the nikon d40 has the lack of Auto Exposure Bracketing whats this mean ? [Archive]

puddleduck

31-12-2006, 12:30

If you don't know what this is then can I seriously suggest you learn the basics before purchasing?

If you are asking questions like this...

http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458157

My response would be: do some research, ask yourself *why* you want a DSLR. Being "small and light" isn't really a good enough reason frankly!

As to your question - no its not that important (but handy!) but if you don't know what it means, it hard to describe how its loss may or may not affect you!

Sorry to sound harsh but you do need to do some basic research - by the tone of this and your other question, at this stage, I'd advise looking at learning the basics before you consider a purchase.

howard35uk

31-12-2006, 12:48

puddleduck

31-12-2006, 12:50

The D40 should do a decent job in auto mode, typically you wouldn't use auto exposure bracketing and Auto mode together anyway.

Sprout Crumble

31-12-2006, 12:51

Its a fine camera to start. I'd strongly suggest a good basic book though. I'm sure they'll be a few recommended books along shortly. The DK guide was a good one.

Tomfoolery

31-12-2006, 16:13

I found it a lot easier to learn hands on after purchasing a DSLR to be honest - its all to easy to read through the book without learning anything. Seems a lot easier when you can try settings and see what effect they have - so I'm not in the camp that says you should know huge amounts about photography before purchasing a SLR.

In answer to your question - if you've never had or known what exposure bracketing is, I can't imagine you'll exactly miss it. If, 6 months down the line you find out what it is, you might think "that would have been handy", but that's about it in my opinion. It's mainly a failsafe for you messing up your exposure, although you can use it for more artistic techniques too.

If I sat around reading loads of photography books, I reckon I'd just find photography very boring.

howard35uk

31-12-2006, 16:33

would i get better quality from the nikon more than say the sony h5 which as a 12x zoom and 7.2 mega pixels

puddleduck

31-12-2006, 16:46

Forget megapixels - 6 megapixels is enough for a full page magazine print, and the D40's 6 megapixels will be better quality pixels that that in the Sony.

The 12x zoom is handy is you want to have a wide-range - personally I'm just not getting a feel from your questions that a DSLR is for you, especially as you are looking at 12x and megapixels over the other qualities a DSLR offers....

Can you list 3 reasons why you want a D40, not counting "small and light"? :)

Sam

31-12-2006, 16:58

You do realise that if you want a big zoom you have to buy an extra lens? That you change lenses on a DSLR? For a DSLR the D40 is small and light, for a digicam in general it is neither. I'm getting the same feel as Andy from your questions - that maybe a prosumer would be a better choice.

howard35uk

02-01-2007, 00:03

i look at the nice glossy photos and magazines taken with slr's and think how good it would be to learn to take photos of that quality it my take time to learn but i think ill enjoy doing so ive got nowhere near the quality i would like with my sony point and shoot even with its manual settings i wont to move on and learn more about photography and the nikon seems a good price i can afford and has had some great reviews so for

howard35uk

02-01-2007, 00:07

also when looking through the viewfinder of and slr do u see exactly how the image will come out as im used to using the lcd on my small digital camera it was very rare i used my veiwfinder

Tomfoolery

02-01-2007, 00:20

also when looking through the viewfinder of and slr do u see exactly how the image will come out as im used to using the lcd on my small digital camera it was very rare i used my veiwfinder

When you look through the viewfinder on an SLR, you're looking directly through the lens...so yes, you're seeing the photo that will be taken (give or take a little bit). Also note that it is not possible to use the LCD screen to take photos on SLRs, it can only be used for reviewing photos that you've already taken. So you will HAVE to use the viewfinder.

I think I probably agree with everyone else now, you should definately read up on Digital SLRs and their features in general (doesnt have to be books, use the masses of information already available on the internet - you dont have to ask every question in a forum) then go along to a camera shop and pick their brains before making any purchases. You should also expect to have to pay at least the cost of the camera again on lenses if you want good photos as the camera can only be as good as the lens you put on it. You'll also probably end up with a bag full of equipment, lenses flashes etc. to get the range and flexibility you'll want.

If you want compact, an SLR is not your thing.

howard35uk

03-01-2007, 22:22

is this a good deal at jessups for the nikon d40

comes with 2 lenses for £489.99 18mm x 55mm and 55mm x 200mm

how big a zoom would i get with the second lens would it be as much as a 6x optical zoom camera

John C

03-01-2007, 23:06

6x etc is a bit meaningless really, as it's the relation of the of the final focal length to where it started. E.g. 20mm - 200mm would be 10x, but 100 - 200mm is only 2x...

If you have a compact camera in mind that you're comparing with, look at its focal length range (35mm equivalent focal length) and comapre with the range of the zooms you've seen bundled with the D40.

The D40 is a fine camera BUT it's hobbled somewhat - it can only use Nikon's newer AF-S or AF-I lenses, which means your choice of second hand and some newer lenses will be limited. If money is no object AND you see yourself always buying new OR sticking with the kit lenses for the forseeable future, that might not bother you.

You really need to start looking into this a bit more and figuring out in broad strokes what you want the camera to do.

howard35uk

03-01-2007, 23:23

i see so 55 x 200 is about 4x zoom i quite fancy the twin lens kit

puddleduck

04-01-2007, 08:56

That seems quite a good price.

The 18-55 (at least the original version) which came with the D50 is quite good, and the 55-200 (again part of the D50 kit) gets surprisingly good user feedback as well (I've not used this one personally)

bigb

04-01-2007, 11:17

I got the package deal for the D40 at Christmas-love it!!! I agree you will learn more with the Camera in your hand. Have a look at some SLR books on sale at Amazon that will help you with learning about SLR's

is this a good deal at jessups for the nikon d40

comes with 2 lenses for £489.99 18mm x 55mm and 55mm x 200mm

how big a zoom would i get with the second lens would it be as much as a 6x optical zoom camera

sjg1

04-01-2007, 11:25

At that money, consider getting the body only and a lens like the Sigma 18-125mm instead. I find swapping lenses a chore and so rarely used my 70-300 when I had it, but often wanted more zoom than the kit lens provides.

puddleduck

04-01-2007, 11:33

I find swapping lenses a chore

Probably just me, but I don't understand folks buying a DSLR then moaning about swapping lenses! :brickwall :doh:

Its a bit like buying a bag of peanuts then moaning 'cos you've got a nut allergy :nuts:

sjg1

04-01-2007, 11:58

The flexibility of different lenses is great and if you're spending all day doing a particular type of shooting or have loads of time at your disposal to faff about, it's fine. That said, the DSLR advantage to me is the bright, lag-free viewfinder, speed of shooting and more comfortable grip.

For more general walkabout use I'd rather have one lens that can go from wide to reasonable tele without me having to hold up people I'm with as I delve into my bag to swap over. Lots of my NZ shots would have benefitted by not needing as much cropping.

My next setup (not replaced that D50 yet!) will be based around an 18-100ish lens - for what I need it'd be right for 95% of my shots.

puddleduck

04-01-2007, 12:08

speed of shooting

Not a dig, but more of a comment on the way digital is going. A few years ago, folks shot film. They have about 24 or 36 shots, so speed of shooting wasn't a huge issue - one shot, get it right, move out - not machine gunning a burst. Same with lens choices, you'd probably be shooting with a fixed 50mm and swap out to 24mm for landscape, and 135 for something a bit longer. It was foot zooming and composition, not feet planted in the same spot, and rack in or out :)

All-in-one zooms and speed of shooting, brings something to the table, but I'm not convinced that some of the craft isn't being lost. If you are sitting around waiting for just the right light, then really the 5 seconds to change a lens, or to walk a few feet to re-compose doesn't seem that much of a hassle :)

Sorry, a bit OT!

chrisns

04-01-2007, 12:36

Just my tuppence worth, but I think anyone considering a dSLR for the first time and not liking the idea of multiple lenses or changing lenses should consider something like the Panasonic FZ30 or FZ50 first. Sure, the final image quality can't compare to a dSLR, but the lens is fantastic and as a cost-effective learning tool, holiday/walkabout camera and for it's manual controls, I can't fault it.

My FZ-30 is currently getting more use than my Oly E-1 and my Canon A80, just because it can do everything.

FishBoy

04-01-2007, 14:56

The D40's 6 megapixels will be better quality pixels than that in the Sony.

I agree. The pixies in the Nikon are much shinier, more square, and are less likely to electrocute you.

Go for the Nikon!

:)

John C

04-01-2007, 15:13

All-in-one zooms and speed of shooting, brings something to the table, but I'm not convinced that some of the craft isn't being lost. If you are sitting around waiting for just the right light, then really the 5 seconds to change a lens, or to walk a few feet to re-compose doesn't seem that much of a hassle :)

I think the best thing gear can do is get out of the way so you can take the picture, tbh.

Don't get me wrong, I love my primes, and I'm still using cameras that are, in some cases, upwards of fifty years old. It all has its own charm, but sometimes the spot that gives you the ideal composition is somewhere you can't get to at the fixed length of your monofocal lens, and sometimes you don't bring enough film along. Sometimes shooting with this kit, you have to compromise what you were going to do because you don't have a zoom, don't have the right ISO film with you, can't focus quickly enough etc etc.

AdminSpod

04-01-2007, 15:26

If you don't want to change lenses then consider the Sony dsc-r1:
http://www.ukdigitalcameras.co.uk/__4_prod3_asp2_1_i4_32151_117_Sony_Cybershot_R16.html

For around £500 you effectively get a digital SLR quality camera but without interchangeable lenses. The 10.3 MP sensor is the same size as the Nikon or Canon DSLR cameras so expect good results. The lens is an excellent 14.3mm-71.5mm f2.8-4.8 zoom (equivalent to 24mm-120mm in 35mm frame) made by Carl Zeiss. You would have to spend quite a lot on Nikon or Canon glass to match that lens.

If you don't need to go longer than 120mm or wider than 24mm it is a very good alternative to a DSLR and you won't have to worry about getting dust on the sensor. It is not small though! Review here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

NicolaUK

04-01-2007, 15:36

Radiohead

04-01-2007, 15:50

I think the best thing gear can do is get out of the way so you can take the picture, tbh.

Don't get me wrong, I love my primes, and I'm still using cameras that are, in some cases, upwards of fifty years old. It all has its own charm, but sometimes the spot that gives you the ideal composition is somewhere you can't get to at the fixed length of your monofocal lens, and sometimes you don't bring enough film along. Sometimes shooting with this kit, you have to compromise what you were going to do because you don't have a zoom, don't have the right ISO film with you, can't focus quickly enough etc etc.

That's the way I see it. Again, I love my primes, but no way would I spend as much on them (or arguably even need them) unless I earned money from it. If I just used my SLR as I do when I'm, say, on a city break, then a smallish body and 18-200mm would cover 99% of what I'd need it for. That doesn;t mean I don't want the fast start-up, decent AF, decent fps etc that an SLR gives me.

Does it matter whether someone uses a 50mm FL because they zoomed to it or walked? I don't think so. People take more shots now because they're effectively free. I'll generally take 3 of any formal shots at a wedding because you know someone will blink, or look away at the critical moment. With film that would cost a fortune.

puddleduck

04-01-2007, 16:13

Well I'm not saying everyone should use primes, but I just don't grok the "don't want to change lens" argument. I tend to agree with the other posters, that if this is an issue, I'd advise getting one of the prosumers as mentioned. But really, 5 seconds to change a lens is nothing.

I know that personally that when I was in Japan and city shooting I wouldn't have been able to get half the shots unless I switched glass around a lot - ie switch to a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for low-light, or go to a Sigma 70-200 with a 2x TC to get a good vantage point at festivals away from the crowds. I hate to think of the shots I'd never have got if I'd just had one lens.

Ditto for your wedding work - you don't use an 18-200 lens, because ultimately you know its not up to the job. Changing lens is unavoidable if you want to make the best of your gear, and I think this flexibility should be embraced, not avoided.

chrisns

04-01-2007, 16:24

But really, 5 seconds to change a lens is nothing.

I agree and also point out that prosumer and fixed-lens SLR users (yes, some of us actually used an Olympus E-20 fixed lens SLR) often use teleconverters. I've used all sorts of wide, tele and macro converters for the E-20, Konica Minolta A200 and FZ-30... and it takes ages to unscrew, align and screw in the converters! swapping dSLR lens is quite a bit quicker in comparison.

John C

04-01-2007, 17:44

...
Ditto for your wedding work - you don't use an 18-200 lens, because ultimately you know its not up to the job. Changing lens is unavoidable if you want to make the best of your gear, and I think this flexibility should be embraced, not avoided.
I'm with you here, Andy, I think.

I guess the point I was making was that some of the "craft" was working around the limitations of the equipment of the time, and in some ways it's good to be liberated from that (and of course, be able to experience it if we want to, given the ludicrous price of top quality film kit these days).

puddleduck

04-01-2007, 17:57

I probably threw a bit of a curve ball in there, but really I guess my point, is that it seems to me, thats is becoming about speed.

.. fps - shoot rapidly, more, more... MORE! hope you get lucky with the shot, rather than t-i-m-i-n-g
...start-up speed - is this really a issue? Honestly?
.... no time to change lens - huh? The average bloke probably spends more time thinking about sex in one day, then he spends changing lenses in a lifetime :thumbs:

I guess as I used to shoot film (and am going through a roll right now, will probably last til mid-Feb!), and would wait a week to get stuff back from the lab, all the above just seems trivial.

Radiohead

04-01-2007, 18:05

.. fps - shoot rapidly, more, more... MORE! hope you get lucky with the shot, rather than t-i-m-i-n-g
...start-up speed - is this really a issue? Honestly?
.... no time to change lens - huh? The average bloke probably spends more time thinking about sex in one day, then he spends changing lenses in a lifetime :thumbs:

fps - the 5D is 3fps and that's more than enough for what I shoot
start-up time - ask anyone with a small child that question
lens changes - doesn't bother me in the slightest, usually.

emeyedeejay

04-01-2007, 18:10

It all depends on what you shoot and what you want from your kit ... start-up time is one of the reasons I bought my D70 - in fact all the reasons I bought my D70 when i did were speed related.

emeyedeejay

04-01-2007, 18:11

... start-up time - ask anyone with a small child that question ...

:thumbs:

emeyedeejay

04-01-2007, 18:16

I guess as I used to shoot film (and am going through a roll right now, will probably last til mid-Feb!), and would wait a week to get stuff back from the lab, all the above just seems trivial.

I think that's a key point Andy ... on the flip side of the coin I've never shot film and the thought of having to take a film in for processing etc. just seems bizarre to me - I want instant gratification :D

I think your point about some of the art being lost is valid but what that also means is that photography is open and available to more and more people...

emeyedeejay

04-01-2007, 18:19

well i am looking to learn i want better results and quality for a digital camera it may take time ill probably start off with auto mode and experiment and and learn to use some of the other settings as time goes on and i only wan somthing small and light to carry about so this looks ideal to me

Howard - it sounds like the D40 will do all you want it to and most definitely more - if it's what you want go for it... I agree with an earlier post - there's no substitute for playing with a camera (not necessarily an SLR though) to see what different settings do. I know of a few folk around here that went from a compact to a bridge camera and then upto an SLR (some quicker than others ;) ). If you can afford a gadget like a D40 just do it :D

howard35uk

04-01-2007, 19:48

wheres the best place i sigma 18mm to 125mm lens how much would this cost me anyone a link to this item plz

puddleduck

04-01-2007, 19:53

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_28&products_id=100

Taq

04-01-2007, 20:18

I used to worry about changing lenses in case dirt got in, but now I don't really give it a second thought and quite happily swap things about at dusty and sandy places as the need arises.

I guess the alternative is to have two camera bodies!

The thing about a lost art does strike a chord - I have lots of techniques and skills I learned for my job over the last decade; many took years to master fully and are now no use whatsoever and I never use them any more (who still does radioactive manual DNA sequencing these days? - now any pleb can add a few bits of liquid and send it off to a company) :D
I guess the takehome message is that the best photographers will still produce the best pictures, but digital lessens the learning curve for everyone else and allows them to take pictures they are happy with. If it wasn't for digital I'd probably never be into photography at all, although some people might say that could be a good argument against it :)

Taq

howard35uk

04-01-2007, 21:10

is the is a AF-S Lens
http://www.onestop-digital.com/cata...products_id=100

emeyedeejay

04-01-2007, 21:15

that link's not working for me - it seems to be missing the middle portion ...

emeyedeejay

04-01-2007, 21:18

Were you asking about the link AndySymbian provided?

this one --> http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_28&products_id=100

If so I don;t believe this lens will be compatible with the D40 as I don't believe it has a focus motor of its own (I speak under correction). As far as I know the abbreviation HSM on a Sigma lens means it has it's own focus motor. (HSM stands for Hyper-Sonic Motor)

howard35uk

04-01-2007, 21:30

maybe they will have another one compatible with he d40 i would think the should have

howard35uk

05-01-2007, 00:37

how about this lens the nikon 18-135mm would this be as good as the sigma 18-124mm lens

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1117/overview.html

puddleduck

05-01-2007, 07:51

The new Nikkor 18-135mm is not supposed to be that good.

Unless you see the words AF-S or HSM on a lens description, they will not autofocus on the D40. You could consider the Nikkor 18-200 VR but its very expensive, not that good for the money - normally I'd recommend the Tamron 18-200 instead, except that won't AF on the D40 either :brickwall

I would avoid the D40 for this issue alone if it was me - you need to buy more expensive (and not necessarily better) glass to retain AF, and you don't have the option to use very good glass such as the Tokina 12-24 or Tamron 90mm :doh:

Personally I'd stick with your original plan and get the 18-55 and 55-200 if you do go for a D40, or a Nikkor 18-200 if you don't mind spending £500 on a average but competent lens. You do strike me as the target audience for the 18-200 VR though, as its an 11x zoom :thumbs:

Other than that you could see if the new Sigma 18-200 OS is any good (also 11x) which should work on the D40 (not AF-S or HSM but it does have an internal motor so should work)

AdminSpod

05-01-2007, 08:06

I would avoid the D40 for this issue alone if it was me - I'd agree with Andy 100% on that. You should still be able to pick up a D50 for the same money and you won't be restricted on which AF lenses to use with that model.

howard35uk

05-01-2007, 17:40

no id rather go for the d40 and the 2 lens kits i like the small compact size of the camera ive held the d50 its to big like having a brick hanging round your neck not for me thanks

baffled

05-01-2007, 17:48

why not offer rst something here rst's thread (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458752) or are you set on a Nikon?

howard35uk

05-01-2007, 17:53

but maybe if i saw the d50 at a good price i may be tempted and whys the 18-135mm nikon lens not much cop ive seen nothing on any sites saying this

baffled

05-01-2007, 17:55

that thread is about a Canon 350d, not definate he'd sell but another option if you wanted to think about it

howard35uk

05-01-2007, 18:13

the lens with the canon 400d has been said to be poor its what put me off buying it cus if i just bought the body how much would a decent lens cost me but th d40 lens is said to be very good and only £90 more for the 55-200mm lens as well so im in favor with this at the moment but not 100% made my mind up yet

Radiohead

05-01-2007, 22:13

This thread makes my teeth itch.

John C

05-01-2007, 22:42

This thread makes my teeth itch.
Meh, what would you know.

I bet that 5D of yours is WELL HEAVY.

Pheonix

05-01-2007, 23:18

Meh, what would you know.

I bet that 5D of yours is WELL HEAVY.

You two just made my day.

Now I won't have to go cry quietly in the corner for a couple of hours.

Radiohead

06-01-2007, 07:21

And the clever/dumb balance is restored.

:D

Taq

06-01-2007, 11:23

I guess there is a critical mass for camera equipment where you end up getting so much stuff that weighs so much that you can't be bothered to take it anywhere :)

Taq

John C

06-01-2007, 12:01

I guess there is a critical mass for camera equipment where you end up getting so much stuff that weighs so much that you can't be bothered to take it anywhere :)

I've not reached it yet :) I routinely carry either the D70 + Tokina 12-24, Tamron 28-300 and Nikkor 50 f/1.8 plus at least one 35mm body & manual focus lens (28 or 135 normally), or two 35mm bodies if I don't intend to shoot digital that day. Sometimes I take a medium format camera along too :nuts:

John C

06-01-2007, 12:02

BTW, the D40 is reviewed in AP (broadly favourably, although no mention is made of the incompatibility with pre AF-I/AF-S lenses) this week.

Questor

08-01-2007, 10:59

I was looking at the D40 a couple of weeks ago - decided to go for the D50 instead - if only I could find somewhere with it in stock!! :)

puddleduck

08-01-2007, 11:02

I was looking at the D40 a couple of weeks ago - decided to go for the D50 instead - if only I could find somewhere with it in stock!! :)

These guys have it on Ebay for £360 + p&p

D50 kit (http://www.thedvdforums.com/jump2.php?url=http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-1751-2978-71/1?AID=5463217&PID=582776&mpre=http%3A//cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll%3FViewItem%26item%3D120072260842%26ssPageName%3DMERC_VIC_RCRX_BIN_IT%26refitem%3D120071227582%26itemcount%3D4%26refwidgetloc%3Dclosed_view_item%26usedrule1%3DCrossSell_LogicX%26refwidgettype%3Dcross_promot_widget)

silverpenguin7

08-01-2007, 12:05

This thread makes my teeth itch.
lol

I've got to admit the constant posts with no punctuation or full stops is very annoying although I did just read the whole thread from start to finish and maybe it was a bit too much in one sitting and I should ahve read it in stages to soften the blow

the D50 isn't a very big camera I'd see if you cna find one of those cheap as the D40 is really going to limit you in the future IF you decide to take your photography further and want to get some nicer lenses your going to be limited with the D40