I remember asking this last year and if I recall, AK highly recommended the D40 over the D3000. I have the D3000 though, and it's a pretty good starter camera.
hmm. well when he sees this maybe he will tell me why, because the d3000 is supposed to be an upgrade from the d40 aswell, my original choice was the d40 but i wanted to ask because i was contemplating between the two.
If you are going to be shooting in low light conditions or at night the D3000 is not a good choice because it's performance at high ISO's is dreadful even next to the old D40. If you can wait and save, the D3100 is a HUGE improvement and is a true successor to the D40. It's funny how short a life span the D3000 had before it was quickly replaced... If you can't wait, the D40 is great for everything except making huge prints or cropping your images due to its 6 megapixels. http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3100/index.htm You can see the high ISO comparisons between the D3100, D3, and D40 here. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2010-09-29-iso/index.htm
yeah, the d3100 looks nice but it's just too far out of my price range. What is the difference between the d40 and d40x besides price?
I find it troubling when I meet photography major at universities who don't know what aperture is or ISO. I know it's sorta not on topic, but isn't it important to know how a camera works to be a successful photographer? Esp. in this market. Just saying..
that is kind of odd. Im not even in my highschool photgraphy classes yet and i already know what both of those are to some degree.
Yeah that is pretty lame. In their defense though there are no such things as photography majors. Only Arts (BA) or Fine Arts (BFA) each with a focal point in photography. Still no excuse not to know wtf aperture is!
Although she's a friend one of those people said "I don't know what any of that is, or much about cameras. I just know how to take good picture." You can't make the perfect picture if you don't know how to use a camera and how it works. smh.
Shoot Film! Learn to shoot a 35mm. And if you get a DSLR you should (Just like with film) shoot in manual mode as often as you can. Learn your camera, learn how cameras work and how to use your ISO, Apeture, shutter speed, WB etc. Edit: I would go with the D3000 because of the movable LCD, it will help with framing in difficult angled situations.
yeah thats some sad shit... photography wasnt even a main interest, yet ive learned a whole lot of technical stuff in photography all by myself just from reading. i didnt even knw what a fast lens was to begin with
That's what pisses me off with the new 'digital revolution.' Especially in this market you do not have to know a fucking thing about how to camera in order to be a successful professional photographer. You will most likely be turning out shit photos, but people who don't know any better will pay for them. There are some people on this forum and others that I frequent who are leagues beyond the skill and talent levels that 90% of todays professional photographers are, and are just hobbyists like myself. Fact is that cameras are so good now that any fucktard can buy a pro camera, crop their shit in lightroom, -50 vignette, and people will eat their crap photos up. Just look at flickr, 90% of the stuff on there is garbage, but it's a huge circle jerk and everybody loves everything. I should go into business as a photographer, I'd never have to leave Program mode.
Have any of you guys tried freelensing? It's a pretty cool technique IMO, I haven't really tried it yet, just played around with it a little, testing to see how it works; but, anyways there are some cool examples here, most are pretty mediocre but a few are worth looking at: http://gizmodo.com/5679403/101-photos-taken-with-the-lens-detached Here are a couple cool ones from that link: [Broken External Image]:http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/charliedwyerfreelensing.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/iandossfreelensing.jpg