The Photography Discussion Thread

[Gt1Street]

AFAIK the Nikon D40 kit doesn't support not motorized lenses, right?
but, if I use a motorized one from another maker, like a Tamron lense, using an adapter, will it still work?
and, in case of a not motorized one, does motorizing adapter or something similar exist?
thanks

The motor is in the lens system itself so there are no adapters for that, but im sure you can buy motorized lenses from other makers.

[NSXType-R]

AFAIK the Nikon D40 kit doesn't support not motorized lenses, right?
but, if I use a motorized one from another maker, like a Tamron lense, using an adapter, will it still work?
and, in case of a not motorized one, does motorizing adapter or something similar exist?
thanks

No, it does not support older lenses. The lenses need to be AF-S, which has a motor within the camera. Older lenses have a pin to drive the autofocus system. The D40, as well as the 40x and 60, is missing the pin. But most newer lenses are compatible.

[LeonOfTheDead]

The motor is in the lens system itself so there are no adapters for that, but im sure you can buy motorized lenses from other makers.

No, it does not support older lenses. The lenses need to be AF-S, which has a motor within the camera. Older lenses have a pin to drive the autofocus system. The D40, as well as the 40x and 60, is missing the pin. But most newer lenses are compatible.

thanks, very useful.

so an adpter wouldn't affect in any way a motorized lense, right?

[NSXType-R]

thanks, very useful.

so an adpter wouldn't affect in any way a motorized lense, right?

I don't think there are any adapters. Just make absolutely sure that you're getting an AF-S lens. The S stands for Silent Wave Motor, which means that the motor is inside the lens.

Older lenses will still work, except they won't focus. If they're old enough and it has manual focus, it will work perfectly, because it will probably have an apeture ring. In fact, it will still mount onto the camera!

The other day I mounted my dad's 50mm F1.2 lens on my D40. Works perfectly. I didn't have much time to work with it though. But I will definitely use it! And with manual focus, it makes the compatibility issue disappear!

Nikon | Imaging Products | DX (for Nikon DX Format Digital SLRs)

Here's a bunch of them.

From your question, I'm guessing you're interested in buying a lens?

The 18-200 VR is a good all around lens. It's just expensive.

And other manufacturers make lenses that autofocus with the D40, like Sigma and Tamron. Just make sure you do proper research.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I don't think there are any adapters. Just make absolutely sure that you're getting an AF-S lens. The S stands for Silent Wave Motor, which means that the motor is inside the lens.

Older lenses will still work, except they won't focus. If they're old enough and it has manual focus, it will work perfectly, because it will probably have an apeture ring. In fact, it will still mount onto the camera!

The other day I mounted my dad's 50mm F1.2 lens on my D40. Works perfectly. I didn't have much time to work with it though. But I will definitely use it! And with manual focus, it makes the compatibility issue disappear!

Nikon | Imaging Products | DX (for Nikon DX Format Digital SLRs)

Here's a bunch of them.

From your question, I'm guessing you're interested in buying a lens?

The 18-200 VR is a good all around lens. It's just expensive.

And other manufacturers make lenses that autofocus with the D40, like Sigma and Tamron. Just make sure you do proper research.

I'm not going to buy one, but there is the possibility to "inherit" an old Tamron from a Canon SLR (not digital), unfortunately, I don't know the actual model of the lense, he is at work right now...

[NSXType-R]

I'm not going to buy one, but there is the possibility to "inherit" an old Tamron from a Canon SLR (not digital), unfortunately, I don't know the actual model of the lense, he is at work right now...

Unless you convert that lens, I don't think the two are compatible at all. The mounts are completely different.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Unless you convert that lens, I don't think the two are compatible at all. The mounts are completely different.

I will discover this fact in a few minutes

[LeonOfTheDead]

well, the lense it's simply too BIG for the camera. don't ask me more info because my gf did the test and she is now 6330 miles away from me

[NSXType-R]

well, the lense it's simply too BIG for the camera. don't ask me more info because my gf did the test and she is now 6330 miles away from me

Told ya it wouldn't work.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Told ya it wouldn't work.

no problems, I really appreciated the info!

[Sauc3]

Drakkie
The bells are ringing
Pentax K100D Super + 18-55mm + Vivitar flash light
4-8-2008
Glockengiesserei Mabilon, Saarburg, Germany
1/15 sec, f4.0, ISO 1600

May I ask why you used a flash if you were on 1/15 and ISO 1600? All you're risking is loss of quality and camera shake...

[drakkie]

May I ask why you used a flash if you were on 1/15 and ISO 1600? All you're risking is loss of quality and camera shake...

Because without flash, I would have needed an even worse ISO setting and exposure.. By the way I dont have any problem at all, to take a picture with a exposure of 1/4 to 1/2 sec normally, but the odd angle and my shaking/painful knees are not too benificial for my stability this way. ISO1600 is the max of what I find accepatable on this camera, 3200 is a little bit too much noise imo..

[Sauc3]

Because without flash, I would have needed an even worse ISO setting and exposure.. By the way I dont have any problem at all, to take a picture with a exposure of 1/4 to 1/2 sec normally, but the odd angle and my shaking/painful knees are not too benificial for my stability this way. ISO1600 is the max of what I find accepatable on this camera, 3200 is a little bit too much noise imo..

But with flash you shouldn't need the ISO or low shutter speed.
Even if you're competent at taking an image at 1/4 or 1/2 a second, doesn't mean that the image doesn't include camera shake. One photographer carried a tripod and sandbags around with him because he believed that any image taken at less than 1/500th of a second contained camera shake.
Now since you have a flash, the general flash settings are 1/60th @ f5.6, ISO 100. Either you have the world's most underpowered flash needing 6 whole stops of light extra in the camera to make up for the lack of power, or you're not quite using it correctly. With a flash generally there should be absolutely no reason for a higher ISO, because you're introducing the light that you're making up for by raising the ISO...

I still think you're just inviting bad image quality and camera shake, when there should be no foreseeable reason for this...

[drakkie]

But with flash you shouldn't need the ISO or low shutter speed.
Even if you're competent at taking an image at 1/4 or 1/2 a second, doesn't mean that the image doesn't include camera shake. One photographer carried a tripod and sandbags around with him because he believed that any image taken at less than 1/500th of a second contained camera shake.
Now since you have a flash, the general flash settings are 1/60th @ f5.6, ISO 100. Either you have the world's most underpowered flash needing 6 whole stops of light extra in the camera to make up for the lack of power, or you're not quite using it correctly. With a flash generally there should be absolutely no reason for a higher ISO, because you're introducing the light that you're making up for by raising the ISO...

I still think you're just inviting bad image quality and camera shake, when there should be no foreseeable reason for this...

I'm probably also not too experienced with the flash, two days before my vacation I got this 1980's beast and this was the first time I used it and practiced. However I have to say, that the light inside of there was really poor and this was the only shot that ended up relatively good. Anyway the finished result counts, not the way how to do it. I will definately get some practice with flash photography soon(and hopefully a newer flash0 as I'm hired to be shooting all the parties in a certain beach club here and in the winter of a club in the city.

[Sauc3]

I'm probably also not too experienced with the flash, two days before my vacation I got this 1980's beast and this was the first time I used it and practiced. However I have to say, that the light inside of there was really poor and this was the only shot that ended up relatively good. Anyway the finished result counts, not the way how to do it. I will definately get some practice with flash photography soon(and hopefully a newer flash0 as I'm hired to be shooting all the parties in a certain beach club here and in the winter of a club in the city.

Now that is a reason why those settings were required. Am I right in assuming that you had to use the flash in full manual? You might have inadvertently set it at an inferior strength. It might be good to just play around with this flash, practicing strengths, distances and speeds etc. just to get a feel of it.