[EFN]

I am torn between those two. Both are highly rated at www.dpreview.com.

This will be my first DSLR. And what I am looking for is a strong performer in poor lighting condition and crystal clear macros. I am not a pro, this is just a passion just like my love for Audio.

OR should I go all the way to D80.....dang those upgraditis!

Advice welcomed!!!!

 

[digitalmind]

Congrats on going for a DSLR, it's a great hobby. It's been slowly but surely removing my monthly budget from audio and moving it towards photography gear.

I advice you to go to a store and hold the cameras in your hand. I find the 400D to be too small for my hands which results in a cramped grip. This is my main reason for not having one and sticking with my 300D till I can afford the 30D. I haven't played with a D40x yet, so I can't comment much about it.

Good performance in little light and clear macros are not a function of the camera itself. New bodies deal with higher ISO settings pretty well, so this is all about the lens that you're using. In which case, the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) that comes with the 400D isn't much good in either.

Opt for a better lens on a cheaper body rather than a cheap lens on a more expensive body. I don't mean to throw you in the deep end straight from the start, but the kit lens is not good for what you want.

 

[EFN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalmind /img/forum/go_quote.gif Congrats on going for a DSLR, it's a great hobby. It's been slowly but surely removing my monthly budget from audio and moving it towards photography gear. I advice you to go to a store and hold the cameras in your hand. I find the 400D to be too small for my hands which results in a cramped grip. This is my main reason for not having one and sticking with my 300D till I can afford the 30D. I haven't played with a D40x yet, so I can't comment much about it. Good performance in little light and clear macros are not a function of the camera itself. New bodies deal with higher ISO settings pretty well, so this is all about the lens that you're using. In which case, the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) that comes with the 400D isn't much good in either. Opt for a better lens on a cheaper body rather than a cheap lens on a more expensive body. I don't mean to throw you in the deep end straight from the start, but the kit lens is not good for what you want.

Thanks for the sound advice. So methinks gonna bite D40X, I have held one in me hands a few hours ago - feels more solid than 400D. Assuming that I can get the seller to sell me the body only, what lens should i go for? (priority on poor light condition and marcros). I fact I think I can get a budget of $900 for the whole thing.

Ok guys, convince me on the combo to make me $900 poorer LOL!

 

[JeffS]

I'm glad you like the D40, it's a nice camera. I just picked up a D80 myself about two months ago, and love it. I found the D40 a bit small in my hand, and the D80 was perfect.

As far as picking a lens, you've got a number of options (though a little less on the D40). I use the 18-135mm "kit" lens a lot of the time. It's a pretty good all around lens for general purpose picture taking. For low light stuff, I picked up the Sigma 30mm F1.4. It's a great portrait lens with a nice shallow depth of field when wide open. It focuses fast, and is very sharp. The sweet spot on it is around f/4.

The only negative on the Sigma is the price tag, it's $430 over and B&H. Kinda price, but it's good glass for the money.

Since you're on Head-Fi, I know you've given up the idea of ever making peace with your wallet. You could go all out, and get the Nikon 18-200 VR. It's around $750 at a number of stores, when it's in stock. It's a fast mover though. That's the lens I'm still trying to talk the wife into letting me buy.

Either way enjoy the new camera.

-Jeff

 

[GTRacer]

Bare in mind the D40/x can only autofocus with AF-S lenses.

 

[dan1son]

I just recently bought received the D40 as a gift for my birthday... I have to say it's a great camera. I have used a D70 (one of my fathers) numerous times and the D40 is pretty close in quality. The auto-zoom with AF-S only is the one drawback I've noticed with the camera. However... since this is your (and my) first DSLR you can always just go ahead and buy AF-S lenses from this point forward. It's a wonderful budget camera...

There is a lens advantage to the D40 over most of the other Nikons... you can physically mount just about ANY Nikon lens ever made. The cameras with the autofocus motor are unable to mount some older nikon lenses. This opens up a world of craigslist, garage sale, and ebay lenses. Sure you gotta focus them yourself but that's not a huge deal if you get a nice lens cheap.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1son /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a lens advantage to the D40 over most of the other Nikons... you can physically mount just about ANY Nikon lens ever made. The cameras with the autofocus motor are unable to mount some older nikon lenses. This opens up a world of craigslist, garage sale, and ebay lenses. Sure you gotta focus them yourself but that's not a huge deal if you get a nice lens cheap.

I'm not really sure why this would be considered much of an advantage. With the exception of the D200, none of Nikon's consumer cameras including the D40 will meter with the old AI/NAI lenses meaning you will have to manual focus and fully manual meter all your shots. If you're shooting anything that's not completely still, you'll find yourself missing a lot more shots compared to shooting with a modern lens. I have a bunch of mf Nikkors from when I used to shoot with my F2 and with the exception of my 35mm f/1.4 they never saw any use with my old D50.

If it were me and I was starting afresh looking for a camera with good macro and great low light performance (And the small size didn't bother me), I'd pick up a Canon Rebel XT and pair it with a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. 2.8 isn't lightning fast but for a 150mm its pretty fast and paired with the excellent high iso performance of that Canon CMOS, it would make a pretty decent macro/low light rig. If you shop around, it should also be very close to your $900 budget. Add a nifty fifty later and you're all set.

 

[feckn_eejit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since you're on Head-Fi, I know you've given up the idea of ever making peace with your wallet. You could go all out, and get the Nikon 18-200 VR. It's around $750 at a number of stores, when it's in stock. It's a fast mover though. That's the lens I'm still trying to talk the wife into letting me buy.

Well chosen, the 18-200 is absolutely fantastic and will not leave you wanting for another lens for a good deal of time.

 

[EFN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not really sure why this would be considered much of an advantage. With the exception of the D200, none of Nikon's consumer cameras including the D40 will meter with the old AI/NAI lenses meaning you will have to manual focus and fully manual meter all your shots. If you're shooting anything that's not completely still, you'll find yourself missing a lot more shots compared to shooting with a modern lens. I have a bunch of mf Nikkors from when I used to shoot with my F2 and with the exception of my 35mm f/1.4 they never saw any use with my old D50. If it were me and I was starting afresh looking for a camera with good macro and great low light performance (And the small size didn't bother me), I'd pick up a Canon Rebel XT and pair it with a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. 2.8 isn't lightning fast but for a 150mm its pretty fast and paired with the excellent high iso performance of that Canon CMOS, it would make a pretty decent macro/low light rig. If you shop around, it should also be very close to your $900 budget. Add a nifty fifty later and you're all set.

Yet another sound advise. I am thinking of revisiting Canon EOS 400D/Rebel XT because some experienced photographers did advised me that Canon are known for superb fast paced shooting (sports, dance hall, running kids).

Hmmmmm makes thing even more diffcult for me LOL!

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feckn_eejit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well chosen, the 18-200 is absolutely fantastic and will not leave you wanting for another lens for a good deal of time.

I love my 18-200 all the same, but it does not mean I wouldn't want another lens.