Camera Confusion

[Bifurcator]

E-510 is Highly Recommended too... So is just about every other DSLR on dpreview.

Yup!

And this "It's one of those cameras you can just pick up and start shooting without fuss, that you can hand to a friend who's never used an SLR and know they'll be able to do the same. All of this and a pretty decent kit lens for $600, I'd say it's a bit of a bargain" is incredibly funny! What a lame arse thing to say in a review!!! That's like saying: "It's one camera that really takes pictures. And it has a lens too! I'd say it was a bit of a bargain." Gawd, what a bone-head!

Hehehehee....


--
IMHO I think the d40 is one of the worst cameras on the market and I love Nikon stuff.

 

[Bifurcator]

The link bifurcator provided isn't relevant as all photos are at 100 iso...

They are? OK, here's a link that isn't:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E510/E510THMB.HTM

- Enjoy!

 

[HappySnap]

Yup!

And this "It's one of those cameras you can just pick up and start shooting without fuss, that you can hand to a friend who's never used an SLR and know they'll be able to do the same. All of this and a pretty decent kit lens for $600, I'd say it's a bit of a bargain" is incredibly funny! What a lame arse thing to say in a review!!! That's like saying: "It's one camera that really takes pictures. And it has a lens too! I'd say it was a bit of a bargain." Gawd, what a bone-head!

Hehehehee....


--
IMHO I think the d40 is one of the worst cameras on the market and I love Nikon stuff.

Why do you think its the worst camera on the market? Surely for a tight budget and for someone who needs to learn the basic with the advantage of being able to add lenses etc.. the nikon d40 would be ideal?

If not the nikon d40 what dslr would you say I could get, which has had good reviews (which the d40 has had on every review i had read) and produces good photos (which the d40 does as I have seen other peoples) for a budget of £300?

 

[NateS]

I dont think that is true - as i said i already owned the 400d and i wasnt overly impressed so i dont see why going to a different slr is a bad thing?!

You have to sometimes work within a budget and at this present time for the money the d40 looks good - IMO.

If you were unable to get good pictures with the XTI (though I'm not sure if that's what you're saying), then you aren't going to be any happier with a different DSLR.

If you were unimpressed with the features of the XTI then wait until you have to drop at least $500 to get the cheapest prime that will autofocus with the D40.

If I had it to do over again I probably would have gotten the XTI over my D40. I've sense switched to a D70s which I couldn't be more happy with. Have you considered trying to pick up a used, low shutter count D70s and maybe a 50mm f1.8? It would be the same or less than a D40 with kit lens and produce much better images (in my opinion).

 

[danjchau]

-------------

 

[sabbath999]

hmm ever considered EOS 400D/Rebel XTI? it shouldn't cost much more than Nikon D40 and from what I have heard its so much better

a short comparison between XTI and D40X:
http://www.dpnotes.com/canon-eos-400d-digital-rebel-xti-vs-nikon-d40x/

To be perfectly clear, the link you are giving is for the D40x not the D40.

The D40x costs about a third more (and is no longer in production) than the D40 and is inferior (IMHO) to the D40.

A D40 costs $469 at B&H with an excellent kit lens, while an XTi costs $647 with Canon's horrible kit lens (not the vastly upgraded IS version), a price difference enough to just about buy Nikon's excellent 55-200 VR lens.

 

[Hobbes]

uh yes and I mentioned it too. I thought D40x is a more advanced and improved version of D40...

well I found a review that supports your point of view:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

 

[HappySnap]

I think, personally, in the long run it is down to the individual which camera suits them. Some people have to buy within their budget, such as me, some people have loads of cash to spend and are alot more serious and involved in photography (unlike me). All i want is 3 things:

1) A camera which takes good photos - d40 does (I have seen examples, they look very good indeed, i have no plans to print them any larger then A4.

2) Is within my budget.

3) I can expand when and if I want too - buying lenses etc.. (which the d40 allows me to do and i can get a good starter kit for £400).

I just dont want to spend £400 and make a mistake. I was hoping someone on here would own a d40 and could advise from experience which is better then people just replying with what they have heard or read etc.. from the horses mouth as it were!

Nik

 

[potownrob]

Just get the D40 already !

It's easy to use, compact for a dSLR, nice big review screen on the back, takes the newer high capacity SDHC memory cards (while the older D50 and D70 only take regular SD cards that only go up to 2gb), is said to have good low-light performance and is just plain fun to use.

The downsides to the D40 are that it only has 3 point auto-focus, doesn't auto-focus on non AF-S lenses (most of the new lenses are AF-S but you can get the older non-AF-S (e.g., AF or AF-D) lenses cheaper, and it doesn't have some of the more advanced features of the more expensive cameras. It also "only" has a 6mp sensor as opposed to the 10mp+ sensors of the newer models.

Be careful about taking what Ken Rockwell says as fact but he at least makes some good points (and is probably the one who ultimately swayed me to get the D40). He says the D40x should never have existed and that even the D60 isn't really better than the D40 for most people. He says the D40 is better for starting at ISO 200 instead of 100 and various other things that don't necessarily make it better. I think the main things going for the D40 are its price, compact size and ease of use. Please let me know if you want to see some of my pedestrian (as in crappy) shots I took with my D40. I still think they're better than most of my P&S shots at least for my abilities. I'm sure someone who knows how to take photos could take better shots with a lowend subcompact P&S than I take with my D40 .

 

[Bifurcator]

Why do you think its the worst camera on the market? Surely for a tight budget and for someone who needs to learn the basic with the advantage of being able to add lenses etc.. the nikon d40 would be ideal?

If not the nikon d40 what dslr would you say I could get, which has had good reviews (which the d40 has had on every review i had read) and produces good photos (which the d40 does as I have seen other peoples) for a budget of £300?

This is all my opinion:

Well, 1st off reviews are ONLY good for spec and maybe understanding how a feature is used. 99.99% of the people saying this is or isn't a "good buy", "bargain", or rating the model on some numerical or star scale are full of it. I find the same is true with software too.

So, after you read enough to understand a given feature set you really have to go to a shop and play with it for at least two hours - shoot with all the settings, work the heck out of the menus, and take a few hundred pictures. If you bring you're own card you can see the image quality once you get back home too. Borrowing a friends is actually not as good because you can't pick up the other Nikon models, The Olympus, The Canon, The Pentax, or walk over to the P&S SLR-Like cameras and compare speed, function, and feel. I do this myself about once every 2 or 3 months and I'm not actually even shopping for anything.

Everytime I do this the d40 always makes me question Nikon's sanity. It always feels like it's about to fall apart in my hands - most P&S models feel better made. It's the slowest feeling model of all of them - and that includes most P&S. The viewfinder makes me ill it's so narrow, bubble-like, and dim. The body styling is lame imo - it reminds me of a GMC Pacer or maybe a Gremlin - both badly designed cars from the 70's.

It's just nothing I would ever want to own and certainly nothing I would ever want to use.

What's better for the same price? To me? Anything at all. You can use a finder to get a look at what's out there. Here's one such: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp Just select SLR.

 

[passerby]

I was hoping someone on here would own a d40 and could advise from experience which is better then people just replying with what they have heard or read etc.. from the horses mouth as it were!

Nik

If you are not a professional at this moment than the cheapest camera possible is the logical first purchase. It takes time to settle with any hobby. To some people they get bored very quickly not long after the first months of ownings - than the buyer's remorse set in.

I like computers probably too much, but as a user, not a discusser. I like cameras, not as bad as I like computers but still. I bought my first digital when I saw the coffin arrived for the film in 2003. I bought this sony camera overseas for almost $800 when it was $1000 in sydney airport dutyfree shop. I did not discuss the purchase nor it's performance with anyone - but to use it for purpose. My family and my work were the purpose. Unfortunately it was stolen in less than a year later with most photos and video clips still in it.

So here it is I bought the D40. I bought this camera for purpose. And upto date it has done and still doing what I intent for. You must know what is your intention with the camera.

This picture is an example of what the D40 produces, people at last march easter show with the kit lens. No editing involved in it. What you see is what you get, no more and no less.

Have fun.

 

[Copacetic]

Well, for what it's worth, after much deliberation and research (including heading to Circuit City to handle as many of the top choices as possible) I settled on the D40. I got it Monday, with the kit lens and 55-200mm VR, and really couldn't be happier with it. It's probably the first big purchase that I have NO regrets about, in fact.

The only downsides I've really noticed are the lack of more focus points, and... Right, that's all that comes to mind. 6mp is plenty for all practical purposes, the price is right, it's light, takes great quality images, I definitely recommend it. Manual focus on older lenses is no problem for me, I find myself switching to manual focus quite a bit as it is, for various reasons. Try taking pictures of a dragonfly flitting about 15-20 feet away with autofocus.

 

[potownrob]

...I settled on the D40. I got it Monday, with the kit lens and 5-200mm VR, and really couldn't be happier with it. It's probably the first big purchase that I have NO regrets about, in fact.

No wonder you're so happy with it; with the new 5-200 VR lens you'll never need to change lenses !

The only downsides I've really noticed are the lack of more focus points, and... Right, that's all that comes to mind. 6mp is plenty for all practical purposes, the price is right, it's light, takes great quality images, I definitely recommend it. Manual focus on older lenses is no problem for me, I find myself switching to manual focus quite a bit as it is, for various reasons. Try taking pictures of a dragonfly flitting about 15-20 feet away with autofocus.

+1 to all that. I am still amazed by your first shots you posted this week.

 

[potownrob]

...Everytime I do this the d40 always makes me question Nikon's sanity. It always feels like it's about to fall apart in my hands - most P&S models feel better made. It's the slowest feeling model of all of them - and that includes most P&S. The viewfinder makes me ill it's so narrow, bubble-like, and dim. The body styling is lame imo...
What's better for the same price? To me? Anything at all.

I find this assessment unfounded, especially that most P&S cameras feel better made and are quicker than the D40. Either way, you're giving the OP and anyone reading this looking for advice the wrong idea. Sure, if you've used a higher-end dSLR or film SLR camera, the D40 won't feel as solid or quick, but to say that it feels like it's going to fall apart and is slower than most P&S cameras... Sure, if you're going to be shooting in wet or dusty conditions you'll want a better built camera but how many of us shoot in those conditions? As for the viewfinder, I think it's alright, though I haven't spent much time using other dSLRs. It's certainly better than any of the viewfinders on any P&S cameras I've used. I realize the importance of the viewfinder on a dSLR (since there's no live view on the screen on most dSLRs) and if there truly is a lack of clarity with the viewfinder, that could be a problem (and could explain why I have trouble manually focusing), but no one else has mentioned this in what I've read, as far as I can recall.

 

[Copacetic]

No wonder you're so happy with it; with the new 5-200 VR lens you'll never need to change lenses !
+1 to all that. I am still amazed by your first shots you posted this week.

Whoops! XD

Fixed that...

Oh, and thanks again. I've got more I need to upload that I took today, too.