Nilon D40 question

You're too far removed from a layperson shooting, lol.

 

I'll just tweak your comments -- Even more important than A&S modes, I'd say learning your autofocus system. A huge portion of non-keepers, come down to the shot simply being out of focus. Learning how to use AF-S to lock and re-compose... learning how to use AF points in AF-C.. This is probably the most important thing to learn when shooting dSLRs.

 

Over 4 weeks, I primarily teach 3 things to entry level photographers:

Autofocus

Composition

Exposure triangle (including depth of field, etc).

 

I actually wrote an article on "using" autofocus. Give it a look and let me know if it makes sense to an actual instructor.

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/autofocus.html

 

Dave

I actually wrote an article on "using" autofocus. Give it a look and let me know if it makes sense to an actual instructor.

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/autofocus.html

 

Dave

 

Lots of great info in there and I found the technical stuff very informative myself.

 

I'm surprised you didn't get into af-s vs af-c (one shot vs servo in Canon speak). Can't focus and re-compose in af-c.

 

It's interesting just how much AF has rapidly evolved in the last few years.

I still teach center/spot AF and re-compose but it's becoming an outdated method that was necessary when there were only a few af points clustered in the center.

On mirrorless like the a6300... you get eye-af at the push of a button.

In dslrs, you have had huge expansion of af points. Your Sony a77... just 5 years ago, had a whole 19 af points. The class leading Nikon d500 now has 153 points. Instead of focus and re-compose, you can place a spot focus point almost anywhere in the frame.

At least on aps-c cameras, you are now getting af coverage over the entire relevant part of the frame.

 

At the same time, the need for precise AF is greater than ever.

The problem in the days of when you just had a few af points, if you shot "wide" AF... odds were the key subject point wasn't under an af point. So in a portrait for example, you might be focusing on the person's chest instead of their eyes.

But the saving grace in those days -- if you were printing 3x5s in film days, or shooting low resolution dSLR, with small aperture and wide DOF, small focus errors were hidden.

As 1.4 and 1.8 lenses become more common for enthusiasts, as 24mp has become the minimum resolution, as more people care about razor sharpness, perfect af has become more critical than ever.

I accept your adjustments! :)

 

You were correct in assuming that I was actually referring to shooting actual "manual only". Waste of a couple billion dollars worth of research IMHO!

 

I've never heard someone refer to Aperture- or Shutter-priority mode as "manual", but I can see them being perceived that way if the user is not yet knowledgeable about settings.

 

Dave

 

When I suggested earlier that an entry-level photographer should not use the manual exposure mode, I was referring to purely manual, where the photographer choses both the shutter speed and the aperture. I agree with you Dave, that this is a waste of good technology. More importantly, it is far too easy for a beginner to get this settings wrong, and end up with a horribly exposed, and therefore unusable, photo. If the camera is set to AUTO (or A or S), the photo will be properly exposed most of the time.

 

I stick to my position that a DSLR is superior to a smartphone camera for vacation pictures (even an outdated one like a D40) if one is serious about getting good vacation pictures. My opinion in this regard is grounded in two things - one very important, and one perhaps less so. The important thing is optical zoom as compared to digital zoom on a phone. It is sometimes simply not possible to zoom with one's feet (i.e. walk closer to the subject.) In this situation the ability to zoom optically is a distinct advantage. The other thing that an SLR does better than a camera is focus quickly. Although this is not important for purely landscape shots, it is critically important where moving subjects are to be photographed. For example, if there are people or animals in the frame, a DSLR offers this distinct advantage.

Lots of great info in there and I found the technical stuff very informative myself.

 

I'm surprised you didn't get into af-s vs af-c (one shot vs servo in Canon speak). Can't focus and re-compose in af-c.

 

It's interesting just how much AF has rapidly evolved in the last few years.

I still teach center/spot AF and re-compose but it's becoming an outdated method that was necessary when there were only a few af points clustered in the center.

On mirrorless like the a6300... you get eye-af at the push of a button.

In dslrs, you have had huge expansion of af points. Your Sony a77... just 5 years ago, had a whole 19 af points. The class leading Nikon d500 now has 153 points. Instead of focus and re-compose, you can place a spot focus point almost anywhere in the frame.

At least on aps-c cameras, you are now getting af coverage over the entire relevant part of the frame.

 

At the same time, the need for precise AF is greater than ever.

The problem in the days of when you just had a few af points, if you shot "wide" AF... odds were the key subject point wasn't under an af point. So in a portrait for example, you might be focusing on the person's chest instead of their eyes.

But the saving grace in those days -- if you were printing 3x5s in film days, or shooting low resolution dSLR, with small aperture and wide DOF, small focus errors were hidden.

As 1.4 and 1.8 lenses become more common for enthusiasts, as 24mp has become the minimum resolution, as more people care about razor sharpness, perfect af has become more critical than ever.

 

Glad you liked it!

 

I really need to update it. My 6300 has added so may new and useful AF options like the Eye-AF you mentioned that are likely unknown to most owners of the camera.

 

The way tech is moving, I should just rewrite all the articles twice a year.

 

Dave

When I suggested earlier that an entry-level photographer should not use the manual exposure mode, I was referring to purely manual, where the photographer choses both the shutter speed and the aperture. I agree with you Dave, that this is a waste of good technology. More importantly, it is far too easy for a beginner to get this settings wrong, and end up with a horribly exposed, and therefore unusable, photo. If the camera is set to AUTO (or A or S), the photo will be properly exposed most of the time.

 

I stick to my position that a DSLR is superior to a smartphone camera for vacation pictures (even an outdated one like a D40) if one is serious about getting good vacation pictures. My opinion in this regard is grounded in two things - one very important, and one perhaps less so. The important thing is optical zoom as compared to digital zoom on a phone. It is sometimes simply not possible to zoom with one's feet (i.e. walk closer to the subject.) In this situation the ability to zoom optically is a distinct advantage. The other thing that an SLR does better than a camera is focus quickly. Although this is not important for purely landscape shots, it is critically important where moving subjects are to be photographed. For example, if there are people or animals in the frame, a DSLR offers this distinct advantage.

 

You're assuming the dslr has more optical zoom than the phone. It depends on the lens, and depends on the phone.

Taking a 6mp dslr with a 18-55 lens... you'd actually get more usable zoom range with the iPhone 7 plus. You get 2x optical zoom on the 7plus, and the 12mp gives you far more cropping room. With 6mp, you can't even print a good 8x10. So if you want to print some 8x10s from vacation, you're far better off with a smart phone.

 

As to focus speed -- look at the links I posted. Thanks to the super computer speed of new smart phones, they can focus and catch action faster than most dslrs -- certainly much faster than the d40. The d40 has a shutter lag of about 0.26 seconds (as per imaging-resource), that's slow and that's after AF acquisition. Furthermore, the older AF system in the d40 is incapable of low light AF...it will just hunt.

The fast AF and instant shutter of the newest smartphones are some of their biggest advantages.

 

Modern dslrs certainly have the greatest potential. But to actually unlock that potential, you need to learn the technical aspects of photography, and invest in lenses, etc.

And even for a professional, you reach a point where a new smart phone is better than a really old dslr. (I can show you a renowned photographer who shot a big wedding with just an iPhone and achieved tremendous results).

Glad you liked it!

 

I really need to update it. My 6300 has added so may new and useful AF options like the Eye-AF you mentioned that are likely unknown to most owners of the camera.

 

The way tech is moving, I should just rewrite all the articles twice a year.

 

Dave

 

My classes always have some people with pretty new cameras, and some with their 10 year old dslr. Last class had someone with a d80.

 

So just like your article... I discuss the basic AF areas... wide, spot, center. Those people with the newer cameras, "what about these other 10 modes"

My a6300 and d750 have over 10 modes each. Tracking modes, flexible spots. It is dizzying.

I have two DSLRs, a mirrorless, an underwater P&S and an iPhone 6. My favorite camera is whichever one I have with me at the time.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

You're assuming the dslr has more optical zoom than the phone. It depends on the lens, and depends on the phone.

Taking a 6mp dslr with a 18-55 lens... you'd actually get more usable zoom range with the iPhone 7 plus. You get 2x optical zoom on the 7plus, and the 12mp gives you far more cropping room. With 6mp, you can't even print a good 8x10. So if you want to print some 8x10s from vacation, you're far better off with a smart phone.

 

18-55mm is 27-82mm at 35mm equivalent. iPhone 7plus (which OP has already stated he/she has no interest in buying) is 28-56mm and, if I read correctly, its only 28 or 56, there is no actual optical zoom, its one focal length or the other, any middle focal lengths require digital zoom. If I did the math right, a 12mp file @ 56mm cropped to represent 82mm would be 8mp. Not exactly significantly larger than 6mp. Either file size will print a very nice 8x10 (I have printed 8x10s from my D40) assuming of course the file it technically decent in the first place (focused, not full of noise, etc... all of which will show up much more clearly when printed basically at 100%)

 

As to focus speed -- look at the links I posted. Thanks to the super computer speed of new smart phones, they can focus and catch action faster than most dslrs -- certainly much faster than the d40. The d40 has a shutter lag of about 0.26 seconds (as per imaging-resource), that's slow and that's after AF acquisition. Furthermore, the older AF system in the d40 is incapable of low light AF...it will just hunt.

The fast AF and instant shutter of the newest smartphones are some of their biggest advantages.

Shutter lag on the D40, according to imaging.resource, is .098 seconds when AF is acquired (which they term prefocused). .26 seconds is only applicable for"...fully pressing shutter button to image capture, zoom lens at wide angle position." which is to say, NOT after AF acquisition. Not sure how low light you are referring to, but D40 can acquire focus in lower light scenarios without the on-board AF assist lamp. With the AF assist lamp (or external flash AF assist) is can acquire focus is darker scenarios, though I fully accept that using the AF assist lamp isn't always desired and, in most scenarios, the iPhone will probably have an easier time focus locking in very poor lighting. iPhone will likely handle action better as well. While I don't really do action shots, I have little doubt that the D40 would struggle with its low FPS and only 3 focus points.

One more point on the DSLR vs. smartphone camera discussion. I almost always seem to get better photos with my "big" camera for another reason. Maybe this is just me. However, I find framing my shot much more challenging without an optical viewfinder. With an optical viewfinder and the camera held up to my eye, I find it easier to run my vision around the perimeter of the photo to frame the shot and hopefully exclude extraneous objects at the edges of the frame that detract from the main subject of the photo. I don't do as good a job of this while holding the camera away from my face. Again, maybe this is just me.

18-55mm is 27-82mm at 35mm equivalent. iPhone 7plus (which OP has already stated he/she has no interest in buying) is 28-56mm and, if I read correctly, its only 28 or 56, there is no actual optical zoom, its one focal length or the other, any middle focal lengths require digital zoom. If I did the math right, a 12mp file @ 56mm cropped to represent 82mm would be 8mp. Not exactly significantly larger than 6mp. Either file size will print a very nice 8x10 (I have printed 8x10s from my D40) assuming of course the file it technically decent in the first place (focused, not full of noise, etc... all of which will show up much more clearly when printed basically at 100%)

 

"Digital zoom" is often misunderstood and maligned for the wrong reasons. There is this conventional wisdom that digital zoom is always bad -- Conventional wisdom that was formed in the days of 4-6mp cameras.

Digital zoom is nothing more or less than cropping. There is nothing wrong with cropping, as long as you have enough resolution to still print your image in high quality.

 

In the days of 4-6 mp cameras, even a tiny bit of cropping greatly disturbed the images. But there is nothing wrong with cropping if you have enough resolution.

 

Did digital zoom hurt this image?

 

Seagull in Flight by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Did digital zoom hurt this image?

 

Hungry Cedar Waxwing by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

So in terms of overall usable range, you need to consider the optical zoom and the amount of usable digital cropping you have. A 12mp modern smart phone can actually give you a more usable range than a 6mp camera with 18-55 lens.

 

In terms of print size, it is actually really a stretch to print a 6mp image at 8x10 at 300dpi. That is the absolute maximum, using every pixel, with none to spare. Can't crop a single pixel, and can't go any larger.

 

 

Shutter lag on the D40, according to imaging.resource, is .098 seconds when AF is acquired (which they term prefocused). .26 seconds is only applicable for"...fully pressing shutter button to image capture, zoom lens at wide angle position." which is to say, NOT after AF acquisition. Not sure how low light you are referring to, but D40 can acquire focus in lower light scenarios without the on-board AF assist lamp. With the AF assist lamp (or external flash AF assist) is can acquire focus is darker scenarios, though I fully accept that using the AF assist lamp isn't always desired and, in most scenarios, the iPhone will probably have an easier time focus locking in very poor lighting. iPhone will likely handle action better as well. While I don't really do action shots, I have little doubt that the D40 would struggle with its low FPS and only 3 focus points.

 

Precisely. Last session of the class I taught, one student has a D80 -- in theory, much more advanced than the D40. Inside the classroom, they could almost never even get their camera to lock focus. It hunted constantly. This was a high school classroom, at night, but with normal overhead fluorescent lighting. Not exactly super low light.

Add in only having 3 points, slow burst rate...

 

Some great examples of the AF capabilities of the iphone when combined with the iphones great burst mode:

 

http://iphonephotographyschool.com/iphone-burst-mode/

 

Honestly..... if I still owned a D40, I'd just give it to my 9-year-old to practice with. It would be a great learning instrument of how to use a viewfinder, how to use PASM modes.

...I find framing my shot much more challenging without an optical viewfinder. .

 

We users of high-resolution electronic viewfinders are mildly offended by your glass and mirror-based bigotry.

 

;)

 

Dave

We users of high-resolution electronic viewfinders are mildly offended by your glass and mirror-based bigotry.

 

;)

 

Dave

 

Oh Dave, Dave. I know you post in jest. You know what I mean. Of course, I didn't mean to exclude modern mirrorless cameras that have electronic viewfinders that you hold up to your eye. I meant to compare to smartphones that you hold away from your face. Again, perhaps just me, but I prefer to hold the camera up to my eye. :)

Oh Dave, Dave. I know you post in jest. You know what I mean. Of course, I didn't mean to exclude modern mirrorless cameras that have electronic viewfinders that you hold up to your eye. I meant to compare to smartphones that you hold away from your face. Again, perhaps just me, but I prefer to hold the camera up to my eye. :)

 

I knew what you meant. I just thought I'd be fashionable and try to be offended at everything!

 

I feel dirty.

 

:)

 

Dave

"Digital zoom" is often misunderstood and maligned for the wrong reasons. There is this conventional wisdom that digital zoom is always bad -- Conventional wisdom that was formed in the days of 4-6mp cameras.

Digital zoom is nothing more or less than cropping. There is nothing wrong with cropping, as long as you have enough resolution to still print your image in high quality.

 

In the days of 4-6 mp cameras, even a tiny bit of cropping greatly disturbed the images. But there is nothing wrong with cropping if you have enough resolution.

 

Did digital zoom hurt this image?

 

That's partially correct. Digital zoom is cropping then enlarging back to the original size of the sensor. I can't make any comment on your 2 images because I don't know if they were enlarged back to the original image dimension after cropping.

 

 

 

Honestly..... if I still owned a D40, I'd just give it to my 9-year-old to practice with. It would be a great learning instrument of how to use a viewfinder, how to use PASM modes.

 

Isn't that essentially what OP is looking for - information on how to better utilize the camera he has?

That's partially correct. Digital zoom is cropping then enlarging back to the original size of the sensor. I can't make any comment on your 2 images because I don't know if they were enlarged back to the original image dimension after cropping.

 

You're misconstruing the effect of digital zooming and cropping. First off, digital zoom is not necessarily enlarging the file size back up to the original. Some cameras and settings do that, some just literally crop.

But the difference in the appearance of the final image, whether enlarged or not, will make no difference depending on the viewing size.

 

In other words... the images I posted were taken with 24mp cameras. Now, if I cropped it in half, so that it was a 12mp image, without enlargement. Or if I crop/zoomed it so that it got re-enlarged to 24 -- What would be the difference in final viewing product?

Here is the difference --- If I *only* cropped -- Then I wouldn't be able to view the image any larger than 12mp. If I cropped AND enlarged.. then I could view it as a 24mp image, but it would look darn crappy as a 24mp image.

On the other hand -- if I only view it as a 12mp image.. then it will look the same whether it was cropped to become a 12mp image, or whether it was cropped and then enlarged.

 

The images I posted just now, were about 2mp images. I did not post them at full size --- I posted them as 2mp. They were taken with a 24mp camera. THe seagull was cropped all the way down to 11mp. So despite cropping out 54% of the pixels, I can still produce a great large image.

As shown, for web purposes -- 2mp is plenty.

Now, whether those 11mp got re-enlarged to 24mp or not... will make absolutely no difference when viewing the image as 2mp.

 

Now, returning to a 6mp image from the D40 --- Technically, if you want 300ppi resolution, then you CAN'T even print a 8x10. The maximum print size for the D40 at 300ppi, is 6X10. Now, you can print larger -- but the image will have to be softer, as you won't be getting the standard 300ppi.

You object to digital zoom "enlarging" the image -- But that's exactly what you're doing if you print a D40 image at 8x10. You are taking a 6x10 image and enlarging/stretching it out to 8x10.

 

Now, the 12mp iphone isn't going to give you a tremendous amount of cropping/digital zoom room. But using the iphone 7plus as an example, it gives you enough room to fill the gap between the 28mp and 56mp lenses, especially if your goal is 4x6 prints and web images. And it certainly gives you enough room to go a little higher.

 

Though of course, it brings us to the real question of whether zoom is really so important for a vacation or not. Which would you rather have on vacation, a $3,000 Sony RX1ii with 1x zoom, or a cheap Canon Elph with 3x zoom?

I know conventional wisdom says to bring zoom lenses for vacations, but I personally find that a bit overrated. If you're going on a wildlife type vacation, then you might want a very long lens --- 3x zoom isn't going to help you much.

For other types of vacations.... I want to capture images of what I'm seeing with my eyes. I don't need to zoom in on details that I can't see with my naked eyes.... my goal is to capture my memories, so create photographs that show what I'm experiencing with my own vision. A zoom lens just isn't very important for that.

Now, I'm a dSLR/ILC/Mirrorless shooter -- I bring thousands of dollars of camera gear on vacation. So I admit, I don't stick to just 1 focal length for an entire vacation. But I often do leave my zoom lenses at home, and mostly concentrate on prime lenses. And for any particular day on vacation, I'll just go with 1-2 prime lenses, deciding on the 1 or 2 focal lengths I want to use for the day.

For example, I did entire days at Disney World with my D750 and 45/1.8 lens... perfectly capturing the same field of view as I was capturing with my eyes. (and where necessary, cropping photos a bit afterwards).

 

But let us full agree that there is some advantage to optical zoom, for most people, on vacation.

Ok -- a point to the D40 on vacation. But given the low resolution, and if it's just a 3x zoom lens, it's a pretty tiny advantage.

Now, what are the other traits one might want for vacation:

 

So let's compare the D40 and the iphone 7 plus for vacation pics:

"Zoom capability" -- Both are poor. The D40 gets a slight advantage.

Ability to grab an image very quickly -- Iphone 7 wins.

Portability -- iPhone wins.

Video -- Yes, some people actually like taking video on vacation. iPhone can take 4k video. D40 cannot take video at all. Clear winner.

HDR modes -- iPhone wins.

In-camera panorama -- iphone wins again. This was is huge on vacations -- Go back to your optical zoom argument. With in-camera panorama, you can get ultrawide shots.

Easy photo sharing -- Uploading images to facebook, sharing with friends, emailing -- iphone wins.

Geotagging -- iphone wins.

Ease of use -- iphone wins.

 

So which camera is a better vacation camera, for someone seeking simplicity? It's really not even close.

With 6mp, you can't even print a good 8x10. So if you want to print some 8x10s from vacation, you're far better off with a smart phone.

 

This is absolutely incorrect since we have a gorgeous 18X24 print of Alcatraz shot with a D40 hanging in our dining room.

Edited July 2, 2017 by 8toes1961

Sam here, I have several shots with my D40 at that size printed and hanging. Ok, to be fair not sure I would go much bigger, but then again, there's rarely reason to. I kept that D40 as a backup until the mechanism failed after about 800,000 exposures.

 

This is absolutely incorrect since we have a gorgeous 18X24 print of Alcatraz shot with a D40 hanging in our dining room.