 18-55kit lens. For the well heeled with deep pockets I would always reccommend the Nikon D700 but then thats not what Knightrider wanted and my post would be superfluous.

Nikon D700 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

If ones lives and drives around in Chandni Chowk I am sure he would not be buying himself a Ferrari. For the money that the nikon D40 sells for you just cannot get a better deal now or ever.
As far as lenses for the D40 goes if Knightrider gets himself the Nikon 18-200VR lens he is going to be a contended man for years to come. Its all about wants and living within the means and shunning the credit card debacle.

18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

[drpullockaran]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Every dSLR currently in the market can deliver more image quality than we amateurs can handle.

This is exactly the point and you took the words out of my mouth or rather typing fingers. Its far better to spend on good lens than the camera body for amateurs like us. Unless photography is ones profession or one has very deep pockets its useless if we recommend the Nikon D700 over the Nikon D40. Without doubt the D700 will thrash the D40 thoroughly but is that the need of the amateurs llike the majority of us.

Compare cameras

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

@ Regionofchaos

Thank you so much for the info. Well I am more into nature photography so well a dedicated lens for portrait alone will be a bit too much on the pocket right now. But, well I checked the reviews of the 85mm and all the reviews say that it's best stopped down below f/2.8 till around f/4. Keeping that in mind then i guess the 100mm macro would be a good lens too. What is your view?

Regards,

Anirban.

Its perfectly usable wide open - atleast my copy is. I'd have loved to post a few samples but all the photos with that lens that are worth showing are of people and I'm a little concerned about posting photos in an open forum.

It does get sharper past f/2.8 but rest assured wide open is perfectly usable unless you get a poor copy. The problem is that the DOF is so excessively shallow at 1.8 that it makes the job seem harder than it really is .

[Knight Rider]

Originally Posted by drpullockaran

Please note that Knightrider and majority of us beginers want and can afford an entry level cmaera thats in production.
For Rs19800 in the grey market you can get for yourself the D40 camera and the 18-55kit lens. For the well heeled with deep pockets I would always reccommend the Nikon D700 but then thats not what Knightrider wanted and my post would be superfluous.

Nikon D700 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

If ones lives and drives around in Chandni Chowk I am sure he would not be buying himself a Ferrari. For the money that the nikon D40 sells for you just cannot get a better deal now or ever.
As far as lenses for the D40 goes if Knightrider gets himself the Nikon 18-200VR lens he is going to be a contended man for years to come. Its all about wants and living within the means and shunning the credit card debacle.

18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Couldn't agree more doctor. These are exactly my thoughts, Till now I have lived with a normal digital camera and a couple of my friends have DSLR's so it was always a fantasy to own one, Yesterday after reading through the post s I sat down and saw how many photos I have taken with my Cam... If you equate it in a years time, It isnt much. So did a simple math of the investment Vs no of photos that I would take in coming years, And the results were mnimal, So i guess it would be better if I stick to a limited budget!

I dont have any relatives in US and the last quote that I got was for 200 dollars just for shipping!! So I guess shipping is out. Its better I buy the cam from a local store who can give me some guarantee

I am a novice, So terms like exposure, macro, Cf and the rest sounds greek to me, All I want is a camera which is slightly better than the one that I have right now and has some manual settings.

And I would like to know if there is any other camera which can be bought within this limited budget! Let me thank evryone who has contributed. Constructive criticism is always welcome

[NomadVagabond]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

It does get sharper past f/2.8 but rest assured wide open is perfectly usable unless you get a poor copy. The problem is that the DOF is so excessively shallow at 1.8 that it makes the job seem harder than it really is .

Yes I understand that perfectly. With such wide apertures getting a perfect focus is very difficult. So, stopping down to about f/4 is reasonably wiser. Anyway I've already got a 50mm 1.8 so I think getting another for the same use is not wise enough. I'll rather go for the 100mm 2.8 or IF my pocket allows then for the 180mm 3.5 I love that lens and its performance.

Regards,

Anirban.

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

D40 is a junk camera as has been mentioned quite a few times. Please search to know more. It doesn't autofocus a majority of nikon lenses and is quite kludgy to use overall. The high ISO performance is not great either - there's significant amount of noise at ISO 800.

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

The only reason the D40 has been kept alive by nikon is to grab market share. Folks with limited budgets who've not done enough background study are suckered into buying the D40 after looking at the low price tag.

I absolutely agree with the first point. Nikon D40 is completely crap. Very poor performance and the entire idea of cost cutting of Nikon and taking out the AF motor from it to save on manufacturing cost and thus pushing the users to more expensive lenses is a bad thing all together.

But, right now it's discontinued completely and Nikon D60 is the opening segment of the brand.


@ Everyone.
Maybe not everyone needs a DSLR the first place. If one doesn't shoot that often and not that often even develop those photographs as prints. Then why go for a DSLR the first place?? The Prosumer/Megazoom camera's available these days are fantastic both on the image front as well as on the budget front. Then why not go for them? Most of these camera's give a run for the money to most entry level DSLR's. And almost all of them have all sorts of advanced settings one gets in the entry level DSLR as well. After being into serious photography for the past 2-2 1/2 yrs I believe that DSLR are for those who want that "extra" bit more from their photographs not for someone who want a good flashy looking camera to show off. One important thing to be always remembered before plunging into the DSLR bandwagon is how future-proof the camera/system you are buying. If you think that it might be discontinued soon then there's no point in buying something like that.

Regards,

Anirban.

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

I'd have loved to post a few samples but all the photos with that lens that are worth showing are of people and I'm a little concerned about posting photos in an open forum.

If you have an online gallery like flickr and have them uploaded there I'd love to see them. You can send me a PM regarding the link so that I could check them out too.

Regards,

Anirban.

Note from Support: Posts merged. Please use the MULTI-QUOTE feature to respond to multiple posts. Thanks!

[drpullockaran]

As mentioned earlier for those who are into serious photography they should opt for and stick to full frame sensors which means the first option would be the D700 in my book. If they have deeper pockets the sky is the limit but I still maintain that its better to spend on lenses once we reach the ability to afford the cheapest full frame sensor based camera.

EOS 5D vs. EOS 20D - Full Frame vs. APS-C Sensors - Bob Atkins Photography

Its like advicing on amplifiers. Once we reach ClassA amplification or Tube amplififers its better to spend on ultra expensive speakers rather than on costlier Class A amps or tube based amps.

Sensor capabilities of compact prosumer cameras with puny sensors cannot compare with the cheapest DSLR cameras which have the APS-C sensor. The only exception to this is the compact camera from Sigma but the cost is prohibitive.
Sigma announces DP2 large sensor compact: Digital Photography Review

The NikonD40 is not out of the lineup atleast in India.
Nikon India Private Limited

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

The Prosumer/Megazoom camera's available these days are fantastic both on the image front as well as on the budget front. Then why not go for them? Most of these camera's give a run for the money to most entry level DSLR's.

This is interesting, I have not been watching the prosumer camera scene for a while one. Can you name couple of prosumer cameras that can beat entry level dSLRs in image quality and price?

[navin]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Though the 70-200mm is a good lens but then again, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS costs almost as much as a 100-400mm so why not go for that the first place itself?

Do you have any idea how much the 85mm 1.8 costs??

The advantage of 2.8 is that one can use the same lens for action photography. With a 2x teleconverter the 2.8 becomes a 5.6. You can use the 70-200/2.8 with a 2x at f/8 or slower with good results never compared the output to a 100-400 though.

On safari the 70-300 is an option only becuase it is light. You can run with it. On a 1.6 crop it give you 480mm.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

85mm and all the reviews say that it's best stopped down below f/2.8 till around f/4.

at f/4 the 85/1.8 is better than the 100/2.8. I have used the 85/1.8 wide open (RAW on a 40D at a night safari in singapore) and while it does get a bit soft it allows me to shoot at 800/1600 and still get something. It is amazing how senstive the human eye is.

Actually the softness at f/1.8 is not so bad as it softens the grain @ 1600.

Remember the 85/1.8 is not the 135/2. The later is 3 times the price and in another class.

[navin]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Then why go for a DSLR the first place??

Becasue even a Nikon D40 mated to the 18-55/55-200 lens combo will whip a $600-700 Prosumer camera like the Fuji S100fs.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by navin

Becasue even a Nikon D40 mated to the 18-55/55-200 lens combo will whip a $600-700 Prosumer camera like the Fuji S100fs.

He believes it is the other way.

[Torqueguru]

i have been using a prosumer camera, the H50. Pretty good value for the money i spent on it i must say.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Samurai

He believes it is the other way.

Some years ago Sony came out with a 2/3" sensor camera with a 24-120 fixed lens called the R1 (I think). I compared this camera's output to a Canon 40D with a 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses on a Sony 46" X series television. The results were apparent. We did not expect the results to be apparent but evene the owner of the R1 was surprised.

The R1 however has it's uses
1. tilt screen
2. more water and dust resistant
3. somewhat lighter than a SLR with a 2 lens combo.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by navin

Some years ago Sony came out with a 2/3" sensor camera with a 24-120 fixed lens called the R1 (I think).

That one had APS-C size sensor, but was expensive as hell. That doesn't win the VFM prize. I am wondering about the prosumer camera that is cheaper the dSLR yet provides better image quality. Let's wait for NomadVagabond for that.

[tsk1979]

I almost bought an R1, and would have if it had 300mm zoom. The lens is to die for image quality rivals L glass. But at 1000$ it outbudgeted itself.
Right now all prosumers have high pixel density, thanks to megapixel wars.
You can't beat physics. Cram more pixels into a tiny sensor, and you will get poorer quality.
At ISO 100 most Prosumers can deliver equally good pics as a DSLR, but above that they get shaky.
However straight out of the camera Prosumer pics appear more appealing because they have higher sharpening and contrast enhancement.
Out of the box DSLR pics look drab unless you tweak camera settings.

In the evening I will post the same RAW with different "in camera" setting applied in post processing to illustrate the big difference