NEW NIKON & OLYMPUS dSLRs

[lostprophet]

So a few months ago Nikon release the D40 and today they announce the D40x think they will be a few angry customers coming in the shop

Also a few months ago Olympus release the E400 and now they announce the E410, again I see some angry customers

NIKON D40X LINK

OLYMPUS E410 LINK

all good looking cameras but why so soon?

also an OLYMPUS E510 LINK

 

[Don Simon]

My guess, they realise most people are still obsessed with megapixels. I agree some people will be annoyed and I don't blame them. It's all very well to say "buy what you need now and don't worry because something newer is always round the corner", but you don't usually expect a model to be replaced and devalued that soon.

 

[RMThompson]

Hmmm what's the cost of the Nikon D40x ? That would make all the difference...

 

[Don Simon]

Edit: According to Thom Hogan the D40x is not a replacement for the D40, the D40 will continue to be produced as well. If that is the case the fairly bad-tempered comments I originally posted here were irrelevant, but I'm still not convinced about what this offers for $200 more besides some more pixels, and I would hope they include a focus motor this time.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

talk about lame :er:

I just dont see the point in making this camera, sure it will be the cheapest 10mp camera, but it is lacking the features that the higher priced cameras have. I guess you have to appeal to the group that thinks a 10MP camera is comparable to any other 10MP camera, and a 6MP camera will never produce the quality of a 10. Personally I'd take a 6mp camera with real autofocus over the 10mp D40X with its 3 focusing sensors.

Just seems like a step back to me. The D40 was excusable because it was made for people looking to step into DSLR photography, it was cheap and it was very user friendly. Eliminate the cheap price and you have a camera that costs a little less than the 400D (not significantly less like the D40) but lacks just about all the features that the competitive 10mps have.

Not to mention, if I had bought a D40 Id be real upset to find out a few weeks later my camera suddenly had an upgraded version.

 

[Iron Flatline]

talk about lame :er:

I just dont see the point in making this camera, sure it will be the cheapest 10mp camera, but it is lacking the features that the higher priced cameras have. I guess you have to appeal to the group that thinks a 10MP camera is comparable to any other 10MP camera, and a 6MP camera will never produce the quality of a 10. Personally I'd take a 6mp camera with real autofocus over the 10mp D40X with its 3 focusing sensors.

Just seems like a step back to me. The D40 was excusable because it was made for people looking to step into DSLR photography, it was cheap and it was very user friendly. Eliminate the cheap price and you have a camera that costs a little less than the 400D (not significantly less like the D40) but lacks just about all the features that the competitive 10mps have.

Not to mention, if I had bought a D40 Id be real upset to find out a few weeks later my camera suddenly had an upgraded version.

Agreed. I'm getting bored by the constant barage of new Nikons, but I'll bet some of their customers are getting ticked off, or just plain confused.

 

[smyth]

Agreed. I'm getting bored by the constant barage of new Nikons, but I'll bet some of their customers are getting ticked off, or just plain confused.

well, think about it. They stopped making film cameras, (except for the F6 and the FM10)and their DSLR line was getting pretty dated. The D50 is 2 Years old, the D70 is working on 3 years... they needed to improve it. Not to mention, since DSLRs have more technology being used, they are more prone to becoming outdated quicker than film cameras would,and similar to computers. You buy a good one, with all the bells and whistles, and a few months later a new one is released, that does exactly what the last one did, except faster, with less power, costs less, and has a few more bells and whistles.

 

[smyth]

talk about lame :er:

I just dont see the point in making this camera, sure it will be the cheapest 10mp camera, but it is lacking the features that the higher priced cameras have. I guess you have to appeal to the group that thinks a 10MP camera is comparable to any other 10MP camera, and a 6MP camera will never produce the quality of a 10. Personally I'd take a 6mp camera with real autofocus over the 10mp D40X with its 3 focusing sensors.

Just seems like a step back to me. The D40 was excusable because it was made for people looking to step into DSLR photography, it was cheap and it was very user friendly. Eliminate the cheap price and you have a camera that costs a little less than the 400D (not significantly less like the D40) but lacks just about all the features that the competitive 10mps have.

Not to mention, if I had bought a D40 Id be real upset to find out a few weeks later my camera suddenly had an upgraded version.

I agree with you 100%, though I can see where Nikon is going with this. They want to draw in more people from the P&S crowd to the DSLRs, however, many of them have been brainwashed by stupid salesmen at department stores to think that if my camera has twenty bajillion megapixels, it is the best camera on earth, even if the optics were made by fisher price. They're also trying to compete the the Rebel XT and XTI, while staying in the sub 1000$ price range.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

well, think about it. They stopped making film cameras, (except for the F6 and the FM10)and their DSLR line was getting pretty dated. The D50 is 2 Years old, the D70 is working on 3 years... they needed to improve it. Not to mention, since DSLRs have more technology being used, they are more prone to becoming outdated quicker than film cameras would,and similar to computers. You buy a good one, with all the bells and whistles, and a few months later a new one is released, that does exactly what the last one did, except faster, with less power, costs less, and has a few more bells and whistles.

The problem here is that the D80 is the flagship 10MP model and it is brand new. this replaced the D70.

The D50 was replaced with the D40, which is in my opinion a step down with the lack of features, but adding 2 megapixels doesnt exactly rectify that problem.

I agree with you 100%, though I can see where Nikon is going with this. They want to draw in more people from the P&S crowd to the DSLRs, however, many of them have been brainwashed by stupid salesmen at department stores to think that if my camera has twenty bajillion megapixels, it is the best camera on earth, even if the optics were made by fisher price. They're also trying to compete the the Rebel XT and XTI, while staying in the sub 1000$ price range.

While I havent used either the D40 or the D40X, they may compete with the XT, but I doubt it, and they certainly wont even touch the XTi... that is what the D80 is for.

The new D40X is just a marketing twist on the D40- Look at our 10 megapixels, ignore the lack of autofocus points, dust cleaning (not the most effective, but the competitors have them) the lack of ability to use any lens that doesn't have an AF motor, and you find Nikons 40 series lagging behind the competition.

IMO the D40 is perfect for someone who wants to learn photography, its cheap and has great help abilities. Add 200 dollars to the price tag and you have a camera who's only benifit is the help menues. I'll pass.

 

[smyth]

The problem here is that the D80 is the flagship 10MP model and it is brand new. this replaced the D70.

The D50 was replaced with the D40, which is in my opinion a step down with the lack of features, but adding 2 megapixels doesnt exactly rectify that problem.




While I havent used either the D40 or the D40X, they may compete with the XT, but I doubt it, and they certainly wont even touch the XTi... that is what the D80 is for.

The new D40X is just a marketing twist on the D40- Look at our 10 megapixels, ignore the lack of autofocus points, dust cleaning (not the most effective, but the competitors have them) the lack of ability to use any lens that doesn't have an AF motor, and you find Nikons 40 series lagging behind the competition.

IMO the D40 is perfect for someone who wants to learn photography, its cheap and has great help abilities. Add 200 dollars to the price tag and you have a camera who's only benifit is the help menues. I'll pass.

I'll agree with you on all of that, however the D40 has the same megapixel count as the D50.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I'll agree with you on all of that, however the D40 has the same megapixel count as the D50.

yes, they are both 6mp cameras, but the D50 supports more lenses and has more auto focus points. That is what I meant by a step backwards with the D40. BUT, I guess thats why the numbers decreased, whereas the D80 went ABOVE the D70, since it is after all, superior to the D70.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[smyth]

yes, they are both 6mp cameras, but the D50 supports more lenses and has more auto focus points. That is what I meant by a step backwards with the D40. BUT, I guess thats why the numbers decreased, whereas the D80 went ABOVE the D70, since it is after all, superior to the D70.

Sorry for the confusion.

agreed.