b_c12

I would, and did, go for the D40. I have the standard 18-55mm kit lens, which doesn't benefit tremendously from VR at those focal lengths. If it's only a few bucks more, get the VR...otherwise I wouldn't. Now - the 55-200mm- definitely get the VR version.

 

As for flash, I'd opt for the SB-600 but the SB-400 is a great little flash.

 

For the record, I was in your spot about 6 months ago and went D40 + 18-55 + 55-200VR + SB600 (over time) and couldn't be more pleased with the combination.

 

Good luck, you can't really go wrong either way.

FM, FM2, FM2n - all great choices. All are bargains, too. Like others have said above, watch out for those needing CLA.....could easily (particularly on FM) exceed the cost of the body!

For a zoom, I like the 75-150mm Series E.

That's a function of Photoshop and you having it in an 8X10 editing default, I imagine. Could be wrong! I use Photoshop Elements (kind of a light version but a real bargain) and I can change the aspect ratio of crops with a pulldown. The information that is contained in an 8X10 is not the same as an 11X14 and so on.... the aspect ratios vary.

Not sure what you're saying....you don't need to set anything in the camera to get whatever size print you want. The file's the file and you get it printed to your desired size.

 

In my experience, 8X10s are beautiful out of my D40. No improvement could be imagined by me. I personally haven't printed larger, but I'm sure it could be taken up another couple notches and the average viewer wouldn't be able to discern any perceptible quality loss. I'm going to try an 11 X 14 and will let you know how that turns out.

I'm not sure where some people got the idea that the D40's focus speed is slow. It's not. It's fast. The AF-S lenses are extremely fast to focus. The focus system within the D40 exceeds the needs of most casual (soccer mom) photographers. Sometimes I think if the D40 cost $2000, it would get more respect from some "pros."

D40 + 55-200mm VR would be entirely adequate for this purpose and produce fantastic images. You don't need 300 focus points or to take a picture of a kid's soccer game. D80, because of its price right now, would be a good pick also.

Could be Lex.... like you say, lots of variables...but I'm pretty sure that the meter is indeed off based upon a good

amount of experience with this and other cameras...particularly with B&W and associated darkroom processes.

It's more of a "wish it would" than a "need it." I've been working around it in the manner prescribed in my initial post

for a long time. Wish there was a variable resistor (pot) I could fine-tune it with.... oh well, like I said, no big deal.

It's a great camera regardless and I continue to enjoy it. If there's no practical way to adjust, I'll still be content.

 

Regards to all who made suggestions....

Thanks Mauro, that's what I've been doing more or less. I was just hoping there was a way to get the meter calibrated accurately without having to adjust ISO. In other words, make it like it was supposed to function. Get the 0 to light and press the shutter = correct exposure @ box ISO or preferred EI.

 

Thanks again

Dave - that's why I commented that I used Diafine for some of the comparisons. I figure, perhaps incorrectly, that it's the most consistent way of development since it's not very temperature or time dependent. In fact, I developed both rolls of 35mm (one from FG, one from FM2n) in the same tank at the same time using Diafine...so that's about as close as you can get to consistent times/temps/etc. For what it's worth, I'm using Arista Premium 400 for these trials.

 

Thanks again....

It's a one-stop difference, not 1/2. I used the same lenses for each comparison...namely a 50mm F1.8 set at identical apertures and shutter speeds.

 

You bring up a great point, though...I do not know the accuracy of the shutter speeds on the FM2n. That could very well be a factor. The speeds compare favorably at low shutter speeds as compared to my FG, that's for certain. Higher speeds I can't say other than by "sound and feel" but that's probably irrelevant.

 

I have run some Velvia through the FM2n and have seen the same phenomenon. Reputable lab here in Dallas. I have not compared this vs. my other bodies in exact same circumstances, however. I have of course run slide film through my other bodies with good results at indicated metering.

 

I've used HC-110, but perhaps more controllably, Diafine, in the B&W comparisons. I think Diafine may be about the best I can do in terms of level playing field in B&W development.

 

The subjects taken were things like brick walls under shadow conditions, sun-splashed, sky scenes, total shadow, white walls, and high-contrast situations (black dog against bright lawn). Same and consistent results with regard to the stop difference.

 

No use of densitometer, I don't have access to one.

 

Thanks again for your help.

Lex - I determined the error by a couple of means:

 

1) Underexposed B&W negatives when set at desired ASA relative to my other camera bodies.

2) I develop my own B&W film and did a few test rolls with consistent times/processes between the bodies. Shot several different conditions with each camera at the same time and same settings. B&W negs from FM2n came out underexposed. Others were fine.

3) Full stop meter discrepancy between the FM2n's and FG's + D40's meters. Even my Rolleiflex.

I have an FM2n that I love. However, it has always underexposed about a stop when the meter reading is observed.

It's not a huge problem, as I generally overcome it by shooting at 1/2 the ISO of the film I'm using...or simply

increase F stop by one. I'd love to get it "zeroed in," however, if it can be done without too much hassle or

expense. Any suggestions?

It has been a couple weeks since you all made your helpful suggestions. I just wanted to report that I cleaned the contacts on both the camera and the drive and everything now works perfectly. Thanks again!

I absolutely agree with Dave Lee. Digital is great, but it is no substitute for learning with film. There is a place for film in today's photography, and in some ways it remains a superior recording medium.

Perhaps the digital FM2 shouldn't have a screen at all. Film cameras don't have screens. You make educated exposures by dialing in a combination of aperture and shutter speed. Only when your RAW photos are downloaded do you see how good your assumptions were. Just like when you pull the negatives out of the wash. That would be a good learner's camera.

I use my FM2n all the time. Just got a shipment of 20 rolls of Tri-X, some HC-110, and Diafine from Freestyle. Shooting and developing B&W is a lot of fun for me. Although I also shoot digital, it is just not the same. That's not a bad thing, it's just different...and I won't ever give up my FM2n, FG, or Rollei TLR.

 

And I agree with the above...when a dSLR purchased today goes to the crusher, and its subsequent several replacements too, the FM2n will still be chuggin'.

Matt - I'm not at all criticizing those who use high-end gear. I think everyone here knows the advantages in terms of ruggedness, fast AF, ISO, controls, etc., etc.. If I earned my sole living from taking photos, I'd own the high-end gear.

 

My point is that the IQ, in the OP's circumstance, is likely not to be different in a substantive way...maybe not at all....and that's in fact what he reports.

 

The new technology is fantastic and I marvel over how far we've come and where we'll go in the future. However, I have to sometimes wonder about the dependencies that this generation of photographers has....fast AF, high ISO sensors, a million focus points, 16 thumbwheels, etc. What would they have done just 20 years ago with MF equipment and a roll of film with fixed ISO? Just given up? Things certainly have changed....it seems the camera itself has become the most important facet and self-worth of the photographer.

Great results can come from a P&S. Cruddy results can come from a D3. It's the skill of the eye and brain behind the tool that makes a photograph. I seriously doubt there are many folks that could tell the difference in a print between a D40 and D3 if the person behind the eyepiece knows his/her stuff.

You are a good man.

 

As someone who is considering both the SB-400 (for its size) and the SB-600 to mate up to my D40, how do you like your new SB-600?

IMO, both are very good lenses and for the price are excellent. The mounts are indeed plastic, which is disappointing, but from a practical standpoint I don't think that alone excludes them from work beyond casual vacation snapshots. I think sometimes that the construction argument is analogous to soccer moms that drive 4wd Hummers that never leave urban streets. More robust construction would definitely be better, particularly from a psychological standpoint, but in reality I think the lenses will hold up quite well in heavy use. Just use a modicum of care in handling your gear and you should be fine.

 

Also, the D90 is not slated as a "pro" camera to begin with. Then again, I don't subscribe to the notion that a "pro" camera or lens must be used if one is doing serious work.

Well, Nikon DID "slightly upgrade" the D40 with some new technology...twice already. The first was the D40x which

increased the sensor to 10MP. The latest is the D60, also with 10MP and a few other tweaks like dust reduction,

etc. All three have the same compact body size, and all are great cameras. The D40x is pretty much gone now,

however, leaving the D40 and D60 from which to choose. The virtues of each can be argued back and forth, but in

reality they are essentially the same camera from a practical standpoint....except the D40 kitted with an 18-55 non-

VR lens is about $150 less expensive than a D60 kitted with the VR version of same. I don't think you can go

wrong with either, frankly, but the price of the D40 puts it in the "phenomenal DSLR bargain" category IMO.

 

As for a $300 pricepoint, heck, the D40 kit is within spittin' distance now @ $440.

Yes, indeed, if you have any interest in the D40, get one now. It is not just a superb camera for the price, it's a

superb camera period. The 6MP sensor is an advantage in many respects.....fewer pixel sites crammed on the

sensor (which is the same physical size sensor as any other DX Nikon), leading to very respectable high ISO

performance, simple user interface, smaller file sizes, compact size, as much automatic or manual control as you

want to have, and great IQ.

 

I've only printed up to 8X10 on mine, but I don't see how one could ask for better performance at that print size. I

suspect that one could go somewhat larger and that *most* of the population would find the prints more than

satisfactory. However, I doubt many have frequent occasion to print larger anyway.

 

There is an argument about higher MP giving more latitude in cropping, and that's certainly true. You can still do

reasonable cropping with D40 files. It's not a big concern for me, however, because I crop the old fashioned way -

compose properly, cropping in the viewfinder before I press the shutter release!

 

Get one before they're gone!

Congrats! You'll enjoy it.

Yep, data is data....save your digital file on a floppy disk if you like (or several), no difference. As others have said, the decision to be made is one of the physical quality and reliability of the media. I'd shy away from the generic bargain brands ....they really don't even represent savings of any substance anymore. Just picked up a 4GB Sandisk Extreme III SDHC, arguably one of the top cards, for pocket change after rebate.