Illogical purchase.

passerby · Feb 12, 2008

There are always good and bad in buying second hand goods. But when we shed plenty of money so we can use the seconhand goods, than to me it is illogical move.

Here is what we heard from reading around.

It is wrong move to buy the nikon d40 because it is restricted with newer lenses only. There are milllions of nikon lenses out there waiting to be snatched at bargain prizes.

So people spend something like almost $1000 more, or more than $1000 for the camera that can utilizes the old lenses? I don't get it.

Ok let see what you think.

SpeedTrap · Feb 12, 2008

The reason is that the D40 is a consumer camera; it was never intended for the person that is going to be putting much more than the kit lens or a new lens on it.

Most people I know that have it bought the 18-200 mm and never change the lens.
Now I am not saying that it is not a capable camera, it is, but it is just restricted to the newer lenses with the motors built into the lens if you want auto focus, if not you can use any lens on it.

Boltthrower · Feb 12, 2008

I have a Minolta 7D that uses lenses from 1985
it's called not shooting yourself in the foot

when a manufacturer changes the mounts on the cameras pretty much lock out their old user base forcing them to either buy another brand or replacing all their glass

Honestly if Minolta (now Sony) does that I'd scrap them in a heart beat and go with canon I have 6 good lenses that are the Minolta AF mount I'd be pissed if they changed the mount or locked me out of using my old Glass.

SpeedTrap · Feb 12, 2008

They did not change the mount, they just did not put an auto focus motor in the body. All of the old lenses work, but are manual focus.

fightheheathens · Feb 12, 2008

i think your question is "why use an old lens on something new"
the idea being that old lenses are inherently bad....

well, that is not true. Nikon (and im sure canon and pentax) has not changed the design on some of their lenses in 20+ years.
for example, nikons new 20mm f2.8 prime lens uses the same 12 elements in 9 groups as their 1980 version. Their 50mm lens has not changes in something like the last 50 years. the old 105mm f2.5 nikon lenses are considered to be some of the nicest lenses ever made. So i can buy a used 50mm lens on ebay that has the exact same optics as their newest 50mm lens. and honestly, in some cases, the older lenses have better build quality. I would much rather have a 20mm f2.8 AIs from the 80's then the new 20mm AF lens. The older one has better build quality, and the exact same optics.

Boltthrower · Feb 12, 2008

oh the way it was typed along with the way I read and understood it was that the older lenses could not be used at all

Still sucks for the owners of all the original glass though. I'd still be pissed if all my AF lenses suddenly became MF lenses cause they changed the design.

ScottS · Feb 12, 2008

Boltthrower said:
oh the way it was typed along with the way I read and understood it was that the older lenses could not be used at all

Still sucks for the owners of all the original glass though. I'd still be pissed if all my AF lenses suddenly became MF lenses cause they changed the design.

That is why it is always good to know what your are buying when you buy it.

I love the people that buy the D40 and then get pissed when they cant use their dads lenses on it...:lmao:

DSLR noob · Feb 12, 2008

I feel like the D40 (& D40X) is a scam, Nikon lures you with a super cheap camera, then wants you to spend big with $1000 lenses.

XtremeElemenT · Feb 12, 2008

hmm I have a d40 and do not think its a illogical purchase.

AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) LensesAF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED - NEW! AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR - NEW! AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - NEW! AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mmf/2.8G ED - NEW! AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED - NEW! AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR - NEW! AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR - NEW!

I have 18-55mm, 55-20mm, 50mm 1.8, and so far very pleased with the options of lens available for the d40. I can use almost lens on the camera just fine, then again I do not really care for the autofocus since I have gotten really good manually focusing with my lenses.

My next purchase will be a nikon 10.5 fisheye or a sigma 12-20 wide angle lens.

Plus buying this entry level dslr has taught me many things about shutter speeds and apertures and stuff I did not really know before. It basically kept me interested in photography and did not intimidate me. If i went off and spent the $900-$1,000 on the d80 kit i would probably be kind of put off or something. I really dont seeing the d80 a big enough difference for the photography i need. besides the 10.2mp and 6mp difference even though ive printed 11x14s from my 6mp and was amazed by the quality and clarity. Don't get me wrong I would love to own a d80 but I am very pleased and happy with my d40.

I look at it this way as buying a car. Sure you can buy the ferrari(d300) or the aston martin(d80) but im happy with my 350z(d40) sure it can not perform as good as the other 2 but it still has some HP for a reasonable price. But then again thats just a point of view from a d40 owner

DSLR noob · Feb 12, 2008

The D40 viewfinder is not a good viewfinder for manually focusing, even if you have 20/20 eyes. I just hate everything about the D40, D40x , and the new D60 I believe it's called.

and it's more like
Point and shoot = used 1980s economy hatchback
D40 = 10 year old corolla (NOT a 350z) gets the job done but has a problem that lets you down every now and then
D80 = New Rx-8 or 350z has its fun moments and will serve you in many many application
D300 = BMW M5 = bells and whistles galore, does everything that you could have ever wanted with performance to boot
D3 = money is no option, should I take the Lambo or Ferrari to work today?

XtremeElemenT · Feb 12, 2008

any pictures i taken with the d40 manual focus comes at sharp as a ginsu knife. I dont see how its not a good viewfinder for manual zoom.

For Example: this was manual focus at night

This was manual focus in day

so i dont know how its a bad viewfinder for it, please elaborate.

EManza · Feb 12, 2008

DSLR noob said:
The D40 viewfinder is not a good viewfinder for manually focusing, even if you have 20/20 eyes. I just hate everything about the D40, D40x , and the new D60 I believe it's called.

and it's more like
Point and shoot = used 1980s economy hatchback
D40 = 10 year old corolla (NOT a 350z) gets the job done but has a problem that lets you down every now and then
D80 = New Rx-8 or 350z has its fun moments and will serve you in many many application
D300 = BMW M5 = bells and whistles galore, does everything that you could have ever wanted with performance to boot
D3 = money is no option, should I take the Lambo or Ferrari to work today?

I like to think of my D40 as my SRT-4 Neon; Cheap gets the job done and hurts the feelings of many car owners that paid thousands more just to get manhandled by a Neon. :er:

I'm assuming your extensive use with the D40 has validated your silly claims that the D40 is hard to manual focus with... I have no problem manually focusing AIS primes with its sub-par viewfinder and my less than 20/20 vision.

MarcusM · Feb 12, 2008

XtremeElemenT said:
any pictures i taken with the d40 manual focus comes at sharp as a ginsu knife. I dont see how its not a good viewfinder for manual zoom.

For Example: this was manual focus at night

so i dont know how its a bad viewfinder for it, please elaborate.

Not trying to get into an argument, but that shot is far from "sharp as a knife" - the words "The Peabody" are extremely blurry and the edges of the building look soft to me. It is a nice shot, though, don't get me wrong - I just wouldn't say the focus is sharp as a knife.

XtremeElemenT · Feb 12, 2008

i was not focusing on the hotel then, i was shooting at f/3.5 so i had a little dof. I really wanted the hotel to be real blurry and keep the sidewalk and front lamps in focus but i was not able to do that with the kit lens. I could go out and re shoot it with my new 50mm f/1.8 and achieve the look i wanted but i had to do with what i had.

DSLR noob · Feb 12, 2008

XtremeElemenT said:
so i dont know how its a bad viewfinder for it, please elaborate.

apparently, you've never handled a manual focus 35mm SLR. Of course you'll post your best results, how often do you get these tack sharp results first try, or better yet, how many shots have you lost due to not being able to focus quick enough? My 20d has a pentaprism and it is hard to manually focus with simply due to the fact it's a modern day DSLR (they're simply not good MF cameras), and it has both a better made focusing screen and viewfinder than the D40. The 20D is closer to the D80/ D200 viewfinder.

As for an SRT-4 = D40.......... buahaha. As a car guy, I know that comparison is false. Because you're saying performance for dollar, the D40 is the best yet (as the SRT4 is a bargain for its performance), I'm sorry, not to start a Canon Nikon debate, but at least for entry level, I believe the Rebel can use any lens that top of the line 1Ds MK III can use, I'd say that's a better value for the money.

The D40 is a horrible idea (not a bad camera, just from an overall standpoint/ value for dollar/ what you could be spending money on) and anyone owning one defending it to their grave saying it's not that bad just wants to justify to themselves that they didn't make a mistake getting a no AF motor/ 3 AF point, 3FPS, 6MP, not fist in class of anything in its market niche, camera. [/end rant]

I love Canon, I love Nikon, I love Pentax, and no brand is better than the other,m however, Nikon's entry level DSLRs are horrible scams (post d50 that is).

Don't even get me started on the D40x, a huge price increase for a few lousy MP making people think they're buying a mini D80.....