Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x

[Alpha]

This is silly. The D40 is not a pro camera. Take it for what it is: a well-priced DSLR that is largely so well priced because of its limited capabilities. You're fooling yourself to think otherwise.

 

[LeftBehind]

This thread lacks Pentax love.

 

[JIP]

As it should the only thing I can think of that is worse than a D40/40x is a Pentax Dslr.

 

[Helen B]

It's being used by quite a few pros I know. Maybe it is more of a camera for pros than for beginners. "Look, I don't need no big fancy camera, I can do it with this little thing."

Best,
Helen

 

[Don Simon]

As it should the only thing I can think of that is worse than a D40/40x is a Pentax Dslr.

I know, they're appalling, using the same sensor and equally good image quality and allowing you to use autofocus with autofocus lenses. It's much better to cut costs and make people buy all new lenses. And you don't need a top LCD anyway, because Nikon says so. And the K10d is particularly bad compared to the D40/D40x, what with its two control dials, and letting you change things without going through menus, and having weather sealing... yeah I can see how a D40/x would be better :lmao:

 

[dpolston]

We're missing the point. The D40 is an entry level camera. It's not a "pro" camera. It is however more advanced than a point and shoot, which I think makes it more appealing to some new photographers. We as enthusiast's should welcome those passionate new budding photographers and not discourage these kinds of purchases or debate things that might be over their head.

If you know what you do about the D40's limitations and still make the choice to purchase it, you know what you're getting into. Those who don't know, because they're not as "____ retentive" as we are, will someday learn or probably not even care. "God Bless Um... keep shooting!"

On a pro note however... I don't think the camera has anything to do with it at all (not to open that can of worms). You (as pros) probably shoot more D200's, DX2's and soon the D3's, but this makes a nice, easy little backup camera for you. My back up camera is the D70. I shot the crap out of it until I needed more versatility and bought the 200. Frankly, even though I would love to have the D3, I'll probably get another 200 because it is all the camera I need for now.

The D40 is what it is... period.

 

[RacePhoto]

When you move up, sell the camera and the lenses that are specific to it, you'll get a better price and be able to move on. Someone else will be happy to get into a good used camera.

At least the DSLRs hold their value pretty good.

 

[Double H]

Lots of great points being made here. I bought a D40 for my wife. She wanted something that took the darn picture when you pressed the darn button. She loves it. However, we have had to send the body back for a major error, and now the lens has stopped working properly. I had to use it when my Fuji S2 took a crap on me while I waited for my S5 to arrive. It did ok, but it's no pro unit. IMHO, it does not withstand very much normal camera-abuse. So for her it's fine, but for me it cannot stand up to my Pro rigs. I suppose Nikon took the AF out of the body to save on manufacturing costs and thus make it affordable to the beginner/novice. Let's face it, when shooting active kids, or even an energenic model, AF is vital for great captures. If I had to do it over, I may have spent the extra dough on a D80, or perhaps just given her my Fuji S2.

 

[EljayK004]

While some of the ideas are solid, I think the original topic is off-kilter. First off, a lot of beginners want a smaller camera, by taking the AF motor out, you save size and weight. Secondly, if someone does get really interested in photography, when its time to upgrade, they will buy something better, and the best part is, they will be able to use every lens they already own. Next, most of the target market for the D40 isn't interested in lugging around 15 lenses. Most purchasers bought it because it was lightweight, and easy to use, not because it was "pro-model durable." Do you seriously think most beginners are going to carry 8 specialty lenses around with them? No, most will likely carry the kit lens and an intermediate zoom, and nothing else. Furthermore, most of the target market want to push the shutter-release and take a picture, not fiddle with DOF, or bracketing, or things more advanced users enjoy. Another problem with this argument is, if someone goes out and uses the D40 like a pro, how long will it last? I wouldn't bet on it being very long.

The major problem I have with this argument is, sabbath, you aren't looking at this like the majority of potential D40 buyers, you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is very interested in photography. To us (those very interested in photography) lens useability is important, but to a begineer, who doesn't have a stockpile of glass, it isn't nearly as important. Most people whio buy a D40 will never be able to tell you the extolls of a "thrifty fifty." Most probably won't even know it exists unless a friend mentions it. Sure it would be nice to have "cheap" lenses available, but I don't think most D40 buyers care beyond a couple of "cheap" zooms.

I think Nikon did an excellent job with the D40, and we should try to get as many D40s into hands as possible. Why, you ask? Because these people are people who probably would never have taken an interest in photography before buying the D40, and the more people we can bring into our hobby the better it is for all of us. If they decide to upgrade one day, then it worked on many, many levels and is benificial to everyone from the manufacturers, to artists, to the hobbyists, and to the pros.

I've got a friend who owns a D40 and absolutely loves it. In a few years he may upgrade, but he may not, its too early to tell right now. I'm working extremely hard to turn him into a photographer as opposed to a snapshot "artist." One day he might catch the fever, but if he doesn't, he still enjoys his camera, and that is the most important part. Remember the technical apect of the thing is unimportant, its all about making great photos and the D40 can make great photos. People used MF lenses for years, people used lightmeters and grayscales for years, people used manual winding for years and yet they still took great photos.

 

[Antithesis]

While some of the ideas are solid, I think the original topic is off-kilter. First off, a lot of beginners want a smaller camera, by taking the AF motor out, you save size and weight. Secondly, if someone does get really interested in photography, when its time to upgrade, they will buy something better, and the best part is, they will be able to use every lens they already own. Next, most of the target market for the D40 isn't interested in lugging around 15 lenses. Most purchasers bought it because it was lightweight, and easy to use, not because it was "pro-model durable." Do you seriously think most beginners are going to carry 8 specialty lenses around with them? No, most will likely carry the kit lens and an intermediate zoom, and nothing else. Furthermore, most of the target market want to push the shutter-release and take a picture, not fiddle with DOF, or bracketing, or things more advanced users enjoy. Another problem with this argument is, if someone goes out and uses the D40 like a pro, how long will it last? I wouldn't bet on it being very long.

The major problem I have with this argument is, sabbath, you aren't looking at this like the majority of potential D40 buyers, you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is very interested in photography. To us (those very interested in photography) lens useability is important, but to a begineer, who doesn't have a stockpile of glass, it isn't nearly as important. Most people whio buy a D40 will never be able to tell you the extolls of a "thrifty fifty." Most probably won't even know it exists unless a friend mentions it. Sure it would be nice to have "cheap" lenses available, but I don't think most D40 buyers care beyond a couple of "cheap" zooms.

I think Nikon did an excellent job with the D40, and we should try to get as many D40s into hands as possible. Why, you ask? Because these people are people who probably would never have taken an interest in photography before buying the D40, and the more people we can bring into our hobby the better it is for all of us. If they decide to upgrade one day, then it worked on many, many levels and is benificial to everyone from the manufacturers, to artists, to the hobbyists, and to the pros.

I've got a friend who owns a D40 and absolutely loves it. In a few years he may upgrade, but he may not, its too early to tell right now. I'm working extremely hard to turn him into a photographer as opposed to a snapshot "artist." One day he might catch the fever, but if he doesn't, he still enjoys his camera, and that is the most important part. Remember the technical apect of the thing is unimportant, its all about making great photos and the D40 can make great photos. People used MF lenses for years, people used lightmeters and grayscales for years, people used manual winding for years and yet they still took great photos.

I have to totally agree with this. Without the d40x I wouldn't have ever gotten into photography. I'm still a beginner but I've taken a super strong interest in photography to the point where I'm now studying it in school and spend most of my time thinking about photography or taking pictures. I think the d40x still has a lot to offer but I'm getting ready to upgrade to a d80. I get to shoot a wedding with my buddy next weekend (as a backup shooter using a d200) and it's probably time to ditch the starter camera. But hey, it got me started on a possible career path and gave me direction where before there was none.

I don't think I was ever unhappy with the image quality that the d40x was capable of, even on the kit lens. It should hold most beginners over for a while, and to some people it'll be far more camera than they will ever need. My cousin's got a d80 and he rarely uses any of the manual modes.

 

[petey]

I've got a friend who owns a D40 and absolutely loves it. In a few years he may upgrade, but he may not, its too early to tell right now. I'm working extremely hard to turn him into a photographer as opposed to a snapshot "artist." One day he might catch the fever, but if he doesn't, he still enjoys his camera, and that is the most important part. Remember the technical apect of the thing is unimportant, its all about making great photos and the D40 can make great photos. People used MF lenses for years, people used lightmeters and grayscales for years, people used manual winding for years and yet they still took great photos.

I accept photography as both art and science and will not argue either view over the other. I question what serious polished professionals think about such matters.

I confess when someone tells me my D40 pictures "look professional" or "could win a photo contest" it makes me feel like I stole something. I feel good inside (but not professional).

Thank you sabbath999. You sir are not a troll.

 

[Battou]

I've been using Nikons since 1971, and every single Nikon lens I own works with my D40x. It also works surprisingly well with bellows for macro work. I think that is a great little camera.

Best,
Helen

I have not read the whole thread yet but I do wan't to say this. A beginner is not likely to have a collection of lenses at hand, Much less know they will work. Also bear in mind, Older lenses can at times be hard to acuire and that it would be easier for todays beginners to find new lenses thus restricting them (in a way) to the lens series sabbath999 noted.

Sir, you are being a Troll digging up nothing but a Cannon vs. Nikon argument. Perhaps the next mod through would be so kind as to lock this thread.

When It is comming from a person who owns and uses the camera he is advising against, the comments are sound and are not trolling material. This is experiance sharing

 

[Helen B]

I have not read the whole thread yet but I do wan't to say this. A beginner is not likely to have a collection of lenses at hand, Much less know they will work. Also bear in mind, Older lenses can at times be hard to acuire and that it would be easier for todays beginners to find new lenses thus restricting them (in a way) to the lens series sabbath999 noted.

I agree that they are not likely have a collection of lenses, but disagree about the lack of availability of them. High quality manual focus Nikon primes that will work surprisingly well on the D40/D40x are comparatively easy to come by in every part of the world I have worked in, and cheap for what they are. (Nikon and Canon are different in that respect, because of Canon's change of lens mount, and because Nikon was by far the dominant pro brand at one time.) The old manual focus primes will not suit every beginner, of course - I'm not trying to suggest that, I'm just trying to give information to help beginners make their own minds up.

Good luck,
Helen

 

[compugeek722]

I think that those brand all have relatively expensive glass and I was thinking for a dslr more along the lines of a pentax. They have some great glass at great prices, and a plethora of lenses to choose from. Not to mention that the camera has the af motor built into it so the lenses don't require the motor in themselves which brings down cost... The only problem I've read on the latest pentax models are the auto white balance settings... But who ever uses that anyway????

 

[shivaswrath]

I think that those brand all have relatively expensive glass and I was thinking for a dslr more along the lines of a pentax. They have some great glass at great prices, and a plethora of lenses to choose from. Not to mention that the camera has the af motor built into it so the lenses don't require the motor in themselves which brings down cost... The only problem I've read on the latest pentax models are the auto white balance settings... But who ever uses that anyway????

mind you that's why the Pentax bodies are A LOT heavier than the D40. . .

I'm happy with my D40x, probably move into photography as a full fledged hobby because of it. . .I find myself framing pictures in my head (that would look hot, that wouldn't, oh if I only had my camera). . and I'm travelling a lot because of my job and have now included my D40x as my "other" essential in my carryon (along side my ipod, etc.!!)

it serves it's purpose, and I'll be able to sell the body in 2-4 years for a D80 or whatever the hell else Nikon creates at that point and STILL use my lenses. . .

Just sucks that any descent lens with AF-S or HSM (Sigma) starts at $370 at the cheap end up towards $1500, but I'm okay with that since I'll be sticking with Nikon until the end. . .