# How much is my D40 worth?



## tron (Jul 11, 2011)

So I think after 3 years of ownership its time to part ways with my D40.  I want to sell it with the kit lens (18-55 non-vr) and was wondering if $400 was a fair asking price.  Thats about what I see them going for on ebayy.  I dont want to rip anyone of but at the same time I want to maximize the selling price (obviously).  Included is:

-Nikon D40 Body.  Great condition, works flawlessly.  I bought the camera brand new and I have all the receipts/boxes/paperwork/etc.  No scratches on the LCD.
-18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens.  No scratches on the front or rear element.
-18-55 Lens Hood
-52mm Tiffen UV Filter
-Genuine Nikon Battery
-Battery Charger
-Lens Cap
-Original camera strap in like new condition


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 11, 2011)

I'd guess that your best measurement tool will be to check _*completed*_ auctions on E-bay.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2011)

Honestly, you more likely looking at $250-300 on ebay. $325-350 if you get lucky. I sold a D40 on ebay with that same lens, last november, and it went for $265. That's right about where I see them selling now, since for $400 you could have a D3000.


----------



## joealcantar (Jul 11, 2011)

You can look at the KEH website to give you an idea of what it is worth, if you are okay with them you can even sell to them.
- KEH.com
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## oldmacman (Jul 11, 2011)

tron said:


> So I think after 3 years of ownership its time to part ways with my D40.  I want to sell it with the kit lens (18-55 non-vr) and was wondering if $400 was a fair asking price.  Thats about what I see them going for on ebayy.  I dont want to rip anyone of but at the same time I want to maximize the selling price (obviously).  Included is:
> 
> -Nikon D40 Body.  Great condition, works flawlessly.  I bought the camera brand new and I have all the receipts/boxes/paperwork/etc.  No scratches on the LCD.
> -18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens.  No scratches on the front or rear element.
> ...



$400 is a good asking price, but as others have said, be prepared to accept closer to $300. Not every potential buyer will know the benefits of the 40D and will use the age of the model as the primary gauge of its worth.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Jul 11, 2011)

Had a quick look at ebay both UK and US sites, and finding a D3000 for $400 is a tough ask! that said it is a buyers market just now, and whilst I don't think $400 is a lot to ask for your D40 I think sadly around $300 is what you're likely to get for it.


----------



## tron (Jul 11, 2011)

Yeah Im including a bag too so maybe ill start at $400.  This should allow for some negotiation room too.  In case anyones wondering I am planning to upgrade to the nikon D90.  It would be nice to get the d7000 but its almost twice the price of the D90 and I dont think its twice the camera.





o


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 11, 2011)

I can see a Buy-It-Now price of $400.  But to *start the bidding *at $400?


----------



## tron (Jul 11, 2011)

Yes it would be buy it now. I'm also going to try selling it locally for $400 there's no way I would start the bidding at $400 haha.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2011)

tron said:


> Yeah Im including a bag too so maybe ill start at $400.  This should allow for some negotiation room too.  In case anyones wondering I am planning to upgrade to the nikon D90.  It would be nice to get the d7000 but its almost twice the price of the D90 and I dont think its twice the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to get off topic, but I disagree. I wouldn't hesitate to say that the D7000 is 3 times the camera than the D90. EVERYTHING about it has been upgraded to a higher caliber, and it can outperform a D300s in most areas.


----------



## tron (Jul 11, 2011)

No worries, I actually think its a good idea to bring it up.  How do you feel the D7000 is 3x the D90 in terms of what you pay for?

They have very similar noise performance, seems like the D7000 doesnt drop off saturation as much at higher ISOs than the D90 (color rendition seems to fall off after ISO3200).  In terms of video, I dont plan on shooting a lot of video anyways.  Construction, yes the D7000 is pretty dope with its magnesium alloy body but then again apparently im not too hard on my gear even though my D40 has had no trouble in the wear department.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2011)

tron said:


> No worries, I actually think its a good idea to bring it up.  How do you feel the D7000 is 3x the D90 in terms of what you pay for?
> 
> They have very similar noise performance, seems like the D7000 doesnt drop off saturation as much at higher ISOs than the D90 (color rendition seems to fall off after ISO3200).  In terms of video, I dont plan on shooting a lot of video anyways.  Construction, yes the D7000 is pretty dope with its magnesium alloy body but then again apparently im not too hard on my gear even though my D40 has had no trouble in the wear department.



Similar noise performace? Who told you that? The D7000 is the single best crop sensor camera on the market right now for high iso performance. I've read multiple reviews that say it is only 1 stop worse than the D700, and that's saying alot. The D90 is only useable up to about 1600, MAYBE 3200 if the conditions are right. I've seen shots from the 7000 at iso 6400 that are totally acceptable!

It also has WAY better autofocus, 39 point vs the 11 point system of the D90. Experts have said that it's autofocus system matches, or surpasses the D300s in terms of speed and accuracy, and that is quite a feat. 

The D7000 shoots 6fps, vs the 4 of the D90. That doesn't sound like much, but in real world shooting, it can be a huge difference. 

The D90 lacks the U1 and U2, user programmable, savable modes. This can be a huge difference, or a non factor, depending on how you shoot. 

Build quality is better, as you stated, but it's not a full magnesium body, just a few magnesium parts. Not that big of a difference durability wise, but it does feel alot more solid in your hand than the D90, without being much heavier. 

16mp vs 12. Realistically, this doesn't mean much. 12 is plenty. But if you like to crop alot, this can be useful. 

And finally, it's simply newer, and will hold it's value better than a D90. It will last longer before you feel the need to upgrade it, and is, in my opinion, a much better investment.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 11, 2011)

tron said:


> No worries, I actually think its a good idea to bring it up.  How do you feel the D7000 is 3x the D90 in terms of what you pay for?



Because he was 15 when the D90 was released and has a history of making a lot of statements without the experience to back it up.

The D7000 is, IMO, a better camera than the D90 although I could do without the 16 megapixels.  However, in most situations, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference which camera took which photo unless you are over ISO 3200, in which case neither are great, but the D7000 is better.  

As far as value, IMO, a used D90 is the best value on the market at the moment.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2011)

Your right. I was 15. 

And a 15 year old, in most cultures in the world, is considered an adult. My age should have no bearing on my posts here, because believe it or not, I have done my research, and I have used both cameras in this thread enough times to know the pros and cons of each. I based my opinions on both fact, and personal experience with the camera bodies. Just because I'm only 18, doesn't mean I can't offer good information on here. 

I started shadowing/assisting pros at weddings when I was 14, got my first dslr when I was 15, have been shooting and improving my photography for 4 years now, and am currently in the process of starting my own business shooting sports and senior photos. The photographer who taught me a good majority of what I now know was a shooter for The Washington Post at one time, shot portraits of the president on multiple occasions, and has been shooting weddings and portraits for close to 40 years. I have spent countless hours learning as much as I can from him, and I believe that I am a competent photographer. Professional level? Not quite yet, but I will be in a year or two when I get some more experience. 

Now that you know a little more about my photography background, I'll continue with the thread. 

I agree the D90 may be the best value on the market at the moment, however in 3 years it will be selling for half of what it is now, while the D7000 will likely still be selling for around $1000 used (I'm going off of the pricing trends that previous nikon dslr's have followed). So while the D90 is the best value at this time on the market, it is simply a poor investment in my opinion, and I wouldn't buy one unless I got a smoking deal on it, or it was all I could afford. If the D90 is all you can afford, then by all means get it. It's a great camera. However if you can afford a D7000, I highly reccomend spending the extra money.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 11, 2011)

The Op isn't talking about an investment.  Camera bodies are a horrible investment in the first place.  They depreciate, always.  Nobody in their right mind would 'invest' in a camera body.  You buy a camera body to take pictures.  You agree with me and state that the 'D90 is the best value at this time on the market' but you advise somebody not to buy it because it is a poor 'investment'?


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 11, 2011)

It would be an investment if it's a tool of the trade you use to put food on your table.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> The Op isn't talking about an investment.  Camera bodies are a horrible investment in the first place.  They depreciate, always.  Nobody in their right mind would 'invest' in a camera body.  You buy a camera body to take pictures.  You agree with me and state that the 'D90 is the best value at this time on the market' but you advise somebody not to buy it because it is a poor 'investment'?



Exactly. It's a great value. HOWEVER I see no point to buying it, when you can get a better camera that will hold it's value better, and therefore you'll lose less money when you resell it down the road.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 11, 2011)

Destin said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > The Op isn't talking about an investment.  Camera bodies are a horrible investment in the first place.  They depreciate, always.  Nobody in their right mind would 'invest' in a camera body.  You buy a camera body to take pictures.  You agree with me and state that the 'D90 is the best value at this time on the market' but you advise somebody not to buy it because it is a poor 'investment'?
> ...


Ok.  One of the things you'll learn as you get older is that not everybody is going to agree with you.  Turns out, that's one of the great things about online forums.  People get to read and view opinions from different people with different outlooks and levels of experience and make up their minds from there.  If we all said the same thing, this forum would get pretty boring.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



Thank you Captain obvious :/

I was just clarifying what I meant by investment in this case. Wasn't saying it was going to gain value, just that it's going to lose less than the D90, and therefore, after he sells it, it will actually be cheaper for him to have chosen the D7000 because he'll lose $100-200 rather than the $350-450 that the D90 will depreciate. That's it. Simple economics at the most basic level.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 11, 2011)

Simple economics?  Look, I'm sick of your nonsense.  Here is simple economics for you.

A D7000 costs around $1200 body only.  A used D90 goes for around $650.  A used D80 is around $450.

The D80 was released in 2006.  The D90 was released in 2008 with a lot more features.  The D7000 was just released and it's current price has more to do with the disaster in Japan and supply issues than with it's actual value.

When the D90 was first released, it sold for around $900 body only.  It has dropped $250 dollars already that the OP doesn't have to worry about and may drop another $200 over the next few years as evidenced by the D80.  You think the D90 will drop $350 to $450 over the next few years?  You think we will see D90's at $200 bucks in a few years?  You think the D7000 will only drop $100 to $200 over that same time period?  You are nuts!

The D7000 drops more than $200 after you take it out of the box and will drop much more over the next two years.  From a shear economics perspective, it is almost always better to buy something used that has already taken the depreciation than to buy something new, that will depreciate as soon as it is used, and will continue to depreciate over the next few years.

That's simple economics for you.


----------



## tron (Jul 12, 2011)

Destin said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > No worries, I actually think its a good idea to bring it up.  How do you feel the D7000 is 3x the D90 in terms of what you pay for?
> ...



im with kerbouchard on this one.  no need to flap your epenis around here and feel like you need to justify your photography knowledge here.  imo it seems like youre reading nikons catalog haha.  who "told me" about the noise performance was my own eyes:
Nikon D7000 review: High ISO Noise results, Nikon D7000 vs Canon EOS 60D vs Nikon D90 | Cameralabs
Photicious All Photography » Blog Archive » Nikon D7000 vs D700 vs D90 vs D300 [Comparison PICS]

d90 @ 3200:
http://www.photicious.com/images/d90-3200.JPG

d7000 @ 3200
http://www.photicious.com/images/d7000-3200.JPG

im not one whose taken aback by gimmicky things manufacturers do such as:
-U1/U2 modes, thats why i have fingers
-Dual card slots, its nice but ive never had an SD card corrupt in 5+ years of slr use

but what do i know, i mean you DID get a dslr when you were 15


----------

