D40 out.

Innocence · Nov 16, 2006

Sharing [news] is caring haha

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d40/

Sw1tchFX · Nov 16, 2006

What a peice of junk.

ONLY compatible with AF-I and AF-S lenses? Are you kidding me? There is so much in the D40 that basicly just make it a glorified P&S camera. Limiting it to AF-S lenses only is RETARDED.

The Rebel is compatible with non-USM lenses, why the heck isn't the D40?
Probably beucase the people that this camera is aimed towards won't ever be changing lenses.

fmw · Nov 16, 2006

Sw1tchFX said:
What a peice of junk.

ONLY compatible with AF-I and AF-S lenses? Are you kidding me? There is so much in the D40 that basicly just make it a glorified P&S camera. Limiting it to AF-S lenses only is RETARDED.

The Rebel is compatible with non-USM lenses, why the heck isn't the D40?
Probably beucase the people that this camera is aimed towards won't ever be changing lenses.

You might not have read the brochure very carefully. It takes the vast majority of the auto focus Nikkors with full functionality - AF-S, AF-I, D, G - all of them. It takes Non CPU lenses in manual mode. In other words, it takes the same lenses as your D70 and your film Nikon. Is the D70 also retarded?

I don't know the pricing but this camera seems like terrific entry into the world of DSLR. I would sure recommend it.

Thanks for the heads up, Innocense, ha ha.

dsp921 · Nov 16, 2006

Only supporting auto focus with AF-S and AF-I lenses means they can leave the focus motor out of the body making it smaller, lighter and cheaper, which is the whole point. It's supposed to fit between the P&S cameras and the D50, looks to me like that's what it does. I think quite a few people looking for a high end P&S will make the move to DSLRs via the D40. Time will tell.

Edit: I've seen elsewhere this morning that the D40 is priced higher than the D50, if true this makes no sense to me.

CMan · Nov 16, 2006

Ok, assuming that this costs less than the D50 (which we don't know yet), this is my next camera.

CMan · Nov 16, 2006

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond40/

Hands on preview. According to this article, the retail price on the D40 is $599 for one with the 18-55 kit lens.

So, maybe street price of $450-499?

Tiberius · Nov 16, 2006

fmw said:
You might not have read the brochure very carefully. It takes the vast majority of the auto focus Nikkors with full functionality - AF-S, AF-I, D, G - all of them.

Wrong. No AF on those lenses, which makes them 100% worthless to the people the D40 is marketed to.

dsp921 · Nov 16, 2006

Tiberius said:
Wrong. No AF on those lenses, which makes them 100% worthless to the people the D40 is marketed to.

Not totally wrong, the AF-S and AF-I lenses will auto focus. As for the D and G, that designation has nothing to do with auto focus; some AF-S lenses are G, some D, etc.
It's really not a big deal, DX lenses are mostly (all?) Af-S anyway, as are many of the pro lenses, there is plenty to chose from for lenses with the D40, and since 99.9% of the people buying it aren't going to have a collection of lenses to start with it's a pretty minor issue, in my opinion anyway.

rmh159 · Nov 16, 2006

Who are you thinking these cameras will be marketed to? I think the pricing makes the D40 attractive to the higher end P&S market in which case they wouldn't have bought into a system yet and would probably be content with the kit lens.

Tiberius said:
... which makes them 100% worthless to the people the D40 is marketed to.

If you ask me this is an awesome idea. As the prices are changing and dSLR can be made for cheaper they have to make a low priced option for the crowd that feels "I'd like one but I'm not committed enough to spend the money." If they get a portion of that market (I don't believe Canon or any company has a dSLR for cheaper than the D50 or D40) they'll most likely have them hooked due to the investment. How many of us would ditch our current system after using it for a year or two?

I dunno... my two cents. Despite the pro's / con's arguments I think this makes perfect business sense and Nikon is going to steal some P&S users.

Big Mike · Nov 16, 2006

If you ask me this is an awesome idea. As the prices are changing and dSLR can be made for cheaper they have to make a low priced option for the crowd that feels "I'd like one but I'm not committed enough to spend the money." If they get a portion of that market (I don't believe Canon or any company has a dSLR for cheaper than the D50 or D40) they'll most likely have them hooked due to the investment. How many of us would ditch our current system after using it for a year or two?

I dunno... my two cents. Despite the pro's / con's arguments I think this makes perfect business sense and Nikon is going to steal some P&S users.

I agree...I think it's very smart marketing. A lot of consumers are starting to find out that a DSLR is much better than a digicam...despite the Megapixel count. Many of them don't want to spend $1000 however. They probably have little or no brand allegiance...and most likely don't have lenses already. They will just buy the cheapest DSLR they can find. If Nikon (or anyone) can hook these entry level DSLR users...they will most likely have them for life...so when or if they decide to upgrade...it will obviously be to Nikon gear.

The good news it that this will help to drive down other DSLR prices...and maybe get other companies to sell their own bare bones DSLR.

Tiberius · Nov 16, 2006

dsp921 said:
Not totally wrong, the AF-S and AF-I lenses will auto focus. As for the D and G, that designation has nothing to do with auto focus; some AF-S lenses are G, some D, etc.
It's really not a big deal, DX lenses are mostly (all?) Af-S anyway, as are many of the pro lenses, there is plenty to chose from for lenses with the D40, and since 99.9% of the people buying it aren't going to have a collection of lenses to start with it's a pretty minor issue, in my opinion anyway.

So it rules out every single prime (goodbye inexpensive low-light shooting), the 80-400VR (goodbye "inexpensive" wildlife shooting), the 80-200 f/2.8, gems like the 35-70 f/2.8, and any other number of great, reasonably priced glass? Sounds like the ultimate money-making scheme.

dsp921 · Nov 16, 2006

Tiberius said:
So it rules out every single prime (goodbye inexpensive low-light shooting), the 80-400VR (goodbye "inexpensive" wildlife shooting), gems like the 35-70 f/2.8, and any other number of great, reasonably priced glass? Sounds like the ultimate money-making scheme.

In my opinion people buying the D40 will have little use for any of those lenses. There are plenty of AF-S lenses available for the people that get the D40 instead of a P&S, and that's who this camera is aimed at. If they get to the point where those things you mention are important I'd think manual focus wouldn't be too much for them to handle or they'll just upgrade the body, and Nikon hopes they stay with the system. That seems to be the plan. I guess I don't see the problem, if it doesn't work for you, don't buy it.

rmh159 · Nov 16, 2006

Tiberius said:
... Sounds like the ultimate money-making scheme.

... isn't that the point of selling anything? :wink:

Gotta agree with dsp921 on this one... I don't think the market that the D40 would appeal to would miss those lenses IMO and even if they WOULD... they just use em as manuals.

benhasajeep · Nov 17, 2006

Actually I think its right inline with its pricing. The cheaper DX lenses all have focusing motors. So why pay to mount one in the body. With Pentax K110d comming in at $425 or so street and other low price competition I can see their need for a lower feature model. The people buying this are not likely to be buying the big buck lenses. And if they do most of them are now S models anyway.

I was considering buying my parents and the inlaws a Pentax K110d but and still may. I am not sure the Nikon will be in time for x-mas. I gave my parents their first digital. And its time for an upgrade. My new inlaws need one. So I am looking into the possibilities now.

LWW · Nov 17, 2006

Tiberius said:
So it rules out every single prime (goodbye inexpensive low-light shooting), the 80-400VR (goodbye "inexpensive" wildlife shooting), the 80-200 f/2.8, gems like the 35-70 f/2.8, and any other number of great, reasonably priced glass? Sounds like the ultimate money-making scheme.

It isn't a prosumer grade camera.

It is an entry level DSLR for someone who hasn't had one before.

Kind of like GM stairstepping people. They start you with a Cobalt when you are 21 and keep moving you upp until you buy an Escalade at 61.

These type buyers don't have a warchest of glass and will need everything. I would bet 75% upgrade within 3 years.

BRILLIANT move. Canon did this with the original Rebel SLR's 15 years ago and it worked for them.

LWW