Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x

[sabbath999]

I may be wrong, but I think there are only a couple of types of Nikon lenses that cannot or SHOULD not be mounted on the D40/D40x.

One type is the old fisheyes where the lens extends back into the body... this requires a camera (like the Nikon F that they were designed to fit) with a dedicated mirror lock up. Mounting one of these on your D40/D40x will destroy the lens or the body, or more likely both.

The only other lenses that I know of were some of the weird Pronea lenses from the early 2000's that were Pronea specific... the ones that recessed into the camera body.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

. I just bought a Nikon D40, like, two days ago. I've heard alot about the lens limitations on the '40, and was really surprised when the old lenses from my Nikon F301 fitted perfectly. They didn't autofocus, but they never did on my F301 either.

In my opinion, the D40 never was designed to beat the crap out of every other DSLR, and the reason it has these lens limitations is because of the size of the thing! I mean, it's tiny. And if all you're ever going to do with an SLR is make a couple of A4-size prints, play around, and show your photos to friends and family, a Nikon D40 is perfect for that. If you're really thinking of making photography into a job, then you'll have done your homework and know that a D80 would be a better choice.

The lens limitations you talk of are really only a matter if you're looking to go pro. IMO, a 18-55mm macro lens and a 55-200mm long telephoto lens is perfect for almost all of my situations. Admittedly, it focuses a bit slow, but I find ways around that.

And, of course, there's that classic saying the pretty much sums it all up in a sentence: The camera doesn't make the photograph, the photographer does.

If you've got talent, you don't need top-of the range lenses. It might not look as good as if it was taken with a better lens, but it'll look a million times better than a photo taken with a top-of the range lens but taken by a complete idiot.

 

[Tayfun]

More types of Nikon lenses can be mounted on the D40 and D40x than on any other Nikon digital camera, including the D300 and D3, as far as I know. The only thing is that they may be manual focus, or manual focus and manual exposure, only. This is not always a problem.

Best,
Helen

Yes Helen you are right may be all of the nikon lenses are compatible by D40/40x and I respect to large lens choice of Canon and Nikon. But in D40/40X maybe manual focusing can be enjoyable for many people but if you have no choice of autofocusing, it is ridiculous. There are other oportunities of Nikon it is all right, but not for D40/40X. If D40/40X is a model to be compete by Pentax or other same price cameras, it is a looser. I forced myself to buy it but couldn't find any reason not to buy Pentax. But only talking about D40/40X not complete Nikon models.

Best Wishes.

 

[NateS]

I see all these people talking about manual focusing not being much of an issue. I'd love to see some of you try and take a picture of a 4-12 month old baby at f1.8 using manual focus. I had a hard time getting good shots with autofocus the way my son bounces and "wabbles". The kit lens, while good quality for what it is, has absolutely horrible bokeh in my opinion. If you are going to do any subject isolation (whatever you can with that lens) then the bokeh isn't going to look great in many situtations and that can ruin a picture in my opinion.

My biggest problem with the D40/D40x is the fact that the release of these two cameras caused (to my knowledge) the discontinuation of the D50/D70/D70s all of which are better camera's in my opinion than the D40(x).

 

[petey]

In my opinion, the D40 never was designed to beat the crap out of every other DSLR, and the reason it has these lens limitations is because of the size of the thing! I mean, it's tiny.

Much quieter too.

People just don't like the annoying sound of a motor during a shoot.

They get all dressed up and pay their hard earned money.

The least we could do for them is to keep things quiet and peaceful.

 

[adolan20]

I love my D40x. It's small, works well, and even though I have to buy AF-S lenses to autofocus, there are still plenty of lenses to choose from. Also, I'm sure Nikon and other lens manufacturers will come out with more.

 

[ShaneAR]

... I knew about the camera not being able to meter and so I purchased a second hand Gossen Luna Pro incident light meter from ebay for $28.00.

Ordy

Sorry to jump in here, but I hadn't read this thread in a while and just noticed the above comment.

Is he referring to it not metering at all or not metering well??that comment left me confused as my D40 meters fine (based on my all of 3 months photography experience )

 

[LoKaM]

Just want to add my two cents.

I recently bought a D40 with the kit 18-55mm AF Lens and I couldn't be more pleased. It's nice, light and small, and suits my beginner needs perfectly.

If the lens limitation ever become a problem for my photography needs, I will just buy another body, since I will probably need one at that point anyway.

 

[sabbath999]

Sorry to jump in here, but I hadn't read this thread in a while and just noticed the above comment.

Is he referring to it not metering at all or not metering well??that comment left me confused as my D40 meters fine (based on my all of 3 months photography experience )

Using old manual lenses, which fit just fine on the camera, it does not meter at all.

 

[shivaswrath]

you should try the new 18-55 kit lens with VR, great shots in low light situations, just got released. . .

Just want to add my two cents.

I recently bought a D40 with the kit 18-55mm AF Lens and I couldn't be more pleased. It's nice, light and small, and suits my beginner needs perfectly.

If the lens limitation ever become a problem for my photography needs, I will just buy another body, since I will probably need one at that point anyway.

 

[sabbath999]

you should try the new 18-55 kit lens with VR, great shots in low light situations, just got released. . .

Do you have it?

I would be very interesting in hearing a detailed review of this lens... I wonder if the image quality is the same, better or worse than the standard kit lens.

I am a BIG fan of VR.

 

[Coldow91]

Based on his sig he does. I am wondering how this lens compares to the kit lens as well.

 

[Mav]

Despite the OP's viewpoint which I respect, there are still a good number of beginners and other D40 owners here (perhaps even a majority?) who bought the D40 and have no regrets. It's a great little camera at a great price, and it's incredibly easy to use. Like some of them said, if it wasn't for the D40 they might not have ever gotten into photography in the first place.

Just my $0.02 on some of the points that have been made...


"If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there."

A few people made this point. The mere fact that you now have a DSLR class camera with the D40 means you get:

- super fast focusing
- far more resolution
- 2.5 fps, and it will re-focus and re-meter each frame
- clean iso800, and completely usable iso1600. No P&S can touch this.
- iso3200 when you need it. Again, no P&S can touch this.
- the ability to use external flashes for bouncing, which most P&S's don't let you do.
- the ability to switch lenses and choose among many, despite no AF on some of them.
- The D40 specifically has 1/500s flash sync, which is extremely important for outdoor action in the sun. This is better than any current Nikon DSLR, including the $5000 D3.
- depth of field control. Even with the 18-55, you still have far more depth of field control than a P&S.

You get all this just for getting a DSLR and I haven't even started on the lens issues yet. Considering you can get a basic D40/18-55 kit for only a little bit more money than one of the "prosumer" P&S cameras out there, I'd say the D40 is an incredible value. And judging by the sales figures and the fact that Nikon has passed Canon in Japan as far as DSLR marketshare thanks to the D40, I'd say that the consumer buying public generally agrees.


"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."

Easy, just focus to infinity and you'll nail it.

You really DON'T need AF all the time. I put my 10.5mm fisheye on my D40 all the time and get a lot of great photos with it. The depth of field is so huge with the fisheye even wide-open at f/2.8 that you can pretty much just park the focusing ring at 6 feet / infinity and everything is in focus. Wide angle lenses are also incredibly easy to manually focus. Putting my 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, or 85mm f1.8 on my D40 and trying to manually focus for wide-open shots, yes that's a bit harder, particularly if the subject is moving. But guess what? Even my D80 with the same exact lenses can have trouble keeping moving things in focus on a prime wide-open. Duh, because you have a tiny depth of field and a moving target at close range. That's why you stop down. I gave up on trying to keep my 9 month old in focus as she's moving about and usually shoot my 50mm lens at about f/4 now.

You don't neeeeeeeeeeeed AF support just to enjoy primes. My 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest and contrastiest lens that I own. Images look fantastic with it straight off the camera, and it's one of the few lenses I own that really doesn't need any post processing or sharpening done to the images straight off the camera. I have DxO with its calibrated module, and guess what? There's no distortion to correct, and no sharpening that needs to be added. It basically does nothing besides what ever other things I might do to images on my own. It's incredible, all for 100 bucks! You're only really asking for trouble when you try to shoot at larger apertures than f/2.8, at which point the modern focusing screens stop showing any differences. No problem. Get one of these K3 screens that Helen will hopefully post the goods on, or the Katz Eye screen. I'm seriously tempted to do this on my D40 because I love it. Ultra small and lightweight primes along with the ultra small and lightweight D40 body is the perfect combination.


"It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens."

Again, manually focusing is not impossible. And just because you have a prime doesn't mean you MUST shoot it wide-open. f/2.8 and smaller apertures you can get good results, while still enjoying the benefits of primes. I've tried it and done it. And not ALL non AF-S lenses are a burden to autofocus. The 10.5mm fisheye is brainlessly simple, as will be most wide-angles. Even telephotos might not be so bad provided you're zoomed in enough to fill the viewfinder. And as some others pointed out, manually focusing is actually preferred for macro photography. I wouldn't hesitate to pickup a used 55 or 60mm f/2.8 micro lens and plop it on the D40 and manually focus.

You can still get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you want a large aperture prime, and a whole ton of other Sigma HSM lenses. There's tons of great Nikon AF-S lenses out there that are affordable ($500 or less) like the 18-135, this new 18-55VR, and the 70-300VR. Just over that range is the 18-200VR. Want f/2.8 zoom lenses? You can get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM for well under $500. The D40 is a huge seller, and the 3rd party lens makers know this, and more and more "AF-S equivalent" lenses are coming out all the time. I'm sure Nikon will eventually offer more AF-S lenses as well, particularly primes, but you can't re-build your entire lens lineup overnight.

Basic D40 kits are being sold in the upper-$400 range right now (just checked B&H, $469.95). That's not a whole lot more money than the more advanced P&S's out there and you get FAR more capability. It's an outstanding value, which is why so many people buy them, and have no regrets even in spite of some of its limitations.


"I always urge everyone to stay away from [kit lenses]... 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."

This is OT, but I started with an 18-55 kit lens, think it's a great little lens, and have a ton of great photos to show for it where people honestly couldn't believe that I took it with the cheap crappy kit lens of all things. I hardly shoot with it anymore because now I have other lenses with either more range, or more speed, but it doesn't mean it's not a good lens. The 18-55 is perfectly capable of making thousands of great photos.
Here are just three of many great photos that I've taken with the cheap crappy 18-55 kit lens. :mrgreen:

By the way, the one with my daughter on a swing was made possible thanks to the D40's 1/500s flash sync. I tried the same shot with my D80 which only does 1/200s flash sync, and at that crappy slow flash sync speed it just couldn't fill in the deep shadow on her face from the mid-day sun (flash power becomes more efficient at higher sync speeds). I had to toss every single photo from the D80 just for that reason alone, and it's one of the best features of the D40, and one of the things I hate the most about my D80. The 400D/XTi is no better than my D80 at 1/200s flash sync. I've thought about selling my D40 a few times to fund some glass, but it's just such a great little camera, and the fast flash sync speed is insanely useful, so I've held onto it for that among other reasons. As a sidenote, the D40x only does 1/200s flash syncing, which is one of the reasons I got the D40 and not the "x". Cleaner high ISO performance from fewer MP's on the sensor was another.

~~~~~~~

I think warning people about the limitations of the camera is a great idea. But at the end of the day people will decide on their own if these limitations matter to them or not. As Helen stated, there are many different kinds of beginners, so there really isn't a one size fits all answer. There are many different forms of photography, people will be looking to do a zillion different things with their cameras, and depending on all of those, the limitations may or may not matter. I do not see FLOODS of disgruntled D40 owners pouring onto forums complaining about what they could have researched and figured out beforehand, which tells me that most 40 owners are probably pretty darned pleased with their cameras. I know I am!

 

[ghpham]

You nailed it pretty good.

Despite the OP's viewpoint which I respect, there are still a good number of beginners and other D40 owners here (perhaps even a majority?) who bought the D40 and have no regrets. It's a great little camera at a great price, and it's incredibly easy to use. Like some of them said, if it wasn't for the D40 they might not have ever gotten into photography in the first place.

Just my $0.02 on some of the points that have been made...


"If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there."

A few people made this point. The mere fact that you now have a DSLR class camera with the D40 means you get:

- super fast focusing
- far more resolution
- 2.5 fps, and it will re-focus and re-meter each frame
- clean iso800, and completely usable iso1600. No P&S can touch this.
- iso3200 when you need it. Again, no P&S can touch this.
- the ability to use external flashes for bouncing, which most P&S's don't let you do.
- the ability to switch lenses and choose among many, despite no AF on some of them.
- The D40 specifically has 1/500s flash sync, which is extremely important for outdoor action in the sun. This is better than any current Nikon DSLR, including the $5000 D3.
- depth of field control. Even with the 18-55, you still have far more depth of field control than a P&S.

You get all this just for getting a DSLR and I haven't even started on the lens issues yet. Considering you can get a basic D40/18-55 kit for only a little bit more money than one of the "prosumer" P&S cameras out there, I'd say the D40 is an incredible value. And judging by the sales figures and the fact that Nikon has passed Canon in Japan as far as DSLR marketshare thanks to the D40, I'd say that the consumer buying public generally agrees.


"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."

Easy, just focus to infinity and you'll nail it.

You really DON'T need AF all the time. I put my 10.5mm fisheye on my D40 all the time and get a lot of great photos with it. The depth of field is so huge with the fisheye even wide-open at f/2.8 that you can pretty much just park the focusing ring at 6 feet / infinity and everything is in focus. Wide angle lenses are also incredibly easy to manually focus. Putting my 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, or 85mm f1.8 on my D40 and trying to manually focus for wide-open shots, yes that's a bit harder, particularly if the subject is moving. But guess what? Even my D80 with the same exact lenses can have trouble keeping moving things in focus on a prime wide-open. Duh, because you have a tiny depth of field and a moving target at close range. That's why you stop down. I gave up on trying to keep my 9 month old in focus as she's moving about and usually shoot my 50mm lens at about f/4 now.

You don't neeeeeeeeeeeed AF support just to enjoy primes. My 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest and contrastiest lens that I own. Images look fantastic with it straight off the camera, and it's one of the few lenses I own that really doesn't need any post processing or sharpening done to the images straight off the camera. I have DxO with its calibrated module, and guess what? There's no distortion to correct, and no sharpening that needs to be added. It basically does nothing besides what ever other things I might do to images on my own. It's incredible, all for 100 bucks! You're only really asking for trouble when you try to shoot at larger apertures than f/2.8, at which point the modern focusing screens stop showing any differences. No problem. Get one of these K3 screens that Helen will hopefully post the goods on, or the Katz Eye screen. I'm seriously tempted to do this on my D40 because I love it. Ultra small and lightweight primes along with the ultra small and lightweight D40 body is the perfect combination.


"It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens."

Again, manually focusing is not impossible. And just because you have a prime doesn't mean you MUST shoot it wide-open. f/2.8 and smaller apertures you can get good results, while still enjoying the benefits of primes. I've tried it and done it. And not ALL non AF-S lenses are a burden to autofocus. The 10.5mm fisheye is brainlessly simple, as will be most wide-angles. Even telephotos might not be so bad provided you're zoomed in enough to fill the viewfinder. And as some others pointed out, manually focusing is actually preferred for macro photography. I wouldn't hesitate to pickup a used 55 or 60mm f/2.8 micro lens and plop it on the D40 and manually focus.

You can still get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you want a large aperture prime, and a whole ton of other Sigma HSM lenses. There's tons of great Nikon AF-S lenses out there that are affordable ($500 or less) like the 18-135, this new 18-55VR, and the 70-300VR. Just over that range is the 18-200VR. Want f/2.8 zoom lenses? You can get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM for well under $500. The D40 is a huge seller, and the 3rd party lens makers know this, and more and more "AF-S equivalent" lenses are coming out all the time. I'm sure Nikon will eventually offer more AF-S lenses as well, particularly primes, but you can't re-build your entire lens lineup overnight.

Basic D40 kits are being sold in the upper-$400 range right now (just checked B&H, $469.95). That's not a whole lot more money than the more advanced P&S's out there and you get FAR more capability. It's an outstanding value, which is why so many people buy them, and have no regrets even in spite of some of its limitations.


"I always urge everyone to stay away from [kit lenses]... 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."

This is OT, but I started with an 18-55 kit lens, think it's a great little lens, and have a ton of great photos to show for it where people honestly couldn't believe that I took it with the cheap crappy kit lens of all things. I hardly shoot with it anymore because now I have other lenses with either more range, or more speed, but it doesn't mean it's not a good lens. The 18-55 is perfectly capable of making thousands of great photos.
Here are just three of many great photos that I've taken with the cheap crappy 18-55 kit lens. :mrgreen:

By the way, the one with my daughter on a swing was made possible thanks to the D40's 1/500s flash sync. I tried the same shot with my D80 which only does 1/200s flash sync, and at that crappy slow flash sync speed it just couldn't fill in the deep shadow on her face from the mid-day sun (flash power becomes more efficient at higher sync speeds). I had to toss every single photo from the D80 just for that reason alone, and it's one of the best features of the D40, and one of the things I hate the most about my D80. The 400D/XTi is no better than my D80 at 1/200s flash sync. I've thought about selling my D40 a few times to fund some glass, but it's just such a great little camera, and the fast flash sync speed is insanely useful, so I've held onto it for that among other reasons. As a sidenote, the D40x only does 1/200s flash syncing, which is one of the reasons I got the D40 and not the "x". Cleaner high ISO performance from fewer MP's on the sensor was another.

~~~~~~~

I think warning people about the limitations of the camera is a great idea. But at the end of the day people will decide on their own if these limitations matter to them or not. As Helen stated, there are many different kinds of beginners, so there really isn't a one size fits all answer. There are many different forms of photography, people will be looking to do a zillion different things with their cameras, and depending on all of those, the limitations may or may not matter. I do not see FLOODS of disgruntled D40 owners pouring onto forums complaining about what they could have researched and figured out beforehand, which tells me that most 40 owners are probably pretty darned pleased with their cameras. I know I am!

 

[shivaswrath]

Hey Sabbath,
Yeah, I do have it, been taking some great practice pictures around town and in the house, SO NICE to have a lens that covers a more "versatile" range; only having the 55-200 though forced me to be creative, I have become lazy.

So far, I think it's just a great upgrade to the ranted/raved kit lens, with the additional benefits of easier shots at night from the VR. . .I'll post up pictures showing a diversity of shots once it actually clears up around here and there is some sun and foliage/landscape (CT and NY have been ugly lately). . .

If you are in the area, you can definitely stop by and check it out/try it out. . .I'm not sure where you live. . .you did inspire the purchase, suggesting I get a used kit lens way back when, so since you saved me $300 (I was considering the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM at $500), it's the least I can do

Do you have it?

I would be very interesting in hearing a detailed review of this lens... I wonder if the image quality is the same, better or worse than the standard kit lens.

I am a BIG fan of VR.