PDA

View Full Version : Hard choice for me D70s or D40



anco85
08-09-2007, 05:53 AM
Ok, so while ive been looking for a dslr to buy, I decide on the d40 with it lens. I was pretty certain what I wanted and along comes some guy with a 2nd hand d70s with a 18-55 lens for $200 less than the D40

What now?

Heres some observations I have made.

The D40 is brand new from a retailer with waaranty and all.

The D40 has a larger lcd, I know this isnt important on a slr, but it makes you feel warm inside looking at the 400d'rs with their tiny erm screens

The D40 is easier to use

The D70 is well, a freakin D70!

The D70 uses the compact flash cards( I do NOT have one) and the D40 uses sd card( I have a 1gig, 128mb, 64mb and 16mb sd cards so I wouldnt need to buy a new card)

Bear in mind that Ill be sticking to the kit lens and the lack of the af motor on the D40 does not bother me

Rooz
08-09-2007, 06:40 AM
tough one.

$200 is a fair whack....almost a 55-200VR. how many shutter actuations on the d70 and is it from someone you trust ? the d40 i imagine would have quite a bit better iso performance if thats important to you. i'd imagine its chip would be better aswell for IQ. the d40 also has a larger and brighter viewfinder and at the end of the day the d70s only has 5 AF pts vs 3 AF points...not a big difference.

personally i'd go with the d40 i think...but then again,..the d70s has that top lcd panel i love...sheesh, hard to call.

anco85
08-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Now imagine how hard it is for me, haha

I also LOVE the lcd on top, but iso performance is really important to mean as I do alot of event coverage at night clubs with horrible lighting.

Ive never met the guy before, and he lives about 1300km away from me, I do have family in the area though.

On the other hand $200 is alot of money.

Im still feeling the D40 though

K1W1
08-09-2007, 07:10 AM
I assume it's a D70 not a D70s.
If that's the case I personally would go for the D40. Two hundred bucks is a lot of money but any occurrence or reoccurrence of BGLOD would cost you the $200 and you would still have a D70.

anco85
08-09-2007, 07:21 AM
No its the D70S

what/who is BGLOD

Rooz
08-09-2007, 07:24 AM
Ive never met the guy before, and he lives about 1300km away from me.

i'd pass then. its no different from buying a 2nd hand body off ebay.

anco85
08-09-2007, 07:30 AM
Ive never gotten something from ebay before, import costs are to high.

I family lives very close to the guy and can pick up the cam for me, im just affraid of buying a dud or a cam thats worse than the d40

Donato777
08-09-2007, 09:37 AM
If I were in your shoes, I would stick with the D40 if only for your peace of mind. You will get a brand new camera with the latest SLR technology, a nice bright LCD and a camera that has received excellent reviews all around. I would only take the D70s if I really needed to save money. JM2C.

anco85
08-09-2007, 09:42 AM
okie dokie. D40, here I come

toriaj
08-09-2007, 11:37 AM
Just a comment about your SD cards ... even if you shoot JPG, the only card on the list you'll really want to use is the 1 gig card. If you shoot jpg at large/fine resolution, you can only get about 35 pics on the 128mb card. (Although, I guess that's still bigger than a roll of film ... puts that in perspective!:rolleyes:) I started out with a 512mb card, and when I began using RAW and could only get 68 pictures on it, I bought a 2gig. I still keep the 512mb card in my bag though, it has saved me a couple of times when SOMEONE left my 2gig card in the computer (that evil little guy again. How can we send him over to POTN???:D)

TNB
08-09-2007, 12:31 PM
Ive never gotten something from ebay before, import costs are to high.

I family lives very close to the guy and can pick up the cam for me, im just affraid of buying a dud or a cam thats worse than the d40
Then why not ask your family to check out the camera first?

tcadwall
08-09-2007, 06:53 PM
Well,

I am a bit suprised by the responses. For me it would be a no-brainer D70s over the D40. Maybe I am just picky. The 5 vs 3 focus points is actually big if you are shooting anything off center, vertically (depending on your focus mode). The 2 wheels for aperture and shutter speed are huge to me. I don't think the sensor is any better than the D70s. It may have different coatings but I think it is the same sensor. High ISO noise may be a bit better on the D40, but heck, it is still nothing like a p&s camera that you may be used to.

The D70s will also control and off-camera flash (sb-600 or sb-800), and yes it has the focus motor for the lenses that you might not right now realize you want. There are actually many differences between these cameras, and if you can get your hands on the D70s and it works fine, it is the better camera in my opinion. I don't intend to re-ignite the big debate but quite a few of us do prefer CF cards for their size. Memory is getting cheap enough it shouldnt be a main factor.

Of course, maybe I am old-school. To me the ease of use and capabilities of the D70s far exceed the marginal performance difference one MAY see out of the High ISO noise chart.

The D70s also seems to me to be more solid (and heavier) than the D40. I love the feel of the D70s and don't really care too much for the smallish feel to the D40.

anco85
08-10-2007, 12:57 AM
Well,
High ISO noise may be a bit better on the D40

That right there is a huge thing to me.
Covering night club events and not always being able to use the flash, I need great ISO performance.

Ill have a family member go check out the camera and take a couple of pics to send over to me. Ill post them on here fo ryou guys to have a look and then decide that way

fionndruinne
08-10-2007, 01:20 AM
I believe the D40 is substantially better at ISO 800 and 1600. Also something like camera size and weight is a subjective thing. I like my lightweight SLR, others just enjoy having a fistful.

anco85
08-10-2007, 01:35 AM
I have held the D40 before, infact im going to the same retailer this afternoon to take it for a test drive(they charged the batteries specially for me)

I LOVE how it feels specially compared to the XT( no offence to the XT, its a great camera, but the ergonomics :mad:)

fionndruinne
08-10-2007, 01:42 AM
:mad: indeed. My friend, who has an XTi, coveted my Nikon ergonomics as soon as I bought it.:D

anco85
08-10-2007, 01:53 AM
I guess they are making use of child labour in the design lab aswell now :D

achuang
08-10-2007, 06:06 AM
That right there is a huge thing to me.
Covering night club events and not always being able to use the flash, I need great ISO performance.

Ill have a family member go check out the camera and take a couple of pics to send over to me. Ill post them on here fo ryou guys to have a look and then decide that way

I'm with tcad on this one, I think the D70s would be better not because I have one and think it's great but because it can use fast primes which would suit night club events better than high ISO. Simple fast and cheap lenses like the 50 f1.8 could be autofocused on the d70s and would allow more light in since the d70s also can be used at ISO 800 and 1600 without a problem. I think that many people are too concerned about noise today. But I don't fuss about it because it's not a bad thing, a bit of grain is sometimes a nice thing. And for most practical print sizes a bit of noise is negligible. I've shot a wedding at ISO 1600 and the results were quite acceptable and some forum members have seen the shots. Go with the camera that fits you the best in both functional and physical size. Whatever you choose, enjoy the learning experience.

aparmley
08-10-2007, 06:52 AM
Well,

I am a bit suprised by the responses. For me it would be a no-brainer D70s over the D40. Maybe I am just picky. The 5 vs 3 focus points is actually big if you are shooting anything off center, vertically (depending on your focus mode). The 2 wheels for aperture and shutter speed are huge to me. I don't think the sensor is any better than the D70s. It may have different coatings but I think it is the same sensor. High ISO noise may be a bit better on the D40, but heck, it is still nothing like a p&s camera that you may be used to.

The D70s will also control and off-camera flash (sb-600 or sb-800), and yes it has the focus motor for the lenses that you might not right now realize you want. There are actually many differences between these cameras, and if you can get your hands on the D70s and it works fine, it is the better camera in my opinion. I don't intend to re-ignite the big debate but quite a few of us do prefer CF cards for their size. Memory is getting cheap enough it shouldnt be a main factor.

Of course, maybe I am old-school. To me the ease of use and capabilities of the D70s far exceed the marginal performance difference one MAY see out of the High ISO noise chart.

The D70s also seems to me to be more solid (and heavier) than the D40. I love the feel of the D70s and don't really care too much for the smallish feel to the D40.

I can not fault any of this reasoning - I totally agree.


That right there is a huge thing to me.
Covering night club events and not always being able to use the flash, I need great ISO performance.


And a very expensive lens or lenses.

You'll need a prime if you need High ISO performance and are shooting in low light with no flash. You can't use a prime on the D40(x)s because there is no focus motor built into the body. Shooting nightclub/low light action without flash is some of the most challenging things to shoot, even for a bag with $5k plus gear. I'd think that without at the very least a few fast primes you'd be SOL for most of the shots. Purchasing the D40 because of high ISO performance alone will prevent you from being able to capture what it is you want.

anco85
08-10-2007, 07:10 AM
I agree 100% with the above said. However...

1. The D70s might be cheaper, but its still 2nd hand. I might buy it and 2 days later it dies, what then? Atleast the D40 has a extensive warrenty.

2. There is no way in hell I will be carriyng a prime in a night club. Things tend to get broken and or stolen.

3. Whats the big fuss about AF? I used my dads tedelx slr for many years and those days af wasnt an option. why are people so lazy nowadays? :D

I just had a test drive with the D40, and I think thats the one i will be getting. Every second I stress about which body is a potential scorcher of a photo oppertunity I could miss.

Or maybe a Sony A100!!!! GASP!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now where is Don? :D

aparmley
08-10-2007, 07:21 AM
2. There is no way in hell I will be carriyng a prime in a night club. Things tend to get broken and or stolen.

3. Whats the big fuss about AF? I used my dads tedelx slr for many years and those days af wasnt an option. why are people so lazy nowadays? :D

I just had a test drive with the D40, and I think thats the one i will be getting. Every second I stress about which body is a potential scorcher of a photo oppertunity I could miss.


You're right. I misunderstood this whole time, :rolleyes:. Get the D40 + 18-55 kit you'll be golden. :D


Should you feel our collective advice is leading you in the wrong direction head over to the Canon DSLR forum and talk to NickCanada - he does a lot of club like shooting.

anco85
08-10-2007, 07:31 AM
No no no, I think you misunderstood me. Your advice is really really helpfull. im just one of those guys that like to have every area covered before dropping huge amounts of money (being in a 3rd world country means paying 3rd world prices)

No doubt the D70s is a GREAT camera and if I could find one in great condition (not saying this one isnt, I have sent a minion, erm I mean family member out to go give the camera a decent test drive) Id snap it up without thinking twice.

The af motor is a big +, but its not the make or break that im looking for. Now if the D70s had in body VR or came with some fast glass that wouldve swung my decision around completlly.

Unfortunattley its the warrenty and peace of mind of the D40 that has done it for me.

As for going over to the Canon dslr forum? PFFFFFTTTTT!!!! i like you guys to much :D

aparmley
08-10-2007, 08:08 AM
No no no, I think you misunderstood me. Your advice is really really helpfull. im just one of those guys that like to have every area covered before dropping huge amounts of money (being in a 3rd world country means paying 3rd world prices)

No doubt the D70s is a GREAT camera and if I could find one in great condition (not saying this one isnt, I have sent a minion, erm I mean family member out to go give the camera a decent test drive) Id snap it up without thinking twice.

The af motor is a big +, but its not the make or break that im looking for. Now if the D70s had in body VR or came with some fast glass that wouldve swung my decision around completlly.

Unfortunattley its the warrenty and peace of mind of the D40 that has done it for me.

As for going over to the Canon dslr forum? PFFFFFTTTTT!!!! i like you guys to much :D

I understand where you are coming from. My advice is this: if warranty is a major concern, I totally understand why it would be, I'd purchase a new D80. AF is pretty important. The Viewfinders of these modern prosumer DSLRs are so small and dark its very difficult to see if you have your subject infocus let alone be accurate and dependable enough to shoot at large apertures in dark venues.

anco85
08-10-2007, 08:37 AM
Hmmm, I didnt know that would have an effect. The D80 is out of the question though, its WAAAAYYYY out of my budget and its not even carried in Namibia yet. I mean, the Sony A100 has just landed here at our biggest electronic goods store :(

fionndruinne
08-10-2007, 12:44 PM
Hmm. As to the Sony, its noise performance is rather worse than either of the Nikons mentioned. I've seen some ISO 800 shots on it that looked kind of messy. As for in-body stabilization, that's a nice thing to have, but in a nightclub, where people are moving, it will do you no good at all, since it only allows for slower shutter speeds, not better low-light action performance.

The talk of primes is important, though - that 50mm f/1.8 would allow you to grab a lot more light and detail. Heck, you could even use it on the D40 with manual focus, but it's up to you.

aparmley
08-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Hmmm, I didnt know that would have an effect. The D80 is out of the question though, its WAAAAYYYY out of my budget and its not even carried in Namibia yet. I mean, the Sony A100 has just landed here at our biggest electronic goods store :(

Sorry for being so naive anco. . . I had no idea.

achuang
08-10-2007, 04:29 PM
2. There is no way in hell I will be carriyng a prime in a night club. Things tend to get broken and or stolen.



I understand the rest of your points about going with the D40, but that one doesn't really make much sense. A prime lens is typically smaller than their zoom lens counterpart, especially a lens like the 50mm f1.8 which is smaller than any zoom lens available and far cheaper. So a small prime lens will be less obvious and not shouting "steal me" as much as a larger lens.

tcadwall
08-11-2007, 01:26 PM
I haven't been so active lately, been too busy.

Honestly though you are receiving good advice. IMO if you really are trying to focus on low-light action shots (nightclub lighting and action) you really need to have prime lenses and auto focus. You can sell yourself on high-ISO noise performance all you want, but without the large aperture lenses (most of which will not AF on the D40) then you are going to have a lot of blurry shots. Or they will be under-exposed enough that the difference in High-ISO performance won't be enough. They will still be noisy.

It is important to understand what the limitations are going to be - especially if you are making a purchase that is hard for you to justify to begin with. Your expectations need to be in line with what you are going to get. IOW you may want to save up and get the D80 if you want both better highISO performance AND the capability to use lenses that will be necessary to capture the shots that you are trying to capture. Here the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is only around $100. That may not be the perfect focal range for you, but it will be better to zoom with your feet than using a slower zoom. Trying to manually focus in that kind of atmosphere will be challenging with the DSLR size view-finder. This too was already addressed by others. We could try to sell you on a D2Xs since the viewfinder is better... :D Oh wait, then you wouldn't have to worry - it would autofocus for you.

XaiLo
08-11-2007, 04:43 PM
tcadwall, I agree with you in principle, but let me describe a shoot I had a couple of months ago. I had a photo shoot at a club of sorts and to be honest I could not have gotten this shot theattic (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=243640&postcount=2006) with a 50mm lens. Sometimes I believe we generalize shooting situations too much.

Now while I would have been able to get a shot with a 50mm it just would not have been this one, because there was a mass of tightly packed tables between myself and the stage. I have no idea how the waitress made it through the maze. I would have been in a lot of peoples way trying to get this done with a 50mm lens. So I had to shoot at least 25ft away to get a frontal shot. Light is not the only thing to contend with in a club atmosphere. I'd never been to this place before and my client didn't inform my there would be that much distance between me and the stage. lol

tcadwall
08-11-2007, 05:26 PM
Xailo,

Come on... Really.

That shot was taken at 200mm and f/2.8 at 1/25s...

Don't take this wrong because that is a good shot.
But what is your point? The movement in the arm strumming the guitar was seriously blurred. That is fine for the effect. The shot is exposed pretty well, since it should still resemble the dimly lit room. We can't really analyze the noise in the shot, since it is resized.

But along with the discussion here at hand... What are you trying to say?

f/2.8 is not a "slower zoom" - I am not sure what lens you are using, since your sig doesn't say what you have, and I can't find it in the exif. In any case, a zoom lens that hits 200mm f/2.8 does appear to be way out of budget.

I didn't mean to give the impression that the 50mm was all that was needed. Just that faster glass would be more important for getting the shot, than noise, which can be controlled and often repaired in post. After all - If he is looking at a 18-55mm kit lens, then he ain't going to get the shot.

Heck, a D70s, saving that money and getting faster glass... Who could disagree? fine. we all have our own opinion. I have shot with both cameras. I even recommended the D40 to a friend that didn't need more. But, it5 is a no brainer for me. If my friend was trying to shoot the kind of scenes mentioned here, I would steer him toward a camera that can maximize use of the fast glass out there. Not the glass that will be out there some day, glass that is out there now.

fionndruinne
08-11-2007, 07:27 PM
That Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM is looking pretty sweet, and at $600, well, yes, that's a little over the cost of the D40 itself, but it is hardly an over-the-top price for an f/2.8 3x lens from Sigma's EX line.

XaiLo
08-11-2007, 10:33 PM
tcadwall, I misunderstood what you meant by a slower zoom I took it to mean in relation to the speed of the 50mm, so conversely I was just trying to show you could still be limited even with a prime. Now it is apparent though that you meant a slow zoom. Sorry for the confusion. :)

anco85
08-13-2007, 07:08 AM
What I meant by not taking a prime into a night club was, they are quite expensive and itd be a greater loss if a prime breaks than just another standard lens.

Im going to see if I can get a test drive D40 and D80 and see just how much better the D80 is in these conditions

erichlund
08-13-2007, 10:48 AM
What I meant by not taking a prime into a night club was, they are quite expensive and itd be a greater loss if a prime breaks than just another standard lens.

Im going to see if I can get a test drive D40 and D80 and see just how much better the D80 is in these conditions


I don't know about the rest of you, but my primes are my least expensive lenses. The 35 f/2 was about $350, IIRC, but the other two (50mm f1.8 and 55mm f2.8 AIS micro) were substantially less expensive. There are some expensive primes, but I don't think people are really talking about those here.

I have one cheap zoom, the Tamron 75-300 (which I've replaced with the Nikkor 70-300VR), at about $120. The rest run $550 or more and top out at about $1200 for the 17-55DX f2.8.

fionndruinne
08-13-2007, 12:49 PM
50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor, $100... I'm thinking the cheapest Nikkor AF lens on the market?

And a good lens for low-light nightclubs and such wouldn't be cheaper than a prime.

Rooz
08-13-2007, 04:27 PM
What I meant by not taking a prime into a night club was, they are quite expensive and itd be a greater loss if a prime breaks than just another standard lens.

Im going to see if I can get a test drive D40 and D80 and see just how much better the D80 is in these conditions

test driving the bodies won;t make much difference. its the lens' you need to test drive.

anco85
08-14-2007, 12:44 AM
Ahhh ok, call me Sally and slap me on the butt then. I thought primes are your elite range of lenses.

I wont be able to test drive the , as I would have to import them. However I will test drive a couple bodies to see if they feel comfortable for about 8 hours straight.

I went to the club last for a pre briefing meeting, the lighting is pretty good for a club acctually and the whole roof looks like a reflective metalish covering. Flash bouncing heaven I tell you :D

Rooz
08-14-2007, 01:05 AM
Ahhh ok, call me Sally and slap me on the butt then. I thought primes are your elite range of lenses.:D

some primes are obviously very expensive eg: 85mm f1.4. for AF on the d40, then the sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM will be a great prime for you if you are able to get nice and close to the action.

anco85
08-14-2007, 01:22 AM
Heres a couple of the pics I took this weekend. Getting close to the "action" isnt all that hard, its basically just grabbing someone and tell them to smile. :D

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/London_Opening7_20070812_1000850034.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/London_Opening9_20070812_1585388662.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/London_Opening15_20070812_1456167992.jpg

These were all taken with my Canon s3. The lighting is pretty good for a club wouldnt you say?

XaiLo
08-14-2007, 04:09 AM
Those are some really decent shots anco85, you'll enjoy the results that will be possible with the D40. In general primes are rather expensive but there's a small few that are reasonable in price.:)

anco85
08-14-2007, 04:31 AM
Thank you xailo. Ill have a looksie and see more or less what price I can get some primes for

K1W1
08-14-2007, 05:34 AM
I haven't read all of this thread but just in case it hasn't already been said.
The 50mm f1.8 @ US$100 is great value BUT remember that it will not auto focus on either of the D40 bodies so grabbing that quick candid shot in club may not be that easy.

anco85
08-14-2007, 05:43 AM
I hear what your saying k1w1. I guess ill take a 350d 400d and a D40 for a test drive at the next shoot. If the D40's kit lens doesnt suffice and the canons dont feel right Ill rather save up a little more and invest in a better body


Disclaimer: Im taking the canons along as my collegues use them and I should be able to get more shoot time out of them

Rooz
08-14-2007, 06:07 AM
Disclaimer: Im taking the canons along as my collegues use them and I should be able to get more shoot time out of them

this is an important part of the puzzle that you initially left out. if your colleagues shoot canon, would it not make more sense to invest in the same system so you can share lens' ?

anco85
08-14-2007, 06:16 AM
They all shoot kit lenses, so thats why I didnt even think about it :D

aparmley
08-14-2007, 06:41 AM
They all shoot kit lenses, so thats why I didnt even think about it :D

I'm going to shock some people here.

But if its a D40(x) or a 350/400D - if those are your only two choices I'd advice you to choose the Canons over the D40(x) simply because you'll need the AF + primes. Handsdown that is the deciding factor.

Rooz
08-14-2007, 06:45 AM
I'm going to shock some people here..

you only just went from a 30d to a d80...i'd say you're making shocking people you're modus operandi mate. :D

btw: did you desat your latest flickr portrait pic in PP ? :confused:

anco85
08-14-2007, 06:47 AM
Like I said a couple of posts earlier, if the D40 doesnt do it for me with the kit lens and the 350d/400d gets uncomfortable by the 7th or 8th hour, ill rather save up a little more cash and get a d80

jcon
08-14-2007, 02:03 PM
Like I said a couple of posts earlier, if the D40 doesnt do it for me with the kit lens ....

It wont. Probably any kit lens on just about any body you are considering wont work in a club setting(without flash). You NEED a better lens than the kits.


ill rather save up a little more cash and get a d80

D80 will do you no good with a kit lens either... you will still need a good lens for this type of setting.

fionndruinne
08-14-2007, 02:16 PM
The D40 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM (an expensive but good prime lens which is fully compatible with the camera; and yeah, I remember what you said about expensive lenses) can be had for about $950 total (that's including the kit lens with the D40), which is less that you'd pay for a D80 body only.

ISO 1600 is very usable on the D40, so I think you'd find some use even with the kit lens. Now, from what I've seen you seem to get people to pose for shots, which is a lot easier to do without a fast lens, as they're still for the shot. If you're going to shoot more action-style shots in the club, then a fast lens will be necessary.

anco85
08-15-2007, 01:33 AM
jcon, I disagree with you. My coworkers all run around with 350d's with kit lenses and only 1 of them(theres 4 of us per shift) has an external flash(speedlight 440ex) and all the shots turn our great. We all know that Nikons kit lens is superior aswell

Have a look at www.namlish.com and go to photo gallery, id say about 90% of those pics are with 350d's with onboard flash.

I also found out that I will be allowed to use flash at my designated club so I will be investing in a proper flash setup. 2 SB800's and a strobe or 2

Rooz
08-15-2007, 03:10 AM
i think jcon was referring to a club with really poor lighting and/or no flash allowed, (which is normally the case). the club you seem to be photographing seems better lit and is alot more flexible with flash so like you said in that environment you won;t need to worry about it. not sure what you'd do with 2 sb-800's. i'm not sure i'd wanna be using off cam flash in that environment. the flash will either get stolen or trampled.

anco85
08-15-2007, 03:28 AM
Oh sorry, I should have been clearer on that statement.

I do the car of the month article on www.namlish.com aswell and sometimes light is less than perfect. I would use the 2nd sb800/600 for fill in flash where the main onboard sb800 cant reach

K1W1
08-15-2007, 04:35 AM
Chevy Lumina SS = rebadged Australian Holden Commodore (http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/modeloverview?modelid=4006)

Wait till you see the 2007 model, the one in your photos is a 2005 series.

anco85
08-15-2007, 04:45 AM
That is 100% correct k1w1

I have seen the 07 model and it sure is a pretty one. :D

jcon
08-15-2007, 01:15 PM
i think jcon was referring to a club with really poor lighting and/or no flash allowed, (which is normally the case).

You are correct. :D

anco85
08-16-2007, 12:49 AM
Ahh ok, the club I will be working in is pretty well lit and I will be allowed to use flash. :D

Why the hell are D80's so expensive though :confused: I know its a good camera and all, but as ive heard numerous times, most bodies are similar bar a few extra functions :confused:

fionndruinne
08-16-2007, 12:59 AM
The D80 isn't expensive, it's that the D40, XT and their ilk are very cheap. Try the handling of the D80 and you'll see that build quality has something to do with it (but not everything by any means).

DSLRs are just hella 'spensive.:cool:

anco85
08-16-2007, 01:13 AM
I got a fright when I compared the 40D's supposed RRP to what the D80 retails for, its insane.

The 40D's supposed RRP with kit lens is N$100 less than the D80 from what ive been reading.

Then again, its all just speculation on the 40D's part :rolleyes:

Rooz
08-16-2007, 02:59 AM
The 40D's supposed RRP with kit lens is N$100 less than the D80 from what ive been reading.

not a snowballs chance in hell.

anco85
08-16-2007, 03:24 AM
its all just speculation on the 40D's part :rolleyes:


Please see above quote :D

Rooz
08-16-2007, 03:30 AM
Please see above quote :D

lol but seriously...i cant understand how anyone could speculate that, it makes no sense. the 30d is currently at the rock bottom end of its price cycle and is $100 more than a d80. how could they imagine that a 40d which will enter the market at the TOP of its price cycle would be $200 LESS than the camera it is replacing ? :confused:

anco85
08-16-2007, 03:38 AM
Rumours can be an awfull thing, more often than not replacing facts with wishfull thinking.

If it were to be true though, Nikon better draw up a great strategy.

I can see the 30D dropping significantlly in price on release of the 40D.

Thatd make my life so much easier deciding on a camera :rolleyes:

K1W1
08-16-2007, 04:28 AM
how could they imagine that a 40d which will enter the market at the TOP of its price cycle would be $200 LESS than the camera it is replacing ? :confused:


Actually I can. It's more usual then not these days for the new product to start life at a lesser price than the one it replaces.
Looked at a TV lately?
Or a Computer?
Or the new iMacs released only last week?
Or the D40 compared to the D50?
Checked the price of the latest Mercedes C class compared to the model it replaces?
The list goes on.

Having said all that I have no idea what a 40D is, I've never looked at the Canon rumour mill.

anco85
08-16-2007, 04:52 AM
If it is true however, I might just pick up a 40D.

While it may not be a big step up from the 30D, its still a wonderfull camera for those that are looking at their first prosumer camera.

Have a looksie here

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33307

Rooz
08-16-2007, 05:04 AM
there is no way the the 40d gets released cheaper than a d80. ZERO chance. none, nada, zip, zilch or in the immortal words one Donnie Brascoe... forgetaboudit.

fionndruinne
08-16-2007, 05:20 PM
The reason things like TVs and computers go down in price with new models is that new technology allows for more efficient production. Sure, that happens with cameras, and did to an extent happen between the D50 and the D40, but it's not as common, and after all, the D40 is not really an upgrade on the D50, it's an update. Different things. If the D40 was an upgrade, well... it'd be a D60, not a D40.

The XTi started its life out at $999, if I remember rightly. Even more expensive at some outlets. $200-300 less than the D80 is not that much in DSLR terms, and the quality body is almost enough to warrant it.

If the 40D uses the XT's cheap plastic with no metal frame, cuts down on size and all manner of functions of the 30D, then, well yes, I could see it as ending up cheaper. But it won't happen. They made a 5D, a 10D, a 20D, a 30D... nowhere to go but up.:rolleyes:

Look for the XTi upgrade, if it ever happens (yo, Canon, your baby is becoming outdated!) to be a little cheaper, maybe. The XTz, or ZT, or ZZz, what have you, can't go too far up without bumping into 30D territory, so it will probably have some other things going for it, like cutting-edge technology, or better value.

aparmley
08-16-2007, 05:57 PM
The reason things like TVs and computers go down in price with new models is that new technology allows for more efficient production. Sure, that happens with cameras, and did to an extent happen between the D50 and the D40, but it's not as common, and after all, the D40 is not really an upgrade on the D50, it's an update. Different things. If the D40 was an upgrade, well... it'd be a D60, not a D40.

The XTi started its life out at $999, if I remember rightly. Even more expensive at some outlets. $200-300 less than the D80 is not that much in DSLR terms, and the quality body is almost enough to warrant it.

If the 40D uses the XT's cheap plastic with no metal frame, cuts down on size and all manner of functions of the 30D, then, well yes, I could see it as ending up cheaper. But it won't happen. They made a 5D, a 10D, a 20D, a 30D... nowhere to go but up.:rolleyes:

Look for the XTi upgrade, if it ever happens (yo, Canon, your baby is becoming outdated!) to be a little cheaper, maybe. The XTz, or ZT, or ZZz, what have you, can't go too far up without bumping into 30D territory, so it will probably have some other things going for it, like cutting-edge technology, or better value.

I think if you look at Nikon and Canon's History of releases (in pro-sumer bodies that is) you'll see that each generation of camera has retailed (once introduced) at least $100 sometimes $200-300 less than the generation it replaces. The D100 retailed at $1,999.99 - The D200 was what $1,599.99 maybe $1,699.99 - at the least its $300 cheaper. I think the 10D was $1,999.99 then the 20D was $1,599.99 and the 30D $1,399.99. . . I'm not 100% exact on these figures but I'm close. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 40D retail at its release in the $1,199.99-$1,299.99 range.

But, all this $1,200.00+ talk has me concerned - if you might opt for the 40D why have we all be wasting time talking about the D40x vs the XTi???

anco85
08-17-2007, 12:48 AM
I dont see it as time wasted. Ive gained some invalueable information over the last 7ish pages.

Besides, the 40D will probably on be on our shelves by next year. Ill save up the cash for it, if it ends up costing more than the "predicted" $1299-$1599
Ill get a D80+flash+glass if the price is right by that time. If not well see what I can get with that money :D