[zeeman335]

So, at first i was going to sell my D40 with the 18-55mm lens, i recently checked www.kenrockwell.com , and i totally changed my mind. Ken says that the D40 is one of the best SLR cameras, easy to use, and can bring pretty much same results as higher end SLRs.

Anyways, Im looking for a different lens. I want a lens that's good with shooting in low light, i dont think i need much zoom, but i just want something that will give me good pics at night. I am also thinking about getting a flash, any thoughts or recommendations?

[Tony717]

I went to that website as well. After reading it, I first went with the Nikon D40 Kit that includes the 18-55mm lens. Later on, I was very limited in zoom range and needed a new lens, so I went with the 18-200mm vr lens. I have not needed any other lens after that: great range, has the vr technology, and eliminates the lens changes, which can result missing great shots.

For flashes, I would recommend the SB-400; however, it is limited in that it does not have sideways tilt. Aside from that, its a great little flash that costs only about $100.

I have not done much night photography so I can't recommend which lens to use for that, but others here have probably done so and can help you better than I in that department hehe.

Antonio

[rodi]

you'll also find this disclaimer on Ken Rockwell's website,

I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.

This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.

he makes all his money on advertising, he gets top hits in searches related to photography, so he keeps his written words interesting to people who are new to photography - because those are the people who will buy the lower end cameras, who will click on his links to buy them at stores that pay him for referrals, which is how he makes his money. he's just a business person, saying whatever it will take to help him earn money. why recommend the $5,000 camera when someone new to photography is not going to drop that cash? they will, however, test the waters with a $500 camera. seasoned photographers know not to read his bullshit.
true, not everyone is going to click on his referral links to buy these entry level cameras, but a certain percentage do. imagine what that means when his site gets hundreds of thousands of hits per day (probably more).

[remmib]

Originally Posted by rodi

you'll also find this disclaimer on Ken Rockwell's website,


he makes all his money on advertising, he gets top hits in searches related to photography, so he keeps his written words interesting to people who are new to photography - because those are the people who will buy the lower end cameras, who will click on his links to buy them at stores that pay him for referrals, which is how he makes his money. he's just a business person, saying whatever it will take to help him earn money. why recommend the $5,000 camera when someone new to photography is not going to drop that cash? they will, however, test the waters with a $500 camera. seasoned photographers know not to read his bullshit.
true, not everyone is going to click on his referral links to buy these entry level cameras, but a certain percentage do. imagine what that means when his site gets hundreds of thousands of hits per day (probably more).

Just read his "review" of the canon 7D, and you're right, just a lot of BS.

[BMW F22]

I've read Ken Rockwell's site for the sake of reading and getting whatever I can out of it. For the most part, however, I find it to be irrelevant. As I've said before in another thread, if the D40 is the best camera out there and no one needs more than that, then why do companies keep making better and more expensive cameras. Also, why do people keep buying them?

But to answer your question: if you need a faster lens (better in low light) then you need to go with at least a 2.8 (2.0, 1.8, 1.0 or lower would be even better). The thing is though, if your subject moves even at a normal pace, your pictures will come out blurry. There are a few ways to counter that:

1. turn up the ISO which in turn increases noise and Nikons are not that great with noise. I don't think the D40 can go higher than 1600 ISO so you might not even get the shutter speed that you need. Even if you did, the pictures will be very noisy.

2. buy a flash. I think that's the best way to get good, no-noise, non-blurry pictures (unless of course you want the natural light).

3. buy a camera that has good performance at higher ISO and a fast lens. Keep in mind that faster lens will have shallower depth of field.

I'm sure you already know all of that but I figured I should mention it since we sometimes get so buried in information that we forget the basics.

[rodi]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

1. turn up the ISO which in turn increases noise and the D40 is not that great with noise.

fixed. ;]

[zeeman335]

Thanks for all the replies...Rodi, wow, i didnt even know all that could even be true. Seriously,....im kinda shocked! why would someone write so much bullshit?

Damnit, looks like im gonna have to end up selling my D40 and upgrading to something else...

[rodi]

no, the D40 is a great camera. truly. it's very capable.

[BMW F22]

^ I agree with Rodi. The D40 is a good camera (just like a Canon rebel XTi is). The point is that you shouldn't read too deeply into what Ken Rockwell writes. I mean think about it, if all he ever needs is a D40, why the hell does he have a bunch of other, more expensive cameras with higher performance??

[Cyruz]

id have to agree about him being biased about his reviews. his 7D review is crap. he bashes the 19 point af system in a $1799 dollar camera to the 51 point system in the $4k nikon. he truely is nikon pusher. i have no problem with that, but his reviews are biased and to say the least, just plain suck. how can anyone say that the D40 is the best dslr out there? its a great camera, but for anything in prosumer range, the D90, canon 40D, or 7D are cleaarly superior to the D40.

has anyone actually looked at his gallery of images before? the do kinda suck as well. im sure he is a nice guy tho, but i wouldnt base my gear off him.

[BillLee]

Originally Posted by zeeman335

Thanks for all the replies...Rodi, wow, i didnt even know all that could even be true. Seriously,....im kinda shocked! why would someone write so much bullshit?

Damnit, looks like im gonna have to end up selling my D40 and upgrading to something else...

selling your d40 and upgrading to something else wont make your pics better. just keep messing around with it and i bet you'll get some good results out of it. if you want a lens that works well under low light try a prime lens like the 35mm f/1.8 af-s.

check out some of the d40 groups on flickr they have some great photos on there.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond40worldwide/

[ichiban]

It not about whether or not the D40 is a great camera. It's about whether or not the D40 can satisfy your needs. I doubt you have any professional need right now, and I'll bet it'll satisfy your leisurely needs as of right now, so I'd say keep the D40, practice with it. Think about lighting and composition, rule of third, etc.

[Cyruz]

Originally Posted by ichiban

It not about whether or not the D40 is a great camera. It's about whether or not the D40 can satisfy your needs. I doubt you have any professional need right now, and I'll bet it'll satisfy your leisurely needs as of right now, so I'd say keep the D40, practice with it. Think about lighting and composition, rule of third, etc.

no matter what you do, its all about the glass you shoot through. im a canon guy, so im not too familar with nikkor glass, but if you want to experiment with faster lenses, tamron, sigma and tokina make great stuff for 3rd party lenses that wont be as costly. tamron just released a f/2.8 in the lower focal range zoom area i think. it might fit some of your needs.

[PNF]

I had a D40x with 18-55mm. I have to say, the camera and lens is a GREAT set up for a beginner and I have used that camera for almost 2 years. Depends on what you want and you're going for in the future.

If you're staying with Nikon, then I guess upgrading your lens would make sense.

I dont know about Nikkor lens, but make sure that the lens you're upgrading to is FF compatible. (they call it EF on Canon, but not sure what Nikon calls them?)

Otherwise, DONT upgrade at all.

I agree. Try the 35 f1.8 and 50 f1.8 lens first, the 50mm f1.8 is only around $90?

OR

Just switch to Canon. I think more than half of users here are Canon users? (I am one).

[rodi]

very capable.
it's not the camera OR the lens. it's the photographer.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/d40/interesting/

[ZJP]

^What they said. It's all about the photographer. Search around flickr and you will see some amazing shots taken by the D40.

I have a D40 as well with the kit lens and a 55-200mm VR. I'm content for now, I don't have any pro standards which I need to meet, so the D40 + Photoshop does the job.

Eventually I want to pick up a Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye.

[zeeman335]

Awesome! Thanks guys. I will do some investigation. Good sh!t right here. Thanks again.

[TMNT]

I'll def be going with the 18-200 from the folks I've talked to!

[TL]

Originally Posted by TMNT

I'll def be going with the 18-200 from the folks I've talked to!

same here, it's a great walk around lens.

[cooh23]

here's some of the shots i've taken with a Nikon D40 and kit lens 18-55 non-vr... a couple of shots were taken with 55-200 vr.