Nikon D40X?

"Pete D" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
> Canons actually use a CMOS sensor and use aggresive noise reduction in
> camera, if you like the result then that is a plus.

This is lying FUD. Period.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:03:21 -0400, louise wrote:

> My main concern is about the fact that the auto focus
> mechanism for the D40x is in the lens rather than in the
> camera. Will this make it obsolete in a year or two? Is it
> a new design Nikon came up with which will soon be replaced?

No, it won't become obsolete. Nikon's old lenses required camera
body motors for autofocusing, but they've been making lenses
containing focusing motors for quite some time. They didn't start
with the D40 since they've been making them as far back as January
2004 when the D70 was introduced. At that time there were at least
3 AF-S lenses, the 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom, the 17-55mm
f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom and the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX
Zoom, where the "S" in AF-S indicates that the lens contains a
"Silent Wave" motor. These are preferable since they focus more
quickly and operate more quietly than the geared lenses that use the
lens body motor to focus. Additionally, as far as I'm aware, all of
Canon's lenses for their digital and their non-prehistoric film
cameras use lenses containing motors. This design is here to stay.


> My other concern is really a question. When comparing the
> d40X to the Rebel XT1, is there a significant difference
> between the two CCDs? Also, I could manage to hold the D80,
> although not comfortably. Will I wish I'd gotten the D80?
>
> Anything else I should take into consideration?

They both use high resolution sensors. That provides a slight
advantage if you think that you'll be making many very large prints.
But the D40's sensor, which is only a 6mp sensor can easily make
very large, sharp prints, almost as large as the D40x. This slight
disadvantage also provides the D40 with advantages. Since the
sensor is the same physical size, the pixels are larger, and the
result is that each one can collect more light (photons), making
them slightly better for taking pictures when there isn't very much
available light. Another consideration (and here I'm not speaking
from experience, just parroting what I've read in reviews),
virtually all lenses will produce decent results with cameras that
have lower resolution sensors. When those same lenses are used on
cameras having higher resolution sensors, such as the D200, D80 and
now the D40x, you'll start to see flaws such as color aberrations
when the less expensive lenses are used. Again, not much of a
problem since you probably wouldn't notice this except when making
very large prints, and the cure would be to substitute the better,
but much more expensive higher quality lenses, each of which can
cost as much as a camera body. For these reasons I bought the
recently discontinued D50, which uses virtually the same sensor as
the D40. Even if they're the same price, I'd prefer the D40 over
the D40x, but other people might have good reasons for preferring
the other body. But the D40 has another advantage. Its price is
quite a bit lower than the D40x. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy
with either body, they won't become obsolete, and should be much
more comfortable in your hands than the larger, heavier D80.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote in message
news:euvi3t$7n9$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Pete D" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>> Canons actually use a CMOS sensor and use aggresive noise reduction in
>> camera, if you like the result then that is a plus.
>
> This is lying FUD. Period.


Okay, they use CCD's!!
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

"ASAAR" <caught.RemoveThis@22.com> wrote in message
news:jju6139nd2948hu6vgvas63ff4flqmdckj@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:03:21 -0400, louise wrote:
>
>> My main concern is about the fact that the auto focus
>> mechanism for the D40x is in the lens rather than in the
>> camera. Will this make it obsolete in a year or two? Is it
>> a new design Nikon came up with which will soon be replaced?
>
> No, it won't become obsolete. Nikon's old lenses required camera
> body motors for autofocusing, but they've been making lenses
> containing focusing motors for quite some time.

There are still quite a few lenses currently produced by Nikon which require
a motor in the body for AF. The 50mm f1.8 comes to mind. This would be an
ideal lens for someone on a tight budget who also wants a very compact lens
that will *easily* take indoor shots without flash. The main selling points
of the D40 must be compactness and low price which would make it an ideal
partner to this lens, so it seems odd that Nikon don't have the focus motor
on the D40 as I'm sure it must be only a very small motor.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:51:49 +0100, Adrian Boliston wrote:

> There are still quite a few lenses currently produced by Nikon which require
> a motor in the body for AF. The 50mm f1.8 comes to mind. This would be an
> ideal lens for someone on a tight budget who also wants a very compact lens
> that will *easily* take indoor shots without flash. The main selling points
> of the D40 must be compactness and low price which would make it an ideal
> partner to this lens, so it seems odd that Nikon don't have the focus motor
> on the D40 as I'm sure it must be only a very small motor.

The D40 is significantly smaller than the D50, and I attribute
this to a number of minor changes. I suspect that the new battery
it uses is smaller than the EN-EL3x batteries used by many other
Nikon bodies. The motor may be small, but it probably is attached
to a small gear train, and the shaft that couples to the lens is
probably very small too, but eliminating these (and the necessary
clearances) as well as possibly some other recent part
miniaturizations all added up to make for a much smaller body. If
the motor was retained the body would have to be at least slightly
larger, and might have prevented Nikon from reaching a small size
goal for the D40. The lack of a motor could also be an indication
that Nikon's future lenses will all contain one. As for the 50mm
f/1.8 lens, I think it's only a matter of time before Nikon produces
an AF-S version. I was tempted to get one several weeks ago and
didn't, mainly because B&H had none in stock. But since then, from
using my old 60mm Micro Nikkor I've come to the conclusion that a
50mm lens would be too long for general use, and if I get a fast
lens it will be in the 30 to 35mm range, whether from Nikon or from
another manufacturer. A lens of this focal length would also be a
better match for the D40, so if a 50mm AF-S lens was available, it
would just allow Nikon owners to buy a fast lens that has a less
than ideal focal length for their APS-C cameras.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

Pete D wrote:
> "louise" <louise.RemoveThis@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:57gps3F2crq3lU1@mid.individual.net...
>> After a few years of trying to live without my Nikon SLR film camera, I've
>> decided that no digital camera which is not an SLR is going to make me
>> happy or produce the kind of sensitivity and clarity of image to which I'd
>> grown accustomed.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> I have one particular need: my hands are unusually small and I find
>> several of the DSLRs very uncomfortable to hold and I can't imagine ever
>> becoming nimble with them.
>
> Hand size is far less of a worry than you think, the complete ergonomic
> package is the deal.
>
>> I have had a long and happy relationship with Nikons and so that is my
>> first choice. I did also look at the Canon Rebel XT1 since it is my
>> impression that the CCD chip is also quite good.
>
> Canons actually use a CMOS sensor and use aggresive noise reduction in
> camera, if you like the result then that is a plus.
>
>> I'm leaning toward the D40X because it is really light and wonderful to
>> hold. I imagine getting it with the standard lens and using my old zoom
>> telephoto when I really need a long lens, which is not that often. I know
>> that my Nikon A telephoto zoom will not autofocus on the D40X but I really
>> don't expect to use it very often.
>
> It may well not meter either.
>
>> My main concern is about the fact that the auto focus mechanism for the
>> D40x is in the lens rather than in the camera. Will this make it obsolete
>> in a year or two? Is it a new design Nikon came up with which will soon
>> be replaced?
>
> Possibly.
>
>> My other concern is really a question. When comparing the d40X to the
>> Rebel XT1, is there a significant difference between the two CCDs? Also,
>> I could manage to hold the D80, although not comfortably. Will I wish I'd
>> gotten the D80?
>
> If you can hold the D80 you should be happy with just about any camera, the
> hand grip is pretty fat as most Nikons tend to be.
>
>> Anything else I should take into consideration?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Louise
>
>
Thanks very much for your reply. Could you explain the
difference between a CMOS and a CCD. And you say "if you
like the result" then.... What are the resulting
differences? The only thing I've noticed is that sometimes
shots from Canons seem a little soft - not out of focus, but
not sharp either. Is this what you're referring to?

Thanks again.

Louise
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:03:21 -0400, louise wrote:
>
>> My main concern is about the fact that the auto focus
>> mechanism for the D40x is in the lens rather than in the
>> camera. Will this make it obsolete in a year or two? Is it
>> a new design Nikon came up with which will soon be replaced?
>
> No, it won't become obsolete. Nikon's old lenses required camera
> body motors for autofocusing, but they've been making lenses
> containing focusing motors for quite some time. They didn't start
> with the D40 since they've been making them as far back as January
> 2004 when the D70 was introduced. At that time there were at least
> 3 AF-S lenses, the 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom, the 17-55mm
> f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom and the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX
> Zoom, where the "S" in AF-S indicates that the lens contains a
> "Silent Wave" motor. These are preferable since they focus more
> quickly and operate more quietly than the geared lenses that use the
> lens body motor to focus. Additionally, as far as I'm aware, all of
> Canon's lenses for their digital and their non-prehistoric film
> cameras use lenses containing motors. This design is here to stay.
>
>
>> My other concern is really a question. When comparing the
>> d40X to the Rebel XT1, is there a significant difference
>> between the two CCDs? Also, I could manage to hold the D80,
>> although not comfortably. Will I wish I'd gotten the D80?
>>
>> Anything else I should take into consideration?
>
> They both use high resolution sensors. That provides a slight
> advantage if you think that you'll be making many very large prints.
> But the D40's sensor, which is only a 6mp sensor can easily make
> very large, sharp prints, almost as large as the D40x. This slight
> disadvantage also provides the D40 with advantages. Since the
> sensor is the same physical size, the pixels are larger, and the
> result is that each one can collect more light (photons), making
> them slightly better for taking pictures when there isn't very much
> available light. Another consideration (and here I'm not speaking
> from experience, just parroting what I've read in reviews),
> virtually all lenses will produce decent results with cameras that
> have lower resolution sensors. When those same lenses are used on
> cameras having higher resolution sensors, such as the D200, D80 and
> now the D40x, you'll start to see flaws such as color aberrations
> when the less expensive lenses are used. Again, not much of a
> problem since you probably wouldn't notice this except when making
> very large prints, and the cure would be to substitute the better,
> but much more expensive higher quality lenses, each of which can
> cost as much as a camera body. For these reasons I bought the
> recently discontinued D50, which uses virtually the same sensor as
> the D40. Even if they're the same price, I'd prefer the D40 over
> the D40x, but other people might have good reasons for preferring
> the other body. But the D40 has another advantage. Its price is
> quite a bit lower than the D40x. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy
> with either body, they won't become obsolete, and should be much
> more comfortable in your hands than the larger, heavier D80.
>
That's very interesting. I don't make large prints. The
kind of work I do tends primarily toward tight in and close
up. But - I often achieve these prints by cropping and
using only a small portion of the shot I actually took.
Therefore, I guess it turns out to be the same as if I was
enlarging. I'll have to think about this. You're correct
that it's a lot less expensive.

Louise
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

Adrian Boliston wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught RemoveThis @22.com> wrote in message
> news:jju6139nd2948hu6vgvas63ff4flqmdckj@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:03:21 -0400, louise wrote:
>>
>>> My main concern is about the fact that the auto focus
>>> mechanism for the D40x is in the lens rather than in the
>>> camera. Will this make it obsolete in a year or two? Is it
>>> a new design Nikon came up with which will soon be replaced?
>> No, it won't become obsolete. Nikon's old lenses required camera
>> body motors for autofocusing, but they've been making lenses
>> containing focusing motors for quite some time.
>
> There are still quite a few lenses currently produced by Nikon which require
> a motor in the body for AF. The 50mm f1.8 comes to mind. This would be an
> ideal lens for someone on a tight budget who also wants a very compact lens
> that will *easily* take indoor shots without flash. The main selling points
> of the D40 must be compactness and low price which would make it an ideal
> partner to this lens, so it seems odd that Nikon don't have the focus motor
> on the D40 as I'm sure it must be only a very small motor.
>
> cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
>
>
I have that lens for my film camera and I agree, it is an
excellent lens - but it's probably history now .....

Louise
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:12:27 -0400, louise wrote:

> That's very interesting. I don't make large prints. The
> kind of work I do tends primarily toward tight in and close
> up. But - I often achieve these prints by cropping and
> using only a small portion of the shot I actually took.
> Therefore, I guess it turns out to be the same as if I was
> enlarging. I'll have to think about this. You're correct
> that it's a lot less expensive.

You can get a good idea about what kind of cropping is possible
with the D40 by downloading some full sized sample images. I
generally use the ones posted on steves-digicams.com and to a lesser
degree dpreview.com. If samples of the D40 aren't available from
any websites you could substitute images from the D50 which uses
virtually the same sensor. Similarly, if you want to compare what
kind of cropping would be possible with the D40x, if test images
aren't yet available, an alternative would be to download and
compare D80 images. DPReview has sample images from the D40, but
not for the D40x, as it hasn't published a full review yet, only a
preview. BTW, the first line in the Conclusion section of the D40's
review said "Excellent image quality, great resolution and detail,
who needs eight megapixels?"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

"ASAAR" <caught.TakeThisOut@22.com> wrote in message
news:od471392obblk8qh1qbvnvaj29tdp5hl9q@4ax.com...

> ... The lack of a motor could also be an indication
> that Nikon's future lenses will all contain one. As for the 50mm
> f/1.8 lens, I think it's only a matter of time before Nikon produces
> an AF-S version....

I wonder if an AF-S 50/1.8 would be larger & heavier if it contained it's
own motor. I suspect it would also cost quite a bit more.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:57:13 +0100, Adrian Boliston wrote:

>> ... The lack of a motor could also be an indication
>> that Nikon's future lenses will all contain one. As for the 50mm
>> f/1.8 lens, I think it's only a matter of time before Nikon produces
>> an AF-S version....
>
> I wonder if an AF-S 50/1.8 would be larger & heavier if it contained it's
> own motor. I suspect it would also cost quite a bit more.

It wouldn't have to since the 18-55mm "kit" lens is an AF-S lens
and is still lightweight and inexpensive, about $100. I agree that
it would weigh more than the plastic 50mm f/1.8, but probably not by
enough to cause most people to complain about it or in many cases to
even notice. It would probably remain smaller and lighter than the
current 50mm f/1.4 lens, I think, which is also not very large.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

Adrian Boliston wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught.TakeThisOut@22.com> wrote in message
> news:od471392obblk8qh1qbvnvaj29tdp5hl9q@4ax.com...
>
>> ... The lack of a motor could also be an indication
>> that Nikon's future lenses will all contain one. As for the 50mm
>> f/1.8 lens, I think it's only a matter of time before Nikon produces
>> an AF-S version....
>
> I wonder if an AF-S 50/1.8 would be larger & heavier if it contained
> it's own motor. I suspect it would also cost quite a bit more.

Canon has a 50/1.8 with motor that's about the same size as the Nikon
and costs about 25 bucks less. If Canon can do it at that price Nikon
should be able to.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X? 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:51:12 +1000, Pete D wrote:

> Agree (somewhat) from one of my 6MP DSLRs I print 12x18 and they are
> excellent at this size, my 10MP DSLR will certainly print bigger but it does
> other things better.

As I've said elsewhere, I know my minimum requirements and the D50
easily meets them. The 10mp DSLRs certainly can make larger prints,
but going by DPReview's resolution tests, there are diminishing
returns, and stuffing N% more pixels into the same size sensor will
allow larger prints to be made of the same quality, but not N%
larger. It would be nice if the D50 had the D80's viewfinder and
some other of its improvements, but all things considered, in
addition to meeting my requirements, the D50 was a much better
value, costing less than 1/2 the price of the D80. I have yet to
make 12"x18" prints, but if or when I do (and it won't be soon), and
want to go larger, I think I'll first look into a nice panorama head
for my tripod rather than get whatever multimegapixel DSLRs will be
available several years from now. Not that I'm ruling out a future
D300 or D400. But it better not be too large.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D40X?