Timely HELP! Needed: Broken Nikon D40: Repair/Replace, Nikon/Canon?

chaselton

Took Thursday and Friday off before Labor Day weekend with photography plans in mind. Wednesday afternoon I was taking some practice shots when the shutter release on my D40 froze and the LCD displayed the dreaded 'Error: Please press shutter release again' (yes, tried repair...no it didn't work). Target does have cameras in my price range and I'm headed there today at 7:30 AM but..

First Question: Repair or Replace?
(somewhat moot (need to get a camera in hand today) but I'll ask it anyway):

My Thoughts:

• Not many repair places around & according to Yelp those available either a) have multiple-week turnarounds, b) high prices c) poor customer service or e) combos of a, b and c
• I'm on a tight budget...maybe I should send D40 in for repairs and buy a P&S to last the weekend.
• I do a lot of chiaroscuro work which I'm trying to promote...P&S won't cut it.

Second Question: Nikon D3100/3200 or Canon T3/3i?
(please, PLEASE no model flamewars or other suggestions...this is what's available to me)

My Thoughts

• Both cameras are Dave's picks, which is a good thing
• The Canon does not have as advanced dust remediation as the Nikon. Then again, maybe that feature was the cause of the D40 malfunction?
• Liked the nine-point focus feature on a co-worker's Canon. However I am familiar with Nikon feature placements and menus
• Canon appears to take better, higher quality (see test shots) pictures at high ISOs than the Nikon...but most of my work is at ISO100
• "Vacation" plans involved heavy macro work with existing tubes I bought for D40...maybe won't work with Canon and kit lens?
• $4xx is my budget, but are there features I'm missing out on at $5xx?

chrisjohnson

Bad luck!

D40 is hardly worth repairing. Presumably you have working Nikon lens or lenses so not worth changing to Canon, especially on a tight budget.

chaselton

chrisjohnson wrote: »

Bad luck!

D40 is hardly worth repairing. Presumably you have working Nikon lens or lenses so not worth changing to Canon, especially on a tight budget.

I don't have lenses, just extension tubes. Would this be a good time to switch to Canon...in anticipation of future lens purchases?

EDIT: Also, why is the D40 hardly worth repairing? Price? Age?

chaselton

Anyone Else?
Can anyone else weigh in on my concerns/thoughts about Nikon vs Canon?

ziggy53

chaselton wrote: »

..."Vacation" plans involved heavy macro work with existing tubes I bought for D40...maybe won't work with Canon and kit lens? ...

The lens mounts are very different between Canon and Nikon. If you need to recycle the extension tubes, then stay with Nikon.

I agree that a broken Nikon D40 is probably going to cost more to repair than to replace with a used copy. Check KEH.com, Adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com used sections for current used bodies' prices.

On a tight budget, you might consider a used camera and lens(es). You might check out your local Craig's List, etc., for any local offerings. Take along an experienced photographer for advice. (Since you did not seem to know about differences in lens mounts between Canon and Nikon there is likely much more of which you are unaware.)

Since " [You] do a lot of chiaroscuro work which I'm trying to promote...P&S won't cut it.", why would you consider "... a P&S to last the weekend."?

chaselton

ziggy53 wrote: »

The lens mounts are very different between Canon and Nikon. If you need to recycle the extension tubes, then stay with Nikon.

I agree that a broken Nikon D40 is probably going to cost more to repair than to replace with a used copy. Check KEH.com, Adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com used sections for current used bodies' prices.

On a tight budget, you might consider a used camera and lens(es). You might check out your local Craig's List, etc., for any local offerings. Take along an experienced photographer for advice. (Since you did not seem to know about differences in lens mounts between Canon and Nikon there is likely much more of which you are unaware.)

Since " [You] do a lot of chiaroscuro work which I'm trying to promote...P&S won't cut it.", why would you consider "... a P&S to last the weekend."?

I was spitballing. Basically what's below the question(s) are all the thoughts I had around them. That and a) i really do like the Canon's 9-point focus system and b) if the picture quality is better, I think it would be worth the cost of $60 extension tubes. I can reschedule the macro shooting if the image quality is that much better.

I want to make sure I get a camera I can grow with yet still produces good quality images.

Though...now that I think about it, being able to produce 20x30 is possible with either model

perroneford

chaselton wrote: »

ziggy53 wrote: »

I was spitballing. Basically what's below the question(s) are all the thoughts I had around them. That and a) i really do like the Canon's 9-point focus system and

Ok. Then you should really like the 11 point focus of the D3100.

chaselton wrote: »

ziggy53 wrote: »

b) if the picture quality is better, I think it would be worth the cost of $60 extension tubes. I can reschedule the macro shooting if the image quality is that much better.

It's not.

chaselton wrote: »

I want to make sure I get a camera I can grow with yet still produces good quality images.

Then you need to move away from $400-$500 cameras. Buying at the bottom of the market is not a way to get a camera that grows with you.

chaselton wrote: »

Though...now that I think about it, being able to produce 20x30 is possible with either model

KEH is showing used D70's for $150. D200 for $275, D90's for about $400. Done and Done.

divamum

chaselton wrote: »

I don't have lenses, just extension tubes.

You must have SOME kind of lenses or.... no photos

Would this be a good time to switch to Canon...in anticipation of future lens purchases?

If you are not heavily-invested in Nikon glass -which from what you say above you're not - then yes, this WOULD be the time to switch if something in the Canon lineup appeals to you. But both brands offer excellent image quality; they have different strengths and weaknesses, but taken overall they are entirely comparable brands (think Toyota vs Honda or BMW vs Mercedes or whatever)

EDIT: Also, why is the D40 hardly worth repairing? Price? Age?

All of the above. It was released nearly 7 years ago, and newer technology has done all but make it obsolete. Digital cameras, have the same kind of life-cycle expectancy as a computer.....

chrisjohnson

My scouting around in the last few weeks tells me that Nikon has better image quality at the moment - at least when it comes to dynamic range at ISO 100 which is presumably important for chiaroscuro. I did only look at the higher end cameras like D600/800 which apparently use Sony sensors and I do not know anything about the entry level. There is an interesting and informed discussion on Dpreview at the moment which leads me to think Canon will not find it easy to catch up anytime soon.

Mitchell

I'm still trying to figure out how you own a Nikon D40 but don't have any lenses.

divamum

My scouting around in the last few weeks tells me that Nikon has better image quality at the moment - at least when it comes to dynamic range at ISO 100 which is presumably important for chiaroscuro. I did only look at the higher end cameras like D600/800 which apparently use Sony sensors and I do not know anything about the entry level. There is an interesting and informed discussion on Dpreview at the moment which leads me to think Canon will not find it easy to catch up anytime soon.

Those are all full frame cameras, so completely different sensors than anything the OP is looking at. Also, I think few would be able to tell the difference in image quality between comparable Canon and Nikon cameras under normal use conditions. As I say, each line have their own strengths and weaknesses, but overall both lineups produce stellar images.

I'm still trying to figure out how you own a Nikon D40 but don't have any lenses.

ziggy53

Sorry, I just realized that you may have some manual focus Nikon mount lenses on those extension tubes. If so, then you can use a relatively simple adapter to mount the Nikon extension tubes onto a Canon camera. If the adapter has a CMOS "chip", you may also have focus confirmation too (on a Canon body).

I have used old Pentax manual focus lenses on Canon bodies with such an adapter:

Pentax 50mm, f1.4 SMC exclusively at f5.6 and using the focus confirmation chip on the adapter.

Just a few snaps. Overcast with no distinct shadows. ISO 800 because I was testing for sharpness.











And a couple of full-resolution crops:





Notes:

A very low contrast day, so moderate USM applied. Sharpness at f5.6 is very good to excellent across the frame. All shots outdoors were in focus, even though I relied on the focus confirmation instead of usual manual focus technique.

chaselton

Mitchell wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out how you own a Nikon D40 but don't have any lenses.

It's simple really. Just check the price of a decent new or used macro lens and add to that the cost of a mortgage and various bills.

EDIT: Actually, the fact that I was still using a five (six?) year old camera with extension tubes should give you plenty of clues.

--sent from mobile

chaselton

You were right the first time ziggy53...they are 'smart' extension tubes with the necessary AF connectors. 12/22/36" for $60 on Amazon.

Thanks for all the advice...I went with the Nikon D3100. The 11-point focal system was a nice surprise, as was ISO 100, and after a small scare the extension tubes fit perfectly. Bonus: I now have a D40 I can photograph before selling it for parts.

--sent from mobile

EDIT: Illinois, hunh? You're within shouting distance ziggy53...

chaselton

perroneford wrote: »

Then you need to move away from $400-$500 cameras. Buying at the bottom of the market is not a way to get a camera that grows with you.

It's wonderful that you can afford top notch gear, but I have a budget to work around. Thanks for the advice though.

divamum wrote: »

You must have SOME kind of lenses or.... no photos

True ...I do have the 18-55 kit lens that came with the D40. By "no lens" I meant "no additional lenses other than kit"

perroneford

chaselton wrote: »

It's wonderful that you can afford top notch gear, but I have a budget to work around. Thanks for the advice though.

I didn't start with this gear. Compared to what I started with, the D40 is a miracle machine. My first camera was a rangefinder 35mm with no meter and a hand winder. Took me 30 years to get here.

Hope you enjoy your new camera.

chrisjohnson

Glad you got your camera - probably the only sensible decision you could make on such short notice.

I like your pictures. It is challenging to make this style of photography and reminds me why I fell in love with the light many years ago. I think if I were to do this now I would revisit my film days and see if my developing kit is still up in the attic. You can get amazing bargains for lenses and bodies from the film era and scanning slides or prints for the web/pc is simple enough. When you do your own developing it can be cheap too, but mostly I would do it for the effect.

Rather curious why you wanted the auto-focus features. When I do macro-style work I actually prefer manual focus - autofocus equipment that is good enough costs a small fortune. If the D3100 has live view you might like to try. Actually for the kind of work you are doing I would use my Canon G9 because it is much easier to control the depth-of-field with a smaller sensor.

chaselton

perroneford wrote: »

I didn't start with this gear. Compared to what I started with, the D40 is a miracle machine. My first camera was a rangefinder 35mm with no meter and a hand winder. Took me 30 years to get here.

Well hopefully in another 25 years I'll have the same top tier gear.

perroneford wrote: »

I Hope you enjoy your new camera.

So far, yes.



--sent from mobile

chaselton

chrisjohnson wrote: »

Glad you got your camera - probably the only sensible decision you could make on such short notice.

I like your pictures. It is challenging to make this style of photography and reminds me why I fell in love with the light many years ago. I think if I were to do this now I would revisit my film days and see if my developing kit is still up in the attic. You can get amazing bargains for lenses and bodies from the film era and scanning slides or prints for the web/pc is simple enough. When you do your own developing it can be cheap too, but mostly I would do it for the effect.

Rather curious why you wanted the auto-focus features. When I do macro-style work I actually prefer manual focus - autofocus equipment that is good enough costs a small fortune. If the D3100 has live view you might like to try. Actually for the kind of work you are doing I would use my Canon G9 because it is much easier to control the depth-of-field with a smaller sensor.

While some of the stuff I do is heavy contrast macro, a lot of it is still-life work without macro focus...for which the different focal points will be very helpful.

For example, I'd really like to take some non-macro shots of the D40 before I dismantle it for close-up work.

That and since I'm new to the extension tubes, I'm finding that I need help/practice with my manual focus. I'll set it on auto-focus, manually focus the lens to where I percieve the focus to be, then engage the auto-focus release. If there's no lens adjustment, I know I'm on the right track.

This helps too when my contacts are starting to interfere.

I also have an, um, interesting dog that I'd like to get better shots of soon as he's getting up there in age. He doesn't like the camera so quick shooting is a must. That plus the fact that many of my hopefully intended subjects still make me more than a little nervous (Google cicada wasps and house centipedes when you have a minute) and some like to actively track and launch themselves at the lens (i.e. jumping spiders)

--sent from mobile

chrisjohnson

Thanks for explaining.

Curious how you do the black backgrounds and hope you will share this. My tactics for focus would be to decrease aperture (increase f-stop) as well as getting guidance from camera autofocus and my own eyes.

You did not mention off-camera flash in your opening post and so I suppose you are not using this technique. (This way is to limit shutter speed to flash sync speed and limit aperture to fully black image, then play with flash to drive light effects). Maybe there are better ways these days.

ziggy53

chaselton wrote: »

....I went with the Nikon D3100. The 11-point focal system was a nice surprise, as was ISO 100, and after a small scare the extension tubes fit perfectly. Bonus: I now have a D40 I can photograph before selling it for parts.

...

Congratulations on the new camera.

chaselton

chrisjohnson wrote: »

Thanks for explaining.

Curious how you do the black backgrounds and hope you will share this. My tactics for focus would be to decrease aperture (increase f-stop) as well as getting guidance from camera autofocus and my own eyes.

I shoot everything with the manual shutter speed setting...probably because it's the first setting I found that worked with my setup so I never changed it. Most everything in my current gallery was shot with shutter speeds between 1\40 and 1\60.

chrisjohnson wrote: »

You did not mention off-camera flash in your opening post and so I suppose you are not using this technique. (This way is to limit shutter speed to flash sync speed and limit aperture to fully black image, then play with flash to drive light effects). Maybe there are better ways these days.

Yeah...definitely not using that technique. I don't use the flash as I don't have a bolt-on and I don't like the built in flash.

Basically, I use a black table for shooting. For everything that lies flat on the table I use a spray bottle to wet it down. This translates into a uniform black, minus the reflection...no idea why. If I want the reflection to show, for example...



...I'll leave it in...otherwise I'll remove it in post.

Anything that doesn't lie flat on the table...or for photo backgrounds that are part table, part backdrop, I use a deep purple drop sheet while shooting (haven't had chance to get a black curtain/towel/sheet) and again even out the background in post.

I used to use a black tshirt or jacket as the background assuming that would work without post process, but even the darkest fabric resulted in weird colors when the light would hit it a certain way. So I just use the darkest background I have and make sure it's a uniform color in post.

Hope that helps.

chaselton

ziggy53 wrote: »

Congratulations on the new camera.

Thanks!

On an unrelated note, it is surprisingly difficult to dismantle a camera.