Nikon d40

[Derrel]

The D40 has a pretty good sensor for a small,light, unobtrusive camera. it does pretty well,and when shot with good lenses, it produces excellent results.
Google up Ken Rockwell's photography site, and you can find tons of Nikon D40 articles.

The majority of Nikon's current, modern AF lens lineup is made up AF-S lenses which will focus on the D40 and other members of the five-member "baby Nikon" class which is made up of the D40-D40x-D60-D3000-D5000. Thehighly-desirable, class-leading Nikon AF lenses that will not autofocus on a D40 are for the most part, pro-grade lenses like the 85/1.4,105 and 135 DC, and the 80-400 VR--in other words, lenses costing three or four times more than a D40 body. Most beginners want small,light zooms, which are all AF-S.

By the time a beginner is ready for a 105mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control Nikkor lens, he's not going to be wanting an APS-C body. The caution about the D40's lack of autofocusing is usually from Canon shooters who want to make it sound like some huge,glaring flaw in the Nikon system. BUT, due to its lack of in-body AF system, the D40 will mount any Nikon F-mount accessory made since 1959,with no need for adapters or any modification of old lenses or lens accessories like extension tubes or old,manual focus teleconverters, macro converters, slide duplicator,microscope or telescope adapters, etc. This opens up a pool of over 50 million Nikkor lenses, plus probably 30-40 million used lenses in F-mount that will pop on and shoot on all the baby Nikons. So, the pawn shop lenses, and grandpa's old 1960's Nikkormat lenses....those will pop right on the little D40,and will shoot pictures! Same with affordable, used manual focusing macro lenses and low-cost extension tubes--the baby Nikons are ideal candidates for hooking up to literally tens of millions of older lenses.

 

[sA x sKy]

The D40 has a pretty good sensor for a small,light, unobtrusive camera. it does pretty well,and when shot with good lenses, it produces excellent results.
Google up Ken Rockwell's photography site, and you can find tons of Nikon D40 articles.

The majority of Nikon's current, modern AF lens lineup is made up AF-S lenses which will focus on the D40 and other members of the five-member "baby Nikon" class which is made up of the D40-D40x-D60-D3000-D5000. Thehighly-desirable, class-leading Nikon AF lenses that will not autofocus on a D40 are for the most part, pro-grade lenses like the 85/1.4,105 and 135 DC, and the 80-400 VR--in other words, lenses costing three or four times more than a D40 body. Most beginners want small,light zooms, which are all AF-S.

By the time a beginner is ready for a 105mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control Nikkor lens, he's not going to be wanting an APS-C body. The caution about the D40's lack of autofocusing is usually from Canon shooters who want to make it sound like some huge,glaring flaw in the Nikon system. BUT, due to its lack of in-body AF system, the D40 will mount any Nikon F-mount accessory made since 1959,with no need for adapters or any modification of old lenses or lens accessories like extension tubes or old,manual focus teleconverters, macro converters, slide duplicator,microscope or telescope adapters, etc. This opens up a pool of over 50 million Nikkor lenses, plus probably 30-40 million used lenses in F-mount that will pop on and shoot on all the baby Nikons. So, the pawn shop lenses, and grandpa's old 1960's Nikkormat lenses....those will pop right on the little D40,and will shoot pictures! Same with affordable, used manual focusing macro lenses and low-cost extension tubes--the baby Nikons are ideal candidates for hooking up to literally tens of millions of older lenses.

The problem with AF-S lenses is that they cost much, much more than those that are not AF-S. When I had my D60, I could have paid $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 but then it wouldn't auto-focus. So of course I had to pay $300 more for the f/1.4. To me f/1.8 and f/1.4 didn't mean a lot to me so I wasn't exactly the happiest person when I bought the f/1.4. Not to mention the lack of intervalometer controls for time lapse which is only on the D90 and above models I believe. But to each his own I guess. It was a great camera while it lasted.

 

[Derrel]

The problem with AF-S lenses is that they cost much, much more than those that are not AF-S. When I had my D60, I could have paid $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 but then it wouldn't auto-focus. So of course I had to pay $300 more for the f/1.4. To me f/1.8 and f/1.4 didn't mean a lot to me so I wasn't exactly the happiest person when I bought the f/1.4. Not to mention the lack of intervalometer controls for time lapse which is only on the D90 and above models I believe. But to each his own I guess. It was a great camera while it lasted.

There are many AF-S lenses that are the ***ONLY*** lenses in their category,so the idea that they "cost more" is a fallacy. There are 34 AF-S lenses in the current lineup, and many of them are the only one of their type. The 18-55 DX and 55-200 DX and the 70-300-G and 17-55 DX are ALL perfectly fine on the entry-level bodies. Same with the 12-24 DX,and the 105 VR Micro, and so on. Oh, and the 18-200 VR, the 18-105 and 18-135...ALL those lenses mount and focus on the baby Nikons. It's a matter of doing one's research before buying a camera, to know what the limits are.

For example, why don't more Canon people talk about the useless nature of Canon EF-S lenses on anything but crop-body Canons? Especially since Nikon's DX lenses actually WORK on all Nikon bodies, albeit with a reduced image circle on FX cameras. Unlike Canon, Nikon's DX-format lenses mount and shoot on all body types and the cameras automatically shift to a DX-sized image capture--but under the Canon system, an EF-S lens is a paperweight and will not even mount on a full-frame or 1.3x body. Why don't we hear that complaint brought up more frequently? Answers vary, but largely it's because people buying $400-$700 bodies cannot afford,or do not wish to buy into, the few remaining, older, full-format, higher-end Nikon lenses aimed at serious users who have the funds to buy the "serious:" cameras. Just as Canon's EF-S lens buyers do not show much interest in 1D seres or 5D bodies that cost $2,400 to $6995.

If a person is happy with ant one of the five "baby Nikon" cameras, he's usually going to be adequately served by the 34 current AF-S lenses and the 50 million manual focus and autofocus Nikkors that WILL mount,and which WILL shoot images,albeit without AF and without automatic light metering.

It's like complaining that one's cheap,entry-level $399 Netbook will not run Windows 98...an accurate and valid point, and yet somewhat irrelevant to most buyers who select a $399 netbook and do not expect 10 years of backward compatibility at the low end of the price scale. To most buyers of an entry-level Nikon, screw-driver lenses are simply far too expensive, aimed at FX format and or film Nikon users, and are really not the desired lenses for beginners. Who wants to drop $3800 on three screw-driver focusing FX Nikon lenses when they bought a $399 refurbished D40?

 

[sA x sKy]

The problem with AF-S lenses is that they cost much, much more than those that are not AF-S. When I had my D60, I could have paid $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 but then it wouldn't auto-focus. So of course I had to pay $300 more for the f/1.4. To me f/1.8 and f/1.4 didn't mean a lot to me so I wasn't exactly the happiest person when I bought the f/1.4. Not to mention the lack of intervalometer controls for time lapse which is only on the D90 and above models I believe. But to each his own I guess. It was a great camera while it lasted.

There are many AF-S lenses that are the ***ONLY*** lenses in their category,so the idea that they "cost more" is a fallacy. There are 34 AF-S lenses in the current lineup, and many of them are the only one of their type. The 18-55 DX and 55-200 DX and the 70-300-G and 17-55 DX are ALL perfectly fine on the entry-level bodies. Same with the 12-24 DX,and the 105 VR Micro, and so on. Oh, and the 18-200 VR, the 18-105 and 18-135...ALL those lenses mount and focus on the baby Nikons. It's a matter of doing one's research before buying a camera, to know what the limits are.

For example, why don't more Canon people talk about the useless nature of Canon EF-S lenses on anything but crop-body Canons? Especially since Nikon's DX lenses actually WORK on all Nikon bodies, albeit with a reduced image circle on FX cameras. Unlike Canon, Nikon's DX-format lenses mount and shoot on all body types and the cameras automatically shift to a DX-sized image capture--but under the Canon system, an EF-S lens is a paperweight and will not even mount on a full-frame or 1.3x body. Why don't we hear that complaint brought up more frequently? Answers vary, but largely it's because people buying $400-$700 bodies cannot afford,or do not wish to buy into, the few remaining, older, full-format, higher-end Nikon lenses aimed at serious users who have the funds to buy the "serious:" cameras. Just as Canon's EF-S lens buyers do not show much interest in 1D seres or 5D bodies that cost $2,400 to $6995.

If a person is happy with ant one of the five "baby Nikon" cameras, he's usually going to be adequately served by the 34 current AF-S lenses and the 50 million manual focus and autofocus Nikkors that WILL mount,and which WILL shoot images,albeit without AF and without automatic light metering.

It's like complaining that one's cheap,entry-level $399 Netbook will not run Windows 98...an accurate and valid point, and yet somewhat irrelevant to most buyers who select a $399 netbook and do not expect 10 years of backward compatibility at the low end of the price scale. To most buyers of an entry-level Nikon, screw-driver lenses are simply far too expensive, aimed at FX format and or film Nikon users, and are really not the desired lenses for beginners. Who wants to drop $3800 on three screw-driver focusing FX Nikon lenses when they bought a $399 refurbished D40?

That's not a valid argument. Who would spend $2500+ on an FF camera and not utilize it to it's full potential? I bought a 5D Mark II and the last thing I would want to buy for it is a lens made for APS-C. That's why the L series lenses are there. Not to mention the fact that only 13-18ish lenses in Canon's lineup are EF-S lenses and the other 100ish are EF. If a person is upgrading from a 50D with all EF-S lenses to a 1Ds Mark III, then obviously said person HAS the monetary sums to purchase an EF lens with it. Why spend all the money to upgrade knowing that it's not really an upgrade because the lenses that he/she owns will only downgrade the camera?

Point is, money is the most important factor. I just personally think that Nikon's lack of care to add an AF motor in it's baby camera's is only ripping off the customer. Especially to my sister who bought a D40x 3 years ago and there weren't many AF-S lenses on Nikon's lineup during that time.

 

[Darkhunter139]

Its not that big of a deal anymore there are plenty of AF-S lenses out there now. There are only a handful of lenses without built in focus motors id even be interested in.

 

[dhilberg]

Point is, money is the most important factor. I just personally think that Nikon's lack of care to add an AF motor in it's baby camera's is only ripping off the customer. Especially to my sister who bought a D40x 3 years ago and there weren't many AF-S lenses on Nikon's lineup during that time.

The D40/D60 D3000/D5000 cameras were designed to be inexpensive, and one of the ways Nikon kept the costs down was by leaving out the screw drive focusing motor (among other features). They knew that most people who purchased these bodies wouldn't graduate beyond the kit lenses. They weren't trying to rip people off. Sure, there are some people that bought baby Nikons who didn't realize this limitation, but that's because they didn't do their homework.

However, like mentioned, Nikon is gradually phasing their lenses to AF-S (as they have been for the better part of a decade), so hopefully this will be a non-issue in the future. 2010 looks to be a good year for Nikon lens releases I've read.

 

[KmH]

The problem with AF-S lenses is that they cost much, much more than those that are not AF-S. When I had my D60, I could have paid $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 but then it wouldn't auto-focus. So of course I had to pay $300 more for the f/1.4.

The major difference in the cost was mostly the additional aperture range and build quality, not the Silent Wave Motor.

Did you know that none of Canon's dSLR's have a focus motor in the camera body, and haven't since 1987?

 

[PhotoXopher]

The 50 f/1.4D goes for $350 on eBay while the 50 f/1.4G goes for $440, a difference of $90 not $300.

Closest comparison to the f/1.8 is a new 50mm f/1.8D going for $139 while a new 35mm f/1.8G goes for $199.

 

[sA x sKy]

The 50 f/1.4D goes for $350 on eBay while the 50 f/1.4G goes for $440, a difference of $90 not $300.

Closest comparison to the f/1.8 is a new 50mm f/1.8D going for $139 while a new 35mm f/1.8G goes for $199.

If you read my post thoroughly, you would have noticed that I compared the f/1.8 and f/1.4. I would have bought the f/1.8 for $100 if it had an AF motor but it didn't so I had to pay $300 more for the f/1.4.

 

[sA x sKy]

The problem with AF-S lenses is that they cost much, much more than those that are not AF-S. When I had my D60, I could have paid $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 but then it wouldn't auto-focus. So of course I had to pay $300 more for the f/1.4.

The major difference in the cost was mostly the additional aperture range and build quality, not the Silent Wave Motor.

Did you know that none of Canon's dSLR's have a focus motor in the camera body, and haven't since 1987?

I'll agree with you about the aperature range but the fact that Canon also offers the f/1.4 and f/1.8 at a $300 difference is reasonable because at least all Canon cameras have built in AF motors. With Nikon you spend more money because you're forced to buy the f/1.4 whereas with Canon I could buy the f/1.8 for $100 and it will still AF.