nikon d40... should i get it?

[D40]

Ya got two choices on the shelf (for Nikon anyway) the D40 to save money and if money is a big concert or the D80 if you can afford that. I used the D40 for a year and it did the job. If you are going to get something that cost more then the D40 then you should go ahead and get something with an AF motor so that nocks out the D40x and D60.

 

[Dao]

I think it all comes down to ...

Is there anyone out there able to use D40 or any other low end DSLR cameras and create some GREAT photos? I believe the answer is yes.

Is the D40 or any other low end DSLR cameras is affordable so that someone that do not have a lot of money can start learning with it? I know someone may say, they can get a used higher end body for the same price of a new D40. But what about used D40 body? Maybe a high school kid that works part time in a fast food restaurant is now able to have a DSLR and start learning.

What about the fact that you can always upgrade the body later on once you have more money you can spend on camera equipments.


I really believe in the world of Photography, different people use their camera for different thing. There are people like or need to have the best equipments because of their job. There are people do not need to have the best equipments in the world, all they need is a equipment to create their art. Can someone use a Hoga to create a beautiful photos? I certainly think so.

As long as you know all the pros and cons of the camera, and you still like to get that camera, I do not see why not.

 

[Bifurcator]

I can create great photos with a cardboard box a hole bunch and some film. That doesn't mean I would want to. Nor would I pay $400 for it either. On the other hand I guess the cardboard box has a better build quality than the d40!

 

[dklod]

While the Nikon D40 is cheap, it has a few drawbacks.

1) A CCD sensor which produces a lot of noise at higher ISOs; and
2) It will not focus all Nikkor lenses.

For a little more money, you can get a Canon which not only accepts all Canon lenses but all Canons use CMOS sensors, similar technology as Nikon and Canon's professional line of cameras. Only Nikon's D3, D300 and D2X use CMOS sensors.

Photography is all about the final image and the less expensive Canons have better Image Quality at higher ISOs and in the shadows.

Gary

I have only read this thread up this this post, so I want to comment on this. I've got 4 browser pages going. Ebay, Canon, Nikon and this one. After going back and forth, Im more confused than ever. But something I did notice before reading this post was the fact that the Canon XTi (400D) has a cmos sensor which sounds like they are better at high ISO. Perfect, but Im still confused, so many options, pros and cons. I should just probably read on at this point. Any people from Australia here, point to a place or shot where I can test drive some demo cameras. Im in Sydney.

 

[anubis404]

Hell yes. I've had one for about 2 months now, and I have absolutely no regrets.

 

[anubis404]

thank you everyone very much...

i guess its now between the rebel and the d40..

I was on the fence just like this when I was shopping for my first DSLR. What made the huge difference was going to the store and handling them. The Cannon felt wrong in my hand. Like a two mismatched jigsaw puzzle pieces shoved together. However I loved the feel of the nikon. That's what sold me on the D40.

 

[Seefutlung]

I have only read this thread up this this post, so I want to comment on this. I've got 4 browser pages going. Ebay, Canon, Nikon and this one. After going back and forth, Im more confused than ever. But something I did notice before reading this post was the fact that the Canon XTi (400D) has a cmos sensor which sounds like they are better at high ISO. Perfect, but Im still confused, so many options, pros and cons. I should just probably read on at this point. Any people from Australia here, point to a place or shot where I can test drive some demo cameras. Im in Sydney.

When you test drive take a CF and a SD card, shoot a Canon and a Nikon at various ISO's up to 1600 ... then go home and compare.

That is the test you need ... Image Quality.

Gary

 

[Dikkie]

I bought it last year; went on vacation with it, sold it after a month... bought the D50

Really sad of the AF on my other lenses... couldn't get one sharp picture out of it. Not good for my eyes to look through the viewfinder and focussing manually every time... I already wear glasses and my eyes are not that great.
But with the kitlens, it's alright. For beginners, no problem.

 

[underOATH2220]

I think it all comes down to ...

Is there anyone out there able to use D40 or any other low end DSLR cameras and create some GREAT photos? I believe the answer is yes.

Is the D40 or any other low end DSLR cameras is affordable so that someone that do not have a lot of money can start learning with it? I know someone may say, they can get a used higher end body for the same price of a new D40. But what about used D40 body? Maybe a high school kid that works part time in a fast food restaurant is now able to have a DSLR and start learning.

What about the fact that you can always upgrade the body later on once you have more money you can spend on camera equipments.


I really believe in the world of Photography, different people use their camera for different thing. There are people like or need to have the best equipments because of their job. There are people do not need to have the best equipments in the world, all they need is a equipment to create their art. Can someone use a Hoga to create a beautiful photos? I certainly think so.

As long as you know all the pros and cons of the camera, and you still like to get that camera, I do not see why not.

high school kid working in a fast food restaurant= me

i work minimum wage so "simply" upgrading to the d80 isnt as easy as many people make it sound.. its going to take a few months of taking orders, cleaning windows, and cleaning crap off of toilets for me to even come close to the d40.. so maybe i should've specified at the beginning because i think some people in this post dont really seem to understand my ultra tight budget...


but i really really apreciate all of the people who have posted and given me their opinions.. thanks

 

[HappySnap]

I was totally in the same boat this weekend in respect of confusion as to which camera to buy - as my good friend Bifurcator will confirm :thumbup: however, for me, the Nikon D40 is the best. For my budget, my knowledge and experience it works. Theres nothing too advanced for me but enough that I can grow into and learn from. I took it out yesterday to the zoo and it did really well considering it was a bright day. I got the d40 with 18-55 lens, with a 2gb memory card and the Tamron 70-300 lens (plus free bag) for £409.

I thought it was a great deal and when people complain about the lack of lenses available - i wouldnt worry. Nikon, sigma and tamron all have plenty of lenses which will allow you to have AF. I am just looking forward to learning and taking fab photos with the d40 - and personally, for me, the build is good and it feels right to hold. (Ive only got small hands )

I think it always comes down to the individual person and what experience they have with photography. If you are a learner on a budget then the d40 is brilliant. If you can afford D80 and you know a fair bit about photography and the workings of a camera then thats fine.

Each to their own!

Edit to add 2 example photos from yesterday -

 

[nymtber]

You can get a Sony A200 for $500 with a 18-70mm kit lens and built in the camera stabilization, backwards compatibility with any Minolta autofocus lens....

here are pics ive taken:

So far ive done most of my shooting in iso 100. when I first got the camera, it was, of course, set to auto iso, so I had a few pictures at iso 400 and you couldnt really see much difference in quality. If i was going to shoot night photography, well I have a tripod. You always want to keep your iso as low as possible, unless you have a nikon D3 or D300, or canon eos 1D or 5D. Those cameras seem to be amazing at higher iso, especially the D3... Sony is coming out with a higher-end full frame as well...If you shoot at night a lot, and dont want unnecessary noise, then maybe you want to consider a higher end CMOS sensored camera. canon 40D, sony A700, Nikon D300.

 

[anubis404]

Well, since everyone is sharing their D40 pics, I guess I will too:

Great camera, worth every penny. Although a part of me wishes it got the D50. The no in body AF motor is a pain, however I have very sharp eyes. I'm usually a very good manual focuser.

 

[dklod]

I know I was talking about testing the Nikon and Canon, but I have found a new player. The purists will turn their noses and maybe even laugh, but Im getting a Samsung GX-20 for the weekend. A friend of mine works for Samsung as a product specialist in photography and he is very impressed with its performance. Ive spent most of the day going over its specs and reading the manual. Its 14mp, has a large cmos sensor and for a 14mp camera, is a very good buy, although, Im not buying it just yet. I'll post some pics if I can learn how to use the thing within the weekend.

 

[Mav]

There's a lot more to high ISO performance than just sensor type (CCD vs CMOS). There's also pixel pitch and the sophistication of the camera's on-board processing too. And the D300's new CMOS sensor actually has more noise at lower ISOs than the old CCD ones do! At 200 and 400 there's visible noise on the CMOS, but not on the CCD. They're about even at 800, and from there on up the CMOS looks cleaner. Considering I shoot at iso400 all the time, I'm not so hot to upgrade to a D300 with a CMOS if it's going to have more noise than a CCD at 400. Then there's pixel pitch. The fewer number of megapixels, the larger each photo site is, and the better sensitivity you'll have. The D40 is only a 6MP camera, so the photosites are nice and big and the camera has great high ISO performance. The pixel pitch is similar to that of the Nikon D3! The D40 is also the last camera Nikon has made with the 6MP CCD sensor, which means it also has the latest and best on-board image processing and NR techniques applied out of any other 6MP camera they've built.

The end result is that the D40 performs brilliantly at high ISO. It's not quite as good as a D300, but it holds its own. It's definitely better than any of the 10MP CCD cameras by at least a stop.

Here's one at 1600, straight off the camera:

And here's another one at 3200, also straight off the camera:

And then with just some noise reduction in post, and nothing else.

Here's a high ISO comparison shootout: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-10/index.htm

I think the little D40 is 2nd only to the Canon 5D in that test! It maintains detail very well even up to 1600/3200 and has a nice clean noise pattern. The D200 smudges out too much detail and loses sharpness. And the XTi and 40D do a bit better job of maintaining detail and sharpness than the D200 and stay about even with the D40, but both of the Canons have ugly chroma noise. You can start to see it at 800, and from 1600 onwards its very visible. The D40 maintains detail well and it has a pleasant noise pattern too.


For image quality, I don't think one can really say with a straight face that one system delivers truly better quality than the others. Provided both cameras are setup properly, both will give equally good results. A key thing with the Nikons though is that there's FAR less that you have to keep track of and worry about as far as setup goes. With fully programmable Auto ISO, Auto Contrast, Auto Sharpness, and Auto Saturation, you can just shoot and not have to worry. Auto ISO is great and prevents a lot of missed shots. And never in over 30,000 shots on my Nikons have I ever had a JPEG with messed up contrast. But I see contrast issues on Canons all the time. Yet another thing they have to keep track of. Nikon makes it easy to get great results, and the vast majority of the time the JPEGs are so well processed that there's no real need to mess with RAW for me.

As far as feel and ergonomics, I don't know what it is about Canon bodies but they just do not fit my hands well at all. The control placement seems odd, there are some wheels and buttons that I just can't reach at all, and on top of that the menu system has never made any bit of sense to me. Sure if I was a professional I could adapt to anything including Canon, but if I can get equal or better image quality out of Nikons *and* they're far more comfortable and ergonomically agreeable to me, then why would I want to even bother with Canons?

For build quality, I have zero clue what some of you are complaining about on the D40. I think it's much better built than the equivalent Canons. No it's not as sturdy as my F100, or a D300, or any of the pro bodies. It's a cheap consumer body. What the heck are you expecting? Maybe the one you held in the store was dropped a few times and did have pieces falling off of it, but that's not the camera's fault.


Here's two recent favorites taken with the D40:

pretty much straight off the camera here:

minor lighting adjustments here:

^ Oh and that photo was taken with one of the lenses that doesn't AF on the D40. Oh the horrors of manual focus, LOL. Just select the AF sensor you want to use (which are still active), manually turn the focus ring, and watch for the focus confirmation dot in the lower left corner of the viewfinder.


I like the D40 so much that I'm planning to take just that on a week long vacation in a few months. The compact size and lightweight make it ideal for travel. And its output is subjectively better than my D80! Things look a bit cleaner and crisper, the auto white balance is a bit better, and the noise at high ISO is better too. It's truly a great little camera, and many pros have them as a backup because they know how great and capable they are too.

 

[NateS]

Mav....you know good and well that the cityscape shots are not where manual focus is hard.....taking pictures of a moving baby at f1.8 while manual focusing is what's hard.....

Then again....if I had a 17-55 in my bag, I'd consider a D40 too as my 50mm f1.8 would rarely see the light of day.