D40 vs. D3000

[TylerGS]

I've been shooting with my D40 for almost a year, and I've had my 50mm prime for about 1.5 months. My goal is to eventually shoot primarily with primes. This is where I'm stuck. The D40 doesn't support the auto focus on the primes. Because of this, I'm considering upgrading to the D3000. Any thoughts or advise?

I put together a pros and cons list of things I like and don't like about the D3000:

Pros
AF supported with 50mm f/1.8
10.2 megapixels vs. D40 6.1 megapixels
ISO 100 - 1600 vs. D40 ISO 200 - 1600
kelvin white balance settings
SD card slot

Cons
EN-EL9a battery vs. D40 EN-EL9 battery
flash sync 1/200 vs. D40 1/500

[Shokinen]

You get a very detailed review from DPReview:
Nikon D3000 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

The D3000 is the latest body in that category but it won't solve your problem. You will still end up not beeing able to focus with your 50mm. Neither with his big brother the D5000.

You have to step up to the D90 / D300. But if you are serious about photography and you like composing pictures / do things in manual, the D90 is really a nice body and definitely worth the upgrade.

Another solution would be to look for the AF-S 50mm f1.4 but it's expensive (though you get 2/3 of a stop). You'll also be able to use the 35mm but forget the 85/105/135, there is no Nikon alternative for these specialized (and expensive) lens.

If you want a rough idea, go here Nikon Canada
Every lens that is "AF-S" will auto-focus on your current body/D3000/D5000

Hope this help

[TylerGS]

Hmmm. I can't see how I missed that the D3000 doesn't support the auto focus. Thanks for pointing that out! That pretty much rules out the D3000.

If I were to get the D90, would you recommend I get it with the kit lens even though my goal is to use primes?

[Gaurav Prabhu]

The kit lens which comes with Nikon D90 has a good range(18-105mm) & I recommend you get it even though you'll be shooting with prime. Unless you are wishing to save some bucks that's it.

[TylerGS]

My biggest reason for not getting the kit lens would be to save money. But if ya'll think the extra $200 is worth it, I'm fine with that too.

[Shokinen]

I only purchased the body when I bought the kit. I didn't like the build quality (plastic connector and no back rubber seal) of the 18-105 and I also wanted a wider general purpose lens.

I would start with the body only if I were you. 200$ is still 200$ and you'll be able to put that money on other primes.

But If your looking at a general purpose lens in your kit, the 18-105 will be hard to beat at that price. Keep in mind there is other solutions but they will be more expensive. It might worth waiting a bit longuer to get something more specific geared towards your needs.

[TylerGS]

Right. It's all about pros and cons... what the best option would be.

Good idea about waiting a bit longer. I probably will do that.

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by TylerGS

It's all about pros and cons...

Always...

It's a balance between the pros you are looking for and the cons you are ready to live with.

Budget seem to have a bigger effect on the second part of the theory though hehehehe

[TylerGS]

Originally Posted by Shokinen

Budget seem to have a bigger effect on the second part of the theory though hehehehe

Hehe... so true.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

my 2¢: pocket the extra 200 and save up for the next lens. (85 f/1.8, 105 f/2.8?)