7 hundred to a camera?

Published by: jane 2009-01-08

i was thinking of getting the d40 kit with the 55-200 vr lense...

just wondering if yall think this is a bad choice for me?

i like to shoot photographs of

animals
people/parties
rivers
landscapes...

lots of things..

but is it all worth this much when i can get a point and shoot camera for under 500?

i love crisp and clean looking pictures ..will this help me get them?
or will a point and shoot camera do just as good?

anything else i need to add?

firrst post on this forum ..thanks for the help

brandon

i will make my decision by this weekend

lots of good info here thanks guys..but yet another question?

canon g9 or the d40

ive read on several other forums that the d40 has better pictures and is just all around a better camera...

but the canon g9 ?

sorry to put a point n shoot camera on here ..

pretty cool...

i am goin to go camping in a couple of weeks and i cant wait to just start shooting...

OH MY GOD NO

well, maybe.

On second thought,

OH MY GOD NO

F/16

Iso 100

You're still probably gonna need a graduated neutral density filter to get any sort of speed in the seconds during the day.

And just on a curiosity, what tripod is it? I don't want your D40 to take a tumble (see, losing all your paychecks on buying new equipment, then new equipment, then some new equipment and maybe some new equipment on the way is fun!)

alex b i think i will do pretty good just taking it out ill have apx. week to play around with it..and im takin my laptop camping so i can ask you guys for help=]

Wiki has a nice reference:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Angleofview_28mm_f4.jpg
28mm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Angleofview_50mm_f4.jpg
50mm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Angleofview_70mm_f4.jpg
70mm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Angleofview_210mm_f4.jpg
210mm

This was all on film, it will be 1.6x more "zoomed in" LOOKING on most digital SLRs.

I see tripods like tyres; they're the only thing stopping you (the camera) from wiping out on the floor. Best not to scrimp on them.

kinda harsh...

but no way im ever gonna spend more than 50 on a tripod...im doing this as a hobby not as a profesion .
whats the difference?
price?

I needed a tripod badly and only looked at Manfrotto and Bogen. I have been looking in the 100 range and found barely any. So then I considered used tripods, to my luck a bogen 3001 (manfrotto 190B) was listed locally online for 50 bucks. As long as you consider used equiptment, you can get great deals.

Galway Rowing Club, one hundred years - Galway Advertiser ::
Dec 4, 2008 Standing on the bank are Mickey Hannon (nearest camera), club captain; Des Shaughnessy 6; Michael Garvey 7; Miley McGrath, stroke;
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/5713HOME

SD card for camera nor formatted - CNET Digital cameras Forums::
Jan 2, 2009 SD card for camera nor formatted. by hh - 1/2/09 7:57 AM. So, my daughter took several hundred pictures on her new 2GB SD card.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=58&threadID=323183&messageID=2941920HOME

oh, and to come to that first question, are 700 a worthwhile investment for you ... only you can decide that! My Ex did great photography with a good p&s on some trips we did together.. but of course there were moments when her camera was just not sufficient. Those were the moments when I was happy to lug my ton of equipment around with me ;)

Keep in mind, on here you are talking to fetishists who take equipment worth 7000 and more on trips like the one you plan. so there will always be voices saying, yes, spend your money ;)

well give me yours...hahah

it'll get the job done...

and the camera will not go for a swim...

which one would you recomend?

I don't know if it's worth it... you need to decide.

If you're taking "pics", get a point & shoot.
If you want to take photographs, a DSLR is probably worth it.

Have fun!

yeah i have a tripod...

ok long shutter speeds and iso at about 200 or 400..

aperature?

its a hakuba s-4500 ..not much but i think it will work just fine...

http://http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/435665-REG/Hakuba_056040075_S_4500_3_Section_Tripod_with.html

if i have my camera on the tripod i will be right behind it..

ill just do what kundalini suggested and add more weight...
i used the tripod for my old video camera and nothin ever happened to it so i trust it//...

Unlicensed Car Dent Repair Operation Caught On Hidden Camera ::
Jul 18, 2005 Unlicensed Car Dent Repair Operation Caught On Hidden Camera. Chris Halsne KIRO 7 Eyewitness News Investigative Reporter
http://www.kirotv.com/investigations/4738675/detail.htmlHOME

Carbon fibre is really nice if you can afford it, but it really adds to the cost of the tripod (sometimes double the price or more). Plus some people don't like the lighter weight as it is partly defeating the point of a tripod.

If you use a cheapy tripod you are right you will be behind it every time holding the camera, that can be limiting many times; and I don't just mean with getting yourself in the shot. Much photography works best when you don't have a hand on the camera and can shoot by remote or timer - as this reduces camera shake and this gets you sharper shots (think static subjects, buildings, landscapes, macro work, flowers etc...)

A cheap tripod is better than no tripod, but don't discount them as a cheap area - remember you payed how much for that camera and lens and other bits and your going to put all that money on top of $40 worth of tripod???

Yeah, it's only 40 bucks (lol) BUT it says it hold up to 5kg.

Still, keep that thing on a close watch and hook some weight on.

You might want to look for a used d70 outfit on ebay--in many ways it's superior to a d40, and it should cost you less then a new d40 setup.

Honestly, I've used ****tier tripods than that.

Just keep an eye on it, man.

nice way to put that...

i think i might want to take photographs...

do any of yall no how far a 55-200 lense can zoom out to? 50 yds?

lol this os a amusing thread,,,but my first tripod was a $19.95 plus tax from walmart,,added some weight to it and bingo,,now I do have a better one but had to save up for it....

if you can afford it, look for something from bogen/manfrotto. I've been looking at those lately, but i cant really afford one right now, so i'll probably get something cheaper from Amvona.com they sell tripods that are decent, for really good prices if you cant afford the good stuff.

Yeah, the forum does that automatically. It doesn't like my vocabulary

:D

The other ones are just more stable, really. It's all in build quality. And some are carbon fiber, which is a pretty expensive material anyway.

A more better-er tripod at $145 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/113837-REG/Cullmann_CU_3430_CU3430_Tripod.html)

You're still probably gonna need a graduated neutral density filter to get any sort of speed in the seconds during the day.

while graduated filters have their use, in this case we are talking of a standard ND filter without a gradient. The graduation would not help too much when trying to get longer exposures of the water.

As for the tripod, one important thing they are supposed to do is to damp vibrations, vibrations of the mirror, vibrations through wind, vibrations through the ground, this is quite important for lengthy exposures ... and wobble-pods like the one suggested are not particularly good at this. it is true, within limits applying some extra weight does help, but some of those lightweight tripods just cannot take too much weight.

and if you plan to travel ... play with your camera beforehand ... don't start just on vacation. You will have a learning curve, and you do not want to be at its beginning when you are out there to capture your travels.

i want to try the dreamy effect with a couple of waterfalls i know there..

i just need to watch some more videos on what settings to use cuz i keep on forgetting

I vote for the D40 as well.

I don't think you can go wrong investing in a quality tripod. The very first thing I bought (after my camera of course) was a Bogen/Manfrotto 190xProB tripod and a ballhead to go with it. Worth every penny.

On a side note, Alex_B was right on about the spending money part. There will always be people here willing to help you!

To add to reg - shooting using the timer function would help a lot as well - that way you can take you hands off the camera and let it shoot with minimal shake
Of course make darn sure if you tripod is a cheaper one that it is on solid flat ground and don't trust it for a moment - keep your eye on it!

The difference is that one holds your camera and one breaks it. They always always always always end up making people cry if they get to the end of their lifespan.

And if you took the (lol) as being harsh, did you miss where I said I had used worse? It wasn't meant to be insulting, but that still is gonna be one bad tripod!

I just highly suggest you rethink even using a tripod if you're unwilling to more then 50 bucks on the SOLE THING keeping the camera from falling onto the ground.

do the other ones have stakes into the ground or what?
i just dont see myself spending 300 on something thats just gonna hold the camera..i could buy a couple of batteries and some more cards..
i know your probly right i just find it hard to believe

oh yeah i didnt see it cuz its in asteriks..[the stars]....

If your looking at D40's, you might want to look at D70's from keh.com. They are cheaper and have more features with the same sensor. Since your working with a budget, you can get the same lenses you want, and have the option of moving up to prime lenses with are cheap, fast and built well. Oh, and they are far sharper than the lenses you are looking at.

Oh, and most tripods will work, just take kundalini's advice and hang a bag of rocks or your camera bag off the bottom. I use a $35 one I got off ebay and it works fine. Yeah, the $500 gitzo/manfrotto/whatever tripods are nice and cool looking, but it's most likely another reason for people to be eliteist about their gear. You can certainly get by without it, you just have to be creative.

If it's a cheap tripod (as reg suggests....the link isn't working for me) hang some weight on it like your camera bag.

To answer your original question, Vbrandon, the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 telephoto will do you very nicely for almost every situation. Talking about "crisper images" that you wanted, a DSLR will certainly help with that. A crop DSLR's sensor is about 7 times larger than a high-zoom point & shoot camera, and the general rule is that the more pixels you cram into a space, the more each pixel quality will degrade.

And with regards to the tripod, that one will do you. I use a �20 Jessops tripod, and it hasn't fallen over... yet. Sure, I need to allow for its lack of rigidity, but it works. So long as you keep an eye on it and set it up carefully, your camera will be fairly safe (I say "fairly" because no matter what support you use, having a camera suspended 1.5m off the ground isn't exactly safe as houses). Also, a proper tripod will certainly minimize camera shake, but yet again, it is possible to compensate for this with a cheaper tripod.

For example, The bunny photos in this thread (http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127828) were taken at a very slow shutter speed (average of 1/20s), at 200mm, and with no mirror lock-up for self-timer mode. And they came out OK, right? RIGHT??

The bottom line is that a "bad" tripod will do you, you just need to be careful.

Between the Canon G9 & D40, go for the '40. The G9 has tons of lens attachments (wide-angle, telephoto etc), but the quality of photos taken with those will be nowhere near that of the D40 with a real wide-angle or telephoto lens. Also, the D40 has a much larger image sensor than any P&S camera, which has many advantages.

DSLRs all the way! :D

Also, you might want to look at a used D50 or D70 kit. They're still very good cameras, in one or two ways better than the D40, and they're nice and cheap.

Hope you got a tripod.... you need a long shutter speed of a few seconds.