Is buying a Nikon D40 like painting yourself ...

[DonSchap]

Is buying a Nikon D40 like painting yourself ... into a corner?

After reading the Pros and Cons ... this doesn't seem to be a prudent use of funds.

I know this question sounds rather nebulous and vague, but I implore you ... convince me I'm ... uh, wrong?

[Riley]

surely no more or less so than any other base-line dSLR

[forno]

Lack of AF compatability with many Nikn lenses is not to smart me thinks

[coldrain]

I do not know any entry level DSLR that has been so cut down, Riley. If you know any entry level camera that does not work with most 3rd party lenses, has almost no primes available for it, only has a 3point AF system which will hurt when trying to track moving subjects, has no mirror lock-up, no depth of field button and no useful RAW conversion software, let us know which one that is.

Yes, the D40 has the very "nice" in-camera editing stuff... and the really nice lack of internal motor that is a must for Nikon. Are those the plus points that put it on the level of the XT/XTi/K100D/D50/D80?

[Riley]

I do not know any entry level DSLR that has been so cut down, Riley. If you know any entry level camera that does not work with most 3rd party lenses, has almost no primes available for it, only has a 3point AF system which will hurt when trying to track moving subjects, has no mirror lock-up, no depth of field button and no useful RAW conversion software, let us know which one that is.

Yes, the D40 has the very "nice" in-camera editing stuff... and the really nice lack of internal motor that is a must for Nikon. Are those the plus points that put it on the level of the XT/XTi/K100D/D50/D80?

you dont know of one ? like I can hide my surprise

the E-300 is such a camera, it has 3 point AF, when it came out there were no 3rd party lenses, it has almost no available primes, no DoF button, mirror lock was only included later in firmware update 1.2, and the Olympus Master software for RAW was worth avoiding for more specific software supporting RAW that facilitates workflow as well (true to many dSLR cameras).

Apparently contrary to your view, that doesnt make the E-300 a bad camera. If its not entirely obvious to you, all entry level cameras lack features, thats why they are entry level. They are designed to a meet a price point that makes them more accessible to customers, and allows the manufacturer room to compete.

That 3rd party glass doesnt work with it is not necessarily a large concern, particularly for Nikon, usually in time the 3rd party manufacturers develop a workaround that alleviates the situation for those that accept usually lower quality glass as an economy point.

As you point out, most cameras have compensating features, it is my belief that learned photographers have compensating features too. Thats no bad thing for a camera meant to be a learning tool.

say cheese

[coldrain]

The E-300 is a camera from 3 years ago. You can't buy it, it has been replaced by an E-500 and E-330.

Make a list of things the D40 does not have, and does have. Make the same list about the other current cameras.

Try to be fair in discussions.

[Riley]

The E-300 is a camera from 3 years ago. You can't buy it, it has been replaced by an E-500 and E-330.

Make a list of things the D40 does not have, and does have. Make the same list about the other current cameras.

Try to be fair in discussions.

you asked for a dSLR camera within the conditions you provided and you got one, fully and completely answered. You choose to twist your question and add a new requirement, so to suffice the juniors......

The E500 has 3 point AF, when it came out there were no 3rd party lenses, it has almost no available primes, no DoF button, and the Olympus Master software for RAW was worth avoiding for more specific software supporting RAW that facilitates workflow as well (true to many dSLR cameras).

E300 replaced by E500 and E330?
you are once again mistaken

as E-300 was only discontinued from the product list in January 2007
that is one calendar month ago, although no longer on the Olympus world wide products site, some are still available at Olympus dealers, and both E-500, and the E-330 where around a lot earlier than that

dcresource reviews
E-300 Originally posted: November 8, 2004
E-500 Originally posted: September 26, 2005
E-330 Originally posted: January 25, 2006

in other words, it was discontinued to make way for the replacement E-410 not yet released, the E-410 will be out in the coming PMA. And was not replaced by E500 and E330.

Im not here to do your homework sport, you want to waste your life making lists thats your business. Personally, looking at the basis of your argument here, I think your time would be better spent elsewhere




too easy...
i wonder whats on tv ?

[mattdm]

"No third party lenses" really isn't accurate either. Here's Sigma's list for the D40 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3289), including seven prime lenses.

Admittedly, these aren't the cheapest in the line, but that's not necessarily a big problem. The 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM looks like a particularly nice lens for about $400 street -- and is a "standard" lens with a 1.5× crop-factor camera like the D40.

[DonSchap]

Anytime you have to added "motoring" to a lens, you are not getting a "deal" with the cheap body.

All you have to do is compare this to in-the-lens-IS that Canon employs. A lot of folks often wonder ... why isn't IS in the body? The fact is that only APS-C camera bodies could enjoy this feature and the full frame lenses would still require in-the-lens-IS. The sacrifice is for a reasonable reason for the higher end line of cameras. Nikon simply does not enjoy the use of this kind of logic, in this case, though.

If you don't mind me saying so (and even if you do), the Nikon D40 is simply "robbing Peter to pay Paul." If you are serious in your photography, this is not a way to start out. Added expense is not why you want to buy an "entry-level" camera. THey are literally forcing you to buy higher-end lenses to make it work. If anything, this camera body will be a quick "cast-off" for the use of cheaper third-party lensing and overall savings.

The question then becomes: WHY BOTHER? :confused:

[mattdm]

Well, one reason would be that it lets you start with a nicer lens now. (It's a shame you can't buy the D40 body only, but at least the kit lens is okay.) In a few years, all cameras at all levels will be nicer, and you'll eventually want to replace the body no matter where you start. A good lens will have a much longer lifespan.

So, if you have a fixed budget now, you could do:

cheaper body + nicer lens -> much nicer body, keep nice lens

or

nicer body + cheaper lens -> next nicer body, still cheap lens

...

The first approach definitely has some appeal.

[DonSchap]

I tend to go with ... middle of the road (between intro and kick-butt) body and professional-level third-party glass.

I give myself room at the top for a good old 'upgrade', but I'm certainly not using base-line gear to take images I may only get one crack at. :mad:

Last I checked, you only go around once in this life ... and in IRAQ ... you may not even get that shot. Shoot with "good stuff" and never regret the call. You never know when your time will come. Enjoy it, now! ;)

[Riley]

the strategy of buying good glass is fine with me, good glass is for keeps
but like Don kinda sorta points out
how does a newcomer decide on lens requirements
experience tells me they always seem to look for really long lenses first

of course Nikon has there own plan, and they would rather you bought their glass. The only question in my mind is, how long will it take Canon to implement the same strategy.

Either way, for the mostpart, the glass you buy will be good, if not better.

btw Don, Iraq aint near that tough

[coldrain]

the strategy of buying good glass is fine with me, good glass is for keeps
but like Don kinda sorta points out
how does a newcomer decide on lens requirements
experience tells me they always seem to look for really long lenses first

of course Nikon has there own plan, and they would rather you bought their glass. The only question in my mind is, how long will it take Canon to implement the same strategy.

Either way, for the mostpart, the glass you buy will be good, if not better.

btw Don, Iraq aint near that tough
Riley, Canon has put AF motors into the lens since 1987. It is Nikon who is implementing Canon's strategy way late, shooting D40 owners in the foot, at the moment.

[DonSchap]

Sorry, Riley ... can't get the IRAQ issue out of my mind.

I guess after seeing so many of our soldiers uselessly injured when we could have very easily "punched the border-ticket" rather nicely, back in 2003 ... get's my shutter flappin'! :mad:

Here, it's 2007 and this quagmire is going straight to the Democrats, in the USA, and Pelosi has no idea how to deal with these people. We're not long for the "good life", at this rate.

Get your images of Europe and the East Coast, now, while their is still something other than burning debris to snap. Personally, I've had all the images of 9-11's Ground-Zero I'll ever want to see, in this lifetime or the next. If you want to take SMOKE with mirrors, do it over there. Don't need that here.

Meanwhile, we return you back to the nefarious D40-idea.

[Riley]

couldnt agree more Don
I dislike with some fervor, putting my soldiers in harms way, while the political bosses play musical chairs with the truth. wmd's be damned

[mattdm]

I tend to go with ... middle of the road (between intro and kick-butt) body and professional-level third-party glass.


But keep in mind the D40 is still a really nice camera, despite the loud forum posts. It's very positively reviewed at many well-respected camera sites, and makes a great introduction to the Nikon lineup.


Last I checked, you only go around once in this life ... and in IRAQ ... you may not even get that shot. Shoot with "good stuff" and never regret the call. You never know when your time will come. Enjoy it, now!

So, exactly. The D40 lets someone with limited funds get to the good stuff more quickly. Canon's Rebel XT too, although I imagine Canon has something in the works to compete more directly with the D40 rather than relying on 2005's model to fill the price niche.

[DonSchap]

So, exactly. The D40 lets someone with limited funds get to the good stuff more quickly. Canon's Rebel XT too, although I imagine Canon has something in the works to compete more directly with the D40 rather than relying on 2005's model to fill the price niche.


Keep your eye on Vegas, Baby! LOL :D Coming, in March! PMA!

[Riley]

which is what i alluded too earlier :)