D40 good price but good for long term?

[Deeptoes]

Mike, Larry

Thanks for the info. Your right, Ken R doesn't shoot UW, but I read him to get some background knowledge.

I think the d40 is not a consideration anymore. I'm now comparing a d90 and the Oly e-620. I'm trying to locate a store where I can check out and actually hold these types of cameras. I was at Best Buy and the d90 is a larger camera. For me, size and weight are important for using on land.

thanks,
Kevin

 

[mike_s]

My local Best Buy had both the D80 and D40 when I bought mine. (they now have the D90).


Weight and size was why I went for the D40(x). I really liked that smaller body if you're gonna carry it around and use it for vacation shooting, family snapshots, etc.

If you want the smaller body, but a larger sensor, get a D40x or a D60. they have the 10mp sensor in them. The D40x and D60 are almost identical except some firmware features, a dust blower I think on the sensor, and the default lens is now VR.

The D40x was discontinued when the D60 came out, but that typically just makes them lower in cost, so you might find a good deal on one. example, when the D90 came out, the D80 dropped in price big time.


With all that said, if I run across a good deal on a D80 or D90 that someone is selling I'd like to buy it also (and keep my D40x). That way I can use the other lens and have a few other features. It's also nice to have an extra body with a different lens on it so you don't have to switch lens also.. (above water).

 

[RonFrank]

With current frequency of camera releases, it's hardly worth playing the *body* game. It used to be a camera body was good for a decade or more. Now they release them so often that they are outdated after 2 years. If you go with top of the line MAYBE three~four years.

I'd find the body you want that supports the lenses and features you want, and make the purchase. Once you buy a housing you are a bit more *STUCK* with that body, unless one wants to dump their housing every couple of years (expensive).

My D1x shoots as well as it did when I purchased it. Unfortunately it is out of date, but still produces better images at 5+mpix than any PnS I've seen, and compares with my D200 unless I really want to blow things up (like bigger than 16x20").

As someone else mentioned, if you want to take an SLR UW, it is VERY expensive. Plan on at least $700 for a reasonable UW flash with arms, accessories as well. That is ONE flash, not two! The bottom line is that if one is trying to purchase everything at once, your are looking at 5K using a CHEAP housing, and lower end camera and lenses. Heck, some housings RUN 5K, and that does not include a Dome port! Lenses can cost $1500 EACH for high end stuff, and run at least $500~$800 for even quality fixed lenses (the 105VR comes to mind).

 

[Deeptoes]

Mike,
thanks, I looked at a d60 today at Best Buy, I'm confused. Some lenses are VR some not, most work with the body, but not all etc.

RonFrank,

Thanks for your insights. I understand the high cost of these systems, that's why I need to spread out the cost over a few years. Also, that's another concern I have is that the body and/or housing or even entire system will be outdated and no longer supported in just a few years.

Kevin

 

[RonFrank]

Having an outdated body, and a useless body are two different things. I still shoot my D1x, and it's 8 years old. Could I find a housing for it? No.... or not easily.

I think you need to take one step at a time. If you purchase a 105mmVR lens for example, it will likely last 20+ years, and shoot as well as it did (or close) when you purchased it.

The body/housing combination is a bit different. If you purchase a new model body, you have maybe two years to pick up a housing. After that the body will become outdated in the line, and manufactures will no longer make new housing for that body.

You have to start with a body, so my suggestion is to purchase one that has been just released. That gives you a couple of years to pick up the housing new. Another option is to purchase into a system, and when it's time to get a housing, purchase a body to match if you can not find a housing for your current body.

Your starting point is one body, and a lens or two. Once you do that the clock is ticking on that body so to speak, but there is nothing wrong with having a backup, or selling an older body to purchase something newer.

 

[mike_s]

Mike,
thanks, I looked at a d60 today at Best Buy, I'm confused. Some lenses are VR some not, most work with the body, but not all etc.

A D60 (or D40, D40x) will require 99% of the time a AF-S lens from Nikon. You can get these in VR or -non- VR. VR is the "Virbration Reduction" feature that comes with some of the lens. It has nothing to do with the body/mount of the lens, but stablizes the image.

I've got VR and -non- VR lens and as long as they are AF-S, they work fine on the D-40/D60 series.

What won't work with the D40/D60 is NON AF-S lens. such as the 50mm/f1.4 AF lens.


does that make sense?

 

[RonFrank]

AFS lenses have built in ultrasonic motors. Canon uses these in all their lenses. Not all ultrasonic motors are created equal, and Canon's lower end lenses use slow motors. In the Canon lenses, ALL lenses must have USM's to AF.

Nikon cameras do not require AFS lenses to drive the focus as it is done in camera, as well as in the AFS lenses. That is the difference. There is really no reason to have an ultrasonic motor IN the lens. It just adds cost to the lens, and does not increase performance in lenses with a focal length of less than maybe 200mm.

Big glass does very well with built in ultra-sonic motors. There is a lot of glass to move/focus, a good built in lens motor can increase focus speed. Small lenses do NOT generally benefit from a motor built into the lens.

Nikon's decision to incorporate the motor in the camera to drive AF is really consumer friendly. Unfortunately one way to reduce costs is to not incorporate that feature in low end bodies. A lot of desirable Nikon lenses especially in the short focal distance range do NOT include AFS.

Focusing a 500mm lens is MUCH different vs. a 50mm lens. I like Nikons solution, put the motor in the camera, and for big glass, go with the motor in the lens. Unfortunately this appears to have lead to the incompatibility of low end Nikon bodies to require AFS lenses.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

What won't work with the D40/D60 is NON AF-S lens. such as the 50mm/f1.4 AF lens.
does that make sense?

No, because it's WRONG. The 50 mm f/1.4 will work fine on the
D40/D40x/D60, you just have to manually focus it. I've used my
1971 50 mm f/1.4 on Adm. Linda's D40. Manual focus, manual
exposure, but it worked.

BTW, I'm pretty sure Canon had some EOS bodies (maybe back in
the film days) with the motor in the body. The USM motors came
out first in the REALLY big glass.

 

[mike_s]

[

No, because it's WRONG. The 50 mm f/1.4 will work fine on the
D40/D40x/D60, you just have to manually focus it.
.

whoops... you're right. (I was in a hurry and didn't word that correctly.)

I meant it wouldn't work with Autofocus with AF lens, such as the lens above. Yes you can still manually focus it.

Thanks Chuck for pointing out my error.

 

[RonFrank]

BTW, I'm pretty sure Canon had some EOS bodies (maybe back in
the film days) with the motor in the body. The USM motors came
out first in the REALLY big glass.

Nope. It was a deciding point when I first was looking to purchase photo equipment.

Canon did have some motors other than the USM (AFD for example). But when Canon changed their mount, and went AF, ALL their lenses incorporated motors. The ONLY exception was Manual focus lenses.