I just wanted to get a new camera because my loyal Kodak digital died the other day. So I am into 35mm photography and I have a few Nikon SLRs... so naturally, I have plenty of parts, like lenses for Nikon cameras. So naturally, I bought a Nikon DSLR.

I know it's the beginners DSLR, but it really is all I need. I played with the D60 and, to be honest, it's way too much camera for what I even need. Plus the extra MP is not necessary either. I mostly print 3x5 and 4x6 prints, and occasionally that larger photo... but 6.1 MP is fine enough.

I do find it really easy to navigate the camera and it is rather heavy duty compared to even the D60.

I hope it will last me 10 years or so.

I am going to eventually take some pictures of my truck and some other cool stuff and post it up.

Anyone have this camera, or want to put their $0.02 in?

 

In the bad old days, there used to be a joke around that said a guy with a Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, or even a Canon could take pictures that were ALMOST as good as the ones his Wife took with her Brownie.

I bet you're going to love your camera. It's not the camera, it's the artist behind the camera that makes the difference.

- Jack

 

Hey Manual Huh ? Your "beginners camera" is probably twice the camera as my Oly E510.....
On the other hand, if I could afford it, I'd have a Canon 1DsMkIII, and a bunch of L-Glass, and I don't think the 21MP's would be > too much !

Then again > even if < I had a super nice DSLR, and top quality glass, I'd still use my point and shoots a LOT.
I've said it before, but it needs to be said again > A LOT of guys mistakenly believe that they have to have a DSLR to take nice shots.... and so they dump a bunch of cash on one.... then they hit the wall, or to put it another way, they find out that "unless" you put some time and effort into learning how to use a DSLR properly, you will probably take better shots with a fixed lens / point-and-shoot.

Here's a few of my favorite shots taken with a point and shoot (fixed lens) camera;








I'm fixing to post a few from my 'cheapie' Oly E510, that I just took on an over night trip to Bodega Bay, in another post....

Anyway, like I say, the D40 is a SWEEET camera, and probably too much for a lot of guys.... in fact DSLR's in general.... on the other hand, you can NEVER have too many MP's, as long as they are great quality MP's

Peace,
Fish

 

I went with the D40X myself, due to the D40 not quite having enough MP for me. The only difference between the 40 and 40X is the X is 10MP. I am just an amateur at best, but the pictures these things take are freakin fantastic!

I bought mine about 3 months ago now and it has been one of the best investments I've made. I am heading out on a honeymoon in another 2 months or so and plan on taking some great shots there too

Here are a few of my favorites that I've taken. Nothing fancy and no editing done to these pictures.

 

Like I say, it's the artist behind the lens. Nice pictures, guys!

- Jack

 

Great camera. Everything you need, nothing you don't. You'll love it.

If you haven't already been there, check out Ken Rockwell's site. A must for first time DSLR owner. He was so helpful to me, I sent him a donation.

Since we're sharing, here's a recent shot from my D90:

 

Got a d40x myself and it's a great camera. The glass is where it starts getting expensive.

 

The D40 is said to be the best camera for beginners out there, I know some professionals that carry it around with them as a backup.

 

Well, I used it today, and man... it fills everything I need it to do.

 

I love my D60, one of my favorite purchases. Ken Rockwell is a joke though...

 

Agreed on Ken Rockwell. He knows his stuff but the things he says should be taken with a grain of salt. I was about to post up that you should get the D40, but I just saw your other thread.


Since we're all sharing, though...another D90 owner here! This little guy was just cleaning himself, totally oblivious to me.

 

Lake Mead Nevada, Cannon 40D.

 

I returned the d40 and got a d3000 instead... I wanted the extra MP... and I really noticed a difference.

Plus it's got some extra features....

I did like how they didn't mind me "test-driving" the d40... the guy at the my local photo shop did mention that most people just buy one and if they don't like it they will just hold on to it and never use it or lose interest in photography. He told me as long as I don't bust it or anything, he don't mind it. Because sometimes getting the camera you like and feel comfortable with, is usually the best way to get outstanding shots.

But he told me that the d40 is soon going to be ancient history, because 6.1 mp is kind of useless when you can get a $200 camera that is 10 mp, even though it is only a point and shoot. He doesn't know why the d60 isn't gone yet either with the d3000 taking its place.

 

MP's only really make a difference when shooting real large photos.... I have seen some professionals shoot as low as 1.6MP's and they look better than anything that has been posted in this thread. I think MP's is kinda like saying this car has this much horsepower but how does it 'really perform'

 

I liked the performance of the d40, but image quality just wasn't there for when I needed to get artifacts out of an image -- which coincidently is when you enlarge it and crop it. Which was the same problem I was having with my Kodak Z650. It always ended up the best shot was the one taken furthest away making me have to crop/enlarge it.

I do a lot of action photography, so my simple n65 always treated me very well... but any other digital camera I've used never was able to be as good as 35mm. I'm hoping this next weekend when I go to take pictures, that they will be immensely better.

Plus having 3 fps is better than 2 fps that the d40 had, which I kind of need.

I do want to get a 55-200 mm lens.... but that isn't for a while, at least 6+ months.

I wish I could get my own Fujifilm LP7000 minilab... then I'd ditch any digital... and buy a hord of 35mm film...