> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:20:01 -0700, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:33:26 -0400, tony cooper
>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT), beginner1.mat@hotmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>> Then again, I know novices who bought too much camera and end up
>>> frustrated because tbey don't know how to use it.
>>
>>I can never understand how one can get too much camera and get
>>frustrated. You can take almost all of the consumer DSLRs and put it on
>>Auto or Program and just frame the subject and press the button. And
>>you cam also use Portrait or Landscape settings. You can get great
>>photos doing that with out even reading the manual.
> I don't understand it either, but I've seen it. Cameras like the D200
> and above don't have a Portrait or Landscape setting. No little
> running man on a dial for action shots. No flower on a dial for
> macro. No mountain on a dial for landscape. It does have a program
> mode that works well if all you want to do is take snapshots like a
> P&S. But if you want to simulate what those missing icons are doing,
> you have to know what they do in terms of shutter and aperature and
> set the camera up that way yourself.
> I guess some people who are used to those little icons on the dial
> miss them with an upper end DSLR.
There's also those ambitious folk who buy a DSLR and shoot in manual
mode because they've been told that's how you get the best results,
but unfortunately all their exposures are way off. Rather like those
folk who get a manual gear shift car for the first time and complain
after having driven hundreds of miles in second gear.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:36:49 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>I don't understand it either, but I've seen it. Cameras like the D200
>and above don't have a Portrait or Landscape setting. No little
>running man on a dial for action shots. No flower on a dial for
>macro. No mountain on a dial for landscape. It does have a program
>mode that works well if all you want to do is take snapshots like a
>P&S. But if you want to simulate what those missing icons are doing,
>you have to know what they do in terms of shutter and aperature and
>set the camera up that way yourself.
>
>I guess some people who are used to those little icons on the dial
>miss them with an upper end DSLR.
>
I've been using my Nikon D40 for some time now, and I've yet to use
any of the Scene settings. I probably should try them just to see if
they do offer any advantage. I'll have to look for locations and
situations where the Scene options would be appropriate and take shots
for comparison.
I've also yet to use any of the in-camera enhancements listed under
Optimize Image.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper wrote:
[]
> I've been using my Nikon D40 for some time now, and I've yet to use
> any of the Scene settings. I probably should try them just to see if
> they do offer any advantage. I'll have to look for locations and
> situations where the Scene options would be appropriate and take shots
> for comparison.
>
> I've also yet to use any of the in-camera enhancements listed under
> Optimize Image.
I've used the close-up setting a few times, but like you, none of the
in-camera enhancements.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 06:26:52 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
> But with the kit 18-55mm you get better close-up and a much more compact
> and lightweight outfit, and with the 70-300mm a greater telephoto! Were I
> buying today, I might consider the 16-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR as my ideal
> 2-lens outfit. I do like VR (in-lens image stabilisation).
A good 3 lens kit might add Sigma's 10-20mm or Tokina's 11-16mm
lens to the 16-85mm and 70-300mm lenses. That said, the 55-200mm VR
is also a good lens and with its much smaller size and weight (not
to mention cost) goes well with the similarly small D40. While in
no way as convenient as a small P&S, I can still see people taking a
D40 and 55-200mm to places where it would be too much trouble to
take the 70-300mm lens. While I don't know the particulars, some
U.S.A. ball parks allow visitors to bring and use cameras unless
they seem too "pro", which is a risk that the large 70-300mm adds.
> Even if you don't currently own any lenses, it is a concern if you
> want to take advantage of the large number of very high quality but
> older Nikon AF lenses that aren't AF-S or AF-I on ebay, craigslist,
> etc. for reasonable prices compared to new ones. I suppose the
> average D40 owner wouldn't care all that much about that though.
> But if you haven't bought your camera yet and think there's even a
> remote possibility that you might get seriously into photography as
> a hobby, I'd go with something that can use the AF lenses.
It's not as if someone seriously getting into photography will
start collecting only lenses. Those that currently use a D50, D70
or even a D80 which can AF with more lenses than the D40, if they
follow that route are much more likely to want to eventually add a
more "serious" camera body as well. Many photographers that have
already moved up to a D200 or D300 haven't sold or retired their
older D70s and D50s and still use them where appropriate or
convenient. For those that won't be getting "seriously into
photography", there are still enough fully functional, affordable
AF-S lenses available to meet practically all needs.
> Then again, I know novices who bought too much camera and
> end up frustrated because tbey don't know how to use it.
I know that guy too, the one that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
right? But not to worry. First, he didn't pay for it and two, his
wife can always set it for him, except for when he's away with the
boys zipping around on a golf cart.
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:20:01 -0700, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:33:26 -0400, tony cooper
>>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT), beginner1.mat@hotmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Then again, I know novices who bought too much camera and end up
>>>> frustrated because tbey don't know how to use it.
>>> I can never understand how one can get too much camera and get
>>> frustrated. You can take almost all of the consumer DSLRs and put it on
>>> Auto or Program and just frame the subject and press the button. And
>>> you cam also use Portrait or Landscape settings. You can get great
>>> photos doing that with out even reading the manual.
>
>> I don't understand it either, but I've seen it. Cameras like the D200
>> and above don't have a Portrait or Landscape setting. No little
>> running man on a dial for action shots. No flower on a dial for
>> macro. No mountain on a dial for landscape. It does have a program
>> mode that works well if all you want to do is take snapshots like a
>> P&S. But if you want to simulate what those missing icons are doing,
>> you have to know what they do in terms of shutter and aperature and
>> set the camera up that way yourself.
>
>> I guess some people who are used to those little icons on the dial
>> miss them with an upper end DSLR.
>
> There's also those ambitious folk who buy a DSLR and shoot in manual
> mode because they've been told that's how you get the best results,
> but unfortunately all their exposures are way off. Rather like those
> folk who get a manual gear shift car for the first time and complain
> after having driven hundreds of miles in second gear.
>
And when did you actually come across anybody that did that.
Dave Cohen
beginner1.mat@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am looking to get my first SLR camera (I have been using point and
> shoot to this point) and was wondering what I should get. I have been
> reading numerous websites, but would like some info from people who
> use these cameras. I have read ken rockwell's website and noticed he
> highly recommends the Nikon D40 for novices. How would the Canon rate
> to the Nikon...can they even be compared?
>
> I will have 2 primary purposes for the camera:
>
> 1) I want to primarily take nice family photos, especially close ups
> that focus on the person and everything else is blurred in the
> background.
A 28mm or 50mm f/1.8 'prime' lens is what you need. Autofocus isn't as
useful as you might think here but if you really want AF then it's Canon
or assuming you aren't interested in the specific Nikon models capable
of metering with a slightly older lens then it's the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 or
50mm f/1.8 AF (which won't AF on a D60/D40, etc.)
> I would also like to be able to take good pics in low
> light (in the house).
This depends on lens speed & max usable ISO.
> 2) Wide angle scenic type of photos
>
> I was told that the auto focus feature on the D40 will not work with
> many lenses, and that was somewhat of a concern to me. As lenses seem
> to be a large part, does one company make better lenses for what I
> would need than others? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
"Dave Cohen" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:N%Rgk.167$X2.57@trnddc03...
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> There's also those ambitious folk who buy a DSLR and shoot in manual
>> mode because they've been told that's how you get the best results,
>> but unfortunately all their exposures are way off. Rather like those
>> folk who get a manual gear shift car for the first time and complain
>> after having driven hundreds of miles in second gear.
>>
>
> And when did you actually come across anybody that did that.
I've come across someone who has always driven manual shift, but who refuses
to use any gear higher than third, because the first car she drove (around
1970) had only 3 forward gears, and she assumes any more are just modern
frippery. And of course the (modern, Japanese) car she drives in that manner
now isn't any noisier and doesn't require any more maintenance than the
('60s, British) car she drove back then...
People have tried to explain, but she's a school headmistress...
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:28:54 -0700, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Steve wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:20:01 -0700, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:33:26 -0400, tony cooper
>>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT), beginner1.mat@hotmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I was told that the auto focus feature on the D40 will not work with
>>>>>> many lenses, and that was somewhat of a concern to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It should be a concern for you *if* you presently own lenses that you
>>>>> plan to use on the D40. However, if you order the standard D40 kit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Even if you don't currently own any lenses, it is a concern if you
>>>> want to take advantage of the large number of very high quality but
>>>> older Nikon AF lenses that aren't AF-S or AF-I on ebay, craigslist,
>>>> etc. for reasonable prices compared to new ones. I suppose the
>>>> average D40 owner wouldn't care all that much about that though. But
>>>> if you haven't bought your camera yet and think there's even a remote
>>>> possibility that you might get seriously into photography as a hobby,
>>>> I'd go with something that can use the AF lenses. If the D300 isn't
>>>> in your budget, maybe a used D200. There's tons of them out there for
>>>> not much more than a D40x and it's an incredibly more capable camera.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, I know novices who bought too much camera and end up
>>>> frustrated because tbey don't know how to use it.
>>>>
>>> I can never understand how one can get too much camera and get
>>> frustrated. You can take almost all of the consumer DSLRs and put it on
>>> Auto or Program and just frame the subject and press the button. And
>>> you cam also use Portrait or Landscape settings. You can get great
>>> photos doing that with out even reading the manual.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand it either, but I've seen it. Cameras like the D200
>> and above don't have a Portrait or Landscape setting. No little
>> running man on a dial for action shots. No flower on a dial for
>> macro. No mountain on a dial for landscape. It does have a program
>> mode that works well if all you want to do is take snapshots like a
>> P&S. But if you want to simulate what those missing icons are doing,
>> you have to know what they do in terms of shutter and aperature and
>> set the camera up that way yourself.
>>
>> I guess some people who are used to those little icons on the dial
>> miss them with an upper end DSLR.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>But the D200/300 was not part of this discussion. I believe that the
>Canon XSi and below and the Nikon D60 and below have those features and
>they can all be used as a simple point and shoot with interchangeable
>lenses.
Actually, the D300 was part of the discussion. Take a look at the
subject line for what the discussion was about. I just mentioned the
D200 because it's so similar to the D300 in this respect that it's
applicable, and it's what I'm more familiar with.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:19:47 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:
>beginner1.mat@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I am looking to get my first SLR camera (I have been using point and
>> shoot to this point) and was wondering what I should get. I have been
>> reading numerous websites, but would like some info from people who
>> use these cameras. I have read ken rockwell's website and noticed he
>> highly recommends the Nikon D40 for novices. How would the Canon rate
>> to the Nikon...can they even be compared?
>>
>> I will have 2 primary purposes for the camera:
>>
>> 1) I want to primarily take nice family photos, especially close ups
>> that focus on the person and everything else is blurred in the
>> background.
>
>A 28mm or 50mm f/1.8 'prime' lens is what you need. Autofocus isn't as
>useful as you might think here but if you really want AF then it's Canon
>or assuming you aren't interested in the specific Nikon models capable
>of metering with a slightly older lens then it's the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 or
>50mm f/1.8 AF (which won't AF on a D60/D40, etc.)
You don't need a f/1.8 to blur the background of close ups that focus
on a person. There's plenty of lenses that will autofocus on a D40
that let you do that with f/2.8 or f/3.5, which will easily blur the
background of close up portraits. In fact, a f/1.8 is probably too
much aperature and will not give you enough DOF to keep even an entire
close up face in focus. For a close up, the eyes might be in focus
but the nose and ears won't be.
will do what you want. All of them except one will auto focus on a
D40. And 7 of them are DX lenses, which you might as well use on a
D40 to save weight, size and cost.
Re: Canon 40D and 5D vs. Nikon D40 and D300 
Linear Mode
