Illogical purchase.

[JerryPH]

"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.

Not sure if it makes the "hall of fame" but it does prove that there is no one same answer for all people. :mrgreen:

It also shows that some people did not do their homework and now regret their purchase. That to me is the biggest mistake you can make... period.

 

[shorty6049]

buy a mac

 

[shorty6049]

haha... well i guess that shut everyone up

 

[usayit]

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.

Define plenty of money. There are some people in the world that think $100 is pocket change.... it is all relative.

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.

* Just because the lens is old does not necessarily mean that it can't produce wonderful photos
* Just because the lens is old does not mean that newer lenses are better.
* Just because the lens is old doesn't mean that one needs to replace it with a newer one

Some people are heavily invested in some really nice and expensive glass from yesteryears. It makes no sense (financially or practically) to replace all of it with the newer glass.

Some photographers on tight budgets are more than happy to buy an older lens (fast telephotos for example) used for a bargain price that normally couldn't fund the newer (and much more expensive) version.

Some photographers have develop a taste for how a certain older vintage lens renders an image.

Basically.. it means more choices.... thats what the extra $$$ buys yah.

 

[DSLR noob]

"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'd believe you if you didn't own one yourself. However, everyone who counters me is a D40 owner, that screams to me that they need to prove themselves something, if it was actually true, then the D40 would have more protectors in the Nikon family, but no, ask any good 'ole Nikonian and they'll happily tell you to look for a D50. I mention that I think it's an assumption, and the fact that the only 4 people arguing with me actually own the camera we're talking about justifies the basis upon which I made that statement and you have henceforth, proved it.

 

[elemental]

"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.

Isn't this the kind of statement that's getting us into trouble in the first place?

You know, the kind that this whole argument of a thread started with?

 

[patrickt]

I shoot with a Pentax. I enjoy taking pictures. I enjoy the process. A few months ago I saw a tourist with a Pentax DSLR. It was the first I'd seen and I was excited. I introduced myself and asked if he'd tried one of the new lenses with the focus motor built in. I got a blank look. He'd bought the camera with a kit lens and had been happily taking pictures on fully automatic ever since.

We sometimes forget that not everyone is like us and has our interests and might, just might, have totally different needs.

 

[JerryPH]

I don't know what the needs of others are, but if they are going to invest their money without researching their purchase, they deserved what they got and have nothing to complain about.

 

[adolan20]

Jeez is this still going on? Let's close it:
The D40 is a good camera BUT it will not autofocus with many lenses YET. I bet Nikon will produce more AF-S lenses at a lower cost. Manual focus is still possible, I did it on my D40x when I had it. It is not marketed towards "pros" it is a low end consumer camera, most of these people may only use the kit lens and the 55-200 VR. Others may like it so much they get more and use it for jobs and such.

 

[passerby]

Define plenty of money. There are some people in the world that think $100 is pocket change.... it is all relative.

In this days and age yes almost pretty much. Few years it was common to use "Thanks a million" for grateful expression. I think ten millions sound more fitting today.

Some people are heavily invested in some really nice and expensive glass from yesteryears. It makes no sense (financially or practically) to replace all of it with the newer glass.

That is the logical buy, I would do the same move if I have old lenses from the old expired cameras.

Some photographers on tight budgets are more than happy to buy an older lens (fast telephotos for example) used for a bargain price that normally couldn't fund the newer (and much more expensive) version.

This is what I meant illogical. The d40 is not really designed to work backward. The difference between d40 body and d80 body is over than $500 to $800 depending of the shops. Let alone the d200 or d300 for that matter. It does not make sense paying that so much differences in dollars to buy and utilize older lenses to save the dollars.

I don't know other cameras but if I have to do professional works I am sure the d40 is capable to do it, it is very advanced technologically - just like many of todays dslrs.

Some photographers have develop a taste for how a certain older vintage lens renders an image.

Basically.. it means more choices.... thats what the extra $$$ buys yah.

I think that applies to anything: House, cars, computers, phone etc etc. I have learned something from this:
Don't be dogmatic with technology, it is moving fast, and it will leave the emotionally wrecked enthusiast way behind.

Thanks ten millions or more for your replies guys, inflation is rampant. :mrgreen:

 

[sabbath999]

I
Gee, that's strange. My D80 will sync the flash at ANY shutter speed. It's called FP flash.

When the D80 syncs with anything above its 1/200th flash sync using FP, the output of the flash is (effectively) greatly reduced because of the the shutter speed. It is reduced (effectively) proportionally with the speed of the shutter.

If you were to fire a D80 and a D40 at 1/500th of a second with the same flash (with the D80 set to FP), the difference in the coverage range of that flash is astounding. I know, I have done it.

Only a specific fraction of the light is hitting the CCD using FP mode, so the flash guide number actually reduces dramatically as you raise the speed (as opposed to the true sync).

While this may not matter if you are shooting in a closed room or something close, it maters a whole bunch when you are shooting outdoors sports at night at maximum flash ranges (which is what I do a lot of). It also maters even more when you are shooting in bright daylight at a distance needing fill (say, for example when shooting a backlit subject at a medium range) and you want to use higher shutter speeds to give you the most flexibility to choose the best depth of field with your aperture settings. High natural sync speeds on flashes are a big help on daylight flash shooting, another thing I do all the time.

BTW this only applies to the D40 not the D40X which has a lower sync speed but cannot use FP, giving you the worst of both worlds.

 

[mrodgers]

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.

The average consumer does not research items they purchase. An example is a friend of mine. He purchased a Rebel XTi. Why did he choose the XTi? Because he wanted a camera that "takes nice pictures". He bought the XTi because it was the most popular.

Why is it "the most popular"? Reading this forum, you can see it is popular, but definitely not the "most" popular. It is the most popular because to my friend, it has the most exposure to the consumer market. You see it in magazines, you see it in every store from Walmart to Staples to Target. You see it all over the internet at Amazon and on E-bay. Search for "dSLR" and you would probably get the most hits for the Rebel XTi.

Does my friend know what he wants from a camera? Yes, he wants a camera that "takes a nice picture." He purchased his from an E-bay store for approximately $1000 because it came with several lenses, tripod, 2 camera cases, filters, etc. He called the actual store before buying to talk to someone. They talked him into an extra $500 because they told him that he needed a "digital lens" over the lens that came with the package. Why a "digital lens"? Because a "digital lens" works better, according to the store. So, off to swipe the credit card for a $1500 camera because he wanted to take "nice pictures."

When asked about how the camera does, the response was, "It's great! Everything is automatic, EVERYTHING!"

Indeed, the consumer does NOT do any research. This guy I outlined above spent $1500 on a camera that could have been done with a $200-300 camera. Research? The most people do with researching is to look at reviews online, probably user reviews mostly at sites like Amazon or Walmart. If someone were to look at the D40 over the XTi because of price, I'm sure they will see hundreds of user reviews stating that the D40 "takes great pictures" without understanding that those reviews are probably done with only a kit lens because the average consumer doesn't understand what a "kit lens" even is.

 

[Socrates]

I'd believe you if you didn't own one yourself. However, everyone who counters me is a D40 owner, that screams to me that they need to prove themselves something, if it was actually true, then the D40 would have more protectors in the Nikon family, but no, ask any good 'ole Nikonian and they'll happily tell you to look for a D50. I mention that I think it's an assumption, and the fact that the only 4 people arguing with me actually own the camera we're talking about justifies the basis upon which I made that statement and you have henceforth, proved it.

I own a D80 with SB-600 and two N80s with an SB-28. Eight lenses total (all Nikon glass). Stroboframe flash bracket. Half-dozen filters. I do not own a D40. I consider the D40 to be the best DSLR value on the market today. I did not purchase it myself because the D80 has some features that are important to me.

 

[DSLR noob]

I own a D80 with SB-600 and two N80s with an SB-28. Eight lenses total (all Nikon glass). Stroboframe flash bracket. Half-dozen filters. I do not own a D40. I consider the D40 to be the best DSLR value on the market today. I did not purchase it myself because the D80 has some features that are important to me.

there, that's all I needed. I hate the D40 sliiiiiiigthly less. I don't agree with that statement, but I find it easier to believe. (I hope my logic in this sense is understandable)

 

[Tasmaster]

I purchased a D40 because for me it was better than every other camera at the price range.