Nikon D40

[cande56755]

It seems like the Nikon D40 is the cheapest and best Digital SLR camera for the money. Is that true? I know that it's only 6.1 megapixel which is one drawback and it has something funky with it's auto focusing system. Can anyone tell me if there is a better camera for price of a D40?

 

[epp_b]

I know that it's only 6.1 megapixel which is one drawback

6.1 mp is not that much of a drawback. Megapixels increase exponentially, not additionally. To get something twice is large as 6mp, you have to leap all the way to 25mp. Anything in between is not as important as you might think.

...it has something funky with it's auto focusing system...

There's nothing "funky" about it. Nikon has two AF systems:

1) AF motor built into the body (noted as AF or AF-D), which drives the focusing mechanism in a lens via a screwdriver-like coupling on the mount.

2) AF motor built into the lens (noted as AF-S or AF-I), which is driven via CPU contacts on the mount.

The D40 will only AF with lenses in the #2 category because it lacks the built-in AF motor to save cost and weight. AF-S lenses are usually better and faster-focusing anyway. With the exception of the D60, all other Nikon DSLRs will AF using either system.

For mounting compatibility, however, it is the most compatible digital camera that Nikon makes: it will accept any lens Nikon has made since 1959 (with manual metering and focus, of course)

The D40 is only $409 US on Amazon right now (holy crap!). If you jump on it now, then, no, there is no better deal and no more expandable and vast an SLR system to buy into for that price.

 

[cande56755]

Actually I saw it for around $200.

 

[cande56755]

I saw some pictures that a few people took with the D40 and some of them looked kind of weird like a cartoon. Maybe these were photoshopped? I'm hoping that someone will tell me if this is the best camera for the price or if there are better out there to consider.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

Megapixels increase exponentially, not additionally.

Area of a square = x^2, not y^x, but yes, it takes four times the pixel count to double the linear length.

 

[epp_b]

Actually I saw it for around $200.

For $200, it's either a scam or very used. Can you give us a link?

 

[cande56755]

It was either ebay or amazon used.

 

[elemental]

If you want used gear, go to KEH. They don't have any D40 bodies, but the D40Xs start at $310 in "excellent +" condition.

As the "cheapest and best" digital SLR for then money, you have an unbelievably large and competitive number of offerings from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, and others. There is no one "cheapest and best." The onus is on you to do the research to get the camera that best fits your needs and budget. Whatever it is though, KEH is the place if you want it used.

 

[cande56755]

Hey thanks

 

[OregonAmy]

Lots of us on here have D40s and love them. None of my pictures turn out "cartoonish"; I'm sure the ones you saw were modified.

Samples taken with a d40: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page26.asp

But, I agree with elemental - you owe it to yourself to check out other brands/models and compare features, feel, and price to determine the best one for you.

 

[elemental]

Hey thanks

No problem, although I think I should clarify that I would not recommend a D40X over a D40. I just needed an example.

If you want a completely legitimate $200-ish digital SLR with lens, this is about all I know of. It's two models outdated, but it'll do everything you need a first DSLR to do.

If you want, in my opinion, the best deal in the dirt-cheap DSLR market, this will crush the D40 or any other entry-level model, with semi-pro features like weather sealing, a larger more ergonomic body, and the awesomeness of four decades of excellent lenses.

I'm a Pentax man, and I recommend what I know. Feel free to completely ignore my advice if it doesn't suit you.

 

[cande56755]

No product popped up on your link elemental.

 

[elemental]

Really? There's no picture for either, but there should be a product page.

Does this link work? These are the two items I linked you to:

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...=&BC=DP&BCC=3&ID=16&CC=1&CCC=1&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

Amazingly, the K10D kit was sold in the last two and a half hours. Was it someone who got the link from here? It was certainly a killer buy.

The remaining camera is a Pentax *ist DS, which was Pentax's entry-level DSLR before the K100D/K110D. It was released in 2005, and reportedly has the same RAW quality as the K100D (with softer jpegs), a better viewfinder, a slightly smaller and better built body. It lacks the K100D's in-body image stabilization, and let's be honest, it's not that new. If you want the best bang for the buck though, it's pretty hard to argue with. Even if you outgrow the body quickly, you can pick up any other Pentax digital body and keep all of your lenses. More info on the DS is here.

This is a review, but all of the comparisons are to other cameras from the time. Some of the other information, like features and handling, is more valid.

 

[cande56755]

That ist looks nice. The other link did not work. I think though that I would need image stablization because my previous Canon digital camera did not have it and I had alot of fuzzy shots. Heck I still do, but at least alot less. What's really sad is that I don't even drink.

 

[elemental]

That ist looks nice. The other link did not work. I think though that I would need image stablization because my previous Canon digital camera did not have it and I had alot of fuzzy shots. Heck I still do, but at least alot less. What's really sad is that I don't even drink.

An A720 and a DSLR are completely different when it comes to technique, which includes minimizing camera shake. No Canon or Nikon DSLR is image stabilized either. Those companies use IS/VR lenses, which command a significant premium. The Sony and Pentax lines have image stabilization in body. Just different philospohies- that's all.