Which is better in the long run D40 or D50?

[f8lranger4x4]

I have a nikon d50 would not say its any better on the pictures, but I like being able to control my camera traditionaly rather on the LCD on the back so I would go with the D50 my self and did. Also it's a newer camera so all the bugs may not be worked out yet. Which ever you go for it's a Nikon product so its got to be GREAT.

 

[RockDawg]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I ended up purchasing the D40. Mainly because it was far more readily available (I could only the find the D50 at a few online stores) and I had almost a couple hundred dollars worth of Best Buy gift cards and there was nothing else I wanted so it became a no-brainer. I've always been an upgrade person, so I know I'll be buying a better one down the road.

So far, I love it! I've never had a camera take such colorful and detailed photos before. And that's jsut in the Auto setting. Now I have a lot of learning to do so I can figure out how to properly set the aperture, shutter speed, and iso. I'm sure there's more than those three, but from what I gather so far, those are the main adjustments. It should be fun practicing and learning. And I'll surely be hanging out here trying to pick up whatever I can.

Thanks again!

 

[Richard]

That's great, I've liked the D40 I ended up getting the SB-400 speedlite for the same reason. Well it was also cheaper, even though the SB-400 actually works great I wish it could tilt horizontally.

 

[pantherlax]

I'm also having the same problem, or have the problem that you had...d40 vs. d50. Some of you said d50, but I've been reading kenrockwell.com and he really points toward the d40. I guess its all preference.

Question; Do they still make AF lenses? Or are they slowly going toward AF-S lenses? B/c I'm 16, and after i get the kit lense and 55-200 VR AF-S, i dont plan to get any other lenses for awhile. So if they are indeed moving toward AF-S, i dont mind being limited to only AF-S's...

 

[Garbz]

Most lenses pretty much are AF-S. But that's the problem. It's relatively new and all second hand lenses are AF. So if you have loads of money then the D40 is no problem, but if you have loads of money why get the D40 in the first place. To me it just doesn't make sense.

Also word of warning. Don't take KenRockwell's reviews too seriously. I've seen several reviews and comparisons of products he's never used. I mean wtf is with that. I also like the way he says things like no one needs the extra power of the SB-800 in his SB-600 review, or no one uses modeling flash. I use the modeling flash, and even the higher power SB-800 conked out at a wedding. That review just took the cake and since, I never read any reviews on his site ever again!

 

[BAB]

The key words are in your subject header "long run", so with this in mind I would choose the D-50 because of the ability to use most of the Nikon lenses.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

The key words are in your subject header "long run", so with this in mind I would choose the D-50 because of the ability to use most of the Nikon lenses.

I dont think the lack of lens choices for the D40 necessarily effect the long run of use. The way I see it, buying a camera for the long one means you're buying a camera that you will be able to use in the future, and the D40 certainly allows that. I personally wouldn't buy the D40 because of the lack of lens choices, but to some that isn't a problem at all.

 

[BAB]

I dont think the lack of lens choices for the D40 necessarily effect the long run of use. The way I see it, buying a camera for the long one means you're buying a camera that you will be able to use in the future, and the D40 certainly allows that. I personally wouldn't buy the D40 because of the lack of lens choices, but to some that isn't a problem at all.

Yes and no. First understand the target market of the D-40, folks who want to step up to a DSLR from point and shoot. These folks are generally not interested in a wide selection of lenses, for many the kit lens would do just fine. However the underlying message in the original post besides an interest in the long run, is that he wants to learn and develop photography skills into a fairly serious hobby. So "the long run" is a valuable component to the question because considering his stated interest, over the long run, this kind of interest usually translates into acquiring more gear, especially lenses.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

Yes and no. First understand the target market of the D-40, folks who want to step up to a DSLR from point and shoot. These folks are generally not interested in a wide selection of lenses, for many the kit lens would do just fine. However the underlying message in the original post besides an interest in the long run, is that he wants to learn and develop photography skills into a fairly serious hobby. So "the long run" is a valuable component to the question because considering his stated interest, over the long run, this kind of interest usually translates into acquiring more gear, especially lenses.

but, if he is just starting into photography, it is just as easy to buy only newer AF-S lenses, therefore the D40's lack of motor isn't a problem at all.

It can really go either way.

 

[Richard]

I totally understand what Bruce is saying. I actually found myself thinking if I could return my D40 for a D50 only after a couple weeks. I just decided that I'll deal with it, and hope that Nikon and other companies will continue to make more AF-S lens.

As I started to learn about photography I have quickly realized that there are more choices of lens with a D50, I mean I bought a 50mm that I have to use on manual focus. I got a taste of a DSLR and now I want more features. My plan is in a couple of years maybe less, I will buy a better camera and just keep my D40 for a secondary.

The D40 was a good choice but if you are a fast learner and are too impatient to wait for more AF-S lenes then maybe a D50 would be better.