Could someone tell me the difference between the D40,D50,D80,D70 and the D200
Nikon camera
- Thread starter ukjason
- Start date
explain
he's f*cking with you...do the math
im lost
Check the link. Its a chart comparing all the Nikon DSLRs except the d40.
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/chart/nikon_dslr_chart.html
Then check this link to get the d40 to d50 comparison.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/
Hope this is some help.
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/chart/nikon_dslr_chart.html
Then check this link to get the d40 to d50 comparison.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/
Hope this is some help.
d40 is basically point and shoot that you can hang lenses on, d50 is entry level, d70 is more advanced but close in performance, d80 is the new d70 so you can ignore the d70 now, the d200 is a totally different class, consider that almost pro level
Thanks
i do like the D80 and it only costs you lot $800
its going to cost me betwwen £800-£1000
Then order it from one of our mailorder companies and send the lftover money to me.
Oh and Opie, since when is the difference between 50 and 80, 20?
canon
Why Canon?
Lenses
yes...but i thought Nikon was supposed to be better with interchangable lenses (i.e. old/newer) than Canon?
I don't understand what you mean by old/newer, but Canon's lenses blow Nikkon's out of the water
At any sports event, look at the photographers and see how many have white (cannon L series) lenses, most of the time it's between 90-100%. Nikon has good lenses, and a good selection, but at the top end I believe canon makes better lenses. Good canon lenses hold their value too.
While I totally agree with you (I mentioned it in the other thread), ALL lenses hold their value. Good glass is good glass, and if its in good condition, its gonna be worth a lot of money even after years of use.
It's funny, we were typing almost the same answer in two threads at about the same time.
Yes all good glass holds it's value, but I was specifically talking about canon and the L series lenses. I was afraid to buy them at high prices I saw, but found I could sell it and recoup most of the cost which took away most of the fear. Amazon's christmas return policy also helped.
i chose canon because i do a lot of shooting @ ISO 1600 and even 3200 on occasion. the amount of noise is far less than w/ a Noink or other body.
the range of lenses is pretty unbelievable, as well (though i do have two 3rd party lenses which i am very happy with, the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the tokina 12-24 f/4).
what is your logic on this graphics how is the d40 point and shoot and the older version d50 is an entry level. the only thing the d40 dosent do is take the older lenses, most people going from film nikon to digital nikon are serious photogs and they would most likly go with a d80 or d200
Make sure you try both of them out. I can't stand the way the Rebel feels, for example. The D40 is better, but it's still too small. The 20D/30D are much better, but they were also twice as much when I was shopping. That's originally why I went with the D50. Of course, now that I did that, I'm locked in to Nikon.
What are you shooting, by the way?
What are you shooting, by the way?
well kinda what Narlus was saying in reference to what equipment he has already. I was told that with canon lenses....the new lenses don't fit the older cameras...but with Nikon...all their lenses fit all their cameras.
Looking at the specs it looks like the d40 doesn't do bracketing which is important to quite a few people and it had a three point auto exposure system instead of five. However, the d40 has a better view finder, a better continous exposure mode, better built-in flash, and a better auto-iso mode.what is your logic on this graphics how is the d40 point and shoot and the older version d50 is an entry level. the only thing the d40 dosent do is take the older lenses, most people going from film nikon to digital nikon are serious photogs and they would most likly go with a d80 or d200
It looks to me like the d50 would be slightly better at still type shooting, the d40 better at sports/action photography, and both are excellent all around cameras. And I agree, anyone willing to invest thousands of dollars in lenses would buy the D80 or D200 or better.
No.
The EF-S lenses on canon cameras only fit select digital cameras. They only cover the 1.6x crop sensor and would not project a full image onto a 35mm (or larger than 1.6x such as the 1dmk2, 5D and 1ds mk2) digital sensor. They also do not fit the original 300d or 10d for some reason.
All Canon EF lenses fit all Canon cameras made in the last 30 years or so. They all contain AF motors and will focus and be fully functional, including exposure reporting, etc. Older FD lenses (from 30+ years ago) will not fit the new body mount.
Nikon ONLY MAKES 1.6x crop digital sensors, therefore all of their lenses fit the body mount. The older Nikon lenses do not contain auto focus motors however, so they will NOT AF on most of the newer Nikon bodies.
That's only with the D40. It doesn't have a focus motor in the body. Every other Nikon DSLR does.
For what it's worth, Nikon glass and Canon glass arethe same quality. On certain lenses Nikon is better on others Canon is better, but unless you are entirely into focus tests, you'll never know. The only difference you'll see is the colors they pick up, Nikon uses a different coating on the lenses, and their high end wide-angles pick up blue much better than the Canon L glass.
There are many reasons that mot of the professional photography industry is dominated by Canon. The AP switched becasue of the 1Ds, they demanded a full frame sensor, and Canon was the only company that came through and built one. This led to every stringer for the AP switching. SI switched for the same reason, and that Nikon service blows, and their early digital bodies were unreliable, so they broke all the time then took 3-6 weeks to fix. Many newspapers, and freelancers switched for similar reasons, but not because the lenses were better.
That being said go to the camera shop and handle the cameras before you buy. Then get the one you can afford, and that feels comfortable and has easy to navigate menues. When I went digital I ended up switching to Canon because the Nikons were uncomfortable, the menues seemed retarded, and the D2H was the only pro-body they had out, and it was way to unreliable for m to consider. It killed me to think about shooting with Canon, but I'm very happy that I did.
There are many reasons that mot of the professional photography industry is dominated by Canon. The AP switched becasue of the 1Ds, they demanded a full frame sensor, and Canon was the only company that came through and built one. This led to every stringer for the AP switching. SI switched for the same reason, and that Nikon service blows, and their early digital bodies were unreliable, so they broke all the time then took 3-6 weeks to fix. Many newspapers, and freelancers switched for similar reasons, but not because the lenses were better.
That being said go to the camera shop and handle the cameras before you buy. Then get the one you can afford, and that feels comfortable and has easy to navigate menues. When I went digital I ended up switching to Canon because the Nikons were uncomfortable, the menues seemed retarded, and the D2H was the only pro-body they had out, and it was way to unreliable for m to consider. It killed me to think about shooting with Canon, but I'm very happy that I did.
from what i have read
nikon is an optics company they make glass for a lens
and they have nice camera set ups
canon is a computer chip company they make printers and stuff like that
also have nice camera set ups but arent all about the lens
both are excelent companys
nikon is an optics company they make glass for a lens
and they have nice camera set ups
canon is a computer chip company they make printers and stuff like that
also have nice camera set ups but arent all about the lens
both are excelent companys
i think you should do some more reading.
they really just have a passing interest in lenses...(and this jpg is out of date...they've definitely added the 50L f/1.2, 70-200L f/4 IS, 17-55 f/2.8 IS and maybe some others)
Please stop talking. Also, please take reading comprehension courses.
I had no idea there were that many lenses from all companies together. No wonder I am scared of SLRs.
There are thousands upon thousands of lenses out there, but only some are compatible with some cameras, and like Munkey said, once you know what you are going to shoot, how far you need your reach, and how much available light there will be, you can pretty much narrow it down to 5 or less, then the question comes to your pocket book.
There is no reason to be scared of SLR's, they are GREAT cameras, and if you are just starting, there are some slamming deals on some of the entry level ones. Even those are leaps and bounds above a point and shoot.
lthumbsdown:
let's get out the MTF charts!
:wonky1:
:wonky1:
Alas, Nikon doesn't MTF charts for most of their lenses.
Nikon 70-200 vr VS canon 70-200 IS both f/2.8 (the only "matching" combo I could finsd)
Wide
Nikon:
Canon:
Tele:
Nikon
Canon:
Yep. That's pretty conclusive.
MTF chart: How to read
MTF charts (short for Modulation Transfer Function) provide a graph analyzing a lens' ability to resolve sharp details in very fine sets of parallel lines, and a lens' contrast or ability to provide a sharp transfer between light and dark areas in sets of thicker parallel lines. Fine repeating line sets are created parallel to a diagonal line running from corner to corner of the 35mm frame, directly through the exact center of the image area. These are called sagittal lines, sometimes designated "S" on Canon's MTF charts. At a 90° angle to these, additional sets of repeating lines are drawn, called Meridional (or "M") line sets. Repeating extremely fine short parallel lines spaced at 30 lines per millimeter measure the lens' ability to record fine details, or its resolution.
Even more important in the eyes of many optical designers is the lens' contrast capability, which is measured with thicker sets of parallel repeating lines drawn at 10 lines per millimeter. At first glance, it would appear that any good lens would record lines running parallel to a diagonal drawn across the film with the same accuracy as lines drawn perpendicular to them. However, in real-world testing, this is often not the case. Especially in the Meridional direction, faithful reproduction of fine line sets becomes increasingly difficult as you move away from the center of the image toward one of the corners. And it's a fact that almost all lenses produce sharper results in general near the center of the frame than at the outer edges.
MTF charts display the lens' performance from center to corner. Running along the chart's horizontal axis, labeled 0 to over 20, is the distance from the dead center ("0") of a 35mm image along a diagonal line to the corner of the frame, which is about 21.5mm away. On the chart's vertical axis is a scale representing the degree of accuracy with which the fine and coarse line sets are reproduced, in both the sagittal (parallel to the diagonal of the film format) and meridonal directions. Solid lines on the MTF charts indicate the performance of sagittal lines (parallel to the diagonal of the film), dashed lines are for the perpendicular meridional test target lines.
In theory, a perfect lens would produce nothing but straight horizontal lines across the very top of an MTF chart, indicating 100% accurate reproduction from the center of the picture (toward the left of the chart) to its outermost corners (at the right side of the chart). Of course, no such thing as a perfect lens exists from any SLR manufacturer, so MTF charts typically show lines that tend to curve downward as they move left to right (tracking the lens' performance from center to corner of the frame).
Canon's MTF charts give results at two apertures: wide-open, and stopped down to f/8, with the lens set to infinity focus. While MTF charts don't include many factors that can be important when selecting a lens (size, cost, handling, closest focusing distances, AF speed, linear distortion, evenness of illumination, and of course features like Image Stabilization which may produce superior real-world results), they can indicate to the knowledgeable reviewer some of the optical characteristics they can expect from a particular lens.
Wide
Nikon:
Canon:
Tele:
Nikon
Canon:
Yep. That's pretty conclusive.
MTF chart: How to read
MTF charts (short for Modulation Transfer Function) provide a graph analyzing a lens' ability to resolve sharp details in very fine sets of parallel lines, and a lens' contrast or ability to provide a sharp transfer between light and dark areas in sets of thicker parallel lines. Fine repeating line sets are created parallel to a diagonal line running from corner to corner of the 35mm frame, directly through the exact center of the image area. These are called sagittal lines, sometimes designated "S" on Canon's MTF charts. At a 90° angle to these, additional sets of repeating lines are drawn, called Meridional (or "M") line sets. Repeating extremely fine short parallel lines spaced at 30 lines per millimeter measure the lens' ability to record fine details, or its resolution.
Even more important in the eyes of many optical designers is the lens' contrast capability, which is measured with thicker sets of parallel repeating lines drawn at 10 lines per millimeter. At first glance, it would appear that any good lens would record lines running parallel to a diagonal drawn across the film with the same accuracy as lines drawn perpendicular to them. However, in real-world testing, this is often not the case. Especially in the Meridional direction, faithful reproduction of fine line sets becomes increasingly difficult as you move away from the center of the image toward one of the corners. And it's a fact that almost all lenses produce sharper results in general near the center of the frame than at the outer edges.
MTF charts display the lens' performance from center to corner. Running along the chart's horizontal axis, labeled 0 to over 20, is the distance from the dead center ("0") of a 35mm image along a diagonal line to the corner of the frame, which is about 21.5mm away. On the chart's vertical axis is a scale representing the degree of accuracy with which the fine and coarse line sets are reproduced, in both the sagittal (parallel to the diagonal of the film format) and meridonal directions. Solid lines on the MTF charts indicate the performance of sagittal lines (parallel to the diagonal of the film), dashed lines are for the perpendicular meridional test target lines.
In theory, a perfect lens would produce nothing but straight horizontal lines across the very top of an MTF chart, indicating 100% accurate reproduction from the center of the picture (toward the left of the chart) to its outermost corners (at the right side of the chart). Of course, no such thing as a perfect lens exists from any SLR manufacturer, so MTF charts typically show lines that tend to curve downward as they move left to right (tracking the lens' performance from center to corner of the frame).
Canon's MTF charts give results at two apertures: wide-open, and stopped down to f/8, with the lens set to infinity focus. While MTF charts don't include many factors that can be important when selecting a lens (size, cost, handling, closest focusing distances, AF speed, linear distortion, evenness of illumination, and of course features like Image Stabilization which may produce superior real-world results), they can indicate to the knowledgeable reviewer some of the optical characteristics they can expect from a particular lens.