PDA

View Full Version : Nikon D40 versus D40x



nikonshutterbug
03-08-2007, 07:24 PM
I just purchased a NIKON D40 and a couple days later the D40x was announced. I still have 3 days left to return the camera. I love the size and feel of it and the pictures are great, but I'm wondering if I should return the 6mp and wait for the 10 mp D40x. Will the difference between 6 and 10 pixels make much of a difference if I am not making huge prints? I do like to crop quite a bit. Most of the new cameras are at least 8-10 mp. I'm afraid I will regret not paying the extra $200 for the 10 mp camera? At this point, I feel like I just bought an obsolete camera. I don't plan on upgrading my camera often. Once I make my decision, I will be keeping it for quite a while. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

jcon
03-08-2007, 07:33 PM
Personally, I dont see it being much of a difference. The extra pixels will help with cropping but since you dont plan on large prints, it really wont make much of a difference.

If the D40X didnt have the same lens problem(not many that will auto focus on the body) as the D40, then I would deffinatly suggest the D40X but, it didnt. Good one Nikon:rolleyes:

If I were you, I would take the D40 back and get a D50.

toriaj
03-08-2007, 07:33 PM
Have you checked this out? http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3495

Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like the D40x still doesn't have an autofocus motor. So, the major disadvantage of the camera is still present. I don't know exactly how much smaller a larger sensor enables you to crop. If I were you, I'd check that out. But if the autofocus situation is okay with you, I'd probably stick with the D40 and invest your money in a PP program, lens, filter, flash, etc, etc :D

--if the autofocus situation is not okay with you, check out the D50 or D80 :)

coldrain
03-08-2007, 07:44 PM
Why not upgrade to a D80 right away, though. It is not very much more heavy, and it does have that internal motor that will open up a LOT more lens options from 3rd party manufacturers and prime lenses from Nikon.
This will get you that 10mp too.

Prospero
03-09-2007, 03:07 AM
If the only reason you want to upgrade are the megapixels, I would definitly keep the D40. The difference between 6 and 10 is really nog all that big. If you look at the long side of the image, you will get only 800 or so pixels extra. In comparison with the 3000 you already have, it is really not all that much. Also, for almost every purpose six megapixels is more than enough.

coldrain
03-09-2007, 05:15 AM
Propero has a valid pint, but the difference between 6 and 10mp can not be totally marginalized either.

D40/50: 3008 pixels wide.
D80/40x: 3872 pixels wide.

100 / 3008 x 3872 = 128.7%

So, 29% more resolution, that is not totally nothing. It means you can print a photo out 29% larger before pixels show up.
Or you can crop a photo 29% more.

It is not HUGE a difference, but really quite considerable anyway.

And still, if you DO want the extra resolution, go for the D80. Good lenses on a moderate budget will be reachable with that, on a D40x you will have to spend a LOT more.

LR Max
03-09-2007, 06:25 AM
Forget about the mega pixels. That is only REALLY usefull if you end up cropping a lot (and usually that means you need to go back to photog class).

The D40, IMO, doesn't have enough functions readily available for the user to adjust to make a shot. Also the lack of on board auto focus motor is a huge downside.

The D40x isn't too impressive. It still has one command wheel and doesn't support many lenses.

Take you D40 back and get a D80. Sure, you are gonna pay a few extra $$$, but the D80 will do everything you want and then some.

RichNY
03-09-2007, 06:41 AM
With 3 days left I'd definately return the camera and buy yourself a little breathing room to make your decision. You could always go back and repurchase the same model with confidence if that turns out to be in your best interest.

tcadwall
03-09-2007, 06:54 AM
It is real easy for all of us to say go with the D80. It is a great camera. But it costs a heck of a lot more than a D40!

What DOESN'T cost a heck of a lot more, is the D50. IMO the D50 is close enough price-wise to make it a no-brainer.

The MP difference IS a difference and it is a valid consideration. WHY - because it doesn't add 800 pixels to the side of the image. The image is still covering the same angle. It CRAMS 800 more pixels into the width of the image.

Again, I the MP limitation of the 40 is NOT the reason I would rule it out, it is the AF compatibility.

So I continue on the MP debate even though I don't rank it as top priority... I have the 6MP D70s. If I had 10MP on that camera, my 50mm f/1.8 lens which I love, would be even MORE useful to me. This isn't about going back to camera school. It is about shooting basketball in a school gymnasium. There are plenty of times where I have this lens on the camera for its low-light capability. When the action is not directly in front of me, I need to crop the images quite a bit.

I know that MP wars CAN be very much classified as "Fluff" and in general I agree. BUT there are times when having ---changed--66% more pixels in the same frame can really be useful, AND noticeable. (ok I have to go back to school for MATH... it is 66% more )

But - all of this said, it is only an argument for the D80 over the D50 (you really can't compare those two cameras too well - TOO many reasons for the D80). It is not an argument for a D40x over a D40 - WHY? because the D50 MP restriction is worthwhile for the added functionality / compatibility over the D40.

Stoller
03-09-2007, 07:17 AM
Get anything but the D40 or D40x. Keep that huge number of lenses option you can use open.

:rolleyes:

nikonshutterbug
03-10-2007, 03:01 AM
Thanks to all of you for your advice. I did take the D40 back so I have time to make a more informed decision. And, then I saw the Canon Rebel XTi and it seems to be everything I wanted - now I'm even more confused, but that's another thread! I appreciate all of your input.

wh0128
03-11-2007, 03:26 PM
I'll go ahead and agree with jcon, and grab a D50 lol. 10.2 mp won't do you much good when you're just a casual photographer for vacations and stuff like that. There is no need unless you plan on printing huge. But even with a 6mp camera, my friend from his d50 printed like a 20 by something for an art show, and the quality was quite amazing.

If you plan on buying a bunch of lenses to use, trade it for a D50 or D70s. But if you think you'll just stay with the stock lens, and maybe a good AF-S zoom lens, then keep the D40, and don't be discouraged that there is a new camera after you bought yours.

It happens to everyone.

coldrain
03-12-2007, 05:23 AM
I'll go ahead and agree with nikonshutterbug, and say that the XTi offers everything he wants (compact and light like the D40, no problems with lens AF compatibility, complete camera with very good image quality, 10.1mp).

Only big downside I can see is that your nick will look very odd, with a Canon DSLR!

XaiLo
03-12-2007, 07:26 AM
Man... hating on a rather nice camera for what it is and what it was intended to be, is unfortunately the real shame here. I find it disheartening that because it fails to meet particular needs of some2... it's been relagated into not being worthy of being a Nikon. But in comparison to the P&S that I purchased the D40 to replace it's like night and day. I attempted a shot my wife wanted in very very low light which required flash. I got the shot in the first attempt, snapped off a few more to get the composition I wanted, no problem. Out of curiousity I wondered how well the S3 would fair taking the same pic. It took eleven tries to even come close had the children not been asleep, I would not have gotten the shot. While comparing this camera to cameras it wasn't meant to compete with in the first place might be amusing. Take a moment to reflect that someone might actually want a compact light dSLR that's not bulky, who just may not care that it only works completely with AF-S lenses. The fact that it's not right for everyone doesn't mean it's not right for someone.

As a side note the first thing I did after reading about the D40 was to check it's dimensions against the S3 after that it was a no brainer. I do brochures, branding and web developement. most of the time I carry a camera along with quite a few other things... a bulky large camera did not fit the bill for me. So the D40 offered me something no other camera in Nikons line-up could. So if your looking for a compact lightwieght dSLR with awesome picture quality that's comparable to super zoom size. Man you are going to love the D40.

coldrain
03-12-2007, 08:06 AM
So if your looking for a compact lightwieght dSLR with awesome picture quality that's comparable to super zoom size. Man you are going to love the D40.
So if you are looking for a compact lightweight DSLR with awesome picture quality... then man, you are going to love an XTi too... and it does not have that motor problem!
And has some other advantages as well. I really do not see a problem in this person considering an XTi?

tcadwall
03-12-2007, 09:08 AM
I would likely have to agree with CR on this one.:eek:

Looking at the pricing on the XTi and the pricing on the D40X (both with respective 18-55 kit lenses). The XTi is the better buy. Nikon isn't competing that well at that price IMO.

XaiLo
03-12-2007, 09:48 AM
So if you are looking for a compact lightweight DSLR with awesome picture quality... then man, you are going to love an XTi too... and it does not have that motor problem!
And has some other advantages as well. I really do not see a problem in this person considering an XTi?

Um... like I never said he wouldn't, I wasn't speaking from the OP point of reference or experience but my own and consequently I would find it difficult to put Canon Lenses on a D200. So what's your point I never infered anything negative about his XTi decision. I just accentuated a positive experience amongst the darkness. But if you want to know why I was not outwardly supporting his decision. Well let's just say build quality... after experiencing the death of an S2 and the same poor quality with my now malfunctioning S3 I have about a thousand reasons not to support the XTi. Now how many do you have to support it.

swgod98
03-12-2007, 09:49 AM
I really do not see a problem in this person considering an XTi?

The is one huge problem with him choosing the XTi...
















He'd have to change his username :D

coldrain
03-12-2007, 10:31 AM
The is one huge problem with him choosing the XTi...

He'd have to change his username :D

hehe, I did mention that too though ;)

XaiLo, people have Nikon cameras fail on them too. I really do not think Nikon has a better/worse failure rate... and if it DOES fail, Canon has the better customer support.
Just ask Tim about it... he switched to Canon because of his not so wonderful Nikon customer support experiences with his failing D200. And he is quite a Nikon fan.

And the only Canon that ever broke on me was an A20 after I decided to drop it on the floor onto its lens.... OUCH. So it was replaced with a Canon S30.
And yes, I do have a Nikon camera. A Nikon Nikkormat FTn with 5 "prime" lenses.

jcon
03-12-2007, 12:59 PM
XaiLo, I think its great you are really enjoying the D40, and it shows in the wonderful photos you have been sharing! With that said, the reason I(and I cant speak for others) have been discouraging people from buying the D40 is because of its weakness. If the only good thing you can say about a camera is that its compact, then we have a problem, dont we? What may be right for me or you, may not be right for someone else. People should have all the info available to them before making a major purchase. Clearly in this case, the OP wasnt going to be happy with the D40, and returned it to make a more sound decision.

Look, I can understand getting upset when people continue to mention the negatives about your camera, I realy do but its only fair that prospective buyers be informed.

As for Canons, I would have no problem suggestion a Canon but I just really dont know all that much about them since I made my decision to go with Nikon

swgod98
03-12-2007, 04:02 PM
Look, I can understand getting upset when people continue to mention the negatives about your camera, I realy do but its only fair that prospective buyers be informed.

The thing is, very few people say anything good about the D40. All they do is mention the lack of motor and call it a bad camera or simply tell the prospective buyer to stay away from it.

But, it's not a bad camera. It can produce images that are just as good (if not better) than the competition. I could (and have in the past) mention a number of good things (that better the XTi and K100D) in regards to features and/or performance.

The truth is that everyone puts priority on different features. For many of the people on this site, the lack of a focus motor is a deal breaker. But, for others, it might be the 6 megapixels (too few). Or, maybe it's the viewfinder size (too small?!?)? Or, maybe it's the size/weight. Or, lack of spot metering. Or, lack of auto iso. Or, lack of decent burst mode. Or, or, or...

Whatever it is.

Ya.

coldrain
03-12-2007, 04:15 PM
The lack of internal motor is not just a very little thing at all.
Combined with lack of mirror lock up, very low-end AF system, exposure bracketing and such makes it even less attractive.
If you think a 9% spot versus a 3 or 1% spot is of the same importance, fine. But do not assume that everyone can be happy with such a cut down DSLR, where the body is cheap, but good lens options get to be ridiculously expensive or impossible.

swgod98
03-12-2007, 04:43 PM
But do not assume

I did not assume anything. In fact, I simply posted that there are many different people with many different interests. I didn't even mention any competitors, yet you jumped all over the mention of no spot metering. Sounds like you're being a little defensive of Canon.

So, let me ask this small question: How "very low-end" is the D40's AF system? Is it because it's slow to focus? Or, is it because it has only 3 AF points? Or, is it something else?

If it's as fast as I think it is, then there doesn't seem to be a concern for me. Hell, I have never once used my camera's 11 point system, short of experimentation.

Mirror lock up turns out to be a good feature in only a very few circumstances. Never when hand held, certainly. And on a tripod only under very specific shutter speeds...of which can easily be overcome by setting slightly longer exposures (just compensate with the aperture). Sure, that's a bit of a limitation (sort of like not having spot metering) if that's your shooting style.

Exposure bracketing is another instance where many people do not use it (or need it). And it's not difficult to get around. Just keep the camera on the same tripod and adjust the exposure. A couple clicks...a dial? Not that difficult.

Why is it I always feel I have to defend the D40 here? It's not like I am telling people to go out and buy the camera because it's the best there is. But, for some people, it can be a good choice...

Maybe they like having Auto ISO. Maybe they like that they saved $200. Maybe they like the exceptional high ISO performance. Maybe they aren't even going to buy another lens. Maybe this, maybe that.

If I were to have bought a D40 and was happy with it, and had to read all these negative posts about it here, I'd be frustrated. I probably wouldn't come back.

Be fair to the new buyers, of course...but also be fair to current owners and respect their choice.

That's all.

coldrain
03-12-2007, 05:00 PM
The missing internal motor at this point just really IS that big of a deal to call it a bad camera or to tell people to steer away from it.

When the upgrade path from the kitlenses (18-55/18-70/18-35) will cost you at least $1200, or $1500 (17-55 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8), when there are NO 3rd party alternatives because of just this missing internal motor in this budget DSLR... it does become a problem for the buyer that does right now not know he or she will want to upgrade to better or faster lenses.

When they can not buy a 50mm f1.8, a 85mm f1.8, a 50/60/70/90/100mm macro from Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and the cheapest macro option is an $800+ 105mm Nikon, it again becomes an issue.

When you can't even buy a cheap ($220) telezoom that works still ok at 300mm (Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro) it again will be felt in the wallet (alternative costs more than twice the price: Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR).
You can argue that $500 is not all that much for that lens... but that is about the price of the DSLR, and you are talking about "saving $200" (it actually is saving $-100 for a Pentax K100D with IS or +$150 for a Canon XTi)...

Yes, the camera's image quality is not bad. And yes, the missing internal motor just really can be a much bigger issue that 1st time buyers on a budget realize.

And what the multipoint AF is mostly for: tracking moving objects fast and reliable. Yes, I use only the center AF point with static subjects. But with tracking the more advanced AF systems do come in handy. I am not talking about speed... the AF system of my lowly 350D with just the center AF sensor activated is as fast as it gets in DSLR land. Tracking is another matter though.

jcon
03-12-2007, 05:41 PM
Be fair to the new buyers, of course...but also be fair to current owners and respect their choice.
That's all.

I think I tried to explain that in my initial post. Buyers have every right to hear the downfalls of a camera before purchasing it. Every camera you buy there will be naysayers and drawbacks, facts of life.

Some of the things you mentioned like bracketing not being important, maybe to you, but to some it could be very important, just take a look at the HDR thread.

Do you feel the D40 is a better body than the D50? Id be hard pressed to find anyone that would say yes to that question. You mentioned "saving $200", well the D50 is the same price. And as CR mentioned, upgrading lenses with the D40 will be quite costly. If you dont plan on upgrading from the supplied kit lens and have no problems with a stripped down body, then enjoy, by all means! im not hear to offend people, just hear to offer my advice and the FACTS about camera, lenses, etc...

Im sorry you feel that others are beating on your camera but the facts are there. If someone comes here asking for opinions on the D40, I will continue to tell them the downside of the camera, you are more than welcome to tell them the good things(compact size and cheap).

swgod98
03-12-2007, 05:44 PM
I am not discounting your point, coldrain. But, your entire claim is based on the fact that you know exactly what is best for the buyer.

The buyer needs to decide that.

swgod98
03-12-2007, 06:02 PM
If someone comes here asking for opinions on the D40, I will continue to tell them the downside of the camera

Why don't you discuss the good points as well?

It's easy to talk about the negative points of a camera when you don't think it's good. But, this is where my point about being fair to the buyer comes in...you can't just mention the bad things or they'll never be able to form their own opinion (short of it being based on yours).

XaiLo
03-12-2007, 09:06 PM
Listen I could care less, I don't own stock in Canon or Nikon. Coldrain as with your first response to my post assumptions not in question are being made. I did not switch to Nikon because I am dissatisfied with Canon far from it. I've wanted a D200 since I first read the review of it over at dp many moons ago... Nikon also makes a particular lens that suits my fancy. While the D200 is for self indulgence the D40 is not, it meets a business need. My initial post was not an argument against the negative attributes of the D40 but rather the apparent bias imparted when sharing those negatives. The XTi was of no relevance to me and it had no bearing on my post. Somehow or another there was a correlation drawn when there was none.

And now all of a sudden I'm purporting that Nikons do not fail. All I can say is you're doing a great job of having an argument with yourself. Find someone else to pick an fight with please! I am not interested.

Jcon, being compact is not the only thing I can say positive about it. And I'm not alone in my thinking this sites own review of the D40 was quite positive in fact. But the fact that it is compact is one of the most important attributes to me. I went to the auto show today and hand held it for over six hours with out thinking twice about it. In my book that's a real nice plus. I love using long zoom but I have to admitt I had a great time with the kit lens. And if need be I have no problem with having to manual focus. Not everybody is going to be shooting sports in low light. Spending money on a fast lens is not an issue with me either I was going to do that anyway regardless of what body I decided on. More than likely I'll be getting another P&S that can just fit nicely in a shirt pocket should I discount all the ones that don't have 12x zoom? There's a reason more than one camera is offered by different companies people have varying needs. All I'm saying that everyone is not of the same mindset and be fair to those who this camera might just be a good fit for.

coldrain
03-13-2007, 05:18 AM
Listen I could care less, I don't own stock in Canon or Nikon. Coldrain as with your first response to my post assumptions not in question are being made. I did not switch to Nikon because I am dissatisfied with Canon far from it. I've wanted a D200 since I first read the review of it over at dp many moons ago... Nikon also makes a particular lens that suits my fancy. While the D200 is for self indulgence the D40 is not, it meets a business need. My initial post was not an argument against the negative attributes of the D40 but rather the apparent bias imparted when sharing those negatives. The XTi was of no relevance to me and it had no bearing on my post. Somehow or another there was a correlation drawn when there was none.
First of all, it is FINE that you bought a D40 and are happy with it.
It is not a D200 though. It is also FINE that you crave a D200, for whatever reasons you have. This was never about YOU, this thread.
And just out of curiosity, what lens of Nikon is the lens that suits your fancy?


And now all of a sudden I'm purporting that Nikons do not fail. All I can say is you're doing a great job of having an argument with yourself. Find someone else to pick an fight with please! I am not interested.
Also, I merely replied to what you said:
"Well let's just say build quality... after experiencing the death of an S2 and the same poor quality with my now malfunctioning S3 I have about a thousand reasons not to support the XTi. "
If you after making this statement still do not see that this does not match with "I did not switch to Nikon because I am dissatisfied with Canon far from it." or "And now all of a sudden I'm purporting that Nikons do not fail." that is FINE too. You are the one arguing, not me.


Jcon, being compact is not the only thing I can say positive about it. And I'm not alone in my thinking this sites own review of the D40 was quite positive in fact. But the fact that it is compact is one of the most important attributes to me. I went to the auto show today and hand held it for over six hours with out thinking twice about it. In my book that's a real nice plus. I love using long zoom but I have to admitt I had a great time with the kit lens. And if need be I have no problem with having to manual focus. Not everybody is going to be shooting sports in low light. Spending money on a fast lens is not an issue with me either I was going to do that anyway regardless of what body I decided on. More than likely I'll be getting another P&S that can just fit nicely in a shirt pocket should I discount all the ones that don't have 12x zoom? There's a reason more than one camera is offered by different companies people have varying needs. All I'm saying that everyone is not of the same mindset and be fair to those who this camera might just be a good fit for.
Jcon has made his position VERY clear, as have I. The D200 you crave is not compact or light anyway... but, the D50 is not much bigger or heavier, now is it? And it does have an internal motor. And its image quality is just as good. And it did get very good reviews too.
And the XTi is almost exactly the same size, same weight. It does have a better 9 point AF system, it does bracket exposure, it offers 10.1mp, and so on.

So, the only part that really makes sense is: "All I'm saying that everyone is not of the same mindset and be fair to those who this camera might just be a good fit for."

Yes. Exactly. So, instead of only D40 owners defending their previous choice, it is very worthwhile pointing out the drawbacks of a D40 too.
And pointing to cameras like the D80, D50, XTi/400D, K100D as alternatives. As you can see, the OP was not like you. Not of the same mindset.
And I personaly do NOT think that this camera might just be a good fit for people on a budget, that may want to have more than just a 2 kit lens set. And explaining that is very fair indeed.

XaiLo
03-13-2007, 10:42 AM
Coldrain buy a D50 and be happy... all your doing is taking what I say out of context... just because you draw an inference does not mean there is one. My original post was not a response to the OP. Which I am sure you are well aware of. Your fisrt reply to my post was an assumption that for some reason I'm hating on Canon which was never the case. And a dig at me for not explicitly telling the OP to run out and get an XTi. Then when I explain to you why I would not recommend an entry level Canon. You are still not happy? I'm fully aware that Nikons fail too. But yet again that was not "my" experience which is another point you still are not willing to process. Fact is 99% of the critics are "paper critics". As far as what I said about build quality I meant it. the reason for the elaboration was because you seem to enjoy. reading into statements rather than dealing with what was stated. But you still went there anyway. My point was this plain and simple I was getting a Nikon dSLR period... that decision was made before I even purchased a Canon. Just like I was going to purchase a Canon P&S before I ever owned a Nikon. They are mutually exclusive I purchased each on their own merits as they related to "my" needs. Just like I never asked you if you own a Nikon you supplied that information I just returned the favor and now you're basically calling me a liar and you don't even know me.



Yes. Exactly. So, instead of only D40 owners defending their previous choice, it is very worthwhile pointing out the drawbacks of a D40 too.

You're joking here right? There were 13 posts before an actual D40 owner said anything and that post was in response to primarily address non-D40 owners and their apparent bias. From reading this thread one could easily surmize that the D40 should not even exist, I happen to disagree.



Why not upgrade to a D80 right away, though. It is not very much more heavy, and it does have that internal motor that will open up a LOT more lens options from 3rd party manufacturers and prime lenses from Nikon.
This will get you that 10mp too.

Actually In your first post you completely ignore the OPs question and suggest he goes from a $600 to a $1200 camera. So once again besides trolling what's your point.

LR Max
03-13-2007, 11:03 AM
My biggest complaint about the D40 is its size. I don't know about anyone else but it is too small for my hands. The damn thing was uncomfortable just holding it there at the shop. I couldn't imagine using it all day on a photo shoot.

Also I am hearing about a lot of D40 guys already wanting to upgrade. Hence, why I say spend the extra bucks now and get a D80. It'll be cheaper than trying to sell a used D40/less hassle.

Lastly, I have a bunch of prime lenses sitting on my desk. No, I don't carry them all the time but I do like to use them when I want them. D40 make the hook up with them.

coldrain
03-14-2007, 01:50 AM
Xailo, tone it down a little, if you please.
If anyone is trying to troll, it may be you.
My reason for suggesting to go for a D80 instead of a D40x is very clear and very apparent. Since I stated it, the same reason many gave to not go for a D40.

And which reason is that? The actuall extra cost of a D40 when you want to have better lenses. Since you, for instance, need to dig deep to get anything better than the kitlens ($1200 to be exact). And that really does conflict with the budget of MOST D40 buyers.

The D80 is NOT a $1200 camera (who is trolling?). And the D40x is NOT a $600 camera. So, I really do not know what is so weird in suggesting to avoid the handicapped D40(x).

After some posts, the OP stated he was going to look into an XTi, since according to him it seems to be all he is looking for (its the same size and weight of your D40... 10mp... but does not have its drawbacks).

And then your first post appears. You totally ignore ANY arguement given to the OP before, and go on a rant about how your D40 is being threated unfairly. Then at the end you say how a D40 should make the OP happy.

And then I said, the XTi will then, according to your arguements, make the OP happy too. Since it offers more.

So, what do you do? You insinuate that the reason not to go for an XTi is build quality, Canons fail. Again, who is trolling?

You are the one arguing, and the one totally ignoring all points made in posts by everyone, just claiming how teh D40 really should be the OP's best choice since it is the best choice for you.

And you did not yet reveal what Nikon lens has your fancy. It is safe to assume it is not the great 200mm f4 Micro or the very nice 85mm f1.8 portrait lens.

T06
03-14-2007, 02:28 AM
You won't learn will you?:confused:

DigitalJ
03-14-2007, 08:00 AM
My first post here and not even a DSLR owner yet. Anyway an approach to the D40 recomendation could be in terms if its pros and cons. A clear list of its strenghts and one of its weaknesses could be included and showing the type of user who would most benefit from it and those who wouldn't. Not all shooters are going to need to run out and buy a new lens for every situation, and for those the D40 might be just what the Doctor ordered. For others and I would include myself in this group, I would like to have the flexibility to do so if I needed to and so the D40 might not be the best solution. Put in this light I don't think anyone should get upset.

DJ

LR Max
03-14-2007, 09:09 AM
Damnest thing happened to me last night. I was out photog'in when I ran into an old photo buddy of mine (he sold me my Fuji S602Z). He had a D40. So we swapped cameras and went to town.

First off, compared to the D70s, the D40 is REALLY REALLY stripped down. I couldn't adjust anything convienently. The lack of 5 focus points made vertical shots kinda tricky sometimes. The lense is quality, but lacking the range I was used to with my 18-200. And as I had expected, after a little while I couldn't hold it in my hands anymore because it was so small. It was wierd, never had that happen before. Lastly, the damn screen on the back kept trying to give me photo hints. I don't need a machine to tell me how to adjust my apeture.

As for my buddy, he now wishes he had paid the extra $$$ for the D70s. So, that is why the D40 is fired.

tcadwall
03-14-2007, 09:21 AM
As for my buddy, he now wishes he had paid the extra $$$ for the D70s.

Yeah the crazy thing is, that Beach Camera for instance has the D70s with 18-70mm lens for only $235 more than the D40 with the 18-55

coldrain
03-14-2007, 09:43 AM
Yeah the crazy thing is, that Beach Camera for instance has the D70s with 18-70mm lens for only $235 more than the D40 with the 18-55
Yes, not only the D70s can be had for nice prices (it will cost even less with a 18-55 like the D40 has).

The D40x costs $800 with 18-55
The D80 costs $925 body, $1100 with 18-55.
The D40 with 18-55 $600
The D50 with 18-55 the same or less

I would want another lens than the kit lens though, but the differences will not be very different.

And the Pentax K100D and Canon XTi are also in the same league price wise.

Lots of alternatives size, weight, price or Nikon wise.

tcadwall
03-14-2007, 10:21 AM
(it will cost even less with a 18-55 like the D40 has).
Haven't seen that kit in forever. D70s tough to come by these days - but I still consider it a contender since it is better (IMO) than then D40, D50, and arguably better for most people than the D40x)

swgod98
03-14-2007, 10:25 AM
$235

For the budget minded, that's an SB-600 on top of the camera. Suddenly, the D40 is taking pictures much better than the competition.

tcadwall
03-14-2007, 10:32 AM
that's an SB-600 on top of the camera
it is also a better lens. And a lot more camera. So I am really not so sure.

While I agree that the SB-600 is a great flash, and for me a no-brainer... I would want an SB-600 with EITHER camera - it really wouldn't be part of the equation for me. The SB-600 can also be a later add-on if budget is tight. You can't add on the capabilities given by the D70s (or for that matter the D50) over the D40.

XaiLo
03-14-2007, 11:17 AM
You are the one arguing, and the one totally ignoring all points made in posts by everyone, just claiming how teh D40 really should be the OP's best choice since it is the best choice for you.




Tone what down not allowing you to misconsrew or to twist my words my initial post was not directed to you personally, yet you have gone out of your way to make this a personal attack on me just because I happen to appreciate a camera you don't. And have taken it on yourself to to make me see the coldrain way of thinking. I'm not narrow minded as you claim I am by your above statement.



My initial post was not an argument against the negative attributes of the D40 but rather the apparent bias imparted when sharing those negatives.

My illustration was comparing a P&S experience vs an entry level dSLR yet by some miracle you translate this into me telling the OP to stay with the D40. Fact is I made no suggestion to the OP at all, so my troll statement stands. Just because you say so does not make it a truth.



So, what do you do? You insinuate that the reason not to go for an XTi is build quality, Canons fail. Again, who is trolling?


I did not insuate a thing I outright stated a truth based on my experience in relation to your sarcastic reply which was based on an assumption. (see below)


So if you are looking for a compact lightweight DSLR with awesome picture quality... then man, you are going to love an XTi too... and it does not have that motor problem!
And has some other advantages as well. I really do not see a problem in this person considering an XTi?

You're entitled to your opinion and I doubt if anyone here does not know where you stand on this subject. So yet again I am kindly asking you to leave me alone. Instead of picking arguments with me. Why don't you tell Jeff how wrong he was in his review of the D40?

coldrain
03-14-2007, 11:37 AM
Why don't you tell Jeff how wrong he was in his review of the D40?

From the Nikon D40 review from Jeff Keller:

There are some important things to note about the lens mount on the D40. First, compare the photo above to the same one on the D50 -- see anything different? The D50 has the focus motor built into the camera body, and there's a "screw drive" on the lower left of the lens mount to turn the lens elements. To keep down the size of the D40, Nikon removed the internal focus motor. What this means is that your lens must have the motor built in if you want autofocus. If you have an AF-S or AF-I Nikkor lens, then you're all set. However, if you don't, be prepared to focus manually.


Much to my surprise, my one-year-old 50 mm lens doesn't have one -- in fact, there are no "primes" with AF motors until you get up to the very expensive super telephotos. A Nikon source told me that they don't expect most D40 users to use anything but the kit lens. Well, I don't know about that, but the bottom line here is if you want to use primes, consider the D80.


The minimum focus distance will depend on the lens you can use. The kit lens can get as close to your subject as 28 cm. If you want to get closer you'll want a dedicated macro lens, though there's currently only one macro lens that will be autofocus on the D40 (and it ain't cheap).


As for the lens motor issue, this really depends on how you plan to use the D40. If you'll be sticking to the kit lens and lenses like it, then you'll probably be fine. If you want throw on a 50 mm prime, then you'll probably want to get the D80 instead, as it'll be manual focus only otherwise.

XaiLo
03-14-2007, 12:13 PM
The D40 is Nikon's new entry-level digital SLR. Priced at just $599 with an 18 - 55 mm lens, the D40 is one of the lowest priced SLRs on the market. Nikon didn't cut a lot of corners to keep the price down, either -- this is a very capable camera. It has a 6 Megapixel CCD, a large and sharp 2.5" LCD display, full manual controls, an elaborate help system, and the kind of performance that you'd expect from a D-SLR. Did I mention that it's also very compact?




The D40 is a compact digital SLR made of high grade plastic. The camera is actually smaller than some ultra zooms on the market, but it's not tiny. There's a larger grip than on the Canon Rebel XTi, though it's still a little too small in my opinion. And speaking of the Rebel XTi, the D40 feels a lot more solid in your hands than that camera -- no cheap plastic here.




The most obvious difference here is the size of the two cameras. The D50 looks like a behemoth next to the diminutive D40. On the back of the cameras you'll see that the D40 has a significantly larger LCD display. Another big difference can be found on the top of the cameras. The D50 has an LCD info display, while the D40 does not -- instead, Nikon used the D40's huge LCD to display this information.




As you can see, the D40 is tied for being the smallest D-SLR out there. You can also get an appreciation for the difference in both size and weight between the D40 and D50.




If you have an AF-S or AF-I Nikkor lens, then you're all set. However, if you don't, be prepared to focus manually.




Overall, the D40 took excellent quality photos, which is just what you'd expect from a digital SLR. Exposure was usually spot-on, though the camera blew out the highlights in two sample photos -- I think this is a metering issue. Colors were very saturated -- Nikon definitely tuned this camera toward the consumer audience. Sharpness was just right: not too sharp, not too soft. As you saw in the previous example, noise levels are very low through ISO 800. The one real negative here is purple fringing: the kit lens produces quite a bit of it. One way to reduce this annoyance is to close down the aperture a bit (use a higher F-number




With their new D40, Nikon has proven that you can make an entry-level digital SLR without cutting a lot of corners. There's a lot to like about this camera, from its compact size to its performance to its photo quality. For those ready to step up to the D-SLR world, the D40 is a fabulous way to do it.



The D40 is one of the most compact D-SLRs on the market, but it's not too small like the Rebel XTi. Yeah, the grip is a little too small for my hands, but most people will find it to be acceptable (and better than the one on the Rebel). Build quality is also better than the Rebel, with higher grade plastics and an overall more solid feel. To cut down on the size of the camera, Nikon removed both the internal focus motor and LCD info display found on their other D-SLRs. The latter isn't a big deal, as Nikon did a nice job integrating shooting data onto the main LCD. You've got two views to choose from (I prefer the classic myself), and you can quickly change commonly used settings at the press of a button. The LCD itself is big, bright, and sharp. As for the lens motor issue, this really depends on how you plan to use the D40. If you'll be sticking to the kit lens and lenses like it, then you'll probably be fine. If you want throw on a 50 mm prime, then you'll probably want to get the D80 instead, as it'll be manual focus only otherwise.


...................................

tcadwall
03-15-2007, 07:31 AM
Hey guys,

Let it go already;)

This kind of banter is really anti-productive once it reaches a certain point. Easy to get caught up in, especially when you feel the other person is insulting your intelligence, or experience. But really, lets try to keep things productive.:cool:

Torokun
03-17-2007, 01:45 AM
Hey guys,

I am a new member.

And I hope my post will kinda reset this thread.

nikonshutterbug/ I am in a similar predicament when it comes to D40 vs. D40X.

Little bit about myself... Eventhough I am not a professional photographer, I still prefer film photography. I use mostly my FM3 and AE-1.

When I got married in 2002, I wanted to carry a point-and-shoot digital camera. So, I bought a Leica Digilux 1. It takes great outdoor pictures. But, I get a lot of grainy pics. Especially indoor pictures. On top of the 4megapixel was a bit limiting in terms of using that camera for reference photo shoots for the work I used to do.

So, I got interested in more formidable digital cameras. But, price wise, most of DSLR cameras were just way out of my league.

You can imagine the joy I had when I learned about D40.

-Since, I am already used to manual cameras, I wasn't too concerned about using manual lens
-The price was just right.
-6 megapixel was plenty I needed for my usage.

So, for people like me, D40 was just perfect. I am just entering a DSLR market. I am not a professional photographer. I don't own tons of Nikon lens that will take the back seat when I get a D40.

D40 made it realistic for me to get a camera, lens, flash, and some filters.

Reading up on many reviews and seeing sample pictures, it is clear that D40 takes very very sharp pictures. And it produces wonderful grain free pictures in wide range of lighting settings (even without the flash).

6 Megapixel pictures could produce relatively sharp looking 24x46" prints. Which is far larger than I probably will ever print.

All for around $800 total! Now, that sounds like a bargain to me.


So, while I was waiting for having fund to buy D40, they announced D40X.

Sigh...

The 10megapixel merit enters the scene.

Like I mentioned above, I care more about the picture reproducing ability more than the pixel count. But, I think this is where my sinful desire starts to creep in. just having about 800 more pixel length on the print of the picture just became too tempting for me.

But, $200 price difference makes a huge difference for person like me.

This means, I can maybe just buy the camera.


OTL


Sorry for the long post. But, to make the long story short...

I decided to wait for the reviews of the camera first. If enough people think that extra $200 is worth it, I would go for it... Also, I am assuming the price for D40 would go down when D40X comes out. So, if I decide to go with D40, it gives me more room to buy extra stuff I need. Maybe pick up a high memory card?

Well, I hope my opinion will give you some insight...

coldrain
03-17-2007, 05:03 AM
Torokun, reading your post it seems that you think the D40 has actual advantages over a Nikon D50, Pentax K100D, Canon XT and XTi...

Have you actually looked int any of these cameras? Compared how they actually perform? You will find that they ALL perform very good...

You say $200 will be a big difference for you. Photoss can only get to be as good as the lens is. What will happen when you want more out of your DSLR?
When you want to upgrade your lens(es)?
The D40 and D40x will be the ONLY ones that will limit your lens choice.
All other cameras will not.
Limit in what way? It has been mentioned enough... but I will point it out again. Suppose you want to upgrade the cheap kit lens to something better, faster, or better lens for portraits.

For the D40 and D40x your options would be:
Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX ($1200)
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8 ($1500)

For the D50 your options would include:
Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX ($1200)
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8 ($1500)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro ($450)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II ($450)
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX ($450?)
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG ($400?)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di ($400?)

For the Canon XT/XTi your options would include:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM ($1000)
Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 L ($1000)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro ($450)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II ($450)
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX ($450?)
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG ($400?)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di ($400?)

Same would go for the Pentax K100D:
Pentax 16-45 f4 ($330)
Pentax 16-50 f2.8 DX ($550?)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro ($450)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II ($450)
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG ($400?)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di ($400?)

Do you get yet why the supposedly cheap entry of the D40 will be severely limiting you later on? And that is only talking about lenses, we are not even looking at the other features Nikon has dropped on this model, that you can not just add once they would come in handy for you.

kdc41
03-17-2007, 06:40 AM
Same would go for the Pentax K100D:
Pentax 16-50 f2.8 DX ($550?)
Too bad you need the K10D (or future cameras) to benefit from the new SDM AF system...

Ken

XaiLo
03-17-2007, 08:24 AM
Those assumptions just won't quit...:rolleyes:

brolic
03-19-2007, 01:26 PM
I'm in the same boat as the two other people in this thread who are having trouble choosing between the D40 and the D40x. As far as I can tell there are five differences between the two cameras (not counting price):
(1) 10mp vs. 6mp;
(2) flash sync speed is slower on D40x (1/500 on d40 vs 1/200 on d40x);
(3) the lowest iso speed on the d40 is 200 whereas on the d40x it is 100;
(4) d40x is marginally faster in burst mode (3fpds on d40x vs. 2.5fps on d40);
(5) batter life is marginally better on d40x.

I understand the "megapixel myth" (but still prefer 10mp to 6), but how much do the other differences matter? I originally thought having an iso of 100 was a "plus," but then I read an article that said that this is actually a "minus" because it means that the sensor is less sensitive--i.e., what the D40 could produce at iso 200, the D40x needs a lower iso (and, hence, more light).

I'm a relative novice, so either is probably fine, but what do you people with more experience think about these differences?


Now some caveats:

For unique-to-me reasons, there is no price difference to me between the D40 and the D40x (long story, but essentially I can get a discount at a non-camera store that, for some reason, is going to sell the D40x but does not sell the D40. The discount will essentially remove any meaningful price difference).

I was debating between the Canon XTi with its dust removal system and the nikon d40/x with its (available for separate purchase) 18-200mm VR lens. After reading a bunch of posts from Canon diehards that seemed to think canon would never make such a lens, I settled on the nikon. I'd welcome any comments on whether the dust removal system is really worth it.

I decided on the D40/x over the D50 and D70 because of the larger and brighter LCD screen on the D40/x, and because the D40/x has a color histogram.

I considered the D80, but a lot of reviews of the D40 really emphasized how light the D40 was in comparison, and how the reviewers appreciated that fact after lugging both around (on separate days, of course). I'm not sure if the D80 would be "too" heavy for me or not, but the D40/x is cheaper, so I'll err on the side of lighter and cheaper while I hone my skills.

The auto-focos-motor-in-the-lens issue is a non-issue for me. I don't have any nikon (or canon for that matter) lenses, so I don't have any lenses that will go to waste. Plus, I think alot of posters are mis-informed about what auto-focus lenses will and won't work (or at least, what is available) for the D40. For example, one of the posters above said that there weren't any Sigma lenses that would auto focus with the D40. The Sigma webpage seems to disagree, unless "The following lenses are fully compatible with the Nikon D40" means something different than what I think it does: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3289
I didn't check any other lens manufacturers. Maybe there are less lenses available and those that are available are a bit more expensive, but over time both of those things will become less so. So, I'm not giving much weight to the argument that a lens type that I may or may not want in the future, may or may not be available today, and, even if it is available today, today's price may or may not be more expensive than the future price of the lens that I may or may not want to buy in the future.

coldrain
03-19-2007, 02:00 PM
The reason Sigma does not have HSM motors in the standard zoom range is because they are not allowed to (patent contract stuff).
All other manufacturers relied on the internal motor, for Nikon mount lenses totally.

Lens manufacturers will not switch their lines quickly for just a D40, so do not hold your breath.

If you would really want a 18-200 lens with Image Stabilization on an XTi, you can buy that right now. Sigma has a 18-200 OS. With Canon mount.

Rooz
03-19-2007, 02:09 PM
brolic, i notice you mentioned weight. you need to know that the VR lens is very heavy compared to othe lens' and in particular to any kit lens. just a word of warning if weight is a big deal to you. hope you enjoy whichever one you choose and keep us posted. :)

jcon
03-19-2007, 02:17 PM
Brolic, what are your main shooting needs?

To eliminate the D50 and D70 simply because the D40 has a larger LCD screen is kind of strange. You do realize that on DSLRs you compose the shot through the viewfinder? The LCD display is for reviewing and menu navigation.

To answer your question about the ISO100 vs. ISO200, I really dont think it would make that much of a difference.

I also think you are making a HUGE assumption on the autofocus lenses in the future.

Megapixels really only matter for large prints and heavy cropping.

In my opinion the D40 and D40x are the same camera except for the megapixel. I am still trying to figure out why the D40x was even made.

In the end, its the glass that makes the body, not the other way around. So I think your main focus should be looking at what glass you can purchase, then look at bodies. Obviously, the D40 makes lens selection much more difficult with only around 20-30 lenses that will autofocus. The D40 does capture great images, however. Just as long as you know its limitations.

I know nothing about Canons dust removal and up until readin this post, I never heard of it before, so I cannot comment on that.

Rooz
03-19-2007, 02:41 PM
don't listen to J. he is looking down on us plebs from the dizzying heights of his d200 and 17-55 nikkor 2.8. his opinion is like taking tips from bill gates on what computer chip to buy. :D :D

jcon
03-19-2007, 03:12 PM
don't listen to J. he is looking down on us plebs from the dizzying heights of his d200 and 17-55 nikkor 2.8. his opinion is like taking tips from bill gates on what computer chip to buy. :D :D

LOL! :D I wish I had 1/100th of what Mr. Gates has!

But seriously, do you disagree with what I said?

Rooz
03-19-2007, 06:30 PM
i agree 100%. although in this case, the d40x can be bought for the same price as the d40 for whatever reason, so why not go for the 40x ? sure its the old MP consumer gimick, but if its the same price...no loss.

i think the d40 gets a tough wrap in this place in all honesty. the reviews about it are outstanding for an entry level model and imo, i'd prefer the larger viewfinder cos i review photos alot on the screen as i'm going and i find the smaller lcd a real pain in the ass.

if you're not gonna upgrade your lens in the next couple of years and are going to get an 18-200 VR then the lack of in-body AF is pretty much irrelevant.

would the d40x suit me ? nope, i need the additional lens choice flexibility and some of the d80 features, but not everybody needs that. if it was my money and i was 100% committed to the budget and was sure i'd not be getting new lens' for some time, i think the d40x and 18-200 VR is an excellent combo to start off. the VR lens will be with you for a long long time to come so there's no loss there and in essense, digital photography has made the camera body an almost disposable part of your kit as technology improves. if not disposable, then at least rendered to your bag as your 2nd cam.

2 or 3 years down the track, i'd prefer to have a great lens on a so-so body rather than a so-so lens on a great body. purely becasue the bodies outdate far, far quicker than the lens' and the chip/ software technology in DSLR's moves far more rapidly than "glass technology".

can you imagine your 17-55mm lens ever being grossly outdated ? i think not. but even the d200 will be outdated in a few years. yes J, EVEN the mighty D200.:eek: :D

jcon
03-19-2007, 06:38 PM
I agree with everything you said, Rooz. Especially the body part. I tried to convey that point in my post. The glass is the most important part.

Yea, my D200 will be outdated, very soon I think:( but thats how it goes. It will still take great pictures until the shutter busts,lol.

Rooz
03-19-2007, 06:44 PM
please look after my future body. i don't want it scratched, marked or sullied in any way for when we exchange later down the track. in fact, i would go so far as to say that i consider it on loan to you until you upgrade.:p

jcon
03-19-2007, 06:50 PM
LMAO!! Too funny. I take very good care of my gear, so in a year or so, I still expect to get $1500 for it:cool: LOL!!

T06
03-19-2007, 10:27 PM
LMAO!! Too funny. I take very good care of my gear, so in a year or so, I still expect to get $1500 for it:cool: LOL!!

....I'll sell you mine for $1200 when the 3D comes out. It's only been shutter activated very minimally:D

Rooz
03-19-2007, 11:08 PM
your going to a 3D with all that great nikkor glass ? :eek:
i feel a bargain coming along. :D

sbnr
03-19-2007, 11:16 PM
*hugs his D50*

I can't believe people are wasting their time on a D40[x], when you can buy the excellent D50 for less and you'll have a bigger selection of auto-focus lenses. Yes, the D40 is a very capable camera, but sit here and show me any real evidence that it's pix are that MUCH BETTER than a D50 or a D70[s] and I bet you can't.

In the end, it's all on the person's experience and the types of lenses they use that help create awesome shots - not the camera.

Also, keep in mind that the latest and greatest will soon become the weakest, so why not spend your money wisely on something that will give you the same results....

Just get whatever you want and be happy already!!!!!

jcon
03-19-2007, 11:22 PM
well said, sbnr!


*hugs his D50, too!* :D :D

Torokun
03-20-2007, 12:47 AM
sbnr/

(And for everyone that are bringing up point about D50, D70 and so on...)

By the very point you are making, it shouldn't matter if someone buys D40 (or D40X) over D50 right?

:)

Look, there are a lot of people who are just getting into DSLR market. And D40 was originally conceived to draw that kind of people in.

And if D40 buyers are attracted by that fact and buy D40, why is that a wrong choice?

I fully understand there are more lens choice if I were to go with D50 and up. But, that is not why I am drawn to D40 in the first place.

Just accept the fact that there are a lot of people who like D40 and D40X.

And for these people, the issue isn't lens availability. It's simply about paying $200 more for more pixel count and some other minor upgrades (as mentioned by many people here).

Also, I'm pretty sure that people who were initially attracted to D40/D40X and didn't like the idea of having severe limits on lens selection will naturally make their choice to buy other Nikon models or other brands of cameras.

The issue on this thread is about people who has purchased (or is about to purchase) D40 to reconsider it for D40X or not.

If you would like to discuss the foolishness of getting D40/D40X over other model, go ahead and start a new thread.

Look at it this way. I think the existance of Pontiac Aztec is a crime in itself. But, there is no point in going to a forum where a person/people are pretty much set on purchasing that car and just bashing it or list things about why they shouldn't buy it.

If such question is asked, go ahead. Or like I said, start a new thread on that topic.

Let's try to be more helpful to the thread's topic.

tcadwall
03-20-2007, 08:09 AM
If you MUST buy a D40 and the price is the same get the D40X it will help you with cropping a little. That said... Why should you need cropping? I do it quite a bit with my 50mm f/1.8 because that lens works very well in a high-school basketball gym. Low light, fast pace, etc. Better than even a 2.8 zoom would do.

OH WAIT A MINUTE.... That lens won't focus on the D40.

--- REALLY ---

MP is a major gimmick on P&S cameras because of their tiny sensor size. For a DSLR it is not quite as much of a gimmick. That sensor for the 40X is pretty good, so if you can get it for the same price it is a better deal. BUT don't buy a D40Anything, unless you really know what you are going to do with it, and that available lenses WILL make you happy.

I think that what really needs to be asked here, is this:

What do you take pictures of most?

How can we know anything about what your real needs are? It IS kind of pointless to tell you which body, or that neither will work, etc.

brolic
03-20-2007, 04:44 PM
Thanks for the comments everyone. I especially had not considered lens weight on the 18-200mm VR (figuring that no matter what Nikon model I got, the lens weight would be the same). More to the point on that, do you think the lens weighing more than the body (when the lens is a relatively small 18-200mm VR, not some large monster) is going to be annoying to deal with? (the lens weighs 19.8 ounces, the D40/x weighs 17 ounces, for comparison the D80 weighs 21 ounces).

Ironcially, considering the whole lens debate, it was lens considerations that had me focusing on the D40/x. I read a bunch of reviews on the 18-200mm VR lens, and it just seemed like such a good all-purpose lens (albeit expensive), that I focused in on Nikon bodies. Because my level of experience is firmly "beginner" or "hobbyist," I went to the more entry level models.

I think it's valid to bring up the D50/70 as an alternative (even if it is touted a little aggresively on these boards). I mean, the reviews seem good on them, and the close-out prices might even be compelling for some. I do think that some of the improvements in the D40 appeal to me though. For example, that bigger and brighter LCD screen just seems like it will be a lot easier to make meaningful exposure adjustments, white balance adjustments, etc., while I'm honing my skills. Plus, the size of the D40 is just attractive (it may be splitting hairs, but the less reason to leave a camera at home, the better right?). I find it strange, though, that no one is suggesting spending a little more money on the D80--maybe it's because they are in separate price ranges, but I found it odd.

Maybe I am discounting the need for lenses a little too much, I'm not sure. Not actually "needing" a specific type of lens right now, and only thinking about adding the 18-200mm VR (which I would get no matter what body) is probably why. I guess I'd prefer to splurge on quality glass though, so, the lack of non-Nikon manufacturers doesn't bother me that much. I guess the drawback on getting a camera that can only use certain lenses is that I can't buy a relatively crap, but cheap, lens to try stuff out and see if I would enjoy spending money on a quality lens. All that just seems so far down the line in this expensive hobby, though. I don't now, in a year maybe I'll eat crow and start a thread that is "don't make the same mistake I did!" We'll see (heck, I haven't bought the camera yet, there is still time for me to be persuaded by you guys--or reviews and stuff that you could link to (hint, hint)).

Oh, and as far as my shooting needs (very valid question!): I'm not looking to shoot sports or fast action (other than on a whim). I live in a city, so more city scenes (people from a distance), architecture (outside mainly, with maybe some interiors), and stuff like that.

Rooz
03-20-2007, 07:12 PM
i don't think people are recommending the d80 cos you seem to be on more of a budget. it's a big jump up in price. the question is not whether the d80 is a better choice, but a choice you can afford.

regards the VR lens on the d40, i don;t think it will be an issue that it weighs more than the body, cameras always are lens heavy no matter what pretty much. but it is important to note that if you were holding a d40 with a kit lens, you will feel a huge difference in weight, (and size), when you attach the VR to the d40. if weight is going to be one of your highest priorities, maybe you need to look harder at a kit lens. it's up to your preference.

the automated body thing, i reiterate, is not going to be a problem for you if you only have a VR lens. but it will restrict some of your cheaper lens alternatives later on, (especially the spectacular but cheap 50mm f1.8). ask yourself...are you REALLY likely to be swapping lens' around on the road ? if not, then it's a moot point and the 18-200 will give you the range and quality you need to work perfectly.

sbnr
03-20-2007, 10:30 PM
well said, sbnr!


*hugs his D50, too!* :D :D

You are making my D50 blush...

Seriously, The D50 is great, the only camera better is the D200 and even then, 10 megapixels isn't a must if you aren't going to do bigger than 13 X 17 @ 150 dpi.

sbnr
03-20-2007, 10:39 PM
sbnr/

(And for everyone that are bringing up point about D50, D70 and so on...)

By the very point you are making, it shouldn't matter if someone buys D40 (or D40X) over D50 right?


I don't care if you buy a D40[x] or not. I"m stating why pick a D40[x], when you can get the D50 - which is basically the same thing and you get more choices in lenses.

Heck, if you like paying more for lenses and/or like manual focusing all the time, then more power to you.

I know nature/action shots are more feasible without me trying to twist the lens for correct focus.

If your argument is the D40 is aimed at a certian consumer's needs [probably soccer moms and other people who think P & S are the reason why their pix suck] then they probably won't be buying extra lenses [other than the standard kit that comes with it] and thus, the D40 would be the right choice for them.

If you want a camera that will give you more returns for the money, then the D50 is the best choice bar none!!!

jcon
03-20-2007, 10:40 PM
Seriously, The D50 is great, the only camera better is the D200 and even then, 10 megapixels isn't a must if you aren't going to do bigger than 13 X 17 @ 150 dpi.


Agreed, but there are MANY other features that make the D200 a better body, not just the MP. But yes, the D50 is an EXCELLENT body, thats why I kept mine.:D

XaiLo
03-21-2007, 05:36 AM
My advice to the OP is just compare the differences between the two and see if they add up to justifying the added expense to you. Either way you are going to end up with a camera that you will enjoy. Ultimately it's about taking pictures which is what is really important. And this camera does deliver in that regard. This camera and kit lens fits easily into my hoody pocket which is a convience I happen to love. While this camera may not appeal to a certain market sector, there are plenty of reasons why it's intended audience will love it.

I apologize for any part my previous posts played in expiditing this thread off topic.

Anyway, which ever way you go stop by The "Some D40 Pics" thread and share a treasure with us. :)

tcadwall
03-21-2007, 06:36 AM
Seriously, The D50 is great, the only camera better is the D200 Well, the D80 is definitely a great choice over the D40[x]. Not sure why one would say the only step up from a D50 is a D200 ;)

There are two valid cameras in between the D50 and D200 - the D70s and the D80.

Yes, the reason that noone pushed the D80 is because it seemed like you were really trying to stay in a budget. The D50 or D70s with their "close-out" prices, really are worth looking at.

I think you will like the 18-200mm (especially if you aren't shooting indoor sports) everyone is different. I like it for all but my indoor sports. The aperture limitations just do not allow for good results with fast moving indoor lighting and a flash is not allowed for sports in most cases.

I started using DSLR's with the D70s and the 18-200mm. It is a great lens for most situations, allows you to pack light, and also will allow you to determine what focal range you shoot the most. If you later find you might like better results for certain situations in a particular focal length, you can then add a prime or faster zoom to handle those situations.

The VR is truely not a gimmick. It does wonders.