What new cam?

13thghost

13thghost

Messages
127
Name
wayne
Edit My Images
Yes
basicly i have a nikon d40 that ive had for ages now and i keep geting noisy pics and im getting anoyed with the low res, so im thinking of geting a new camera was thinking of geting another nikon so i can just get the body to start with and use the lenses that i have alredy but im wondering what you guys have ect

looking at somthing around the grand mark give or take and if a dif make then nikon then i need a camera kit with a zoom upto 200mm
 
You shouldn't be getting noisy pics from a D40, unless you have the Auto ISO set and it's a low light situation or the ISO set to something high.

I would (personally) check the camera's settings to ensure it's not doing something you're not aware of.

Can you post a pic here as an example? An 800x600 crop of a pic at 100% would be useful, and to know the settings of the shot (should be visible in the data) would help.

Cheers :)
 
OutLore said:
You shouldn't be getting noisy pics from a D40, unless you have the Auto ISO set and it's a low light situation or the ISO set to something high.
Click to expand...

i do usualy use auto but im starting to use manual setup and on some pics im still getting probs, yep most of the time its in low light but im told the better cams work better in low light conditions and are sharper over all light levels
 
13thghost said:
i do usualy use auto but im starting to use manual setup and on some pics im still getting probs, yep most of the time its in low light but im told the better cams work better in low light conditions and are sharper over all light levels
Click to expand...

The D40 is, in my opinion pretty good with noise. It's more likely that any loss of sharpness is either due to the lens, or technique. At a given ISO, it's better than my D200 by a long way. Obviously it's nowhere near as good as a D3, but I'd be tempted to stick with it for a while.

Take a few shots witht the ISO set at 200, and see if it improves. Low light and Auto ISO can cause it to increase, and therefore you'll get a noisy image.

All I would say is that if you have some money burning a whole in your pocket, you may be better off getting new lenses, rather than a new camera - or if you are taking a lot of pictures indoors, a proper off camera flash or two. You could invest in something which is "known" for being sharp - like the relatively cheap 50mm f1.8 (you'll need to focus manually though, and on a D40 it's not that easy), but if you do decide to move up to a higher spec body, the lens is good enough to go with you.

As for technique (regarding the sharpness) try using a tripod - I have the same issue - I just don't have a steady enough hand, and I end up using faster shutter speeds than I should, to overcome the shake (it's un-noticable to the naked eye but is obvious in my hand held pics)

Just my 2 pennies....
 
13thghost said:
i see ya point mate i was thinking if i can get a new body then i would not be restricted to AF-S lenses and i would have a bit less to worry about when getting new lenses
Click to expand...

That is, in my opinion a good reason to get a different body.

Are you looking s/h or new? If new, then I guess with a grand in your pocket you could possibly stretch to a D300? A S/H D200 will set you back around £400 on here. If you have Nikon lenses which you want to keep then you won't want to switch to another brand, but if you don't mind getting rid of everything, try out the other players in the market too.
 
13thghost said:
im looking at new because if i go ahead it will be on finance. was looking at the d300 (pos the d300s if i think its worth the extra) ive seen it works realy well in low light (with the right lens) is there any others that you think i should look at?
Click to expand...

I would think the D90 would also be worth a play.

What lenses do you currently have?
 
D40 handles noice very well! But if you do want an upgrade and budget depending, the D90 is a good shout. And if too expensivem the D5000 handles noise very well too (same sensor as D90). Then add the 35mm AF-s for low light shooting or consider the 50mm AF-D if you get the D90.
 
Just to add some fuel to the fire, photo wise the D90 and D300 have been debated for a while. So if you're not thinkin of going pro I'd pick up a D90, really good camera
 
karmagarda said:
Just to add some fuel to the fire, photo wise the D90 and D300 have been debated for a while. So if you're not thinkin of going pro I'd pick up a D90, really good camera
Click to expand...

Was rushing into a meeting when I was writing that. What I meant to say is even over high ISO D300 vs D90 is a hard call. So which would perform better in low light is debatable. I've seen sites compare the images off each and basically the comparisons seem to show that the D300 is ever so slightly sharper, but also ever so slightly noisier.

I'm also looking to upgrade, will be doing so after christmas, and I'm choosing the D300 over the D90. But my reason is because of the 51 auto focus points, the 6fps (8 with battery grip), and generally the better ergonomics/solid build of the D300.
 
I have the d300. Quite a bit heavier than the d40 however a very solid build.
More control over focus points and (apparently) good 3d tracking (haven't used so can't comment on that).

Tons of settings plus banks of mainly used settings.
Good in low light and has a drive on so can use all lenses.

If you looking for creative step it's it


Ok but it's a tad expensive so perhaps the d90 which is meant to the same sensor, has HD recording and is a little lighter might be better.

Depending what type of shots you do you could poss get a lowlight lens as well for the price of a d300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top