My D40 and why I'm here looking at other camera options

[texchappy]

I got my D40 back in '08 and it still works fine. However, I'm realizing some limitations with my kit. I have it with the two kit lenses that came with it: 18-55 and 55-200. I spent a bit of time going through the pictures I've taken with it and liked the framing but not the bokeh (or lack there of). The lenses max out at 3.5 and 4.5 respectively at the low end.

Here's my problems with it:
1. Don't like the controls to use it in manual mode.
2. Difficult to manually focus for my old eyes.
3. the above mentioned limitations with my current lenses.

So I'm wondering with the other issues if it's worth it to me to get some faster glass for this?

 

[Corto]

certainly faster glass will help.

And there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with your camera and it should provide you with years of enjoyment.

But the reality is this: If you dont find the camera comfortable then that will have an impact of the images you capture.

So if you can go to a camera store and play around with different cameras, and fall in love with one (hopefully)

 

[daveleo]

I have a D60 and those 2 lenses and some fast prime lenses.

Can't help you if you don't like the camera controls.

Focusing? These days I am manually focusing with 24mm and a 50mm lenses. For focusing the viewfinder is useless to my old eyes as well.
I use the little light "in-focus" indicator but better than that . . . turn on the "rangefinder" option. When focusing manually watch the little slash marks at the bottom of the viewfinder (read the manual). Makes focusing fast and easy. (I assume the D40 has these features)

PS . . . I don't like zooms, so 95% of my shooting is with the primes.

The Nikon 35mm/f1.8 DX model is *the* best new-lens bargain in the Nikon lineup.
OR . . . if you are going to focus manually, by a used prime lens.

 

[dave lackey]

I got my D40 back in '08 and it still works fine. However, I'm realizing some limitations with my kit. I have it with the two kit lenses that came with it: 18-55 and 55-200. I spent a bit of time going through the pictures I've taken with it and liked the framing but not the bokeh (or lack there of). The lenses max out at 3.5 and 4.5 respectively at the low end.

Here's my problems with it:
1. Don't like the controls to use it in manual mode.
2. Difficult to manually focus for my old eyes.
3. the above mentioned limitations with my current lenses.

So I'm wondering with the other issues if it's worth it to me to get some faster glass for this?

Well, I sold my D40 last year after using it for 4 years. Perfectly good camera for an awful lot of things. Used it professionally as well, even photoshoots for rock bands.

With Leica gear, I never considered using it on MF. AF was fine for everything I did and my eyes ain't exactly great either!

The lenses you mentioned are competent but if you want shallow depth of field and specific bokeh, you need to go with really fast glass. However, you are limited with the G lenses.

My recommendation would be to keep the D40 for all the things that you normally use it for. AF surely will help you with less than perfect eyesight and Nikon has truly useable DSLRs that you can add to the D40 kit. What is your budget?

Now, if you want to go rangefinders....again, what is your budget? Switching systems is expensive and rangefinders can be more so.🙂

Either way, it will be a lot more than the D40 kit ever cost and that kit is really a good kit for so many everyday things, you might as well keep it.

 

[texchappy]

Part of the reason I have a Zorki on the way is to see how I get along with rangefinders. Budget. Probably not up to an M9 or even a used M8 at the moment. I’ll keep the D40 for family etc. I’m going to have to save up to anything I get. I’ve been going back and forth (as has been noticed over on L-camera-forum). I like the convenience for me of digital but I’m thinking right now of an older film M to get started on getting the M lenses going.

 

[dave lackey]

Part of the reason I have a Zorki on the way is to see how I get along with rangefinders. Budget. Probably not up to an M9 or even a used M8 at the moment. I’ll keep the D40 for family etc. I’m going to have to save up to anything I get. I’ve been going back and forth (as has been noticed over on L-camera-forum). I like the convenience for me of digital but I’m thinking right now of an older film M to get started on getting the M lenses going.

Film is good!😀

If you really want into rangefinders, mosey on over to Cameraquest's home page and look through the Voigtlander gear. Great place to get into RFs.

If you still like SLRs, and want to go film....you can't lose with a Nikon FA, FE bodies, FM bodies as they are great, quality cameras that are around $100/each and lenses, very good lenses are much cheaper than Leica lenses.

I have two FE2s at the moment and cannot recommend them enough!:angel:

 

[GaryLH]

If u go the fast prime route, start analyzing which focal lengths u use from the EXIF data from your two zooms.... This will at least give u some ideas about the fix focal length lenses to concentrate your quest.

I would suggest rent one of the lenses on the list to try out.. Just playing with one in a camera store is not enough time to get a good feel since u have been only using zooms in the past.

Good luck
Gary

 

[texchappy]

@ Dave Lakey: Running some film through my F2 phonemic right now (Ilford XP2).

@ GaryLH: very good idea I hadn’t thought of, I’ll go and see.

 

[redisburning]

coincident rangefinders are the best remedy I've found to poor eyesight. theyre especially useful with wides where finding the plane of best focus can be tough.

if you cant afford a digital Leica and you want an RF shoot film and get a 200 dollar minolta film scanner.

 

[texchappy]

Went back and looked at my shots. Besides the long zoom ones of wildlife, I found quite a group around 50mm and a few at 35mm. If my math is correct for the DX crop factor of 1.5 (which is always doubtful) then I'd say that roughly 35mm and 24mm would be the lenses I'd want to get first for a full format or a film camera.

 

[bugmenot]

I'd go with something that has an electronic viewfinder if eyesight is a problem.

Say, a NEX-5N with EVF or NEX-7 ...

 

[Range-rover]

Hi,
I just got a Nikon d200, I'm using it with a manual focus Nikkor
20mm f2.8 lens I got at a flea market for $40.00 dollars the pictures
came out really nice different from the canon stuff I've been using, but
I heard good things about that 35mm f1.8 lens they have. You have to
research some other lenses they have and start from there.

Range

 

[texchappy]

I'd go with something that has an electronic viewfinder if eyesight is a problem.

Say, a NEX-5N with EVF or NEX-7 ...

I have looked at the Leica X2 a bit and like the shots I've seen out of it.

Don't have horribly bad eye sight; I can still manually focus with my F2. The D40 just doesn't seem cut out for manually focusing for me. I tried it a bit this morning, concentrating on the green light, just no fun/luck. Apparently the D40 doesn't have the rangefinder mode - just the dot.

 

[Warren T.]

Which prime lenses do you use with your F2? Do you have any fast, manual focus primes, like a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4, or 35mm f2.0? If so, try those on your D40. The D40 will mount just about any F-mount lens made including non-ai lenses (but with no metering). If you want to stick with modern, AF lenses, the 35mm f1.8DX has a very good reputation.

--Warren

 

[texchappy]

Warren, that's part of the reason I went with the D40. I've tried my lenses on it but just doesn't seem right and haven't been happy with the results. Was using my 180 a couple of days ago and couldn't get it focused to my liking.

I have 2.8/180 ed, 3.5/135, 2.5/105 gauss, 1.4/50, 2.8/35, 2.8/25

 

[Warren T.]

Warren, that's part of the reason I went with the D40. I've tried my lenses on it but just doesn't seem right and haven't been happy with the results. Was using my 180 a couple of days ago and couldn't get it focused to my liking.

I have 2.8/180 ed, 3.5/135, 2.5/105 gauss, 1.4/50, 2.8/35, 2.8/25

okay, I understand now. If you're going to stick with your D40 and you want AF, then you're limited to the AF-S Nikkors. There are some very good, yet reasonably priced ones for you to try: 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, and 85mm.

I think you should give one of those a try. 😀

Take advantage of the automation in the D40.

--Warren

 

[Thardy]

That 35mm 1.8 costs about $200. Much cheaper than a bunch of new gear and it auto focuses. The 50mm costs about $220.

 

[texchappy]

Both very good options and lenses I’ve been thinking about.

 

[grainhound]

There is the replacement focusing screen made by Katzeye: centre split, with a micro-prism donut. It does help with manual focus on my D90, but I found it a little disappointing after focusing with an M camera, and a Canon T90 before that. The Katzeye is expensive at over $100. There are Chinese made screens on thatbay which seem to run around $15 - $30. I have no idea whether they're any good or not.

Just looked at thatbay and there were some choices for a D40. If you haven't already seen it, go to the Mir Nikon site. Google "Mir focusing screens" for a complete chart; Nikon made a lot of screens for the F3 and Mir guides you through the naming conventions.

 

[GaryLH]

Went back and looked at my shots. Besides the long zoom ones of wildlife, I found quite a group around 50mm and a few at 35mm. If my math is correct for the DX crop factor of 1.5 (which is always doubtful) then I'd say that roughly 35mm and 24mm would be the lenses I'd want to get first for a full format or a film camera.

The 35 f1.8 is a good one. I have it on my d40x. The dslr is not seeing much use these days since getting the Fuji though.

Gary