I shoot at concerts with a 50-200 and a 18-55.
Ok, let me get this straight, you're complaining about low-light and autofocus performance with f/4-5.6 and 3.5-5.6 lenses? Assuming you're normally zoomed out, that puts you at f/5.6. Let me also get this straight, you think that AF on
any other body at f/5.6 in dark conditions is going to be phenomenally better? I think you should consider spending some time doing some research on autofocus.
You're using the wrong lenses. Spending more money on a different body isn't going to help more than marginally- even the D3's 3500-FX autofocus module tops out at f/5.6. Spending more money on different lenses will help, spending even an extra $3500 on a body won't.
I was clearly talking about their AF and shutter being a lot faster than mine.
Please don't twist my words into making it seem like holding the shutter down is going to give you a great shot.
First of all, I wasn't "twisting" your words, I quoted you verbatim. Secondly, once again AF performance is directly related to the size of the aperture (speed) of the lenses. I would suggest that next time you have camera envy in that situation, you look at the lenses being used- I'm pretty-sure that you'll find that even more cross-type AF sensors aren't going to affect AF performance at f/5.6, and that the people shooting rings around you are instead doing so
by using better lenses,
not better camera bodies. You're seeing an artifact because people who spend real money on camera bodies tend to spend more money on lenses.
You act like I'm the only that thinks the D40 isn't the greatest camera out there. I take decent shots, and I DO know how to work the camera. I'm not
No, I'm aware that there are lots of people who think the D40 isn't a good camera. I'm also aware that most of them are destined to take crappy shots with more expensive cameras.
the only one that has my exact issues with the D40. Ask any real photographer out there, and you will hear them say that it's a decent camera, but it has it's limitations, which is exactly what I pointed out.
Once again, I submit that knowing how Nikon AF modules work, and having put
really expensive glass on the front of a D40 body, you may know the symptoms, but you are severely misinformed as to the diagnosis or cure.
You don't understand, there aren't lens worth buying for the D40 that would help with my conditions. The lens selection is awful. And the ones that are borderline decent cost a fortune.
No, you don't understand. You're trying to shoot something that requires the correct equipment. There are lots and lots of Nikkor lenses that fit the D40, in fact more than fit my D2x! Selection is hardly awful, it's great.
A good lens is a good lens, if it fits the body, what makes it not "worth" buying if it works for your intended camera use?
Here's a list of Nikkors and 3rd party lenses which are fully functional on a D40:
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...c&forum=152&topic_id=13319&mesg_id=13319&page
There is *one* lens on that list that doesn't exist as far as I've researched in the past. How is that an "awful" selection?
Now, if you want autofocus (and I think I've given enough evidence that AF is a convenience rather than a necessity) and low light performance on a D40, then your choices are that list, not the wider field of used Nikkors that aren't on it- but no matter which camera body you're shooting exposure is exposure- and to get past the decent ISO 1600 performance of a D40 (and let's face it, with an f/2.8 lens you could shoot at the equivalent of ISO 6400 with your current lenses just fine) you need faster glass. Sigma and Tamron both make a good selection of f/2.8 lenses that work well on the D40, and Nikon and Sigma both make even faster lenses. Those lenses cost the same no matter which body you put them on, so their value remains constant no matter if you put them on a D3x or a D40 or an S3Pro.
I was talking about the stock flash that comes with the camera which is indeed awful. Of course, I'm talking about art, not pictures of your girlfriend or pet or whatever. In which cases, flash works fine.
It's no more awful than the built-in flash on a D700. It works well as a fill flash as long as you use the built-in flash compensation, which is about all on-axis low-mounted flashes are actually good for anyway. Hooked to my studio strobe, my friend's D40 did just fine ($8 hotshoe to pc-sync adapter necessary- oh the horror and expense!) Do you think the built-in flash of the D700 is better? The D80? Built-in flash has its limitations, no matter what the body, so the complaint is moot in terms of the D40, because it always has the same limitations.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Of course the D40 is more advanced than what was used in those times. That's obvious. But using a film camera is a totally different game. The people that took those photos were the best of the best. Not random people on a Mac forum.
No, it's not a "totally different game." Exposure is exposure. I've owned the following film cameras:
Yashica FX-D Quartz, Nikon 8008s, Mamiya C330, Mamiya 645, Pentax 67, Cambo 4x5, Canham 5x7. Exposure was exposure on all those cameras- ISO, shutter speed and aperture.
You can't really shoot sports with a view camera, nature with a 645 is a challenge (but not impossible,) but the D40 makes a better all-around camera than an 8008s and blows the Yashica out of the water- what you give up in resolution, you make up for in handling and high-ISO.
Finally, the people who took those pictures were simply good photographers. There's no magic, no special "good photographer" gene, just someone who took the time to learn the craft rather than expecting their gear to do it all for them.
Forced? Why would you be forced to shoot with the D40 when you can take pictures just like, if not better than, the people that took all those great shots at 70's and 80's concerts? What about all those 60's and 70's sports shots? It seems obvious if the D40 is capable of that, than you should not be forced to shoot with it. You should be thrilled! And if the AF was as good as you make it out to be, than why would you shoot in manual focus?
What I am saying, and I'll use literal words now since you obviously lack some ability to link words with logic is that the major failing of the D40 is in its manual focusing feedback. I'd shoot in manual focus because I'd be using glass that's AF-D at least some of the time- I do that now, and even though my D2x is capable of autocusing with AF-D lenses I manually focus them most of the time. I find the "triangles and dot" focusing on the D2x to be easier to use than the "dot no triangles" focus indicator on the D40/D80, and split prism focusing easier than either.
Forced because I don't like the battery life of the D40 in the field, nor the lack of crop options on a 6MP sensor for what I usually shoot, and I find the small camera uncomfortable in my hands.
Once again, please do not twist my words.
Once again, I quoted your words verbatim. Designated marksmen with bolt-action rifles beat average machine-gunners on full-auto pretty-much every single time. Relying on equipment instead of building skills is a trade-off that isn't the equipment's fault.
