Finally got me a DSLR... Nikon D40

[Tourmeister]

Howdy,

:tab I've been itching for several years to get a nice DSLR. Since I had the Nikon N70 with several lenses, filters, external flash, etc,... I was hoping to get a Nikon DSLR that would be compatible with as much of my old stuff as possible. The DSLR prices were just out of reach for a long time. However, recently the prices on the D40 were getting down where I could give them serious consideration. Then when Dad mentioned they'd toss in a few hundred bucks towards the cost as my Christmas present... Time to pull the trigger :mrgreen:

:tab I shopped around a bit and decided to get it from Ritz Camera online. They had several kits available.

-D40 body
-Std 18-55mm lens
-55-200VR lens
-Nice carry bag with extra room for 2nd lens and SB-26 Flash (not included)
-Two DVD's for learning DSLR photography (good for newbs but not for anyone already familiar with basics of photography)
-UV and Polarizing filters with carry case

To that I added the following
-Remote shutter release
-spare battery
-8Gb card with reader

:tab Total cost was right around $700 with 2 day shipping. I would have been less if I had not gotten the VR version of the 55-200 lens, but I really wanted the VR. I kicked around the idea of just getting a body with the 18-200VR lens, but I wanted the small standard lens as well. Also, that zoom is pretty pricey, over $600 just for it alone. It would be nice though not having to swap between lenses all the time or having to carry an extra lens.

:tab For the last few years my primary camera has been a Canon Power Shot SD600, a good camera for sure. However, indoor shooting has always been a weakness for the Canon. The tiny flash just is not up to the task. As a result, many of my indoor images are slightly blurry and the exposure is overly bright in the immediate foreground and very dark in the background. So getting good pics of the kids is tough! The video mode is pretty good though, even indoors. Outdoors though, the camera is great for scenery and its VERY small size makes it easy to carry on the bike. Ease of access means more pics will be taken on the bike. Whereas, the Nikon will take more effort/time, thus I may be inclined to stop less for shots I might normally get with the Canon. So I will probably continue to carry the Canon. Indoors though, the Nikon rocks.

:tab All the pics in my End of the Year Pie Run report (http://www.twtex.com/forums/showpost.php?p=538085&postcount=14) were taken with the D40 the day after I got it. All shots were with the standard 18-55 lens and with the built in flash. At that point, I still had not finished reading the manual and was just shooting from the hip so to speak. The following images were taken over the course of the last week as I have begun to play with various settings and the larger zoom lens.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0006.jpg

:tab The image of Sarah above is the sixth shot with the new camera. The exposure is darn near perfect and the focus is sharp. The sleeping bag is a satin type material but the color and lighting is spot on. Right off the bat this shot is better than just about any indoor pics of the kids with the Canon :clap:

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0010.jpg

:tab The background is a curtain that is shiney kind of like the sleeping bag, yet the flash does not cause it to get real bright. The skin tone is great. One of the preprogrammed settings is for kids, which is specifically intended to get good skin tones.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0078.jpg

:tab Like that eye booger? :lol2: I really need to remember to keep a towel handy for wiping the Rachel's face before I start shooting :doh: Drool and such reflects a lot when a flash is used. Also, there is a tendency to get right up on the baby when taking pics. The result is that the flash kind of over powers the shot. I have found that if I back off and use the zoom, the flash is softer and the skin tones are more natural. With the external SB-26 flash (which I have not played with on this camera yet) I can redirect the flash upwards and/or use a diffuser to soften it.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0092.jpg

:tab She's just so darned cute I had to toss another in there :-P

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0101.jpg

:tab Here is one where I back off a bit and used the zoom (18-55 lens).

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0105.jpg

:tab I was a bit cramped for space in the kitchen and could only get so far away. Daniel is a bit overexposed here. Reading over at the KenRockwell.com (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm) site, he believes that the D40 metering consistently overexposes and he keeps his exposure compensation set to -0.7 most of the time. I have not played with that yet, but I will.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0138.jpg

:tab This is Kathryn, my older brother's daughter. She looks like an angel but she's a real pistol! :trust: Her eyes are really much more blue in person.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0148.jpg

:tab Mom and Dad got the wagon for the kids to play with when they come over, which is 4-5 days a week since they come out to our office for lunch almost every day. After one lap around the yard bending over to push the wagon Dad decided there had to be a better way... Witness the PVC wagon pushing device :-P These wagon shots were all done with the 55-200VR lens.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0153.jpg

:tab Pushing wagons is hard work and there seems to be a shortage of volunteers willing to go the distance with these two :lol2:

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0163.jpg

:tab One thing I notice is that the corners seem a little darker than the rest of the image. When looking at all the shots together on a light board viewing format, this is even more noticeable. However, looking at a single shot, it does not leap out so bad because you have no other images to compare it too.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0176.jpg

:tab The auto focus on both lenses is really good. It is much easier to get the subject in focus with this camera than it is with the Canon. Mastering the Canon's auto focus has eluded me and because of its small size, the manual focus is hard to use.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0178.jpg

:tab I could not find the setting, but there is a tracking setting for the auto focus. As the subject moves, the lens tracks it and keeps it in focus. That would have helped with this shot. Both kids LOVE swinging and would do it all day of they could get away with it.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0183.jpg

:tab The swing shots above were all shot from about 60-70 feet away. This is nice because your subjects are not always aware they are being photographed and the result is a more natural look to the action.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0186.jpg

:tab Here I am playing with the macro setting and using the 18-55 lens again. Min distance to the subject is around 13-14 inches I think. It did a great job of picking up the detail and getting the color right. No flash.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0187.jpg

:tab When shooting macro, mastering the depth of field for the focus is critical. That is something that is REALLY hard to do with the Canon, at least it is for me :shrug: I'd always have a perfectly focused background and fuzzy subject. The spot focus on the Nikon is great in comparison to that of the Canon.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0193.jpg

:tab Self portrait :mrgreen: The blur here is actually the result of a not quite mirror finish on the ornament and not a lack of proper focus.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0200.jpg

:tab I love a good fire... 8-) This was a HOT one and pretty big. Getting a good exposure on a fire can be tough. The fire is about right but the background is much darker than it really was. I tried a few different settings, but I have not yet figured this one out. The central flame is reaching about 30 feet high. I was pretty far back and still getting my lips chapped!

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0207.jpg

:tab Papa lets Daniel "drive".

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0221.jpg

:tab The "pistol" is discharging because she isn't getting what she wants :lol2: The windows behind her were really bright. Even though they are over exposed according to the camera, the camera still does a great job of getting the exposure on her almost perfect. The windows are four foot wide floor to ceiling down two walls.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0223.jpg

:tab Rachel gets some lap time with Papa, before BOTH fall asleep minutes later :sleep: Again though, the windows are over exposed but the people look great. Both of these shots used the flash. This is another case where the tiny flash on the Canon would have left these pictures looking pretty bad. The built in flash on the D40 is really nice.

:tab I headed back outside to play around with the 55-200VR lens. Mom and Dad like birds and always have feeders out for them. Today, there were tons of tiny little birds only. I was about 12-15 feet from them with the lens at max zoom, no flash, using the auto focus. I have cropped the originals. The birds were a very small part of the original. With the 6 mega pixels and having the camera set on "fine" for the quality, I can do a "zoom" with the crop and still get pretty good quality.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0224.jpg

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0225.jpg

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0233.jpg

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0235.jpg

The bird on the right was taking off as I snapped that last shot.

:tab These last few are just more close ups of the kids with the 18-55 lens. I was tight on space again so I could not get as far from them as I would have liked. Again, this is where the flash diffuser of my external flash would have come in handy. With the Canon, the exposure using the flash would have been pretty bad.

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0250.jpg

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0255.jpg

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0264.jpg

http://twtex.com/linkfiles/Nikon-D40/DSC_0272.jpg

In the low light conditions, the auto focus has an assist light that comes on prior to the shot. It is amazingly bright. This is nice because it helps with the red eye reduction. There is a red eye reduction feature for the flash, but I did not use it.

:tab My first impression of the D40 is that I am REALLY happy with it. Even with not fully knowing what I am doing with it, I am getting far better images with it than I can with the Canon. The Canon is great for out door scenery shots where nothing is moving and also for shooting 640 X 480 30 fps video clips. Part of the way I sold this camera to Beth was that without it, our kids' young lives would be slipping by and all we'd have to remember it with were poorly exposed and out of focus images :trust: Now that she has seen the images just from this first week of playing around, she is convinced. I just really need to get more serious about understanding the nitty gritty of the various settings, how to use them effectively, etc,... I think that will get me pretty far, but then after that, the "art of the science" will have to kick in if I ever want to get any better shots.

:tab The challenge now will be to figure out a good way to incorporate the D40 into my riding. I need to find a way to carry it that won't take forever to get it out and put it away. I was a bit disappointed to find out that the back LCD cannot be used for composing shots. You have to use the eye piece. When I am not riding, that is not a big deal. However, when riding, it means I have to remove the helmet to be able to get my eye up to the eye piece since I don't have a flip up helmet (and I am not wild about getting one). So right off the bat, that adds more time to a "quick" stop and shoot, something I can do real fast with the Canon. However, if I stick with the Canon (or a newer version of it) for those kinds of shots, then I think I'll be covered.

:tab Lastly, I just had to recharge the battery for the first time. Close to 300 images, lots of flash use, and LOTS of just sitting with the LCD lit up so I can look through settings and figure out how things work while reading the manual. Also, they charge pretty quickly, maybe an hour and a half from dead to full. With a spare, I should be good to go.

[Gilk51]

Looks like you are already enjoying the camera! :thumb:

One thing I got early on was a spare battery so I am never "surprised" when I forget to monitor the battery level and it conks out... :roll:

cue Paul Simon's Kodachrome: "I got a Nikon camera, I love to take photographs"... :mrgreen:

[Tracker]

some really nice shots, Scott. :thumb:

for grins, you might try shooting indoors on (P)rogram and set the iso to 1600, white balance to tungsten. In well lit indoors, you can eliminate the flash with red eye and shadow problems.

[whoa]

I paid close to that for the basic D40 package. Prices have really come down. I've given up using my manual lenses since the AF lenses are so stupid easy to use. I also have a couple of good manual flashes I've promised myself to use to avoid buying new.

Does the D40 even have a manual to explain functions ;)? The field guide is a great book.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D40x-Digital-Field-Guide/dp/0470171480

I'd like a good macro for technical work, but may opt for a cheaper option. Seems all the lenses worth having start at the $400 mark. I passed on the VR lens with the 50/200, but will consider the price difference with my next lens.

So far I lack the sophistication to take better photos on manual. The sampling under auto is just too good for basic shots until you go for special effects in composition. The D40/40x is a great camera in a bit smaller form factor than other models, so I've found it a very good compromise with features beyond my basic needs.

Your already taking great shots, but then you have good subjects.

[poser]

All the pics I took on a recent trip to St. Maartin were taken with my D40...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33213594@N07/

I don't know how to hot link out of flikr, but those are definately worth the look

as well as these from a track day I was crner working...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/jlbohac/TWS%20Sept%201/yamblublk.jpg

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/jlbohac/TWS%20Sept%201/

and here's a few random shots...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/jlbohac/D40/grasshopper.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/jlbohac/newcameratestshots045.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/jlbohac/newcameratestshots002.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/jlbohac/misc046.jpg

[tricepilot]

The challenge now will be to figure out a good way to incorporate the D40 into my riding. I need to find a way to carry it that won't take forever to get it out and put it away.




http://tricepilot.smugmug.com/photos/434106881_w8NBN-XL.jpg

That's Hank Arriazola in Patzcuaro, Michoacan, Mexico in October with his DSLR. He'll take something like 3,000 shots on a two week trip.

This is his recent motojournalism/photography book:

http://tricepilot.smugmug.com/photos/434326672_qCPzc-L-1.jpg

http://tricepilot.smugmug.com/photos/434106861_NuubB-XL.jpg

http://tricepilot.smugmug.com/photos/428944161_5cSK9-XL.jpg

Hank simply keeps the DSLR in a padded tank bag. He'll visualize a scene, stop the bike, zip open the tank bag, and click away. His flip-up helmet is a necessity.

I talked to a guy who did a ride report on his trip to Alaska. His photos were stunning. I sent him a PM with a "how did you get your photos" type of question. His answer surprised me. He said he took along both a Nikon DSLR and a Canon Digital Elph point-and-shoot.....and took 90% of his photos with the point-and-shoot. Not that the Nikon wasn't a fabulous camera, but that for him, to take it out and set it up was both difficult on the ride and also caused him to miss many of the "fleeting moment" shots.

So here is the point: Hank doesn't carry a point-and-shoot camera. Only the DSLR. But he's gotten good at pulling it out of the tank bag at lightening speed and getting fabulous shots. If it was buried in some pannier, I don't think he'd be near as successful.

Back to the Alaska guy. Another point he made floored me. He said he spent around $250 for the point-and-shoot Canon, but learned to take photos in the best light available, which is early morning and late afternoon. And, he always took his photos on manual setting, adjusting white balance and exposure himself. Composition and light make the photographer, not the camera.

I am directing these comments to your statement about incorporating your DSLR into your riding. I don't think Hank would be carrying a DSLR if it wasn't, for him, the best solution to getting fabulous photographs while on a motorcycle. He just learned to keep it where it is both safe and accessable.

What is the best camera for motojournalism? The answer the classic "it depends". One, or the other, or a combination of both may be the answer. You just have to find a way to make it work for you. Currently, I only carry the Digital Elph, but I wouldn't mind a D40-style addition. But it would certainly go in the tank bag.

I think DSLRs, even with their extra bulk, are, as Hank shows, a great way to capture moto-related pictures. As we speak he is in South America, on his way to Ushuaia, with that DSLR in that tank bag, stopping at every other bend to capture the moment.

Remember....in the end, it's all about the light.

Bob :sun:

[poser]

the thing I like about the DSLR is the start up time is zero. I lugged around my D40 everywhere in St. Maartin because when I saw something I wanted to shoot, it was just a matter of turning it on an shooting. my 2 point and shoot cameras take a bit to get ready to shoot.

[Jerry]

Hiya Scott,
Wonderful photos of a beautiful family. And an excellent time to get the new camera - in time to chronicle their growth. You are indeed fortunate - especially since the kiddos tend to favor Beth. :-P Happy Anniversary!

[whoa]

90% of his photos with the point-and-shoot.
A guy I work with travels extensively with our company and ultimately published a book of beautiful photographs. He said the majority of shots in his book came from a point and shoot camera with minimal editing.

I keep my D40 in a tank bag as well, although I don't do any quick draw shooting.

[Chirpy]

I picked up a D40X for my birthday, and have been quite happy as well. I keep saying I need to read the manual, but I keep taking good pictures without it...

Sounds like we even made the same lens choices. Tori knocked the camera off a table at her birthday party, and the 18-55 didn't do to well, and appears to progressively be getting worse. Which is precisely why I sprung for the two less expensive lenses instead of the big One I wanted...I would have cried if Tori crunched that one...

I need to crack the book, but I'm having so much fun just taking shots and getting good results that laziness is paying off!

[gotdurt]

Awesome Scott, you're going to love it! It's going to make you want to take pictures just for the sake of taking pictures. I got a D90 for Christmas, finally upgrading from my beloved D50.

[Tim Kreitz]

I just really need to get more serious about understanding the nitty gritty of the various settings, how to use them effectively, etc,... I think that will get me pretty far, but then after that, the "art of the science" will have to kick in if I ever want to get any better shots.

It's a constant process of learning and you always discover something new. That's one of the things I like about both photography and videography alike.

If you haven't done so already, you really need to get yourself a hot-shoe flash and a diffuser of some kind. Getting the hard shadowing out of your flash pics makes a huge difference.

[gotdurt]

If you haven't done so already, you really need to get yourself a hot-shoe flash and a diffuser of some kind. Getting the hard shadowing out of your flash pics makes a huge difference.
Glad you mentioned that... If I remember correctly, I believe he has one from his N70, very curious to hear if it works with the D40. My N70 had a different trigger voltage than my D50, so my D50 wouldn't fire my Sunpak speedlight (unless I use the wireless flash trigger)... but my N70 will fire my SB600 :scratch: Don't know if my D90 will trigger the old Sunpak though, haven't tried.

Are your old lenses AF-S?

Funny, back when I bought my D50, it was so I could use the speedlight and all of the lenses I already had (it's not limited to AF-S like the D40), but the speedlight didn't work on it and I quickly ended up with all new lenses anyway :lol2: Looks like you're in a similar boat...

[Tourmeister]

Tricepilot,

:tab All good comments that highlight my concerns. With the N70 I had, I carried it in a tankbag that was dedicated to just that. It even survived a crash intact. Unfortunately, on the KLR, the tankbag is MUCH smaller. There is not enough room for padding and the camera. Given the environment that the KLR usually sees and its nasty tendency to hit gravity pits... Well... I am a little concerned about the survivability of the camera. I will definitely continue to carry the Canon because it is quick and simple. I can carry it in the left pocket of my riding jacket and it is easy to get at. I may upgrade to a newer Canon though. This one has seen some serious DS usage and is making grinding noises when the lens move :doh: They are so inexpensive now for what you get! The D40 was primarily intended for home use with kids and family. Still, it would be nice to use it on bike trips :trust: The "it's all about the light" is what I was referring to with regard to the "Art of the science" comment. The hardware can only do so much. I need to work on "seeing" the shots before I even lift up the camera to my eye.

:tab Casey, I've not tried the SB-26 external flash yet. However, I recall reading somewhere that the D40 would work with all the Nikon Speedlights :shrug: My old lenses will work with the D40, just not in auto focus mode. The only lens I really have that might matter is a Nikon 70-300 zoom. Between that and the 35-80 it came with, I never really needed any other lenses enough to shell out the bucks for one. A good wide angle would have been nice though.

[dutchinterceptor]

I know it doesn't alleviate the lack of storage space but you could always get some armor protection for those "off-road" adventures.

Camera Armor (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486980-REG/Camera_Armor_CA_1115_SMK_Camera_Armor_for.html)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/486980.jpg
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486980-REG/Camera_Armor_CA_1115_SMK_Camera_Armor_for.html

[Tourmeister]

If you haven't done so already, you really need to get yourself a hot-shoe flash and a diffuser of some kind. Getting the hard shadowing out of your flash pics makes a huge difference.

:tab If it will work with the D40, my SB-26 has a tilting and swiveling head. It also has the diffuser and the white reflector card that pulls out to bounce a little light forward even with the head pointed up. There is also a zoom on the flash for pencil beam and wide beam. Like the camera, it can do way more than I know how to do with it :doh:

[Richard_]

Scott,

Congrats on the new camera. If you prefer situation lighting vs using a flash, I suggest looking into a 35mm or 50mm prime lens at about f/1.8 (especially the 35mm, with the 1.5 multiplication factor on your D40 it works out to about 52mm). In many instances you'll be able to get indoor pics of the family without a flash.

[ndmiller]

Nikon runs a class in Houston every once in a while for under $200, a relative steal, although opinions may vary.

Congrats on the camera, have had a D80 for a few years now and finally somewhat competent with it.

Magic Lantern guides are good sources of technical instruction as is the site www.kenrockwell.com. Best advice I can give is just shoot pictures. Remember what you did or take notes and your pictures will get better through trial and error.

Noah

[poser]

Hey TM, do you still like the 55-200 VR lens?
I'm thinking about picking one of these up

[M38A1]

Hey TM, do you still like the 55-200 VR lens?
I'm thinking about picking one of these up

Not TM here, but just save the coin and get the 18-200VR. Then you only need one lens on your body for just about every shot you would ever imagine.

[poser]

Not TM here, but just save the coin and get the 18-200VR. Then you only need one lens on your body for just about every shot you would ever imagine.

I'd love to but isn't the price tag on that one in the $600 range? I can pick up the 55-200mm for $130. The more expensive lens would cut too deep into DS budget :trust:

[Tourmeister]

Not TM here, but just save the coin and get the 18-200VR. Then you only need one lens on your body for just about every shot you would ever imagine.

If money were not a concern, this is the route to go.

I'd love to but isn't the price tag on that one in the $600 range? I can pick up the 55-200mm for $130. The more expensive lens would cut too deep into DS budget :trust:

Alas... money seems always to be a concern :doh:

I still like the lens, but like Scott says, it is a hassle carrying more than one lens and having to swap back and forth. Out at Big Bend last weekend, I never even got the 55-200 out of the case. With all the wind and dust, pulling a lens off the body exposes it to a lot of nastiness. That would not have been a problem with the 18-200.

[47wing]

Nice camera and good samples. Shoot in RAW and learn to set the custom white balance. You will have dramatic improvement in your photos.

Invest in Lightroom and your pics will be something else. It is your own little darkroom where you make the masterpieces.

[Tourmeister]

Shoot in RAW...

:tab By this do you mean uncompressed TIFF's?

... and learn to set the custom white balance. You will have dramatic improvement in your photos.

:tab You will have to explain this one :shrug:

[poser]

I have mine set on the next one below RAW, why is RAW so much better and what does it mean?

[gotdurt]

RAW explained: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

[poser]

just looking around at lenses, what do you guys think about the non-nikon brands

this 18-200 is less than half the cost of the nikon one

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230329415971&category=3323&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D 14%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54

[gotdurt]

just looking around at lenses, what do you guys think about the non-nikon brands

this 18-200 is less than half the cost of the nikon one

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230329415971&category=3323&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D 14%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54
I think I've actually read fairly good tests on that lens... want to say it was sharp, but bad distortion, which can be corrected with the right software (PS CS3, PTLens, etc). As long as it's reasonably sharp, it's probably a decent value. Won't have vibration reduction though, like the 18-200 VR. Oh, and they are full of it... it's no "super wide" :roll: Google it, there are usually tests for the more popular 3rd party lenses.

3rd party lenses can be excellent value, but the lower-end (and ever the upper) ones can vary in QC, so sometimes you might get a soft copy. The problem with buying them online or ebay is that if you do get a soft copy, you're stuck with it, but if you buy it locally, most shops will let you swap until you get a sharp one.

[poser]

the camera shop in the mall had a Quantaray 18-200 on sale for $425, still better than the nikon lens. the guy said it was a good lens.

[gotdurt]

the camera shop in the mall had a Quantaray 18-200 on sale for $425, still better than the nikon lens. the guy said it was a good lens.
I'd ignore what 'the guy' says, he's trying to sell you a lens ;-) I had a Quantaray 28-200 that I originally got for my N70 film camera and it was very soft... I sold it to a newb and told him it was a good lens :-P

There may be some good Quantarays, they used to be made by Sigma, not sure about now. Sigma has some good lenses, but you'll only find tests on the Sigma branded ones, and it's not as straight forward as you might think to figure out which Sigma the Quantaray is based on; it might not be a current Sigma model, but rather one discontinued from the Sigma line.

I'd avoid anything you can't find a test or credible review on, unless it's a Nikkor, but even they've had their fair share of bad glass.

[M38A1]

just looking around at lenses, what do you guys think about the non-nikon brands

this 18-200 is less than half the cost of the nikon one

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230329415971&category=3323&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D 14%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54

Jason-
Search for that lens at www.slrgear.com in the reviews section. You will learn everything you want to know about it's strong and weak points. There's also an interactive section for specific lenses which allows you to see distortion at various f-stops

[Richard_]

I have mine set on the next one below RAW, why is RAW so much better and what does it mean?

I'm no expert, but here is how I understand it in a simplified way.

When you take a digital picture, there is software in your camera that does some processing of the image according to the settings on your camera. The software in your camera will process the image differently for each different setting on the camera. For example, if you shoot in the "auto white balance" mode the software inside your camera will process the image differently than if you had selected some of the other settings such as "tungsten" or "cloudy" or "sunshine" etc. You could shoot the exact same image multiple times with different settings each time and all the pictures would look different from each other because of differences in the way the software processes each image.

With the RAW format (which is usually only available on DSLRs and a few of the more advanced zoom cameras), there is minimal processing of the imaging inside the camera. Instead, you, the photographer, do the processing on your computer (after you download the image from your camera to your computer) with special RAW processing software.

The reason you might want to do the processing instead of letting the camera do it automatically is that the special software gives you the power to decide what you want the image to look like. You are given multiple choices in how to process the image and, hence, how the final picture looks vs. having almost no choice in the matter when the camera does the processing automatically.

[Texfire]

Another consideration on RAW vs. JPEG.

RAW is an uncompressed format. It's a direct capture of the data from the sensor and camera settings, but without in camera processing. This allows later manipulation of white balance settings, sharpness, and even to a certain extent exposure without disturbing the "negative". You can store the unedited file for later changes or archival purposes.

JPEG is a compressed format which is captured post processing. This means that changes to elements require the picture to be uncompressed, altered and recompressed, with an inevitable loss of quality (how much varies greatly according to many factors).

The upshot is RAW allows greater manipulation of the image after you take it, at a cost of additional processing time, greater file size, and proprietary file formats. Each camera manufacturer has a slightly different version of RAW. JPEG allows immediate viewing on many different programs and machines and has a smaller file size, along with being a brand agnostic standard format.

Some "prosumer" cameras, my old Nikon D70 for instance, offer a compromise setting which allows storing of each picture in a RAW format and smaller quality JPEG. This is a RAW+JPEG setting, the terminology will vary from camera to camera. This can be the best of both worlds if you want to take photos at maximum sensor quality, but desire a universal format for posting via email or website.

[brown]

Shucks,

With kids that good looking you could use an instamatic

[Tourmeister]

Shucks,

With kids that good looking you could use an instamatic

Mom gets the credit for that :-P