dave_lee6

I'd totally recommend the D40x and the 18-70mm lens, it would be a great combination. I have a D80 but used the D40 for a day with a tiny 50mm f1.8 Series E lens and I loved it. It's a wonderful small camera. I think the 18-70mm is a step up from the 18-55mm, especially in the 18mm position.

I tested the Nikon 18-55mm II against the Nikon 18-70mm on a D40 and the 18-70mm is noticeably sharper. I am always amazed how good the 18-70mm lens is, it is a real sleeper. A friend scored one on ebay recently for $140!

For that money you should be able to get the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, which many say is the finest 28mm lens ever made. That being said, I have a 50mm f1.8 Series E which I think is excellent.

Shooting with a D3 (a dream anyway) I'd rather have the new 24-70mm f2.8 zoom. I tend to shoot more around 40-70mm anyway, and would love the extra wide 24mm. There are plenty of used 17-35mm's out there aren't there?

I had one and I loved it. I set the custom function for the flash to always be off, and if I needed it, I could press the little flash "on" button on the front of the camera. The 35Ti shot extremely sharp photos on slide film, it beat my Nikkor 28-105mm ED-IF zoom lens that I used with my N70 in Japan in November, 2000. I shot 20 rolls through the 35Ti and the only thing it couldn't do was AF if there was any glass in the photo (like a window in the background). It had a terrible AF system. I sold it years ago for as much as I paid for it. Would love a "digital" 35Ti though.

I would think the D300 would not be built to the same standard as the former Nikon flagship D2xs, and I wouldn't think the D300 would have the same AF performance either. However, I would imagine the D300 would have at least as good image quality. The D300 is a very attractive camera, but still out of my price range. I'll wait for the D80 replacement and see what it looks like. Maybe next year?

The 18-55mm kit lens should be a good starter lens. It offers a wide angle to semi-telephoto focal length. You may find yourself enjoying the D40x for longer than 4-6 months, it and the D40 are both excellent cameras.

I doubt your older 50mm 1.8 is any worse or any better than a modern 50mm f1.8 AF-D lens. The optical formula should be the same. As said above, the MF Nikkors are built better than the AF Nikkors for the most part. Unless you really abuse your equipment however, this shouldn't matter that much. I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 Series E lens that I recently shot with all day on my D80 and I was amazed how well it performed. And it only cost me $10. A Nikon lens is a Nikon lens.

I can't comment on the older GN Nikon 45mm lens, but I did own the 45mm P lens for a short time, and I did not find it performed any better than my 50mm 1.8 Series E. The only thing the Tessar formula offers is nicely rendered out of focus highlights. The P version has a 9-bladed aperture. Lately on the auction site the GN lenses are nearly as expensive as the P versions. There is a 'C' version of the GN lens which is probably the one to watch for. For the money, I'd rather have a 50mm 1.4 AF-D for the speed.

I have a D80 and the 18-70mm kit lens. I've tested the 18-70mm against a lot of other lenses and have concluded that this is one heck of an amazing lens. I love the D80 and have only found it too slow for me one time, and that was shooting RAWs with a slow card. With a good 150x card it is fast enough for me. The D200/D300 have one major advantage over the D80, and that is weather sealing. I've shot nearly 6,000 frames with my D80 and hope to keep it for at least 3-4 more years before I upgrade. I also have the Tokina 12-24 lens and the Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom. And recently I shot all day with just a Nikon 50mm f1.8 Series E lens on my D80 and was amazed by the sharp images from that lens, and I paid only $10 for it!

Andrew, he won't see any difference in quality between the D40 and D40x unless he is printing an image at poster size. Using your logic, he should buy a D300.

CS3 does better RAW processing than CS2, and better than Capture NX as well. I do like the D-Lite feature on Capture NX though.

There is nothing wrong with the D40. In fact, a couple of my friends have the D40 and they love it!

 

I'd go with the D40. 6mp on a DSLR is plenty. Use the money you saved to buy an extra lens or external flash. As was said above, the D40x will only offer you more cropping options, not better quality.

Bob Krist is a great photographer and a very nice guy. I've worked on a lot of his images. That being said, he only got into dSLR photography a couple of years ago, his early submissions were less than great, so I think he's just the host, most of the info may have come from Nikon.

I too would favor getting a D80, and getting Nikon glass vs. a D200 and Sigma glass. If you shoot with a good fast card and JPG's (not RAW), I would think the D80 should be fine for sports. If you're thinking about a D200, I would wait for the D300 which is quite an improvement. I believe image quality between the D200 and D80 are identical, some even say the D80 is slightly better.

I find that when shooting with my F3 and my Nikon 35-70mm f3.5 zoom, that when focused to 70mm the image in the viewfinder is the same as that in the scene before my eyes. More than 50mm, I find 70mm to be "normal" to me.

 

The DX crop makes it difficut to shoot at 50mm in some situations. People get "crop" mixed up with perspective, which are two different things. The DX format is merely a crop, a 50mm lens will still shoot normal perspective (distance from near to far).

I would consider the Nikon 18-70mm as a replacement for the 28-105mm. I have found the 18-70mm very sharp and a bargain for the money. I have no experience with the 18-135mm but I do know it has a plastic mount whereas the 18-70mm has a metal mount.