How much is my D40 worth?

[480sparky]

It would be an investment if it's a tool of the trade you use to put food on your table.

 

[Destin]

The Op isn't talking about an investment. Camera bodies are a horrible investment in the first place. They depreciate, always. Nobody in their right mind would 'invest' in a camera body. You buy a camera body to take pictures. You agree with me and state that the 'D90 is the best value at this time on the market' but you advise somebody not to buy it because it is a poor 'investment'?

Exactly. It's a great value. HOWEVER I see no point to buying it, when you can get a better camera that will hold it's value better, and therefore you'll lose less money when you resell it down the road.

 

[Kerbouchard]

The Op isn't talking about an investment. Camera bodies are a horrible investment in the first place. They depreciate, always. Nobody in their right mind would 'invest' in a camera body. You buy a camera body to take pictures. You agree with me and state that the 'D90 is the best value at this time on the market' but you advise somebody not to buy it because it is a poor 'investment'?

Exactly. It's a great value. HOWEVER I see no point to buying it, when you can get a better camera that will hold it's value better, and therefore you'll lose less money when you resell it down the road.

Ok. One of the things you'll learn as you get older is that not everybody is going to agree with you. Turns out, that's one of the great things about online forums. People get to read and view opinions from different people with different outlooks and levels of experience and make up their minds from there. If we all said the same thing, this forum would get pretty boring.

 

[Destin]

The Op isn't talking about an investment. Camera bodies are a horrible investment in the first place. They depreciate, always. Nobody in their right mind would 'invest' in a camera body. You buy a camera body to take pictures. You agree with me and state that the 'D90 is the best value at this time on the market' but you advise somebody not to buy it because it is a poor 'investment'?

Exactly. It's a great value. HOWEVER I see no point to buying it, when you can get a better camera that will hold it's value better, and therefore you'll lose less money when you resell it down the road.

Ok. One of the things you'll learn as you get older is that not everybody is going to agree with you. Turns out, that's one of the great things about online forums. People get to read and view opinions from different people with different outlooks and levels of experience and make up their minds from there. If we all said the same thing, this forum would get pretty boring.

Thank you Captain obvious :/

I was just clarifying what I meant by investment in this case. Wasn't saying it was going to gain value, just that it's going to lose less than the D90, and therefore, after he sells it, it will actually be cheaper for him to have chosen the D7000 because he'll lose $100-200 rather than the $350-450 that the D90 will depreciate. That's it. Simple economics at the most basic level.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Simple economics? Look, I'm sick of your nonsense. Here is simple economics for you.

A D7000 costs around $1200 body only. A used D90 goes for around $650. A used D80 is around $450.

The D80 was released in 2006. The D90 was released in 2008 with a lot more features. The D7000 was just released and it's current price has more to do with the disaster in Japan and supply issues than with it's actual value.

When the D90 was first released, it sold for around $900 body only. It has dropped $250 dollars already that the OP doesn't have to worry about and may drop another $200 over the next few years as evidenced by the D80. You think the D90 will drop $350 to $450 over the next few years? You think we will see D90's at $200 bucks in a few years? You think the D7000 will only drop $100 to $200 over that same time period? You are nuts!

The D7000 drops more than $200 after you take it out of the box and will drop much more over the next two years. From a shear economics perspective, it is almost always better to buy something used that has already taken the depreciation than to buy something new, that will depreciate as soon as it is used, and will continue to depreciate over the next few years.

That's simple economics for you.

 

[tron]

No worries, I actually think its a good idea to bring it up. How do you feel the D7000 is 3x the D90 in terms of what you pay for?

They have very similar noise performance, seems like the D7000 doesnt drop off saturation as much at higher ISOs than the D90 (color rendition seems to fall off after ISO3200). In terms of video, I dont plan on shooting a lot of video anyways. Construction, yes the D7000 is pretty dope with its magnesium alloy body but then again apparently im not too hard on my gear even though my D40 has had no trouble in the wear department.

Similar noise performace? Who told you that? The D7000 is the single best crop sensor camera on the market right now for high iso performance. I've read multiple reviews that say it is only 1 stop worse than the D700, and that's saying alot. The D90 is only useable up to about 1600, MAYBE 3200 if the conditions are right. I've seen shots from the 7000 at iso 6400 that are totally acceptable!

It also has WAY better autofocus, 39 point vs the 11 point system of the D90. Experts have said that it's autofocus system matches, or surpasses the D300s in terms of speed and accuracy, and that is quite a feat.

The D7000 shoots 6fps, vs the 4 of the D90. That doesn't sound like much, but in real world shooting, it can be a huge difference.

The D90 lacks the U1 and U2, user programmable, savable modes. This can be a huge difference, or a non factor, depending on how you shoot.

Build quality is better, as you stated, but it's not a full magnesium body, just a few magnesium parts. Not that big of a difference durability wise, but it does feel alot more solid in your hand than the D90, without being much heavier.

16mp vs 12. Realistically, this doesn't mean much. 12 is plenty. But if you like to crop alot, this can be useful.

And finally, it's simply newer, and will hold it's value better than a D90. It will last longer before you feel the need to upgrade it, and is, in my opinion, a much better investment.

im with kerbouchard on this one. no need to flap your epenis around here and feel like you need to justify your photography knowledge here. imo it seems like youre reading nikons catalog haha. who "told me" about the noise performance was my own eyes:
Nikon D7000 review: High ISO Noise results, Nikon D7000 vs Canon EOS 60D vs Nikon D90 | Cameralabs
Photicious All Photography » Blog Archive » Nikon D7000 vs D700 vs D90 vs D300 [Comparison PICS]

d90 @ 3200:
http://www.photicious.com/images/d90-3200.JPG

d7000 @ 3200
http://www.photicious.com/images/d7000-3200.JPG

im not one whose taken aback by gimmicky things manufacturers do such as:
-U1/U2 modes, thats why i have fingers
-Dual card slots, its nice but ive never had an SD card corrupt in 5+ years of slr use

but what do i know, i mean you DID get a dslr when you were 15