Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x

[Tasmaster]

It is not a "problem", it is a limitation. The difference in wording is very very significant for beginners.

Of the 3, even if all prices were equal, I would buy the D40 first, the D60 second and the D40x last.

Tottaly agree.

2) At the time this was originally posted, the street price on the D40 was about $579. Now, you can get them factory refurbed for as little as $379. At under 400 clams, the D40 is a SCREAMING buy, even with the outlined limitations... that is cheap enough to bypass pretty much any objection I have with it...

Well, that was the point all along. I believe that the D40 has always been the cheapest DSLR around, hasn't it? Both now and back when it first appeared. No matter how cheap you buy it, this does not negate the lens limitation, however. So seemingly this goes against your OP. Not to mention that nowdays there is an extensive selection of affordable "baby" DSLRs, and beginners have a lot more choices if they don't like the lens thing.

At the end of the day, it is a compromise like everything else. The D40's limitation is a compromise for affordability (which really means for Nikon to hit a very specific and very lucrative market niche), just like Nikon's relative lack of USM lenses is a compromise for compatibility.

That's why i object to the thread's title (not to mention the "lenses won't work" thing - that's a lie as they work just fine and take great photos) and generally biased arguemnts. It can be important limitation, yes, so inform your readers about it and try to make them understand. Don't make decisions and blanket statements for them. To be tottaly honest i was very surprised to see that getting a D40 for $200 less suddenly makes it ok for you to pay $1000 more for some lenses. I know that wasn't what you meant, but it is essentially what you are saying. Compared to the strongly worded OP, it looks like a real sharp U-turn while nothing has changed on the camera itself.

 

[petey]

The beauty of the D40 is priceless.

 

[Sarah23]

Well...I looked into the D40 and the Rebel XTi when buying...and went for the XTi just because I knew I could upgrade lenses without having problems. At this point I cant spend a HUGE amount of money on photography, and until I get good, I dont think I need a "pro" camera. I would love to upgrade to a Nikon one day, but for now, being a very enthusiastic beginner, I am happy with my choice.

 

[sabbath999]

I believe that the D40 has always been the cheapest DSLR around, hasn't it? Both now and back when it first appeared. No matter how cheap you buy it, this does not negate the lens limitation, however. So seemingly this goes against your OP.

The D40, factory refurbed with a one year warranty, is now a $400 camera.

Price DOES matter when it comes to value.

At $400 for the whole kit (as opposed to $600+ if a person were to have gone into Best Buy and bought one at the time my original post was made last year) it makes the D40 in the "disposable" range... you have really "invested" very little in it the camera, and when you set it aside for a much more capable camera you have lost less...

To me, 1/3 less price on this camera is a tipping point on it... it becomes worth living with the limitations of the camera if you only pay $400 total for the whole kit, IMHO... realizing that to do more advanced work you are going to want to replace it fairly soon. You can add to the basic package the 55-200VR for only $179 smackers, get a memory card for it, and do the whole entire deal for what the camera costed at the time when I originally made that post.

With the kit lens & the excellent little 55-200 VR for 600 George, a beginner can really get his feet wet for the same cost that Best Buy would have charged for the camera alone 5 months ago. That is a big difference... and, in my mind, ENOUGH of a difference to matter.

For a lot of people, $200 is a lot of money.

Do I think it is a great cameras for beginners, from a features-standpoint? No. Do I think the lens limitations are severe? Yes.

However, for $400 clams, it is just TOO accessible for everybody to ignore (this is assuming you actually pay $400 for it, not the retail price of $549...)

Where I come from people consider it a good thing to change your mind when new information appears (with apologies to Dr. Einstein for stealing his line).

 

[Tasmaster]

Where I come from people consider it a good thing to change your mind when new information appears (with apologies to Dr. Einstein for stealing his line).

Sure it is a good thing, and i am glad that you recommend the camera. Don't get me wrong, when people ask me about the D40 or generally for an entry-level DSLR i make sure to point out the lens limitation, complete with the advice that they will need more lenses if they get into photography, and i also point out the bunch of other excellent entry level DSLR's out there and their advantages (frankly the D60 is way behind the competition in terms of features).

My point was that $200 cheaper or not, it still doesn't auto-focus with non-USM lenses, so a price drop alone shouldn't change anything. The same limitations still apply (and the cost diference for AF-S lenses compared to AF is more than $200). I don't see how anyone who wouldn't get a D40 because of the AF limitation would change their mind no matter what the price was.

As for selling the camera to replace it, a factory refurbed camera would sell for significantly less than one that was bought in mint condition, so the financial benefit is really smaller than the price difference.

I hope this makes sense, i'm kind of being the devil's advocate here.

 

[onlybo]

Yes,i totally agree it ,and if you`re a nikon fan ,you should choose D80 as your first DSLR.
and if u love the CANON band,i suggest u choose 400D or the new arrival 450D.

 

[LuisAugusto]

And if you love Minolta, then the Sony A200 (or the A300, if you want live preview).

It's just my happiness because my A200 will arrive soon

 

[Mav]

when people ask me about the D40 or generally for an entry-level DSLR i make sure to point out the lens limitation, complete with the advice that they will need more lenses if they get into photography

Not necessarily true. Being "into" photography doesn't necessarily mean that you're also going to by default want to try out a zillion different lenses. A friend of mine is into photography and you should see the stuff he cranks out with just his D50, 18-55, and 50/1.8 lenses. That's all he's got, and that's all he needs.

My point was that $200 cheaper or not, it still doesn't auto-focus with non-USM lenses, so a price drop alone shouldn't change anything. The same limitations still apply (and the cost diference for AF-S lenses compared to AF is more than $200). I don't see how anyone who wouldn't get a D40 because of the AF limitation would change their mind no matter what the price was.[/quote]Because the cheaper price now means you can spend more money on nicer glass which makes the bigger difference in the first place. Yeah AF-S glass is more expensive, but in almost all cases you're getting far more than just AF-S. Image quality is almost always a lot better. The $500 70-300VR blows the older 70-300 lenses away in terms of overall image quality and usability. You'd be much better off getting a D40 and one of these rather than a more expensive D80 just so you can use the $130 70-300G lens, which is a pretty crappy lens to begin with. The new AF-S 60mm f/2.8 micro is an expensive $500 micro lens, but is said to be a whole lot better than the older AF-D version which sells for $200 less.

And if you've read through this entire thread you'll see that most of the D40 owners here are OK with and really don't care about the limitations. It doesn't matter to them. The people that disliked it enough to sell it for something else seem to be in the minority. It's certainly worth pointing out, but not everybody is going to want a zillion lenses. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of D40 shooters that picked up a two lens 18-55/55-200 kit at Costco couldn't be happier and have all they need.

 

[Antithesis]

I moved from a d40 to a d80 for the sake of being able to use non-AF-S lenses, and while I do get the benefit of using the 50mm f1.8, I now find that I lean more towards lenses with AF-S, atleast lenses with a decent focal length. If you plan to get some higher end glass down the line, it is going to have AF-S, and the difference between the d80 and the d40x at that point is pretty nominal.

I've also found that the d80 can actually be kind of intimidating to beginners. The body is a bit larger than the d40, there are a lot more controls that don't really make much sense to a beginner and there is a pretty hefty price difference. The d40 is a wonderful camera for beginners, and given the image quality of nikons low-end glass, doesn't really provide any serious limitations to beginners.

 

[Mav]

Yes,i totally agree it ,and if you`re a nikon fan ,you should choose D80 as your first DSLR.
and if u love the CANON band,i suggest u choose 400D or the new arrival 450D.

$400 extra not spent on a D80 is $400 more that you can put into nicer lenses instead, which make the FAR bigger difference in image quality and the photos you take. There's nothing reasonable that I can't do with my D40, and when I'm truly trying to be serious I find that my D80 still isn't serious enough and thus is wasted money. If you really need to be serious you'd be better off getting a used D200 rather than a D80, or stepping all the way up to the D300. If you just want to use non AF-S prime lenses, just get a used D50 or D70. So I find myself agreeing with Ken Rockwell again, heh heh.

So having been there and done that, I'll now repeat the same advice that a friend of mine gave me when I was first starting out, which I only partially took. Get the cheapest body that will meet your needs, but the very BEST LENS that you can possibly afford. My friend shoots Canon and got a Rebel XT on clearance when the XTi was coming out, and then slapped the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens on it. I thought he was crazy buying a $1000 lens and putting it on a "cheap" body. And what's my favorite combo now? My little D40 but with a Nikon 17-55DX f/2.8 lens which was more expensive than the Canon lens. And I'm in love.

My style demands zooms though. I liked playing around with primes, but they're just not flexible enough for me anymore (try chasing a soon-to-be-walking 11 month old around the house and you'll know :mrgreen: ), and thus I'm no longer biased into needing screw driven primes.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes,i totally agree it ,and if you`re a nikon fan ,you should choose D80 as your first DSLR.
and if u love the CANON band,i suggest u choose 400D or the new arrival 450D.

I think that if you're an informed noob that seriously wants to get into photography, you should skip the entry level cameras all together and go with the d70-d80 or the 20d-30d-40d.

 

[Tasmaster]

And if you've read through this entire thread you'll see that most of the D40 owners here are OK with and really don't care about the limitations. It doesn't matter to them. The people that disliked it enough to sell it for something else seem to be in the minority. It's certainly worth pointing out, but not everybody is going to want a zillion lenses. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of D40 shooters that picked up a two lens 18-55/55-200 kit at Costco couldn't be happier and have all they need.

Have i mentioned that i am a D40 owner and i love it?

To be honest when i am talking about new lenses i am really talking about new f/2.8 or lower lenses, but that's just me because i need them and like them. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 like everyone else and taken some great photos with it. If you don't need fast lenses the D40 is an even better deal and there isn't a reason why you shouldn't get one if you are a beginning photographer. If you are a pro, i bet that you will love it as a tiny, light, DSLRP&S .

For what it's worth, i am not sure i like the D80. It is probably technically equal and better than the D40 in every respect, but the 40 is a camera that i can throw in my backpack and never think about it until i want to take a picture. I'm not sure the D80 would have the same feeling, and that counts for me.

If you already own a D40, the next step up is the D300. Unless maybe we see an equally brilliant next-gen D80 replacement soon.

 

[LuisAugusto]

I think that if you're an informed noob that seriously wants to get into photography, you should skip the entry level cameras all together and go with the d70-d80 or the 20d-30d-40d.

Sometimes noobs, or even not-so-noob people doesn't have enough money for that, I will practically study photography as my university career, but at this moment, I don't have enough money to buy something more expensive than a Sony A200.

 

[Village Idiot]

Sometimes noobs, or even not-so-noob people doesn't have enough money for that, I will practically study photography as my university career, but at this moment, I don't have enough money to buy something more expensive than a Sony A200.

Used 30D = $600
Used 10D = $280
Used 20D = $400

 

[LuisAugusto]

Used 30D = $600
Used 10D = $280
Used 20D = $400

Here in Mexico that's 100% out of possibilities, but I guess it's possible in USA.