[Shark]

August 13, 2009 at 12:36 pm

No advice at all?

[Shark]

August 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Hi KildareGirl

I had the same question on my mind a couple of months ago. In the end I took the advice from Ken Rockwell’s website and went for the D40, and I’m not disappointed. I used the savings I made to partly offset the cost of a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens, and it’s permanently attached to the camera now. I also got the SB-400 speedlight, which is capable of bounce flash – making the resultant pictures less harsh than those that you get using the in-built flash.

The camera with the 18-200 attached, and the speedlight fit snugly in a LowePro Rezo TLZ 20 bag.

Unless you want to shell out lots more for a more serious camera (e.g. D300), I think the differences in the D40/40x/60 family aren’t significant.

Nfl-fan’s point about the limitation to lenses with built in autofocus motors is a valid one. Only you will know if this will hinder you in the future, though.

Good luck,

Shark

[Shark]

June 25, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Yeah – got the lens, but I haven’t really had the chance to use it yet. Just had a few shots out the window late in the evening in poor light at passing traffic travelling at 50-60kph. I’m impressed with the autofocus speed and the VR performance – quite a few of the registration plates were legible (at a distance of about 80-100m).

I’m off to Italy in a couple of weeks on holiday, so I expect to try it out properly then.

[Shark]

May 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Thanks for the feedback guys.
I think I’ll probably follow your advice Gregor and try out trial versions of both. I’ll wait for a while first, though, and see what kind of results I get from the camera-lens combination without post-processing

Thanks again

Shark