Nikon DSLR on a Budget

<p>Good points on the D40, but I'd argue about the manual lenses. I've been using the same 50mm f/1.4 AIS for over twenty years, and I find myself having just as much trouble focusing it at f/16 on the D40/50/other inexpensive camera as I do at f/2 on the D700.</p>

<p>I strongly recommend the 35mm f/1.8 DX that was mentioned earlier. That and the 18-70 DX (also mentioned before) are, in my mind, two of the best inexpensive AF lenses ever made. If you can get an old Japanese 50 f/1.8 AF, that's the third.</p>

<p>I definitely think you're on the right track having him start with a prime though. Not only for the extra light and sharpness, but I find that starting off with a prime forces students to think about composition and angle of view much more than a zoom. When he does finally get a zoom lens, he'll understand things like compression and field of view much better than if he had that lens all along.</p>

<p>Zac...the 50mm f1.4 is notoriously difficult to focus wide open.<br>

My recommendation is the 35mm f2 Ai. They are peanuts on ebay and as they were the PJ's staple lens in the 80s, they were well made and the focus ring is large with a smooth, low geared action, so you can watch the DOF happening in the viewfinder if you stop down.<br>

If he starts right off with AF he will never learn about depth of field and zones of sharpness, lens diffraction and how light and the f stop affect them.</p>

<p>If money is an option I would go with D50/D70s. The built in motor drive allow use of a whole range of old AF nikkors. Personaly I don't get much fun out of manual focusing my D80 and my D70 was even worse. If there is a bit more money available the D80 viewfinder is much better than the D50/D70s in so much that it is bigger and brigher. The newer Nikon 35mm 1.8 is a good option for DX bodies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>@ Arthur Richardson - The D50 has a built in screw drive motor. I believe you are confusing the AF-D and AF-S versions of the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was not confusing the AF-D and AF-S lenses. I know the D50 has a motor too.I just said the D80 has a built in motor.<br>

I was stating that there is little added value of D over non-D if you don't use flash often. If the body had no motor, the AF-S would be the only way to go if you wanted AF working for you.</p>

<p>I've owned a D40, D50, and D300 and never noticed any difference in the viewfinders, but never thought to compare them side by side. I did however shoot them side by side, and I simply never noticed a difference. What is amazing is an FX viewfinder, the difference is clear. One thing that is not obvious is the the D40 is much faster at reviewing images and zooming to check focus. That was what really annoyed me about the D50 after shooting the D40 for a while. Personally I liked the D40 better, the bigger screen is nice. I don't have the D40 any more, but I still think about buying one to replace it. If your son should shoot often with off camera flash the sync speed of the D40/50/70 trumps all other features of the other cameras you're thinking about IMO.</p>

<p>Hi Mike<br>

I had both a D50 & a D80. The D50 has more accurate matrix metering, but the viewfinder is poor. The D80 has the benefit of being able to use the flash in commander mode to control off camera flash. CW metering is OK on the D80. Manual focusing is likely to be easier on the D80 too. The D80 also has built in grid lines to aid composition. So the D80 is probably the better bet, but it leaves it tight on lenses. I just sold a D50 with 18-70mm lens for £220. I have another D50 with <1000 shutter actuations. If you are interested, drop me an email!</p>

<p>I have a D50 and a D300 and use the D50 more for day-to-day shooting. The D50 can use my older AF lenses while most of the new DSLRs won't. Everyone talks about how bad the D50 viewfinder is. Frankly, I don't have a problem and although the D300 finder is brighter I really don't notice the difference that much. I wouldn't part with my D50.</p>

<p>My camera dealer says used D40s are much sought after. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve Levine: "'it has by far the worst viewfinder among all Nikon SLRs' Boy is that an understatement!"</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob Piontek: "I've owned a D40, D50, and D300 and never noticed any difference in the viewfinders"</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Wayne Cornell: "Everyone talks about how bad the D50 viewfinder is. Frankly, I don't have a problem and although the D300 finder is brighter I really don't notice the difference that much."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As usual, different people have very different reactions on the viewfinder quality issue. That is exactly why if you are interested in those cameras, you should take a look through the viewfinder yourself to see whether you have any problem or not.</p>

<p>For a beginner, I think it is easier to learn photography with the D80 because of the better manual controls, including the dual command dials. But again, with a limited budget, lenses should come first.</p>

<p>Thanks all - your input is much appreciated ! Looks like Dad is going to have to dig deeper in his pocket than originally intended !</p>

<p>In the "Amateur Photographer" issue of 27th November new Nikon D40's with the 18-55mm VR lens are being advertised by Cartex at £269.95 - www.cartex.co.uk<br>

I have used my own D40 with a wide variety of F mount manual focus legacy lenses. No auto exposure but quite usable with a little practice.<br>

The same advertiser has the D60 18-55mm kit at £299.95.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suggest you avoid the D80 because if its inconsistent metering.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting, I did not knew about this. Owned a D80 for some time, went through tens of thousands of pictures with it, never had a camera-related problem with exposure (not the greatest but at least it was not inconsistent in my view). Now if we talk about D80 and auto focus... totally different story.</p>

<p>Still I guess I would recommend it too, highly reliable and very well built for its price.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Shun. This is his first camera. Most of us (long in the tooth old-timers) started out with 35 mm manual cameras and 50mm lenses. I was looking at some of my old slides (they are the square thingies with film in them) from the late 60's and was struck by how limited I was in my composition. Once I got the wider lens (24mm) in 73 things changed a whole bunch and for the better.</p>

<p>Think about his project. You said he wanted to shoot the people in a street market. With the 50mm (75mm) lens he will in fact take some nice portraits and if he uses the wide apature they will have nice fuzzy bookeh. But. It will be very hard for him to photograph them "in the street market". At 18mm he will be able to show them actually among their surroundings. See what I mean?</p>

<p>Another lesson your son needs to learn is to check his backgrounds. When I look at the critique forum (and my own shots sadly) this is often a problem. Sure you can fuzz it out at F1.8 in the right circumstances but not all of the time. A quick look through the last few hundred shots I took for the paper shows that I did not shoot wide open very often. </p>

<p>So my vote is the D80 and the 18-55. If he decides to concentrate on portraits then he can buy the inexpensive plastic fantastic himself. My guess is that he will want a telephoto first. </p>

<p>"given his focus on photographing people"<br /><br />Ack. What's missing from this equation is what type of people photography he is interested in doing. You can do some interesting portraiture with any sort of lens. Without narrowing it down a bit more, it's hard to say that the 50/1.8 is a good or bad choice. Before you even consider a specific camera setup, take a look at his pictures and get a bit more specific about what he's shooting. Ask him what he wishes he could do with his point and shoot. Stop here until you've asked him. :)<br /><br />The beauty of a kit lens like the 18-55 or 18-70 is that it's cheap, pretty good and still lets the user get some idea of what qualities it's missing. The 18-70 is nicer optically, still small and light, but doesn't have image stabilization (VR) that the 18-55 does. A kit lens will give your son the chance to make the well needed analysis to determine what next steps to take. Doesn't work well enough in the dark, okay. Doesn't give me enough blur, okay. Doesn't let me get physically close enough to the subjects, okay. I've got to get too close, okay. Stuff like that is worth knowing before spending (more) money. That said, the 50/1.8 is cheap enough you can probably buy one on a lark. I paid $40 USD for my Series E (manual focus) version, a friend found one on that classified site that can't be mentioned by name here (auto focus) for $50 USD in great shape. <br /><br />The other (probably sacrilegious on this forum) thing to think about would be other camera systems. If your son is interested in doing a lot of low light photography, at that price point, Canon has some very competitive cameras. The difference in the current models is *much* smaller. Others will certainly disagree, but the Nikons of that era were not very unforgiving of wrong exposure at high ISO settings. Even at ISO 400 I get quite a bit of noise under some circumstances. From the D50 era, Canon had a distinct high ISO / low light edge. My D200 is about as good as my Fuji P&S. That said, the current Canon 50/1.8 won't even let you focus manually.<br /><br />If your son is fixated on prime lenses, Pentax has a killer selection of current prime lenses geared towards users of their current DSLRs. Being a bit less popular I'm not so sure that there will be as many used Pentax bodies at cheap prices, but it's something to consider. Nikon's selection of prime lenses aimed at DX body/non-pro users is much, much smaller.<br /><br />Likewise if your son is really into the idea of *old*, manual focus lenses there are some great bargains out there. They're not good starter lenses though. Nikon and Pentax let you use darn near any of their respective lenses on their digital cameras going back almost forty years. Canon and Pentax cameras are such that you can get adapters for lots of even older lenses. However, focusing manually on lower end DSLRs offers varying degrees of frustration.<br /><br />But the nifty thing about expensive lenses and bodies is that you can typically rent them for quite cheap. Even if you don't have any shops locally, there are reputable online companies that will let you do rentals via mail. In the end, it's your son who's got to use the camera. If he doesn't quite know what he wants, affording him the most flexibility possible is almost certainly a good thing. If it means a few afternoons in a local camera store or spending a few quid on a rental camera + lens combo, so be it. It's worth it in the long run.</p>