d40 vs a200

[Sherman Banks]

One thing I fail to understand about Nikon's product line is why they offer affordable DSLR's which lack a $20 part (AF motor) which then forces budget minded shoppers to buy their most expensive lenses vs. their more affordable lenses if they want auto-focus.

Let's face it, Nikon moves millions of these units and most of those buyers don't use anything more than the 18-55. That $20 a body makes a big difference when dealing with this volume. But there are the serious amateurs on a budget who suffer because the lenses that do work are all pricey and the older AF lenses don't autofocus on their bodies. I think they should have at least added more than 3 AF points, and added "x" versions with AF motors that could come at a cost to make up the cost on the production (although there was already a D40x, but it should've had an AF motor too).

At the end of the day though, business is business and Nikon's going to do what it has to do to move units. My guess is that they see the popularity in DLSR photography now, and make these entry level DSLR's to get people into the game, have them buy a couple lenses, and when they feel it's time to upgrade, they're gonna stick with Nikon because they've already invested in glass. And the next logical step in the progression is double the price of the first investment. Who knows if this is what they actually intended to do, but it would make good sense from a business standpoint.

Needless to say, I still like Nikon, and I like Canon too. If I could have a 5d or a D700, I'd probably opt for the 5d so people could see my big ass grey lens. Let's face it, black is too subtle.

 

[DScience]

If I could have a 5d or a D700, I'd probably opt for the 5d so people could see my big ass grey lens. Let's face it, black is too subtle.

LOL Classic!

 

[inTempus]

Needless to say, I still like Nikon, and I like Canon too. If I could have a 5d or a D700, I'd probably opt for the 5d so people could see my big ass grey lens. Let's face it, black is too subtle.

Yeah, the white lenses are a such a great marketing move... when people see them, they stick out like a sore thumb. It just screams "hey, look at me!" People always do the double take when they see them... even non-photogs.

I like Nikon too. You don't know how many times I've had a D700 in my cart on Adorama's website only to remove it telling myself "don't do it, leave well enough alone".

I've shot the D700 and it's a great body. I see guys who shoot both Nikon and Canon and I think to myself "I could do that". The down side is that I would have to buy Nikkor lenses to keep the D700 interesting which would set me back on my Canon collection. It would be so much easier if lenses were universal, then I *would* have a D700 with my 5D2 and 1D3.

 

[SrBiscuit]

You need that D200. They are giving them away right now! If I were a Nikon shooter, I would buy one just to have for general purposes.

honestly, it's still on my "should i?" questions list.

eventually i will certainly upgrade bodies, and with them giving the D200 away for $599, it seems like a viable option for upgrade...
i'll get there. (hopefully sooner than later)

and i have to wonder about that $20 AF motor in the body that they neglect to put into a couple models...
is it possible that nikon thinks that anyone buying these cams will likely NOT upgrade glass?
youre right it seems silly to pass it over, just put it in there and let us decide...theyre gonna get my money either way:lmao:


*EDIT*
just checked the site, and it looks like the body is $679 now...still not bad though.
boy it does look intimidating though.

 

[wgp1987]

Heck, I'm a Canon whore and I can't argue with that.

i just want to point out that to get anything from any kind of whore is usually expensive, even advice ..... that being said, i am a whore of the best company for the "technology" of digital photography ... *cough* canon *cough* ...

the nikon d40/d60 are not bad cameras, but ON AN ENTRY LEVEL SLR (which the d40/d60 fall into) THE SONY A200 SPITS ON NIKONS A$$CRACK AND GIVES IT TO THEM, NOT SLOWLY MIGHT I ADD LOL .... but the better choice as far as "quality" is concerned is the canon xs. if you buy a nikon d40/d60 then congrats. its a good camera. but for the money. you have other choices. better? your decision. go to your local best buy or camera shack. dont let a salesman tell you to buy whatever. feel the cameras. go into the menus. take some shots. and i hope ALL OF OUR ADVICE HELPS. good luck :lmao:

 

[inTempus]

*EDIT*
just checked the site, and it looks like the body is $679 now...still not bad though.
boy it does look intimidating though.

It's no more complicated to use than your current camera.

Just do it.

On an unrelated note, all of my friends tell me I'm a bad influence.

 

[Sherman Banks]

It's not intimidating, and wouldn't spend $680 on it. It can be as easy as a D40, or as precise as, well a D200 (it still has auto modes). It's not like moving up makes the menu options/functions more difficult to understand but it does give you the creative freedom with being able to change/customize many of your shooting settings. As for the price, this model has been discontinued so you can expect the price to keep coming down. I've seen them on BB's website for $600 about 3 times now, so I would wait until the price comes down. I've also seen some good quality D80's with relatively low shutter counts on Craigslist for around $400 which would be another great alternative. But unless you can't stand the 3 AF points, want to use AF lenses, or want to work with Nikon CLS, stick with the D40 until you're comfortable spending the $ on the upgrade.

 

[Sherman Banks]

On an unrelated note, all of my friends tell me I'm a bad influence.

I'm guessing they're right, and I'd recommend Canon start paying you for the amount of positive reinforcement you provide for their products :thumbup:. Everytime there is a Nikon vs. Canon thread, I know you've chimed in and there are 5 people calling you a biased idiot for your contribution. Always sound advice though.

 

[inTempus]

I'm guessing they're right, and I'd recommend Canon start paying you for the amount of positive reinforcement you provide for their products :thumbup:. Everytime there is a Nikon vs. Canon thread, I know you've chimed in and there are 5 people calling you a biased idiot for your contribution. Always sound advice though.

I wish Canon would pay me vs. them robbing my bank account every month. I should despise them and their predatory business practices. They've decimated my sons college fund.

j/k He'll get to go to college. I have a plan to earn money some day with all this gear. No, seriously.

 

[mrodgers]

and i have to wonder about that $20 AF motor in the body that they neglect to put into a couple models...
is it possible that nikon thinks that anyone buying these cams will likely NOT upgrade glass?

I personally only know 5 people who own a dSLR camera or take photography serious enough to learn about it. Of those 5 people, only one of them are the one mentioned who is learning about photography. That one person does not own a dSLR, but a superzoom, shoots in manual mode 99% of the time, and is me. The other 4 people own an XTi, D40, D40x, and one just bought a D60. All 4 of those people bought their cameras because an "expensive camera is better" and none of them will ever upgrade their glass, nor ever shoot in anything than auto mode. Maybe they will buy a longer zoom, but without any knowledge of why a more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 is better than the other kit 55-200 that they are "upgrading" to.

So, yes, I do think that Nikon thinks that people buying these cameras would likely not upgrade glass. 100% of those who have dSLR cameras that I know are likely not to upgrade further than getting the 2nd kit lens if they didn't already buy it.

 

[KmH]

Nikon didn't put the focus motor in the body so they could make the body more compact and save some weight.

Why did they want to make it more compact and weigh less?

Actually, 2 reasons:

• So more women would buy it
• so they sell more focus motors at a higher price.

Worked too.

Smart business, that.

 

[inTempus]

So, yes, I do think that Nikon thinks that people buying these cameras would likely not upgrade glass. 100% of those who have dSLR cameras that I know are likely not to upgrade further than getting the 2nd kit lens if they didn't already buy it.

100% of the people I know would like to upgrade.

But then 99% of those are fellow board members.

 

[OregonAmy]

It's no more complicated to use than your current camera.

Just do it.

On an unrelated note, all of my friends tell me I'm a bad influence.

YES YOU ARE.

I have a d40 and while I *love* the camera, I'm finding some functionality I wish I'd have considered or realized was important before buying it (no mirror lock-up, no ISO 100, no bracketing).

I went on a photo shoot last weekend with a meetup group and the woman I hung out with for most of it had just gone up from a d40 to a 200, and was telling me about how best buy has the bodies now for $599.

FIVE NINETY NINE.

I can't justify the cost, but I do try to rationalize it in my head.

 

[OregonAmy]

And by "rationalize" I mean looking around at all the homebrewing equipment my husband's bought in the past year and trying to figure out the difference in expense between that and the $ I've spent on camera equipment in the same time period... Is it $599?? Maybe I could encourage him to buy some new homebrew stuff.

 

[KmH]

And by "rationalize" I mean looking around at all the homebrewing equipment my husband's bought in the past year and trying to figure out the difference in expense between that and the $ I've spent on camera equipment in the same time period... Is it $599?? Maybe I could encourage him to buy some new homebrew stuff.

It was.
I just checked and it's up to $680 at best buy.