Nikon Digital SLR Question

[Sand Dancin Donkey Walker]

Hi Guys

Firstly a heartfelt 'A Happy New Year To You All' from Faye and Cookie and myself.

Now to my question.

I currently own a Nikon D40 camera. Which I enjoy greatly.
I may have the chance to get hold of a Nikon D3100 body and 18 - 55 lens.
The camera pixel size is double what I currently have and it also has moe features.
I know size isn't everything - but would it be a worth while upgrade.

I know I'm been a touch lazy here but you guys have more practicable experience.

Cheers for you help in advance.

Andy - SDDW

[Jac Hawk]

Hi Guys

Firstly a heartfelt 'A Happy New Year To You All' from Faye and Cookie and myself.

Now to my question.

I currently own a Nikon D40 camera. Which I enjoy greatly.
I may have the chance to get hold of a Nikon D3100 body and 18 - 55 lens.
The camera pixel size is double what I currently have and it also has moe features.
I know size isn't everything - but would it be a worth while upgrade.

I know I'm been a touch lazy here but you guys have more practicable experience.

Cheers for you help in advance.

Andy - SDDW
I've got a mate at work who used to be a pro photographer, and he is still a photography nut, he only uses nikon gear, i'll ask him if you like and report back tuesday with his answer

[Haselsh1]

To be honest, the camera is pretty much irrelevent these days. If it takes photo's and you like the look of it, get it. It's the lens that worries me. If it is the one I am thinking of then it is all plastic including the mounting bayonet and that is bad news. It is the lens that forms the image after all.

[Haselsh1]

Don't forget also, the more pixels you cram onto a CCD the more you increase the residual noise from the CCD. Stick with what you've got and buy Fractal 5 software.

[Sand Dancin Donkey Walker]

Hi Guys

Cheers for your promt replies,

Jake you offer would be appreciated, thanks.

Shaun, you are of course very right regarding lenses, the lens on my D40 is the DX range.
These appear to be the plastic mount. They have been ok so far and I have had the camera a couple of year now. So for the short term I would be happy with that.
What would be the better range to go for if I were to wish a better one in the future.

Cheers again guys

Andy - SDDW

[Sand Dancin Donkey Walker]

Hi Shaun

Fractal 5, just had to google it.

Looks interesting, may just have to buy a version of that.

Cheers

Andy

[Jac Hawk]

i gave up serious photography a while ago, you see i was really into it, darkroom the lot, anyway i split up with this lass i was seeing, she lived just off cargo fleet lane in the boro (andy will know where i mean) anyway i had to go past hers to get my gear and my camara gear too, i had a nikon f5s as i recall, anyway i picked the stuff up no probs, she was a bit frosty but that was to be expected. Anywat a few weeks later i got myself some new film, a bulk roll of fuji velvia, opened the back of the camara to find the bitch had ripped out the shutters and filled the insides with salt and peanut butter, now i'm not a vindictive kind of bloke but i was sorely tempted to go back round hers and set fire to her house. Bloody women !!!!!!!

[Sand Dancin Donkey Walker]

Hi Mike

Looks like you had a bad experience with that one.
I know very well the location you mentioned.
Revenge only ever escalates in a downward spiral, think about it but never actually do anything.

You are not very far away from me.
Why not drop by sometime if you get the chance.

Andy - SDDW

[Haselsh1]

Hi Guys

Cheers for your promt replies,

Jake you offer would be appreciated, thanks.

Shaun, you are of course very right regarding lenses, the lens on my D40 is the DX range.
These appear to be the plastic mount. They have been ok so far and I have had the camera a couple of year now. So for the short term I would be happy with that.
What would be the better range to go for if I were to wish a better one in the future.

Cheers again guys

Andy - SDDW

Andy, try to stay clear of lenses that announce the term 'Hybrid Lens' as these contain plastic moulded lens elements. With Nikon I would stick with AF-S lenses as these tend to be good but the auto-focussing can be a bit slow. Good lenses tend to cost more than the camera unfortunately.

An older Nikon D1X will produce photographically superior images to a lot of modern SLR's because the CCD has fewer pixels and is inherently better. Combine that with Fractal 5 and you have big 20 by 16's with stunning tonal quality.

Cheers for now.

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Guys

Firstly a heartfelt 'A Happy New Year To You All' from Faye and Cookie and myself.

Now to my question.

I currently own a Nikon D40 camera. Which I enjoy greatly.
I may have the chance to get hold of a Nikon D3100 body and 18 - 55 lens.
The camera pixel size is double what I currently have and it also has moe features.
I know size isn't everything - but would it be a worth while upgrade.

I know I'm been a touch lazy here but you guys have more practicable experience.

Cheers for you help in advance.

Andy - SDDW

Nikon D40 is awesome. I own one, it never let me down. The best DSLR for non-pro photographers!

For best results, make sure you always shoot in the 'P' mode. If you need flash, don't use the built in one; get a better one and mount it on the camera.

Pixels don't matter if you're viewing the photos on screen, or if you're printing regular size prints. Number of pixels only come into play if you need to blow up your photo.

Make sure that the sensitivity is set to automatic, then shoot in the 'P' mode -- it'll produce amazing results.

Ask more questions on D40 if interested.

[Sand Dancin Donkey Walker]

Hi Alex

Cheers for the info.

I have gone through the settings and set the Sensitivity to Auto annd will now use the Camera in P mode.

I got a touch lazy and used it in Auto Mode.

Will let you know how I get on.

I also went through the manual again to re-familiarise myself with the camera.
Surprising what you forget or now understand after you have had the camera for a while.

I do have some images that I would have liked to print in large scale but having thought about things I will stick with the D40 for a while yet.

Cheers again guys,

Andy - SDDW

[Jac Hawk]

Your Nikon should have several settings as follows.

M= Manual where by you set both shutter speed and apature manually, this gives the gratest flexibility to the creativity of your photography i.e allowing you to play with depth of field as well as speed bluring.

A = Apature priority this allows control of the Apature but the shutter speed is set for you, allowing you control of the depth of field so you can set how far into the distance objects stay in focus.

S = Shutter priority gives you control over the shutter speed and the apature is set for you, this allows you to blur objects traveling at speed.

P = Program most modern camaras have at least 1 program, they are used to take the guess work out of setting the shutter / apature for a required setting i.e. a prortrate or landscape.

Now i don't know how good a photographer you are, but the rule of thumb is, for taking quick snaps go with a program, the more experienced you get the more you will play with the semi auto and manual settings. It will come to the point when you have an idea of how you want a particular shot to turn out and the program setting won't give you that level of control, you'll be happy to have a manual setting.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

i disagree with Shaun to some extent on this ... sensors are getting better as time goes on ...
i know we arnt talking about pro cameras here but the 12 mp sensor in the nikon d3s is arguably the best sensor of its type ... and certainly better than the one in the d1x

apart from anything it is full frame (36 x 23.9 mm) sensor compared to the dx format (23.7 x 15.6 mm) sensor in the d1x
it is capable of taking photos up to 102,400 iso (extended) ... ok at that level its pretty noisy, but three stops down from that its usable and at the likes of 3200 iso you loose minimal levels of saturation and the noise levels are negligible ... the d1x max iso is 3200 (extended) and i certainly doubt its as clean at 3200 as the d3s is ... now this is of course only usefull in lower light situations ... but i am primarily a natural light photographer and at weddings (for eg) there is often less light so a d1x would be entirely impracticable for me compared to my d3

now if we take the d300 camera ... when that came out at the same time as the d3, both these cameras were a big shock to the industry ... at £1300 the d300 had the best noise control of any camera at its price point ... nikon being quite clever concentrated on romoving what they call "chromatic" noise which causes blotches of colour... where as most other brands concentrated on the "luminance" noise - the graininess in the image ... this meant that nikon had an advantage because not only did there cameras produce less noise, but the noise they did produce was more similar to that of the grain caused by the larger particles of highly sensitive film ...
now of course as time goes on these sensors are filtered down to the lower models and you can now get a camera with that same sensor for £760 with a lens

in terms of lower end cameras like the ones in question ... noise levels have impoved very slightly over the last few years... the 1600 iso setting on my d50 (6mp) is about the same as you get out of a d3100 at the same setting ... there will be differences in image quality ... but only minor ... and the 3100 will allow larger images to be printed ... it also has an articulated screen that allows you to shoot at waist level or above your head with a reasonably fast contrast detect auto focus mode ... the 3100 also has many other new features like video - which some might say are superfluous ... but they are features non the less ...

now i have obviously concentrated on noise in my comparisons ... but there are other things to consider - modern metering systems have higher pixel counts and are therefore more accurate ... modern cameras processing is often faster enabling more raw photos to be taken in quicker succession and for longer periods ... auto focus is quicker and more accurate and the cameras have more "points the the focusing systems allowing you to select the area you would like to focus on more accurately with a control that sits under your thumb

on the other hand, i do agree that once you have a good camera (and the d40 is a good camera) lenses are a better direction to spend you money ... low end lenses are often out performed in terms of resolution by the camera they are put on, so an update in camera will still be stunted by the glass that is attached to it ...

so yeah, all in all i agree with shaun that keeping the camera and buying new glass is a better way to spend the money ...

i just dont think that more modern cameras should be disregarded altogether as they are still improving as time goes on ...


as an aside, if you want the best out of your camera using the "A" mode or "aperture priority" will actually give you better results as it allows you to set the aperture but will adjust shutter speed and sensitivity accordingly
setting the aperture your self has 2 advantages
1: it allows you the creative control to decide how much depth of field you have - depth of field is depth of focus - a small number 3.5 for eg is a large apeture and a big number eg 22 is a small apeture (backwards i know) a big apeture will knock the background out of focus and let in more light (more suitable for portraits and low light) and small apeture will allow a lot more of the image to be in focus (more suitable for landscape work)
2: most lenses have an optimum aperture (usually around f/5 -f/8 where the photo is sharpest ... if you do a bit of experimenting you can find out where this optimum apeture is and shoot at it for better sharper results.

shooting on "p" and setting the iso to auto is the same as setting the camera to the mode that has a picture of a lightning strike (the flash symbol) with a line through it

hope thats helpfull ...

of course i would still encourage all you budding photographers to come and join me on real photographers forum :)


as for subtle tonal graduation (which i know shaun likes) ... i think these photos show what the d3 can do in very different circumstances

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/studiotest-291.jpg

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC4554-2.jpg

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC3551-4.jpg

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC2987.jpg

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC3406-1.jpg

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC1589.jpg

[Haselsh1]

Ya see full frame sensors are different and what I said does not apply to them in the same way. If the sensor size does not increase and the manufacturer simply piles on more pixels then the quality gets worse. The same applies to full frame sensors but as they are already bigger, you can fit in more pixels with less drop in quality. Eventually the whole thing catches up and the quality of image starts to drop. There's always a compromise to be had and just because it is a full frame sensor doesn't mean it is exempt.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Ya see full frame sensors are different and what I said does not apply to them in the same way. If the sensor size does not increase and the manufacturer simply piles on more pixels then the quality gets worse. The same applies to full frame sensors but as they are already bigger, you can fit in more pixels with less drop in quality. Eventually the whole thing catches up and the quality of image starts to drop. There's always a compromise to be had and just because it is a full frame sensor doesn't mean it is exempt.

i agree ... almost entirely ... case in point - compare the d3x to d3s ... the d3x have 24mp but much lower maximum iso ...
but ... and there is a but... processing does also get better ... noise removal through software is getting more powerful and as time goes on sensor design is changing allowing ofr a larger area of the sensor to be dedicated to light gathering ...

[The Vinyl Adventure]

... and i am disappointed you haven't join RPF shaun ... your imput and thoughts on this sort of thing would be a good addition to our little community ... never mind seeing some of your photos once in a while!!

[jantheman]

As pixel numbers increase there is also a proportional decrease in the contrast ratio that the CCD is able to resolve. Very likely outside of the ranges or specs that most of us mere mortals would notice, but there all the same. As has already said, there are advances in technology and software but once again, a compromise is the order of the day. Alas, nothing is perfect, not even me...

[magiccarpetride]

Now i don't know how good a photographer you are, but the rule of thumb is, for taking quick snaps go with a program, the more experienced you get the more you will play with the semi auto and manual settings. It will come to the point when you have an idea of how you want a particular shot to turn out and the program setting won't give you that level of control, you'll be happy to have a manual setting.

This is true. However (and I'm saying this because I came to the DSLR technology after many years of working with the traditional SLR), ever since I've started using Nikon's digital 'P' mode, I was rarely disappointed with the results. The main advantage, for me, is how intelligent the decisions usually are with regards to the choices of the ISO film sensitivity. Often times, if I were to shoot in a manual or semi-manual mode, I wouldn't be able to make such high quality decisions.

This is a true godsend. Film sensitivity can often make or break the snapshot. Once an appropriate film sensitivity has been established, it is much easier to play with other parameters. Make a wrong ISO choice, and it instantly becomes an uphill battle. And Nikon software, coupled with its sensors, is doing a kick ass job in that respect.

Keep in mind that most of my photography nowadays consists of on-the-go, spur of the moment shots. For such situations, I find D40 to fit the bill nicely. Of course, you can always pony up and treat your D40 with a better lens, but even then the choice must be driven by the targeted situation. What I'm trying to say is, often times the ultra light weight lens that comes with D40 is more than good enough.

I'd say, for 95% of cases, D40 will do a stellar job. For the other 5% of requirements, I'd rather hire a pro.

[s70rmp]

I had the D40x and then moved to a D5000, I now have the D300s and I'm so glad a did the move.

How long you had the D40 ?
Maybe it's time to move up a few notches and maybe even just upgraded to the D90 if you can still get hold of one.

but I'd not move from a D40 to a D3100 you need to move up the line now.

[Sand Dancin Donkey Walker]

Hi Guys

Cheers for all your replies.

I am still a novice in a lot of ways, I have had the camera 2 years ish, but really enjoy getting out and about with the camera. Taking the dogs out as much as I can helps too.

Though I must remember to take it every tme I am out. Just today I have missed some shots I would have loved to take, the lighting was just right and a great effect too. It changed within minutes - Ho well, I'll learn eventually.

As for the camera I think I will keep hold of the D40 for the time being and get to know it better, and try and use it more effectively.

As to the future may be the D90 or D3000 would be a good choice.
The lens on the D40 is a Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18 - 55. I find I use this most.

If I kept the D40 what would be a better quality lens, or is this ok too.

Cheers Guys

Andy - SDDW

[smurfbrain]

Lens choice depends on what type of photos you take. The one you have is quite decent for general use. If I was you i would buy a decent flash and play with what you have.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

as kit lenses go its ok ... better than the equiv from canon (as far as i know) ... but... there are many alternatives that will give you better results ...

whats the budget?

the 18-55 vr is the next choice ... same as yours with vibration control ... prob not worth the upgrade to be honest

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/dx/zoom/18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6g-af-s-vr-dx-zoom-nikkor

the nikon 18-70 is possibly slightly better(????) it was the 18-55 predesesor as a kit lens but you loose vr over the previous option

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/dx/zoom/18-70mm-f3-5-4-5g-ed-if-af-s-dx-zoom-nikkor

the 18-105 vr will give you more range and vibration redution

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/dx/zoom/18-105mm-f-3-5-5-6g-ed-if-af-s-vr-dx-zoom-nikkor

all of the above come as part of kits though so are perhaps not that special by comparsion ... is 18-105 being the only one id choose for its longer range and vibration control....


higher end stuff -

this is the lens that made me realise how sharp digital slrs can be

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/dx/zoom/17-55mm-f-2-8g-ed-if-af-s-dx-zoom-nikkor

its an absolute gem ... at a cost!
its faster (2.8 through the range) and sharper ... but its quite heavy .. but then you expect that from all the glass in it ...

a cheaper alternative would be the tamron 17-50 that come in 2 versions

with vibration control

http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-af-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-vc-ld-aspherical-if-6.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

and without

http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-af-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-7.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

vibration control on a lens that fast and short in only usefull in lowlight ... i havent used the VC version but the non vc is good ... if a bit prone to vignette when its at its wide apertures ... but most fast lenses are

wild card options to concider

there are many (super zoom lenses) out there ... these include the 18-200 vr nikon and a collection of tamron equivelents .. the best being the tamron 18-270 vc ... basically all you need from a lens in one lens ... but beware, image quality is not as high as having multiple lenses

http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overview/single/product/af-18-270mm-f35-63-di-ii-vc-ld-aspherical-if-macro-6.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

or you could look at a prime lens ... alway the best quality ... always faster (better in low light) but they limit your ability to frame without physically walking backwards ad forwards

the nikon 35mm 1.8 would be my choice as it is a recent lens, designed for your camera and for what it is is quite cheap

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/auto-focus-lenses/dx/fixed-focus/af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f-1-8g


if you decide to go down the super zoom route i would happily sell you my nikon 18-200 vr at a good price second hand ... if you want new then pm me and ill find you a price on anything nikon, sigma, tamron you can find through the shop... i cant guaruntee it would be the cheapest around but id do my best to get it close and you always have me to come back to for help... not that i wouldnt help if you got it from somewhere else ... but you know what mean :)

[The Vinyl Adventure]

oh and if you find a lens that interests you this is a good place for reviews ... he goes very hard on them and is very critical so dont be put off if it gets 3 out of 5 for somthing ... his 3 out of 5 is bloody good to the rest of us!

http://www.photozone.de/

this is the lens i use on my d3 ... its shit hot .. and gets 3.5 stars for optical quality

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=2

and to quote


However, in summary the Nikkor 24-70 currently sets the benchmark for F-mount FX standard zoom lenses.

but it still only get 3.5 for optical quality ... you get my point ...

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex

Cheers for the info.

I have gone through the settings and set the Sensitivity to Auto annd will now use the Camera in P mode.

I got a touch lazy and used it in Auto Mode.

Will let you know how I get on.

I also went through the manual again to re-familiarise myself with the camera.
Surprising what you forget or now understand after you have had the camera for a while.

I do have some images that I would have liked to print in large scale but having thought about things I will stick with the D40 for a while yet.

Cheers again guys,

Andy - SDDW

One more very important thing, Andy -- many people do not realize that manufacturers tend to calibrate their cameras to over-expose right out of the box. This is due to the many complaints coming from ignorant/inexperienced customers, who get seduced by the sexy advertisements and buy the camera expecting each and every shot to come out perfect. Of course, since these people don't know the first thing about photography, they often shoot in counter-light, and their photos turn out under-exposed.

They then tend to call the manufacturer and complain, or simply return the camera to the place where they purchased it.

To circumvent that, Nikon and other manufacturers tend to sell their consumer grade cameras with default calibration for over-exposing the shots. This is extremely annoying, as it tends to produce rather pale and lifeless photos. I remember my deep disappointment the first time I've unpacked my new D40 and took a few shots, only to find them all wimpy and bloodless. But hey, after a little snooping around, I've realized that by setting it up to underexpose by 2 stops (when in 'P' mode), everything miraculously springs to life!

Try it, you'll never look back. Once you push the default exposure in the 'P' mode down by 2 stops, your photos will suddenly gain substance, body, presence, weight. Don't worry about the shots coming out too dark -- the automatic ISO film sensitivity will calculate everything properly for ya. You can then beef it up some more by playing with color saturation.

Don't be afraid to experiment. Go to your camera's settings, and play with parameters. Then watch the results -- you'll learn a lot!

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Guys

Cheers for all your replies.

I am still a novice in a lot of ways, I have had the camera 2 years ish, but really enjoy getting out and about with the camera. Taking the dogs out as much as I can helps too.

Though I must remember to take it every tme I am out. Just today I have missed some shots I would have loved to take, the lighting was just right and a great effect too. It changed within minutes - Ho well, I'll learn eventually.

As for the camera I think I will keep hold of the D40 for the time being and get to know it better, and try and use it more effectively.

As to the future may be the D90 or D3000 would be a good choice.
The lens on the D40 is a Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18 - 55. I find I use this most.

If I kept the D40 what would be a better quality lens, or is this ok too.

Cheers Guys

Andy - SDDW

I'd say you can do some amazing photography work just with your D40 and the vanilla lens it comes with. One advantage of that camera is that, despite its rather bulky size, it is phenomenally light (I sometimes even forget that I'm carrying it in my bag). This makes a hell of a difference if you're travelling, or are on the go wishing to take some snapshots for posterity.

Photography is all about working with light. It takes years to get to the point where you work with light on the instinctive level, but it's worth the effort. This fact is best demonstrated by comparing the photos that pros make using some shitty cell phone camera with the photos dilettantes make using tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Despite the fact that cell phone cameras have terrible lenses and sensors and are sometimes confined to only 2 megapixels etc., pros can squeeze amazing photography out of these toys. Why? Because they have an unerring eye for the light. And if you know how to work with light, then the tools at your disposal become rather irrelevant.

At the other side of the spectrum, people who haven't got a clue about light can use $50,000 worth camera and lens, and will still produce shitty photography.

Observe how the pros work -- they are constantly on the go, they keep moving at a rather steady pace, often circumambulating the object of interest. This is because, instinctively, they're observing the ever changing light. Once the proper balance of light hits them, they raise their camera, adjust the framing to achieve balanced composition, and bang! -- a perfect shot is born!