[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cool, enjoy the D40! It seems to be debated quite often whether it or the D50 is the preferred option of Nikon's 6MP cameras.

They are both different enough, and both have their +'s and -'s.

 

[Towert7]

That's an great price for a new DSLR and kit lens!
Hope it brings you a lot of enjoyment.

 

[Joshatdot]

I just wish I can remember all the stuff I've read on taking pics to really start taking good pics!

My Canon A720 IS (which this D40 will replace), is a great inexpensive P&S camera, but performed sub par in low light situations. I'll be reading a lot over at kenrockwells site, and my manual on getting the most out of my new D40.

 

[wanderman]

If I don't jump back on the full frame train again, I will dump all my canon kit and get a d90 w/ 35 1.8. The nikon crops are soo good.

 

[Lex2]

The 6MP D40 will give you nice, clean, and huge pixels (meaning better SNR). Its pixel density is on par with the full frame D700. You can't go wrong with it!

 

[rhythmdevils]

I just discovered that Nikon's top of the line 35mm FX prime is only F2 wide open. What is that? Weak sauce. Almost makes me want to switch to Canon- they make a gorge 35mm prime 1.4. F2 is kind of useless cause it's only 1 stop brighter than my 24-70 and not really worth it to be stuck at one focal length. I mean I prefer to shoot with a prime, but weddings happen so fast...

So what's up with that? I mean a 1.8 prime would be a bit sad, but 2?

 

[bigshot]

35mm is a focal length that is more useful on DX. On FX, the new 24mm 1.4 is the wide angle prime for FX.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just discovered that Nikon's top of the line 35mm FX prime is only F2 wide open. What is that? Weak sauce. Almost makes me want to switch to Canon- they make a gorge 35mm prime 1.4. F2 is kind of useless cause it's only 1 stop brighter than my 24-70 and not really worth it to be stuck at one focal length. I mean I prefer to shoot with a prime, but weddings happen so fast... So what's up with that? I mean a 1.8 prime would be a bit sad, but 2?

Nikon 35mm f/2 in the right hand is one of the most versatile lenses you can have as a photographer.

I took this with the 'weak sauce' lens.

Also this:

This too:

I think the culprit of this one is also the weak sauce:

Hey, another one!

Found one more:

Whops, one more:

I also do a lot of low light indoor with this too. f/2 is plenty for low light especially if it's a wide. And if you have something like D700, it shouldn't be an excuse.
I have lots of indoor portraits with this but I can't post them here because it's personal ones. But a lot of wedding photographers use f/2.8 zoom, I can't see a reason why you can't work with an f/2 prime.

PS - What Bigshot said was right. use the new wide angle prime if you want low light. 35mm f/2 is designed as an affordable general purpose lens, it's never meant to be a top of the line.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just discovered that Nikon's top of the line 35mm FX prime is only F2 wide open. What is that? Weak sauce. Almost makes me want to switch to Canon- they make a gorge 35mm prime 1.4. F2 is kind of useless cause it's only 1 stop brighter than my 24-70 and not really worth it to be stuck at one focal length. I mean I prefer to shoot with a prime, but weddings happen so fast... So what's up with that? I mean a 1.8 prime would be a bit sad, but 2?

Stick with the 24-70mm for weddings.

That being said, I love my little 35mm F/2.0 to death.

 

[Graphicism]

I've been saving up for a while for some edition 8s but the HD video recording from some of these DSLRs has really grabbed my attention.

I'm looking at the Nikon D90 Body + Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens for a general shoot-anything walkabout; do you guys know if this focal length works well on the D90 or should I be considering another lens, perhaps zoom? The price for this setup with a 16GB SD card is under $1,000, if I can do better within this budget please let me know!

Share your Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX pics/videos too if you have them.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif 35mm is a focal length that is more useful on DX. On FX, the new 24mm 1.4 is the wide angle prime for FX.

both the 24 and 28 1.4 are too wide for portraits IMO

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nikon 35mm f/2 in the right hand is one of the most versatile lenses you can have as a photographer. I also do a lot of low light indoor with this too. f/2 is plenty for low light especially if it's a wide. And if you have something like D700, it shouldn't be an excuse. I have lots of indoor portraits with this but I can't post them here because it's personal ones. But a lot of wedding photographers use f/2.8 zoom, I can't see a reason why you can't work with an f/2 prime. PS - What Bigshot said was right. use the new wide angle prime if you want low light. 35mm f/2 is designed as an affordable general purpose lens, it's never meant to be a top of the line.

easy there big fella. You just posted a whole bunch of images that weren't taken in low light, or wide open. I'm not talking about sharpness or anything. And like I said, I don't want to go wider than 35 for an all purpose prime when it's being used for portraits. I've been photographing for 11 years, and use a D3. Not sure if that means I have "the right hands" or not. Fact is, I could use the extra stop if it means dropping the ISO down to something more usable, and I don't see why Nikon hasn't made a state of the art 35mm prime yet.

edit: I guess it'll save me about a grand though, so that's nice

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif easy there big fella. You just posted a whole bunch of images that weren't taken in low light, or wide open. I'm not talking about sharpness or anything. And like I said, I don't want to go wider than 35 for an all purpose prime when it's being used for portraits. I've been photographing for 11 years, and use a D3. Not sure if that means I have "the right hands" or not. Fact is, I could use the extra stop if it means dropping the ISO down to something more usable, and I don't see why Nikon hasn't made a state of the art 35mm prime yet. edit: I guess it'll save me about a grand though, so that's nice

I know they're not lowlight, as I said, my low lights are private pictures, so I can't post it there. But then again, if I knew I'd be going to very dark places, I always use my f/1.2 not the 35mm f/2.

How dark exactly are the churches that you've been attending?
Other option is to master the flash so that the pictures don't look like they are taken with flash at all (this is something I honestly not very good at and can't be bothered to learn because I don't make a living out of photography).
Or when flash is prohibited (meaning church), that means you can always just use 50mm f/1.4, no?
But I am really curious, what sort of places that even a D3 and f/2 is not even enough to take the pictures properly and how often do you use this place?

I know it was probably just a tongue-in-cheek when you're saying you almost switch brand because of that. I guess it just irks me when people say "This brand suckz balls - I want to switch to brand X or brand Y because it doesn't have this lens". I mean, why on earth you chose that system to begin with if you think the other brand has more suitable lenses for you?

I don't mean you though, but if you go to places like dpreview, it's just amazing the amount of gear cry babies there. And don't get me started with those idiots who use flash lights to shine through their lens elements...

 

[rhythmdevils]

Yeah I have spent most of my time with photography with 1 lens, because I'm not really as into the gear as much as the process. But weddings are different. There's so much going on, and so little time, I really will take any advantage I can get. I do use flash, and it's nice if it's done right. But it's also great not to have to use flash, or not have to use as much of it, and the super shallow depth of field look is really in right now, I've actually had brides ask for it. I'm not really into the idea of creating it with photoshop.

But here's a scenario, a wedding I recently shot. It was lit almost exclusively with candles, the ceremony and reception were both after dark, and the ceilings were 40 feet tall and painted brown. That's too much even for f1.4, I just had to blast a couple flashes all over the place.

But low light is romantic, so wedding receptions are often pretty dark. I don't really like going past ISO 4000 or so cause it doesn't look so hot even with the D3.

I'll be fine of course, and get the 35mm f2 or just use my zoom. I'm just surprised because Nikon's pro customer base are people who shoot fast, low light situations like photo-journalists, sports photographers, and wedding photographers. Canon I feel has positioned themselves for the studio and landscape, architecture, etc photographers. A really fast 35mm prime is the staple of photo-journalists and wedding photographers, and for Nikon to be behind canon there is a pretty bad business move. I mean with 1.4 canon makes up for the extra stop or so nikon has with ISO performance. I also have been a little annoyed with them for being behind with video, because I had to get a 5dmkii for video, and then I have to get twice as many lenses. I think Nikon should have released a D700x with 1080p before last christmas.

But yeah, I was joking about switching to canon for photography. the D3 is the first digital camera i've fallen in love with

 

[dj_mocok]

Too bad you can't use the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
I have a feeling that Tokina might come up with something more interesting in FF-compatible lens.
I know they recently announced the 16-28mm f/2.8 for FF cameras. 16mm isn't exactly your portrait lens, but I bet you can make some interesting pictures indoor with that lens.