Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x

[Alpha]

I absolutely agree with you, Sabbath.

 

[JerryPH]

No, both the D3 and D300 are fully compatible with all standard AF lenses. Additionally, both can meter AF-I lenses.

Yup, and on top of that, even though the D3 is a full frame camera, it does have a lower MP mode that permits it to use DX lenses as well.

The D40 was a camera made for people who wanted a low end or beginner level dSLR. As such, Nikon had to sacrifice something to keep costs down, the location of the autofocus mechanism. When it first came out, I can see people being P/Oed at not having the range of autofocusing lenses that their D50 buddy has, but then again, they paid less. Now, Sigma alone has 7 lenses that will work with your D40 and other manufacturers have lenses for it as well, and if that is not enough for you... simply don't purchase it... or learn to manually focus your D40.

Is it a good intro level camera? yes. Is it autofocus compatibe with all lenses, no. As long as the puchaser does their homework and finds out what lenses are available for it and can make a decision knowing this, I do not see an issue.

This camera introduced a niche that other manufacturers were trying to open (entry level dSLR for the masses), and I think it did it better than anyone else.

 

[TunaMR2]

As a beginner myself, I couldn't disagree more. Sure you can only use a few lenses, but the lenses that DO work are great and have gotten good reviews and done excellent in lab tests especially at their price point. Most beginners won't be ready to get a ton of different lenses just yet, anyway. I have my 18-55 kit lens and my 55-200 VR, both of which are cheap and like I said earlier, get excellent reviews. Sure they aren't the greatest build quality like the more expensive lenses, but they're just fine for a beginner, and at their price, they're throw-aways anyway. I haven't broken any of mine yet, and if/when I do, it's only $250 for my most expensive lens that I own.

I'll upgrade eventually, but right now my D40x has been the perfect camera for this beginner.

 

[D40]

I will agree with this threads begginer, I purchased the D40 KNOWING it would need AF-S lenses but I thought at the time I would be happy with the 18-55 and 55-200. Now that I have a DSLR I have learned a lot and want to do more with Photography than what I had intended from the start. SO, I will have to upgrade my Camera body. I am hopeing for the D200 or D300 in the future. I think the biggest thing is I am missing out on a some cheap fast prime lens that people love.

 

[Alex_B]

On a side track ...

While I understand what you are saying, I would have thought that most people looking to buy a DSLR will do a large amount of research before they spend their hard earned cash

No!

Most people do not really ... I know this sounds strange, but most people buy based on advertisements, on what staff in the shops tell them and they buy what their buddy tells them to buy.

Those of us who really get informed, think about pros and cons of each candidate piece of equipment ... those of us are a rare breed.

 

[smcaskil]

I recently purchased a D40X, knowing the lens restrictions.

For me it was a good purchase because it is a major upgrade to my Olympus P&S but is something that I could afford to get and still have money to buy more lenses for later.

Eventually I am sure that I will probably want a lens that won't work on this camera and will have a real use for that kind of lens. At that point, I will have outgrown this camera in terms of skill anyway, so I won't be bothered having to purchased a more expensive body that will allow more flexibility.

But for me, the hobby photographer who just wants a good camera that does not break the bank, I think this was a good fit for me.

 

[ShaneAR]

Yep, I agree with some other comments here.

I'm new to the world of photography and dSLR. A few weeks back I purchased the D40 after a fair amount of research and I couldn't be more pleased.

I knew very well its lens limitations, and still judged it a great fit. When the time comes that I find myself NEEDING more lens choice, that would probably be the same time I would want a new camera body regardless of my current body.

Bottom line, it takes great pictures and, in my opinion, a great choice for a beginner. I think Nikon did well with the D40.

So, I understand the inital poster's reason (and he has valid points, indeed) but the title should be more of "consider this..." rather than "Don't". To assume that all beginners have the same needs and wants for their first system is simply wrong: There's not only black and white, there are shades of gray in between.

My two cents...

 

[petey]

It's cool with me if you have your own opinion. I bought my D40 not knowing a thing about taking pictures. So far it has done me well. I held on to the N60 and still use it now and then too.

I don't know enough about cameras or lenses. I like the small body a lot. I had the opportunity to buy a D50 but that thing was so bulky and loud I passed over it. Many of the pictures I have taken with the D40 have gotten rave reviews. I value the technical information and expertise you guys offer here. I'm learning a lot just lurking. That said I never want this hobby to end up on my evergrowing list of things I learned so much about I ended up forgetting how to enjoy.

Cheers,

 

[Garbz]

May I be as so bold as to suggest the word beginner be split into two categories? In this thread alone I see people who fit in both.

There are those people who are just coming into their first DSLRs who want a simple hobby to kill some time and something to do and play with. Something that doesn't end up costing them any real money, and something to keep them occupied or to capture their kids growing up, or holiday photos.

Then there's those who are looking for a starting platform to get more serious. These are the people who typically ask a lot of questions and you see them wondering how people do various things. Those people who want to do what the best of them do but simply currently lack the finance.

Now the former group will be perfectly content with the D40/x and an 18-70, and 55-200mm lens at the most. They will love the camera and never think twice about their purchase.

However if you are one of those people who have wondered what a prime lens is and why some people use them then you fall in the latter category and the D40 is a colossal waste of money. For those people who are looking for a start into a hobby that may consume parts of their lives like so many on this forum who are passionate about it the D40 is quite possibly the worst camera you could buy because of it's limitations.

Also I've seen a few of you argue you don't need AF, or as thefizzle put it AF is a luxury. That is a huge load of crap. AF is a tool in the camera. I challenge you to point your D40 with a 200mm f/2.8 at something on the horizon and get the shot in focus. AF may have been a gimmick back in the days of bright viewfinders with split prism focusing planes, but with todays crap dark small viewfinders AF is a necessity not a luxury.

 

[TunaMR2]

May I be as so bold as to suggest the word beginner be split into two categories? In this thread alone I see people who fit in both.

There are those people who are just coming into their first DSLRs who want a simple hobby to kill some time and something to do and play with. Something that doesn't end up costing them any real money, and something to keep them occupied or to capture their kids growing up, or holiday photos.

Then there's those who are looking for a starting platform to get more serious. These are the people who typically ask a lot of questions and you see them wondering how people do various things. Those people who want to do what the best of them do but simply currently lack the finance.

Now the former group will be perfectly content with the D40/x and an 18-70, and 55-200mm lens at the most. They will love the camera and never think twice about their purchase.

However if you are one of those people who have wondered what a prime lens is and why some people use them then you fall in the latter category and the D40 is a colossal waste of money. For those people who are looking for a start into a hobby that may consume parts of their lives like so many on this forum who are passionate about it the D40 is quite possibly the worst camera you could buy because of it's limitations.

Also I've seen a few of you argue you don't need AF, or as thefizzle put it AF is a luxury. That is a huge load of crap. AF is a tool in the camera. I challenge you to point your D40 with a 200mm f/2.8 at something on the horizon and get the shot in focus. AF may have been a gimmick back in the days of bright viewfinders with split prism focusing planes, but with todays crap dark small viewfinders AF is a necessity not a luxury.

I don't necessarily agree, to be quite honest. I've only been at this a few months, but I fit in to the latter group I'd say. I read a lot and try to get a better understanding of how everything works. But to me, as a beginner, I have so much more to learn about photography that right now, the D40's limitations aren't really limitations to me. The lenses I have are plenty good in quality for my skill level I think. Maybe in a year or so I'll be ready to upgrade. At which point, I'll be getting rid of a cheap camera that takes good quality pictures, 2 cheap lenses for some better quality lenses, and keeping my cheap 50mm 1.8. In the end, I don't think it will have been anything near a crippling financial hit for me to upgrade to a new body like some people are making it out to be. If you're experienced in photography and moving from film to digital, it's probably not the camera for you. If you're taking good pictures with a P&S and want to move up to a DSLR, it may or not be. If you're brand new (like me) and want to learn, it has plenty of features for you to play with and learn, and has some good, affordable lenses available, and is a very good option, IMO.

Now, do I think it's a good idea to sink a bunch of money into AF-S lenses for your D40? Probably not.

 

[Antithesis]

I will agree with this threads begginer, I purchased the D40 KNOWING it would need AF-S lenses but I thought at the time I would be happy with the 18-55 and 55-200. Now that I have a DSLR I have learned a lot and want to do more with Photography than what I had intended from the start. SO, I will have to upgrade my Camera body. I am hopeing for the D200 or D300 in the future. I think the biggest thing is I am missing out on a some cheap fast prime lens that people love.

I think the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 might be the very reason I sell my d40x to get a d80 (or a d200 if one pops up for cheap). I think in the long run, the money you can save on the cheap (yet awesome) lenses that won't auto-focus on the d40x, easily justifies the cost of the d80 or even the d200. Not to mention you can get used Nikkor AF lenses on ebay all day, but the AF-S ones are rare and expensive (unless you want the consumer lenses).

I think the d40x does have some utility in certain situations. It makes an excellent lightweight travel camera and is perfect for any situation where you want a smaller, lighter camera. It's still capable of some amazing pictures, I think you'd just have to drop the money on a higher-end lens to really utilize it. I think later in life when I have the income to justify having multiple camera bodies, I'll probably own one for traveling and street photography. In the meantime I have one for sale

 

[Jestev]

I completely agree with Sabbath. I love to use my AI and AI-S lenses on my D50, but when I do so it's in situations where a lack of AF is ok. I have a ton of AF lenses and only one (that I can remember) AF-S lens.

The D50 is a far better beginner camera than the D40/x; however, I will hand it to Nikon for making a camera that has really gained popularity. Of course, it does worry me about if they will begin making all of their camera bodies in the same fashion (w/o AF-servo).

 

[sabbath999]

Sir, you are being a Troll digging up nothing but a Cannon vs. Nikon argument. Perhaps the next mod through would be so kind as to lock this thread.

I love my D40, I will upgrade sooner rather than later, however I am sure I will keep the D40 till it dies. Lightweight, easy to use, extremely cheap. Great casual shooter.

I just noticed this particular reply, somehow I had missed it before.

Since I have a different opinion about one camera in a line of cameras... one that I own and have taken thousands of pictures with... I am a troll?

If you had bothered to read my post, which you obviously either didn't or you didn't understand what I was saying, you can see that I advised people to either buy a used D50 or a D80 in the Nikon line instead of the D40/D40X.

This has nothing to do with Canon vs. Nikon, this has to do with Nikon D40/D40X vs. Nikon D50 & D80. You did not see a bunch of glowing praise for Canon and Nikon bashing, largely because I don't care for the Canon Rebel XT/XTi very much either... I included them to show that other lower end cameras are not crippled.

Feel free to agree with me or not, like the others have. I respect THEIR opinions since they don't feel the need to call names.

Yours? Take a guess what I think of it.

 

[JIP]

Wow Sabbath we agree on something again!!!

And I agree you are no troll this is an important opinion to give to the many "what DSLR should I get" people who will not read this and will simply post again.

 

[JerryPH]

I saw it... and treated it with the respect due it... I ignored it.

I presumed that they either were insulted when faced with a true fact and sensitive to it becuase they were a D40 owner... or really did not read Sabbath's post properly.

In either case neither would have warranted a response.