Should I buy a D40?

[McNicks]

I am thinking about getting a Nikon D40. At the moment I have a Canon Powershot S3 IS. It is a great little camera and it is very versatile, but I have become frustrated with it recently. It is a bit difficult to explain why but, basically, I just feel that I am not getting enough light into the camera. Maybe it is the aperture of the S3, or maybe it is the limited dynamic range of the JPG capture or a whole combination of things. It seems like my aperture is always wide open and I am always fighting with noise issues and a lack of ... depth ... for want of a better word.

Is this the sort of thing that a DSLR like the D40 would improve on?

[wulf]

I don't know much about the S3 and what is capable of but I do have a Nikon D40, which I think is a fantastic camera. It has certainly been invaluable to me over the last few months as an introduction to the world of DSLRs.

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is how a camera feels to you. I took a few shots with a friend's Canon 400D (or whatever it was called - one of their DSLR range); it felt heavier than my D40 although smaller in size and was subsequently harder to grip. If it is possible to get your hands on a few of the cameras in your price range that would be useful.

There is also a great site from Nikon (http://www.nikondigitutor.com/eng/d40/index.shtml) that will give you a good feel for the D40 even if you can't try one out before committing your money.

Wulf

[Scottie137]

Have you considered other cameras? Olympus is about to release two new cameras that will be in the price range of the D40, and Pentax has the K100 (which I own). All three (or four) of these cameras should be cross shopped before you buy. The reviews of the Nikon are very favorable though. Here is a review from Pop Photo (it also mentions the Pentax and the older model Olympus ). http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3756/camera-test-nikon-d40.ht
Good Luck! I went from a "semi-advanced" point and shoot to my DSLR and haven't regretted a thing. Its actually much easier to learn on, despite all the new features, because accessing them is generally much more intuitive and much less time consuming...ml

[jmorrisseyd]

I have a powershot a300 and an a60, both handed down from members of my family. I liked the a60 because of the ability to change the settings in the manual mode. It broke about a week ago after playing up for a while and the a300 doesn't have the advanced features that I like to use, so I have to stick with auto and pray. I really want a d40 and I think I may get one (d40x if I save enough) because it has the features that I need, but also small and relatively portable (for a DSLR, anyway).

[Markus]

Personally I would not go in the D40X direction. It's a noise monster. Looking at some of the sample images ISO 400 is actually a little noisey. In good light it's a weapon, but the D40 is more versatile.

The D40's 6.1mp resolution is more than enough, especially as it's much a step-up camera from advanced point & shoots. The X's 10.2mp is simply not necessary unless mammoth rpints are the go, 10mp is just more of a handful when loading, editing etc. Any computer work.

[Stephen Collins]

Personally I would not go in the D40X direction. It's a noise monster. Looking at some of the sample images ISO 400 is actually a little noisey. In good light it's a weapon, but the D40 is more versatile.

Markus, where are you seeing noise issues with the D40X? I've had no noise issues with low-light shooting so far with mine. Admittedly, I'm mostly using the built-in flash and mostly shooting full-auto as I get used to the camera, but definitely no noise...

So, in reply to McNicks... If you can afford a D40X and you want a 10MP camera, sure, get the D40X. That said, Markus is right when he says that a straight D40 is probably more than enough if you're after a good, basic, non-pro DSLR, which was my motivation - it's for good candids at family events and for travel and fun photography. I'm no pro.

Steve

[smc1377]

Speaking to the 6 megapixels, I have a Canon 10D (6.3MP DSLR) and I find myself at times wishing it was higher in resolution so that I can do some more creative cropping. I'm limited to how much I can crop down without sacrificing image quality.

[wulf]

On the other hand, I rarely use the largest image size on my D40 unless I am taking pictures of something far away where I need as much "zoom" as I can get; my computer is relatively old and larger pictures would make it groan under the weight even more. That makes 6MP plenty (although, to be fair, I have very little interest in producing large format prints of my work).

Wulf

[Markus]

Markus, where are you seeing noise issues with the D40X? I've had no noise issues with low-light shooting so far with mine. Admittedly, I'm mostly using the built-in flash and mostly shooting full-auto as I get used to the camera, but definitely no noise...

So, in reply to McNicks... If you can afford a D40X and you want a 10MP camera, sure, get the D40X. That said, Markus is right when he says that a straight D40 is probably more than enough if you're after a good, basic, non-pro DSLR, which was my motivation - it's for good candids at family events and for travel and fun photography. I'm no pro.

Steve

What ISO ratings have you been shooting at in these low-light conditions, no flash?

Personally I was quite alarmed at the noise here (below), to me it looked quite grainy for ISO400.

http://chsv.nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d40x/img/pic_003b.jpg

[Pierreargubi]

Personally I would not go in the D40X direction. It's a noise monster. Looking at some of the sample images ISO 400 is actually a little noisey. In good light it's a weapon, but the D40 is more versatile.

The D40's 6.1mp resolution is more than enough, especially as it's much a step-up camera from advanced point & shoots. The X's 10.2mp is simply not necessary unless mammoth rpints are the go, 10mp is just more of a handful when loading, editing etc. Any computer work.

yes i agree with you markus, D40x it a bit noisier than D40. that's because the pixels are tighter than D40, because the D40x has 10.2 million pixels and D40 has 6.1 million pixels. the smaller the pixel, less light will be absorbed to the photons to the pixel, so consider the D40, (i ordered it last week) that camera is amazing.:D

[albiwan]

don't buy any D40!!! ;-)

[wulf]

Albiwan - you need to present more of an argument than that if you are going to contribute to a discussion. Have you read the rest of the discussion and, if so, what would you suggest as an alternative and why?

Wulf

[jokercykoe]

I shoot with a D40, and its definitely a nice camera for the price. It IS marketed as an entry level dslr, so its a nice jump from a point and shoot. I think eventually I'm going to want to upgrade to a D80, just to get some of the extra features the D40 doesn't have. The biggest drawback to the D40 for me is the inability to autofocus with non AF-S, AF-I lenses. Nikon hasn't released any af-s prime lens's, so lens's like the 50mm won't autofocus. This limits what lens's you will buy later on. (Not really a problem, since this will probably be your first dslr).

I still love the camera though, like I said, its a great camera and I would definitely recommend it to someone who is looking for their first dslr. Whats your budget?

[jdepould]

Have you made a purchase yet? This question seems to be a pretty common one since it's a relatively new body and has a very attractive price point. My gut would tell me to steer away from it if you want to grow as a photographer though. The AF-S only is a pretty serious handicap (though it's becoming very prevalent) and as a personal preference, the lack of a top LCD would just drive me crazy. There may be a few stray D50s still in stores or warehouses that you could get a deal on, or I'd say step up to the D80 which you'll be less apt to replace in the next year or two.

Having said that, if you just want a better than P&S camera for casual use and aren't planning on building up a large collection of lenses, then go for the D40.

[jeffegg2]

what I did was go to flickr and check out what everyone was using, and compare the photos. The D40 photos look great!! Except when I am using it! hehe!

[McNicks]

Have you made a purchase yet?

I bought a D40 a couple of months ago and I really haven't looked back since. I absolutely love having the versatility of an SLR-type camera and the D40 has been simple enough for me to get to grips with. Strangely enough, I am currently pondering over whether to get a big zoom lens to give me some more versatility, or sell my D40 and upgrade to a D80.

[kirbinster]

I've had my D40 for just about 2 months, and after over 7,000 shots (not an error) still love it. I would not go for the D40x due to the noise issue and it will not take flash shots at as high a shutter speed as the D40. Check out KenRockwell.com about cameras. He recommends the D40 and uses it quite a lot even thought he has a lot more expensive cameras. He is negative on the D40x as well, says it is basically a marketing ploy to capture sales from those that insist that the more megapixels the better the camera.

[jdepould]

I've had my D40 for just about 2 months, and after over 7,000 shots (not an error) still love it. I would not go for the D40x due to the noise issue and it will not take flash shots at as high a shutter speed as the D40. Check out KenRockwell.com about cameras. He recommends the D40 and uses it quite a lot even thought he has a lot more expensive cameras. He is negative on the D40x as well, says it is basically a marketing ploy to capture sales from those that insist that the more megapixels the better the camera.

If you were Nikon wouldn't you make a variant that has more marketing bragging rights? Marketshare is marketshare no matter how you look at it.

[kirbinster]

My point exactly! The D40x is a marketing variant - but the D40 is a better value.

[wulf]

As I understand it, Nikon didn't have much choice - the sensor they rely on for the D40 was being discontinued so they had to bring out a revised version of the camera. Of course, they have tried to put a marketing spin on it but I don't think it was just about some bright spark saying "I know how we can bleed more money out of these people...".

Wulf

[Nick]

I have had the D40 for about a month now, And all I can say is that its great. Sure, thers parts of it that are limiting, but its so much better than any point and shoot, its ridiculous.

All I can say is I've been really hapy with the metering of the camera, especially. And the kit lens that comes with it isnt all that bad either. Certainly better than the Canon XTi I tried in the store.

[ELAY]

[WARNING: Ken Rockwell reference ahead. More sensitive readers may wish to move on to other topics.]

Ken Rockwell loves that lens (see here). (He also has a guide to your D40 which is worth browsing if you haven't seen it -- guide.)

That lens also came off surprisingly well in this comparison between it and some of Nikon's more expensive lenses.

EL

[ELAY]

[WARNING: Ken Rockwell reference ahead. More sensitive readers may wish to move on to other topics.]

Ken Rockwell loves that lens (see here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm)). (He also has a guide to your D40 which is worth browsing if you haven't seen it -- guide (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/index.htm).)

That lens also came off surprisingly well in this comparison (http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon_Lens_comparison_intro.shtml) between it and some of Nikon's more expensive lenses.

EL

[jeffegg2]

I had a kodak 3.1mp point and shoot. someone stole my truck about 2 years ago, and the cam was in it. I just got a Nikon D40 a few weeks ago. Wow! I am amazed at this incredible cam. As far as the 6.1mp, the way it was explained to me is the mp give you the ability to make larger prints. That is all. The 6.1mp is good up to about 13" print size. more than enough for the 8x10 which is about the largest that I need. If you are going to produce 23" poster prints, then go for the 10mp, but all it will really do is use up more memory on your sd card.

[kirbinster]

I don't buy the limitations you state for the D40! Check out this thread I posted

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4695

Or go directly to the link to a picture I took with the D40, cropped 50% in size and made a beautiful 8x10 from.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirbinster/1022875213/

[Craydays]

I have Nikon D40 about 4 month and very like it. I had switched to it from Sony-R1 (which was very good!) and find that D40 shoot well even with kit lens. When I upgraded my optics with Nikkor 18-70 and Nikkor 50 f/1.8D I got a really amazing pictures quality.

D40 is small, light-weighted, good-build, easy to operate.
It has a great, very bright LCD screen.
Yes, it lacks the service screen on top of the body, but if you had not experience with it before you will not notice any inconveniences.

D40 hasn't screw-driver motor, so you must use AF-S or AF-I lens to get autofocus feature. I say you this - I shoot about 2 weeks with Nikkor 50 f/1.8D which I had to focus manually. You know, it's a quite easy - because camera will tell you when focus adjustments are right (green dot will appear). And bright and clear D40' eye-finder makes focusing even more easy.

Only 3 focusing points? It's not a problem. Autofocus rarely miss. And don't forget that you can use Focus Lock and recompose image as you want.

Battery not so good as on D50-70-80-200 models, but you can take about 1000 shots with one recharge. There is no battery grip for D40, but for me - it's not a problem. You can simply buy another battery and keep it charged in your pack.

I think that Nikon D40 is great all-around camera which can produce great results.