• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Need help w/ Camera Lens for D40

gdl203

Purveyor of the Secret Sauce
Affiliate Vendor
Dubiously Honored
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
45,576
Reaction score
54,239
Originally Posted by DarkNWorn
But, I echo gdl's sentiments. Sometimes you just want to pick up the camera and start clicking away without have to fuss over the settings, especially when you're also trying to have fun with the people who you're trying to capture.
Especially with a month-old baby - the first smiles are few and far between and I'm lucky enough if I make it to the camera in the first place - no way I would get these shots if I started anging settings etc...
 

milosz

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
11
I'm not going to tell you to do anything differently (I'm lazy as hell for documenting construction - f/8 and let the camera/flash do the work), but:

It's really not that intimidating. I shoot aperture-priority - I set the aperture to where I want to be for depth of field (or to match how little light I have available) and let the in-camera metering decide the shutter speed. Likewise, if you were unconcerned about depth of field but knew you needed a certain shutter speed to freeze action or keep your camera still you could shoot shutter-priority.

Personally, there's not a lot of reason to shoot in manual mode with modern cameras - most of the time the metering will be perfectly fine and if you can tell it's a situation that will fool the camera, you can always use exposure compensation when required. Or just bracket like a mofo.

For what you're doing, your method works just fine. If you wanted to get a little more creative - minimize depth of field to just catch your baby's eye or just the head while blurring the background, etc., then you can look into more advanced technique.
 

DNW

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
6
BTW, if you want to learn more, spend $29.95 on Thom Hogan's guide. It's a great way to get to know how DSLRs work, and your camera specifically.
 

Nantucket Red

"Mr. Fashionista"
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
5,380
Reaction score
23
Originally Posted by DarkNWorn
BTW, if you want to learn more, spend $29.95 on Thom Hogan's guide. It's a great way to get to know how DSLRs work, and your camera specifically.

See? Everything you could possibly want to know in less than an hour's reading.
laugh.gif
 

DNW

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
6
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red
See, everything you could possibly want to know in less than an hour's reading.
laugh.gif


An hour? It's all in a toilet session for me. And I do not suffer from constipation.
tounge.gif
 

Brian SD

Moderator
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
128
Originally Posted by gdl203
Especially with a month-old baby - the first smiles are few and far between and I'm lucky enough if I make it to the camera in the first place - no way I would get these shots if I started anging settings etc...

I know you completely refuse to change your ways, but I'd recommend at least switching to using A or S mode. You may not be interested in photography as an art, but learning what situations (naturally, by practice) require what kind of aperture and shutter settings will make your photos better and you'll probably enjoy taking pictures more. You don't have to sit there and angle with it for every shot. You just have to have a general idea of what kind of picture you'd be taking.

I agree that you dont have to go full auto, and shouldn't have to, to just take good pictures. However, with your lens, you're going to have a hard time controlling depth of field and motion blur (during movement) in full auto mode.
 

Luc-Emmanuel

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
17
I have a D40 as well. I was wondering if there was a point to get the nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for my camera, in the idea of maybe getting a more advanced DSLR in the next few years. I always lived with the idea that a better lens would make a bigger improvement than going from a D40 to a D700 for instance. Am I wrong?

!luc
 

nordicstyle

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
670
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by milosz
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the best option for a normal (40-50mm) lens. Any of the longer Nikons - 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2 are good for low-light portraits.
A thumbs up for the 50mm f/1.4 or 30mm f/1.4. I have the Canon 50mm f/1.4, and it's really nice for indoor portraits or low-light photography. As others have mentioned, it's a fixed length, meaning no zoom, but over time you will learn to move yourself around instead of zooming. For low light you can't get anything better for the price IMO.
 

DNW

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
6
Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel
I have a D40 as well. I was wondering if there was a point to get the nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for my camera, in the idea of maybe getting a more advanced DSLR in the next few years. I always lived with the idea that a better lens would make a bigger improvement than going from a D40 to a D700 for instance. Am I wrong?

!luc


A common rule of thumb is that you're never wrong investing in good glass. Camera bodies change from one year to the next, but a good piece of glass you can keep for a long time. This is particularly true with Nikon because their current DSLRs can take lenses going back 40-50 years.

So, go for it. Your pictures will improve, and when it's time for you to upgrade the camera, you'll have no regret. I am also of the opinion that a pro-level lens will be more of an improvement in IQ than simply upgrading to a better camera, especially when the D40 is no slouch to begin with.
 

milosz

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
11
The only flaw in the good glass argument is DX vs. FX. If your upgrade path is small-sensor cameras (the D300 and its descendents), then the 17-55 is a great choice. If you upgrade to a full-frame camera down the road (D700, etc.), then the 17-55 has to be sold.
 

DNW

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
6
Originally Posted by milosz
The only flaw in the good glass argument is DX vs. FX. If your upgrade path is small-sensor cameras (the D300 and its descendents), then the 17-55 is a great choice. If you upgrade to a full-frame camera down the road (D700, etc.), then the 17-55 has to be sold.

Even when it has to be sold, you're not going to take a hit in terms of depreciation. So, you have relatively little to lose, and much to gain.
 

Renault78law

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
69
Douglas, your prayers have been answered. Nikon just announced the release of an AF-S 35mm 1.8 DX lens. A fast prime that will autofocus on your camera.

Should be available in March. A steal at $200.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09...kon35mm1p8.asp

For the record, I still believe your first priority is to get a flash.
 

pabloj

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
3
Originally Posted by gdl203
mmm... I'm not really sure how to say this other than to repeat: I have no interest in taking pictures of lightnings, I have no interest in photography as an art to practice. I know it's hard to believe for someone who has passion for something, but believe me, I only want to take good, easy pics of my family and places we visit as souvenirs. And I want a camera that does it all for me and still is flexible enough and takes great photos. I don't want to replicate these shots at all. They're very nice though. (btw, the last one is very easy in full auto with my 70-300... point and press the button)
Trust me, you don't need a big and bulky DSLR for this but "just" an high end compact like the Panasonic LX3 or Canon G10 (too big for me but has fans)
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 45 40.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 44 39.6%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 5 4.5%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 18 16.2%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 25 22.5%

Forum statistics

Threads
504,424
Messages
10,573,950
Members
223,692
Latest member
AyalaDaniele
Top