Purchase Questions....D40x +2 lens vs. D80 + 1 lens

Camera is just a mere box to be manipulated. Without good lens they are just snap shooters, be it d40 or d300 or anything else or any other brand.

All the good pictures of the past were taken by the humble boxes in the hands of dedicated personalities through good glasses. I have seen tons of those pictures taken in the pre digital era. It was those pictures that gave inspirations to others.

People who can't produce good pictures with their individual humbles boxes than they have no confidence in themseves. Am I right?

It
 
After having my D40x for several weeks now, I wish I had more flexibility with autofocus lenses. I think the extra $40 would be worth it to open up your choice for lenses. I do love my camera though, just wish I had investigated more thoroughly...


Wow, i feel the exact same way. I love the camera and it takes awesome pictures, but without the ability to get many lenses it really bogs down the future for this camera. I am already thinking about selling it. Sucky thing is unless nikon makes more af-s lenses and for cheap, i think the resale price is going to be horrible. But for my next camera im looking a used D2H. The 8 fps is far more important to me then the 4 mp, i mainly shoot action sports...
 
The D2H only has 4MP? THat seems really low......why? One would think that it would have 10-14.

Thanks for all the advice guys. Ended up getting a good deal locally on a D40x, and so I figure I can start with that.
 
The D2H only has 4MP? THat seems really low......why? One would think that it would have 10-14.

I think I read that it only has 4 MP so it can be faster (fps). I heard the quality of the pictures are very good, however, and I have heard stories of people enlarging their pics from the D2H into 20x30 prints with programs like Genuine Fractals.
 
good choice craddock
 
D-80 all the way (though I am no Nikon user, the lack of a lens drive shaft...I know, wrong terminology but you know what I mean....really is a killer for the D-40).

As to ordering from the States - are you including the fact they will most likely charge you for Provincial taxes at the border and brokerage fees for the shipping company (all of which are billed when the man shows up at your door - B&H have nothing to do with this)? This can come to a significant amount when looking at an $800 item...perhaps to the tune of $100-150.
 
Thanks for all the advice guys. After finding the deal on the D40x, and looking at brokerage fees, the D80 ended up out of my budget.

I'll be posting pictures of it in the box, and soon after with the D40x. My parents gave me a tripod that they were not using, so that was nice. Got a few questions that will be asked once I start playing.

-David
 
Well, what can I say, good choice. Even though the D80 was out of your range, I'm sure you will be very happy with the D40x. Hope to see some of your shots, and hear more of your questions.

~TG
 
I'd say forget the D40x and the D80 and get a regular 6MP D40 for cheaper with cleaner high ISO, faster 1/500s flash sync, and put the money you save into a few nice lenses and a flash. Then you'll be all set. I have both a D40 and a D80. The D80 is my workhorse, but the D40 is still an extremely capable camera.
 
The D2H only has 4MP? THat seems really low......why? One would think that it would have 10-14.

Thanks for all the advice guys. Ended up getting a good deal locally on a D40x, and so I figure I can start with that.
oops, missed this post on getting the D40x. The D2H only has 4MP, yes both for speed (fps) but also for good high ISO performance. The more pixels you cram into a given sensor size, the less sensitive each pixel becomes and the more noise you introduce. High ISO is critical for sports and action where you often need to freeze motion in very poorly lit arenas.
 
Normally I'd say get the extra lens, but when it comes to Nikon and the AF motor in the body, I'd go with the D80 for sure, especially since the 55-200 isn't an amazing lens.
 
I had a 55-200 and it was a great and very under-rated little lens. No it's not $1700 70-200VR f/2.8 amazing, but it was still great. I have a 70-300VR now and the image quality isn't any better. Just more reach, real AF-S with instant manual focus override, and VR, oh and full-frame coverage.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top