Illogical purchase.

[Tasmaster]

Here is, once more, the reasoning behind the D40:


- People who own several good lenses already and have been shooting for years will not want a "beginner's" camera. They probably own one or more way more expensive models.

- People who are just getting into photography with a tight budget are not likely to buy new lenses.

- Either way, there are lots of lenses out there that auto-focus with a D40.

- Instead of waiting until you think you are ready to invest $2000 for a "real" camera and lens, you can get a D40 now and take tens of thousands of pictures until you decide to invest more money into photography.

- It is cheap and small, everyone from pro to beginner can find a use for that.


I'd say that if you hate the D40 for what it is (as opposed to what it isn't), you are doing something wrong and maybe you should have picked a Canon back then .

Do i own one? Yes.
Do i think that manual focusing in low light is troublesome? Guess so but i am very new to that (and shooting moving subjects/handheld).
Do i like the D60? Not really, for various reasons, and i wouldn't be surprised if competition squashed it (or it is just ignored in favor of the D40).

All these silly car analogies - ok, you can use your Bugatti to pick up the kids from school and go to the movies, but most people would just use one of their city cars. I wouldn't casually throw a D3 & 70-200mm f/2.8 lens in my backpack when going for a bike ride, either.

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.

Considering the distance and long exposure time, not the best shot to argue about sharp focus. Otherwise a great shot.

 

[XtremeElemenT]

those pictures are far from my best photos, and yes i have used and still own a 35mm slr camera by nikon. It's what i started with but film is not for me. Of course a d80 peforms better than a d40( i believe i already stated that in my car comparison) but i dont think i really needed to pay the extra 300-400 dollars for a camera. Im just trying to say that a d40 is not a illogical purchase. for $450-479 you can get a great camera with a good quality lens and take great photos. The only photos i have really lost in the d40 is due to my handshake and thats my fault for setting a wrong shutter speed or forgot i was shooting at a higher iso. I have nothing against canons but im sure if nikon would of raised the price and added a internal focusing motor it would of been great. But they decided to cut the price to make a dslr camera more affordable for people wanting to own a dslr and i believe they made the right choice. This also cut down on the size and weight of the camera which is one of the reasons i also went to nikon over a canon 350d.

 

[DSLR noob]

I just think these 2 points counter each other

- People who are just getting into photography with a tight budget are not likely to buy new lenses.

- Either way, there are lots of lenses out there that auto-focus with a D40.

those lenses that do atofocus on the D40 ARE the new lenses that "most people won't buy". What good is the D40 body if you, the average D40 user, isn't going to buy any lenes for it?

We can agree to disagree but I think it is mean to the average consumer who sees that the D40 is super cheap, buys one, and gets raped with priced skywards of $800 for the only lenses that will work with it.

 

[XtremeElemenT]

I just think these 2 points counter each other



those lenses that do atofocus on the D40 ARE the new lenses that "most people won't buy". What good is the D40 body if you, the average D40 user, isn't going to buy any lenes for it?

We can agree to disagree but I think it is mean to the average consumer who sees that the D40 is super cheap, buys one, and gets raped with priced skywards of $800 for the only lenses that will work with it.

um but aren't you forgetting any lens that works on the d50,d70,d80 etc.. also work on the d40?? The af-s lenses are reasonably price for the quality you are getting anyways.

 

[DSLR noob]

um but aren't you forgetting any lens that works on the d50,d70,d80 etc.. also work on the d40?? The af-s lenses are reasonably price for the quality you are getting anyways.

no, I'm not forgetting that. I'm just saying, I'd rather spend an extra $100 on the camera body to get 100% out of all of those lenses instead of 50% (or lower depending how many shots you're losing to only having manual focus as an option). LEts say you own 4 lenses and a D70. You paid for thos elenses and that camera. Your D70 breaks, you buy a D40, now, the lenses you paid for, aren't utilizing features that was part of the total of the price of that lens, so even buy getting a gem of an older lens to save money, you are STILL LOSING DOLLAR VALUE. The D40 is an economic paradox for the standard consumer, and a complex income multiplier for the producer hidden in a luring deceiving marketing approach.

 

[shorty6049]

I'm going to try and keep this as unbiased as i can here (since nobody else seems to be...)

I think that the D40 is an ok camera for beginners. The major downfall is the lenses though. Although there are plently of lenses around for the camera, they're mostly expensive or poor quality (relatively). I have held and used a d40, and i agree the viewfinder isnt good for manual focusing at all. It just feels very small and hard to really see things through. My brother bought a d40 a while back and ended up selling it for a Sony A100 because he could buy and use old minolta lenses for it. He had one lens besides the kit lens for his d40 and it was an old zoom lens wich he had to manually focus, manually set aperture (via the aperture ring on the lens) as well as guessing the exposure because metering didnt work either. For amature shooters (the main group using a d40) the lenses arent really practical if you want to upgrade at all.

i wouldnt say its an illogical purchase, but i would say that it would be wise to really think about it before you jump into it. if you were to want more lenses, you would have to know that it'll cost ya, or you'll be manually focusing and metering . Some people bring up the point that its not that hard, but would you really want to have that hurdle to jump over every time you used your camera?

 

[Tasmaster]

those lenses that do atofocus on the D40 ARE the new lenses that "most people won't buy". What good is the D40 body if you, the average D40 user, isn't going to buy any lenes for it?

I don't quite understand your logic; most people who are looking for a cheap dSLR are not looking for new lenses. If and when they look for them, the lenses are there.

We can agree to disagree but I think it is mean to the average consumer who sees that the D40 is super cheap, buys one, and gets raped with priced skywards of $800 for the only lenses that will work with it.

Couple of important points here:

- You don't have to buy the D40, especially if you are already looking for lenses. People know what lenses it can take beforehand.

- Please stop trolling and lying. The 18-200mm VR actually costs below $700, and that is still a 18-200mm lens with vibration reduction. Every lens will work with the D40 (with couple of older obscure professional lens exceptions i believe), not every lens will auto-focus, been said enough times already.

Edit:

Your D70 breaks, you buy a D40

Eh? No, unless your only point is to prove a stupid arguement on a forum, you buy a D80 or maybe another D70, or any other camera that will take your lens collection. This is the one case where you should explicitly avoid the D40.

 

[XtremeElemenT]

Well, I put plenty of thought into my decision making into buying my d40 as i bet other people who have bought the d40 have done as well. Ive gotten a nice af-s ed 55-200mm dx lens 2 weeks after i bought my d40 for $75 and have not regretted it. Then not to long after that i purchased my 3rd lens a 50mm 1.8d for $129 (paid retail to support local camera store) and fell in love with it. It meters but have to manual focus and i love it. DSLRnoob You act like manually focusing is the hardest thing in the world. You make it seem like the most impossible thing you can do in the dslr world. Just because you can't do it doesnt mean others cant.

My decision was Canon 350d = $650 stuck with kit lens
or Nikon d40 =$450 be able to buy maybe 2 lenses.

I decided and made my decison. Grab the inexpensive d40 and buy lenses now that I could use later if i plan to upgrade to a d80 or whatever.

The d40 is an affordable camera that is great for someone who wants to take great looking photos but does not want a P&S and does not plan to change and upgrade lenses.

It is also great for someone like me that wants to step into DSLR world and get their feet wet and see if they want to take the full dive in. Im able to buy lenses now with the money i saved and see how they work and whats the best environment/situation to use them in. I can make beautiful 11x14 prints which i think is plenty big for me.

So now if i do plan on purchasing a d80 I will have a few extra lenses for it. Simple as that.

I learned about using different filters and see what they do from diffusers to UV's to polarizing. If i purchased ( lets say) a d80 back then I would be stuck with the kit lens still and would be limited to my exploration through dslr and would yet have to wait longer to purchase a decent zoom/telephoto lens then would of been even longer to have purchased the 50mm and probably forever till i purchase the 10.5 fisheye or the sigma 10-20mm. I am very happy with the choice I have made.

 

[DSLR noob]

No, I'm not just trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that I don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.

 

[Tasmaster]

I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that I don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.

No, you are making up false facts and deliberately posting inaccuracies and lies to support your opinion. That's called trolling right there. That's in addition to you being a proper noob (who would replace a D70 and lens system with a D40 and then cry about it - RTFM!), but that is beside the point :mrgreen:.

If you have an opinion that's fine, if you really want to support your opinion you'd better resort to posting facts, not nonsense.

I hate your camera

That one made my day! Well know sir, that from this day on, my camera hates you too! Dare not walk in front of my lens, or my D40 will take pictures of you so out of focus that they will ruin your internet life!

 

[shorty6049]

i think the whole "i hate your camera" thing may be a bit harsh, but i do agree with him on the manual focusing issue. It may not be the hardest thing in the world or anything, but but when you pay that much for a camera, why would you want to have to settle for it? That, in my opinion is the biggest limitation to the d40. Sony, has its own limitations, such as , i pretty much HAD to buy the Sony flash, becasuse nobody else makes a good one that'll fit on my camera and work properly because of sony's hotshoe design. also though, sony didnt have a lot of lenses out when i bought my first alpha. BUT, there were used minoltas all over the internet for decent prices, and they all work flawlessly with my camera. This isnt just my opinion though, its also my brothers and what caused him to switch brands. Just definately something to keep in mind.

 

[elemental]

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.

If by spending $1000 more you mean buying into someone else's system, then yes, this is exactly what I did. I didn't spend a penny more, in fact, I spent less. I think most entry-level DSLR buyers are more likely to substitute horizontally rather than vertically, looking to something like a Rebel, A100, or K100D rather than a D80. I liked the D40 a lot, and buying into a huge family like Nikon seemed like a nice idea, but once I found out they had cheaped out on the AF motor, I moved on. It seems to me that a good deal of planning went into this decision, and I did not want to be boxed into one segment of Nikon' lenses because I bought the "cheap" camera. Turns out, I found a camera I liked a lot better anyway with the addition of a huge selection of 100% compatible excellent used lenses.


Plus, once I found out that the majority of photography discussion is Canon vs. Nikon arguments over and over, year after year, I was overjoyed to realize I didn't have a side. I would gladly choose the dark horse any day.

 

[sabbath999]

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.

This is misguided. Here's why.

A large number of the lenses Nikon CURRENTLY produces will not autofocus on the D40/D40x.

Basically, for the autofocus feature to work, it has to be an AF-S lens.

If you look at the AF-S line, you basically have two types of lenses.

1) Plastic "consumer" grade lenses of various quality form "OK" to excellent, and with the exception of one true bargain (the 55-200 VR) they are all expensive for what you get.

2) Professional lenses, which are built and priced accordingly.

If you set aside the kit lenses (the 18-55 non-VR and the more expensive VR) and the nice little 55-200, all the rest of the lenses in the line cost more than the cost of the body of the camera... many of the "consumer" lenses cost a LOT more than the body.

There are similar lenses in the current Nikon line, of as good or better quality, for cheaper prices than the AF-S lenses. Excellent choices like the inexpensive but excellent 50mm f/1.8 at $120 will not autofocus with the D40.

Another excellent consumer lens, the 70-300D runs about $120... but it won't autofocus either.

This is a trend.

Additionally, there are a ton of brand new third party lenses that will not autofocus on the D40's. Forget about anything from Tamron or Tokina. Some Sigma's (the HSM's and a few others) will work with the D40's in full autofocus, but most will not.

I get tired of the "every lens will work" argument on the D40. That is nonsense. While you can mount non-autofocus lenses on the D40 just fine... they will technically "work"... the metering system does not function with them.

Basically, you have a fully manual D40 with no autofocus and no light meter, as well as no metered flash.

Welcome to 1959.

I own a D40. It takes GREAT pictures. I also own a whole bag full of very expensive Nikon lenses (which I had before I got the D40). I have a D80 and a D300.

The D40 takes as good of pictures as the D80. It is not nearly as versatile as the D80 (no flash commander mode, no depth of field preview, etc) but that is to be expected. It has one big advantage over the D80 in that it has a really great 1/500th of a second flash sync speed.

The D300 kicks the D40's butt fourteen ways from Sunday in just about every respect, as you would expect from a $1700 camera.

Basically, I don't recommend D40's because you either have to buy Nikon AF-S lenses (good, but expensive to the point of being quite limiting to most people's budgets) or buy lenses that don't fully work on your camera.

Manual focus went out of style in 1986.

 

[jwkwd]

Sabbath, manual focus went out of style in 1986? Crap I have been out of style longer than a good number of people on this forum have been alive!

 

[Socrates]

Additionally, there are a ton of brand new third party lenses that will not autofocus on the D40's. Forget about anything from Tamron or Tokina. Some Sigma's (the HSM's and a few others) will work with the D40's in full autofocus, but most will not.

In my case, the reason why I switched to Nikon years ago was because I wanted Nikon glass. To me, the third-party lenses are a non-player.

I get tired of the "every lens will work" argument on the D40. That is nonsense. While you can mount non-autofocus lenses on the D40 just fine... they will technically "work"... the metering system does not function with them.

Has anyone ever determined which lenses the D40 owners REALLY buy? My OPINION is that the majority will stick with the kit lens. If I'm correct, your point is moot.

It has one big advantage over the D80 in that it has a really great 1/500th of a second flash sync speed.

Gee, that's strange. My D80 will sync the flash at ANY shutter speed. It's called FP flash.