Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x

[Don Simon]

mind you that's why the Pentax bodies are A LOT heavier than the D40. . .

Without lens or battery, the K100d is just under 100g heavier than the D40. I don't know if I'd consider that a LOT. The D50 came in near the K100d's weight, the D70 exceeded it, and I don't recall too many Nikonians complaining that either was unbearably heavy. No, the K100d is heavier mostly because of the shake reduction system (the K110d, without shake-reduction, actually weighs only 9g more than the D40... and retains a top LCD and an autofocus motor). In use either Pentax will however be heavier due to using AA batteries. But my point is not about how good a Pentax is or how well it compares to Nikon, that's not what this thread is about... my point is, an AF motor really does not add that much weight. It's a cost-cutting thing, why pretend it's anything else?

I agree we shouldn't tell people "Don't buy the D40", you should simply point out the potential limitations. But is it really going to put people off photography? No, at worst it puts people off a Nikon D40. There are other cheap entry-level bodies which buyers can consider, including Nikon's very own D50 (as Sabbath999 recommended) which I still see on sale in several places.

 

[sabbath999]

Without lens or battery, the K100d is just under 100g heavier than the D40.

Not to be picky or anything, but what use is a K100d without a battery?

Body only comparisons make sense (lens weight is always going to be variable with different brands), but neither the K100d or the D40/D40x will work without batteries... so it seems to me that the only weight that really matters is body weight with batteries and memory cards included.

 

[petey]

There are other cheap entry-level bodies which buyers can consider, including Nikon's very own D50 (as Sabbath999 recommended) which I still see on sale in several places.

The huge difference is in size/weight and sound.

 

[Battou]

I agree that they are not likely have a collection of lenses, but disagree about the lack of availability of them. High quality manual focus Nikon primes that will work surprisingly well on the D40/D40x are comparatively easy to come by in every part of the world I have worked in, and cheap for what they are. (Nikon and Canon are different in that respect, because of Canon's change of lens mount, and because Nikon was by far the dominant pro brand at one time.) The old manual focus primes will not suit every beginner, of course - I'm not trying to suggest that, I'm just trying to give information to help beginners make their own minds up.

Good luck,
Helen

Oh yeah, I am well aware of the difference in availability of lenses between N&C. As a Canon carrier I search up and down looking for glass here locally, I have to go to the Antique shop not far from where I live to find anything, and find little more than Nikon equipment. Not every city has a camera shop or a place where camera shop owners can sell their equipment outside the shop.

When there is a beginner who lives in a city that has such places where they could upgrade and/or get glass and advice with ease, Yeah there should not be a problem with the body. However for those who live out in the boonies or small cities and don't have access to equipment shops aside from internet, this camera should be out of the question. They would be better served to get a prolevel camera, Should they decide to pursue photography further and more seriously this will be an advantage to them as they won't need to travel to find a place to replace gear and/or pay ridiculous shipping costs all over again, and if not they could always phence it for a decent price or use it for snap shots. I agree with you on the fact that old manual focus primes will not suit every beginner, that is all the more reason for beginners outside of places with knowledgeable shops not to go with this. If you have no place to go for face to face advice on how to use it regularly, they are boned until they figure it out even if they do have access to the equipment.

Entry level equipment is only as good as the users ability to upgrade it, be it glass or bodies, regardless of quality in manufacturing or out put.

 

[Alpha]

This is silly. The D40 is not a pro camera. Take it for what it is: a well-priced DSLR that is largely so well priced because of its limited capabilities. You're fooling yourself to think otherwise.

I couldn't agree with you more, Max. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[Don Simon]

Not to be picky or anything, but what use is a K100d without a battery?

Body only comparisons make sense (lens weight is always going to be variable with different brands), but neither the K100d or the D40/D40x will work without batteries... so it seems to me that the only weight that really matters is body weight with batteries and memory cards included.

Sabbath... Fair point, and I did say it would weigh more "in use" for that exact reason. But again I wasn't trying to compare weight just for the sake of comparing weight or to say they were a similar weight. I was responding to a specific claim that it was the AF motor which made a Pentax dSLR weigh more than the D40 - I was pointing out that this was clearly not the case, and suggesting that the removal of the AF motor is a cost-cutting measure more than anything else.

The huge difference is in size/weight and sound.

Again I guess it depends on your definition of "huge". The D50 is 100g heavier than a D40 and a bit larger. It's not exactly a D2X or a Mamiya. From that perspective I can't imagine a situation in which I'd think "I couldn't possibly carry a D50 round... but a D40 would be just fine!" Pocket-sized or not, you still have to put a lens on it. As for sound, I didn't consider the D50 all that loud... and I certainly wouldn't consider the Canon XTi/400D a loud camera. The XTi's dimensions are virtually identical to the D40 and it weighs only slightly more.

Obviously it depends on your priorities. For Sabbath999 it seems the huge difference is in compatibility and limitations. For me as well that would be more important than having a camera that's a bit smaller and lighter, and a lot more important than the relative amount of sound it makes. For you those things may be more important. So there's obviously a place for the D40 and photographers who are grateful for what it offers. My point was that it's not like the D40 is the only small and affordable entry-level dSLR. Yes some other ones are a bit larger and heavier but it's still only relative (they're all heavier than a point-&-shoot, and all lighter than a mid or pro-level dSLR). So I don't understand this idea that's going around of the D40 being the great democratic dSLR without which people would be unable to take an interest in photography points to Nikon for marketing anyway

 

[shivaswrath]

interesting points on the K100d, I sincerely thought the weight came from the AF no the SR - the AA battery was also a turn off for me, the local camera guy pointed that out quick when I was comparing the two. . .having AF built in would be so nice though, but I'm sure whatever AF-S lenses I'm saving up for now will pay dividends when I upgrade to a D200/300, etc. down the line. . .

 

[sabbath999]

(clipped) but I'm sure whatever AF-S lenses I'm saving up for now will pay dividends when I upgrade to a D200/300, etc. down the line. . .

As long as they are the better ones (i.e. not the 55-200 VR, etc) you are absolutely right.

 

[shivaswrath]

As long as they are the better ones (i.e. not the 55-200 VR, etc) you are absolutely right.

I hear you! I'm considering selling it soon actually, it's a great starter lens for outdoor photography, but anything indoors/low lighting, I've found myself messing with metering and exposure comp's and taking about 2 dozen shots before I get it right. . .I just might have to get a used kit lens, anyone selling?

 

[miky360]

someone sticky this, this is great

 

[JerryPH]

I've found myself messing with metering and exposure comp's and taking about 2 dozen shots before I get it right. . .I just might have to get a used kit lens, anyone selling?

Thats not the camera's fault, but the person behind the lens. The fact that it takes you 24 shots before getting it right points to that. It's just a question of experience, thats all. Knowing how and what to do and applying it... means you would get it from the first shot... or not more than 1-2 shots into it.

I am sure in time you will be able to evaluate a scene, preset the camera in a few seconds and be spot on, or VERY near first time out. That's what expereince and concerted practice will do for you.

As far as kit lenses... even for a stark raving newbie, I would suggest not going for kit lenses. They are "affordable" for a reason... their performance is nowhere near as good as what one could get for that extra $100-$150 for a better lens. About the only exception to that would be the 18-200 VR (and then, not by any great amount).

I always urge everyone to stay away from them... unless they really do not care about getting pictures any better than most low end P&S cameras can do out of the box. Everyone that I know that has ever invested in one and developed more than a passing interest in photography are always sorry for doing that and always wish they had put the money into a better lens from the start.

It is good to learn from your mistakes, but it is smarter to learn from the mistakes of others.

 

[bmwardo]

Interesting thread, I am trying to absorb all the info but it brings up some excellent points and things for me to consider.

 

[shivaswrath]

Thats not the camera's fault, but the person behind the lens. The fact that it takes you 24 shots before getting it right points to that. It's just a question of experience, thats all. Knowing how and what to do and applying it... means you would get it from the first shot... or not more than 1-2 shots into it.

lol, I heard a smacking sound from that comment
seriously though, you are right, my newness to this realm is my shortcoming for sure. . .

are the kit lenses that bad? it's so funny to see SUCH polarizing opinions on them!

that made me feel better for getting the d40x body only! much like my body selection, I'm going to a local store to see how the Sigma 18-50 HSM MACRO, 30mm f/1.4 HSM, and other goodies pan out. . .used Nikkors in those ranges are wicked expensive. . .

And while I shop, I'll continue to practice and learn the art of metering and exposure :thumbup:

 

[Helen B]

I've just found out that you can cut a Nikon K3 focusing screen down to fit the D40, and it is very easy to change. You don't need to make the little tab - you can just cut it down to a plain rectangle. The K3 is the $30 screen with the split-image rangefinder prisms. It improves manual focusing and has no effect on any other functions. I can provide more details if anyone wants them.

I'll cut another one down for a friend, and take pictures.

Best,
Helen

 

[thefizzle]

helen, i'd be interested in seeing that.