Sold all my RFs and bought D40 and prime

RObert Budding said:
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."

It's difficult to take such silly statements seriously. The D40 has an AP-S sized sensor, very good low light performance, and hardly any shutter lag. It is, of course, limited to AF-S lenses for AF, but that was a reasonable trade-off for the price point.

There aren't any p&s cameras that perform as well. Unless you failed to read the manual . . .
Click to expand...

Going by personal experience, my D40 performs miserably in manual mode. The ability to use manual mode, and take control away from the camera, is the whole point of getting a DSLR instead of a p&s. If I'm going to be using it in automatic, a Canon A630/A640 is quicker and easier and (with the exception of not being able to use lens filters) does much the same stuff (since most of the digital variables can be controlled almost as well in photoshop as in the camera). I do know how to use a camera (I have about 100 of them at any given time, four of which are digital), and I have the awards to prove it. After owning a Nikon D50 (and a couple of Coolpix cameras and a Canon A630), I traded "up" for a D40 and was disappointed. It just simply doesn't work as well in manual as my D50 did. Next stop, D80 (I have too many Nikon lenses to switch to Canon DSLRs).

BTW, those of you who think that digital cameras are superior "in every way" must be scanning small format film. If you make your prints with an enlarger (one with a good lens) and you're using an ultra-high resolution film (or if you're using medium format), well, you're going to need a Hasselblad H2D to touch that.

Oh, and yes, I know I am disparaging about the D40. I think I've earned the right to do that. I feel that mine has not lived up to my expectations and has let me down. Nearly every SLR and DSLR I have ever owned or used has performed better than my D40. It fights me at every turn in manual, and it doesn't perform that well in automatic.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
I do have an issue with LR. He claims he's seen several posts talking about abandoning digital and returning to film. To me, this is remarkable, atypical and infrequent. Besides, these posts are made in a film community. Now, LR kinda boasts of having done the opposite "just to show an opposite view."

I don't think it's tactful. It reeks of troll to me. If I went to the DSLR forum and claimed that I have seen the light, sold all my digital gear and bought a film camera... what reception could I expect? Not one as nice as in this forum, certainly.

But heck, you want to brag... you open yourself to posts like mine.

And BTW, I'm not a rabid film fan, but to me, these choices are personal, done for personal reasons and for a personal goal. In fact, I just purchased a digital camera (used, Lumix with Leica zoom that goes from 35 to 420mm). Am I ecstatic? No, but I won't go into further detail about it.

In any case, congratulations on your purchase and I hope you enjoy it a lot. 🙂
Click to expand...

Film and digital cameras and processes are not interchangable, in spite of what the advertizing hype says. Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is entirely possible that the type of photography he is doing is far less suited to digital processes than it is to film photography, as is mine. If this is the case, then I don't blame him, and I don't think it is at all remarkable or atypical of fine art photographers, indeed I'd think it is advisable in many cases. However, a commercial photographer would have to be out of his <insert expletive of choice here> mind to switch from digital to film exclusively.

Digital photography, with photoshop, has a great workflow, and it is highly suited to commercial applications (it is easily post processed and can be transmitted electronically, with no image degradation). Because of this, digital cameras have almost entirely taken over photojournalism. If at any point, the photo has to be handled, transmitted or stored electronically, you are almost certainly better off using a digital camera.

However, if you are doing fine art work, and you have the option of making your prints with an enlarger, and don't have to send them electronically to anyone and can look at the physical print(s) and don't have to look at them on a computer monitor, and if you don't mind spending a little time and money on making those prints, then film is probably going to have a lot more appeal. Only the very most expensive digital cameras, like the Hasselblad H2D, with a cooled Dalsa back, can even remotely approach the quality of something like a 4x5 foot gold toned print on graded Oriental Seagull, made from a two hour exposure on an Efke KB25 negative, developed in Rodinol. There are hundreds of films, and they're all different. Each reacts in different ways to hundreds of different developers, in different dillutions. You only get one sensor though. Then there are also many different chemical processes and physical mediums that you just can't duplicate in photoshop.

I don't think it is an either/or scenerio. I think a really good photographer would have both systems. That is what most bothers me about the "I've sold all my Xs and switched to Ys" statements.
 
Last edited:
FallisPhoto said:
BTW, I don't think it is an either/or scenerio. I think a really good photographer would have both systems.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. For me digital has generally replaced what 35mm would have been used for... sports/action, general purpose usage, pocket cameras, snaps/touristy stuff, walkabout, and experimenting to a certain extent. For more serious stuff medium format comes to bare (I haven't used any large format yet). Even simply scanning in a negative gives me more scope for cropping and editing, never mind all the cool stuff you can do with photographic printing.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Going by personal experience, my D40 performs miserably in manual mode. The ability to use manual mode, and take control away from the camera, is the whole point of getting a DSLR instead of a p&s. . . . I do know how to use a camera (I have about 100 of them at any given time, four of which are digital), and I have the awards to prove it. . .
Click to expand...

Odd that I had no problems using a friend's D40x in manual mode - even though my own DSLR was a D200. Perhaps it was easier for me because I know the D200 very well and I don't own 100+ cameras - that just sounds too confusing. I'd rather know a few cameras well. And how can you know 100+ cameras well? You would shoot each one 3 days/year if you shot almost every day.
 
I'd like to know what's wrong with manual mode on a d40 or d40x, so that I can educate myself on why I should have spent more money. Then I can sell my d40x and get a camera that has a fancier manual mode.
 
keithwms said:
I'd like to know what's wrong with manual mode on a d40 or d40x, so that I can educate myself on why I should have spent more money. Then I can sell my d40x and get a camera that has a fancier manual mode.
Click to expand...

One disadvantage is that it only has one command dial so in manual mode you adjust shutter speed with the command dial, then to adjust aperture you have to press a button while turning the command dial. More advanced cameras with 2 command dials may be faster to operate in manual mode.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Do you mean a 40D? The D40 is a Nikon. If you got the Nikon, I'm sorry to hear that you did that. If you had to get a Nikon DSLR, you would have been better advised to get a D50, D70 or D80. The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera.
Click to expand...

Hey, watch it now...
No bad mouthing Nikons😛

D40 and lens $499.00

Hard to beat, price of a Bessa...

Kiu
 
RObert Budding said:
I don't own 100+ cameras - that just sounds too confusing. I'd rather know a few cameras well. And how can you know 100+ cameras well? You would shoot each one 3 days/year if you shot almost every day.
Click to expand...

A good photographer can take a good photo with nearly anything. A bad photographer takes bad photos, regardless of what he is shooting the photos with.
 
Last edited:
RObert Budding said:
Odd that I had no problems using a friend's D40x in manual mode - even though my own DSLR was a D200. Perhaps it was easier for me because I know the D200 very well and I don't own 100+ cameras - that just sounds too confusing. I'd rather know a few cameras well. And how can you know 100+ cameras well? You would shoot each one 3 days/year if you shot almost every day.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but maybe that is because the D40 and the D40x are two different cameras.
 
NIKON KIU said:
Hey, watch it now...
No bad mouthing Nikons😛

D40 and lens $499.00

Hard to beat, price of a Bessa...

Kiu
Click to expand...

I like Nikons and I have several. I've got a 3100, a 2500, a D40 and a D50, plus some Nikon film cameras. I just don't like the D40. Personally, I'd rather have the D80, D70, or D50.
 
I think that you have made a wise choice. Particularly if you get your sallary in US dollars. The RF segment of the camera market is the most expensive one. The price, in dollars, of a M8 is rediculously high. This is mostly due to the fall of the dollar. Imagine if it was priced 40% lower in the US. That is about the price Leica could have hold on the M8 if the US dollar had kept a 'normal' level.

And the 40D is about the best amateur camera you can get today. The EOS system the largest and Canon is definately the strongest competitor in the digital market.

A wise choice.

PS.
(We here at the RFF forum are pissed off that you did not ask us for advice, ofcause. We missed out on a 1.000 plus reply discussion string, - concluding; stick with a RF camera!)
 
Last edited:
I use a d40x quite often. It's a gem. Comparing it to a p&s is nonsense.

For one thing it's small enough to take up in a small plane....
aero625bwsm.jpg


Fast enough to get off several shots from the hip while being strafed by an F-18...

Fighter_series.jpg


Stealthy enough to get shots that the subject doesn't even hear...

ky_i_070807.jpg


And though I primarily use it to meter for LF velvia, it gives me a few shots now and then that ain't half bad....

dunes_deathvalley.jpg


bristlecone_upwards.jpg
 
Why all this either|or stuff? I'm quite happy with my Canon 30D and my RF gear. Even if price were more of a problem for me (I know that I'm more fortunate than some in that regard) my M3 wasn't expensive and a decent 50 isn't hard to come by at a good price. So, no matter what, I'll always have both.

...Mike

P.S. and BTW the 40D looks very nice - but not enough nicer than the 30D for me to upgrade. I think I'll skip a generation...

and, P.P.S. The thread title seems to have caused enormous confusion between the OP's Canon 40D and the Nikon D40
 
Last edited:
As a hardcore devotee of classic cameras, I, until quite recently, had been shooting with a variety of mostly 50's folders, rangefinders, TLRs, and a Pentax SLR system. I've dabbled over the past year or so with a Canon A610 I purchased for my daughter & a Nikon Coolpix 990 given to me by my brother, appreciating their unique qualities when compared with my older machines, while never quite warming up to the uncomfortable cold feeling of operating an appliance, not to mention the digital nature of the images as compared to film.
After much careful consideration, I recently purchased a used, mint condition Pentax DS on Ebay for $350. I immediately removed the kit lens it came with & replaced it with a 55mm 1.8 bayonet mount Pentax prime, giving me in essence a nice, fast 82.5 portrait. I have since acquired an original Pentax M42 adapter so that I can use my arsenal of Takumar screwmount lenses in addition to my bayonet primes & manual zooms. I set my camera to full manual, taking readings, changing aperture, & focusing as I would with my Spotmatics. Shutter speeds are controlled with a thumb wheel. I find this camera to be quite a comfortable, easy transition, & use it as my digital-back Spotmatic along with my film Spotmatics when I go SLR shooting. Thank goodness for my long-standing Pentax affiliations, as I don't really see any equivilant alternatives to reasonable cost manual digital cameras among the other DSLR producing companies.
This being said, even taking into consideration the tremendous convenience & creative opportunities afforded the photographer by being able to immediately ascertain certain qualities, or lack thereof, & make the necessary adjustments accordingly, not to mention the welcome economies, I use my DSLR as an additional, not a replacement tool.
Putting aside my preference for analog over digital images, especially B&W, shooting with different instruments give me different perspectives, & consequently often quite different results. I wouldn't approach a subject the same way with my DSLR as I would with my TLR.
I usually keep a pair of unmetered, zone focusing folders, one a 35mm, the other a 120, a rangefinder of one sort or another, a TLR, & one of my Spotmatics, not to mention the aforementioned fully charged DS, loaded & hanging from a series of coathooks near my front door. grabbing whichever is my fancy as I leave the house,letting the chips fall where they may.
To each his zone.
 
RObert Budding said:
But not with a D40?

The D40 and D40x are identical - except for the sensor. Same body, same menus. It is, IMHO, a fantastic camera for the price. But I wouldn't give up my D200 for one.
Click to expand...

You probably can, but why would you want to? Every other Nikon DSLR made will outperform it by a quantum leap. The key words here are "for the price," and the price is pretty darned low for a DSLR. Well, I don't have a D40x, and now I know not to get one. I was assuming it was different. I wouldn't give up any other DSLR for one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom