Illogical purchase.

[petey]

It chaps my hide that Nikon didn't make this camera to fit all the older design, screw drive, motored lenses. My God, what were they thinking when they created it?

 

[adolan20]

Well they cut out the motor to cut cost to the consumer. Although I do not like the D40 because of this, I can say if feels a hell of a lot better than the Xti.

 

[Tasmaster]

when you pay that much for a camera, why would you want to have to settle for it?

That much?? Which part of -->CHEAPEST<-- dSLR is so hard to understand? Once again, get your facts straight people. If you want to complain about something you can complain about, say, bracketing - which is far more useful to a beginner, costs nothing, and doesn't make the camera bigger.

I am starting to believe the whole "D40 haters are blinded by jealousy" thing here! It's a baby dSLR, get over it and go take some pictures.

 

[Mystwalker]

There are always good and bad in buying second hand goods. But when we shed plenty of money so we can use the seconhand goods, than to me it is illogical move.

Here is what we heard from reading around.

It is wrong move to buy the nikon d40 because it is restricted with newer lenses only. There are milllions of nikon lenses out there waiting to be snatched at bargain prizes.

So people spend something like almost $1000 more, or more than $1000 for the camera that can utilizes the old lenses? I don't get it.

Ok let see what you think.

Not sure about accuracy of statement. Older lens will work with D40 - I think you must get AF-S if you want autofocus. I guess only the newer lens are classified as AF-S and are more expensive.

So ... if you get a D40 (D40x) and want autofocus, you must buy new AF-S lens.

In regards to your statement ... people who spend $1000+ are buying the higher end cameras which can use older lens. These cameras are higher end then the D40 anyways. Do not think they are buying the higher end camera just to get autofocus capability without having to buy AF-S.

I played with a D40x before deciding on 30D. Nikon worked beautifully, but it didn't feel "right". Basically, 30D (to me) felt more substantial, but D40x inner mechanism seemed smoother. All this was before I learned about lens and such. Probably would have gone D80 if I had been able to test one. Today, it's Canon all the way for me :thumbup:

 

[ghpham]

We had this discussion about the D40 already. Like it or don't like it, get over it.

 

[shorty6049]

That much?? Which part of -->CHEAPEST<-- dSLR is so hard to understand? Once again, get your facts straight people. If you want to complain about something you can complain about, say, bracketing - which is far more useful to a beginner, costs nothing, and doesn't make the camera bigger.

I am starting to believe the whole "D40 haters are blinded by jealousy" thing here! It's a baby dSLR, get over it and go take some pictures.

yeah, it may be one of the cheapest, but when other camera makers have similarily priced cameras with less compatability issues, then you start to see how its not as practical. The d40 is a great camera if you dont plan on doing much more than using the kit lens, or a couple low end lenses. But i know, when i started out with my a100, the only lenses i've bought for it were sigma and used minolta glass because sony's lenses are too expensive for me. The problem is, a lot of people dont know about the lens issues with the d40 and then they end up having problems when they buy lenses that arent compatable. To each his own, but i'd just rather not have to worry about it.

 

[ghpham]

No, I'm not just trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that I don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.

Are you saying the average consumer is stupid and don't know what they are buying into??

 

[lifeafter2am]

Are you saying the average consumer is stupid and don't know what they are buying into??

Your not serious with this right? The AVERAGE consumer has no clue what they are buying except what the sales person tells them. The AVERAGE consumer does not do research, except maybe price research.

 

[Mystwalker]

Are you saying the average consumer is stupid and don't know what they are buying into??

I would not use the word "stupid", but answering for myself when I was shopping ... errr, YES!

I think uninformed is more accurate. NOOOB if you like.

I wanted a DSLR because shutter lag on P&S was frustrating. I looked mainly at speed of photo, then I looked at MP - 10.1mp > 8mp type of deal. Only went 30D because xti and d40x didn't feel right - like toys maybe?

 

[Tasmaster]

yeah, it may be one of the cheapest, but when other camera makers have similarily priced cameras with less compatability issues, then you start to see how its not as practical. The d40 is a great camera if you dont plan on doing much more than using the kit lens, or a couple low end lenses. But i know, when i started out with my a100, the only lenses i've bought for it were sigma and used minolta glass because sony's lenses are too expensive for me. The problem is, a lot of people dont know about the lens issues with the d40 and then they end up having problems when they buy lenses that arent compatable. To each his own, but i'd just rather not have to worry about it.

First of all, anyone who buys some kind of expensive gadget without knowing what it does, deserves all the woes. There is simply no way to not know about the lens issue unless you avoid reading anything related to the D40 on purpose. It is mentioned everywhere.

As for the competition: by all means get a Canon, Sony, Pentax or Olympus.

For me it was this simple:

a) i was on a really tight budget, wanting a dSLR
b) the D40 appeared
c) i held a D40; i held a Digital Rebel; i held a k100; i had only one choice

There is more to a camera than the specs.

 

[MarcusM]

Your not serious with this right? The AVERAGE consumer has no clue what they are buying except what the sales person tells them. The AVERAGE consumer does not do research, except maybe price research.

I fully agree with that. I think the average consumer mostly looks at MP and Zoom when buying their first camera...I have found researching my next camera to be one of the toughest purchasing decisions ever made. Tougher than buying a car! (But that could just be because I'm not really into cars - way more into photography - just give me a car that will get me from point a to b for several years w/no problems and I will be happy)

You have to do so much research to find out what you really will be happy with - MP do play a small factor, but then there's:
-will the body I want support lenses I'll be happy with?
-Will the body I want have ISO settings that will allow me to accomplish my goals?
-Do I want a full frame or will a smaller frame work?
-CMOS or CCD?
-Shutter speeds?
-FPS?
-Is the interface intuitive?

There are so many things to think about to be sure you're not stuck with a camera that you will have for years while wishing you would have bought a different one.

I think the average consumer has no clue what they're looking for when making their first "serious" camera purchase, unless they have really done some thorough research.

 

[Jam_Man]

No, I'm not just trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that I don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.

You are entitled to your opinion but its rather arrogant to think your opinion is fact and people shouldnt be happy with what they have.

Well Ive got a D40 and am happy with it.

Its my first DSLR and Im a total noob and wanted to move into DSLR photography after enjoying taking pictures with compacts.

My camera with 18-55 kit lens cost me £270 whereas a D60 costs £450 and a D80 costs £499 (Body only!)

At the time I had no idea whether it was a fad or whether something I would really get passionate about so paying almost double would have been foolish.

Im more than happy with the D40 whilst I learn the basics and am certainly not defending it to make myself better.

Whilst I will upgrade at some point I do not regret in anyway not spending the extra £230 and will probably ebay the D40 and recoup most of the money I paid anyway, ebay shows they sell for £230 which is only £40 I paid for mine a year ago.

 

[JerryPH]

Considering the distance and long exposure time, not the best shot to argue about sharp focus. Otherwise a great shot.

Definately. The cement floor 4 feet in front of the camera is nice and sharp... everything else is soft. The contention I make is that becuase of this viewfinder, the shooter could not tell what was tack sharp, and what was out of focus. The object that they wanted in focus (the building), ... was not and it was difficult to see via the viewfinder.

I'd put the blame on the viewfinder before the operator in this case... but then again, 90% of all viewfinders in most modern digital cameras are not very friendly when it comes to manual focusing.

As far as "illogical purchases", what seems illogical for one is logical for another. There is no one right answer for everyone and we all need to inform ourselves BEFORE we make our purchases. To not do so... is illogical. :lmao:

The D40 is an excellent beginner dSLR with a broad range of lenses available for it... it is also a camera made for a lower end market and in that end, they did not include the motor to drive older lense focusing mechanisms as a concession. It is the responsability of potential purchasers to inform themselves and how it will affect them. For some it will be a deal breaker, but for most... it will make no difference at all.

If you leave your choice in the hands of someone else... well its time to grow up and learn that not all sales people are interested in educating you about what is the best choice for you. That is the buyer's responsability for themselves. The seller's is to make or exceed quota, NOTHING else.

As far as the statement of old lenses being bad... thats a very broad statement. In some cases it is true but the vast majority of time if we compare known high quality prime lenses of the 60's and 70's to today's known high quality prime lenses... there are no real optical advantages to be found. Good glass will always be good glass.

 

[ghpham]

I fully agree with that. I think the average consumer mostly looks at MP and Zoom when buying their first camera...I have found researching my next camera to be one of the toughest purchasing decisions ever made. Tougher than buying a car! (But that could just be because I'm not really into cars - way more into photography - just give me a car that will get me from point a to b for several years w/no problems and I will be happy)

You have to do so much research to find out what you really will be happy with - MP do play a small factor, but then there's:
-will the body I want support lenses I'll be happy with?
-Will the body I want have ISO settings that will allow me to accomplish my goals?
-Do I want a full frame or will a smaller frame work?
-CMOS or CCD?
-Shutter speeds?
-FPS?
-Is the interface intuitive?

There are so many things to think about to be sure you're not stuck with a camera that you will have for years while wishing you would have bought a different one.

I think the average consumer has no clue what they're looking for when making their first "serious" camera purchase, unless they have really done some thorough research.

All I can say is if you are willing to throw out $500+ for a camera and don't do research, then you cannot cry that you got ripped off. Let's face it, the D40 is marketed toward the beginner who might or might not get serious into photography to wet their feet, nothing more, nothing less. By far, it is one of the better selling camera's in the Nikon line.

 

[BuZzZeRkEr]

No, I'm not just trying to prove my point to win a forum arguement, I keep saying I think it's horrible. I THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is horrible. I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake. So boo ho go cry about it, someone hates your camera. I'm not a troll, I think it is just unfair to the average consumer. Also, people don't "know what lenses it can and can't take" rihgt off the bat. I know when I started DSLR photography I knew I could expand, but I had no idea what DX, AF, IS, VR, DG, DO, USM, APO, or any of that stuff meant, I'd sure have hated to buy a D40 thinking I could expand then find out I was so limited. Just because you researched it religiously doesn't mean everyone will, or as I was saying, will even understand what the research means until holding a lens in practice and using it. Please, I do know some of what I'm talking about. I'm not just a stupid troll trying to bash you and your camera, I am just saying that I don't like it, and I think it'd be a bad purchase in terms of dollar for value.

"I hate your camera and like I said, the only reason I see fit to defend it is to justify it to yourself that you didn't make a mistake."

This quote has to make the idiots hall of fame.

I got a D40x package with 2 lenses....18-55mm kit and 55-200mm VR lense with body, case, and sd card for $850.00

I love this camera, you simply cannot get a better camera, and lens package for the price. The quality of pictures, featues, ease of use is absolutely superior. I have returned my original D40X because of a dead pixel issue and was refunded %100 percent of my money. What did I do? Bought the exact same D40X package.