# Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x



## sabbath999

I am posting this thread here so I can reference it to people in the future, since the 'what DSLR should I buy' question comes up every single day here in the beginners forum.

Many beginners see the D40 and D40x cameras at a great price point, and think "man, that sounds like a great price for a DSLR."

It is a great price.

But.

There is a big-time catch with these camera models that leads me to advise you to not consider buying one of them as your first DSLR.

I own a D40, and due to the lens limitations, I cannot recommend buying either it or a D40x to anybody who wants to take their photography seriously, or to expand their photographic equipment collection in the future.

The fact that the D40/D40x series can only autofocus with lenses that are Nikon AF-S series or some of the Sigma line is a non-starter for me... You probably already know this, but the D40/D40x do not contain an autofocus motor in the camera body. lenses that need the camera body's motor to focus simply will not focus on these two cameras. It is beyond me why Nikon did this, it seems very silly to me.

Generally (and yes, this is a wild generalization) the Nikon branded lenses with internal focus motors (Nikon calls them AF-S) are the more expensive and higher end products. There are a couple of inexpensive lenses (the kit lens, the 55-200 VR telephoto come to mind), but many of the other inexpensive lenses like the under $200 70-300D, the $100 wonderful little 50 mm f/1.8 and a bunch of very inexpensively priced used AF lenses simply will not focus on these cameras.

I purchased my D40 after my two D80's just to have a spare body around, and to shoot macro with my 105 VR. It does do a good job at that, it is very annoying that half the lenses I own won't work on it.

When you get ready to move up in lens, with the D40/D40x series you are looking at either buying an inexpensive telezoom of limited potential (the 55-200 VR) or spending a boatload of money on glass.

In the end, if you plan on owning a DSLR system, don't limit yourself from the start. If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there.

I don't really care that much for the Canon XT/XTI series either, but that is more because they feel clunky and cheaply made to me and the kit lens is not nearly as good as the one Nikon sells... but at least they can use the full range of lenses in the Canon line, and nobody should EVER decide which DSLR camera family to adopt based solely on the quality (or lack thereof) of a kit lens.

The D40's have excellent picture quality, and the 1/500th of a second flash speed make it a strange but wonderful choice for shooting flash Friday Night Lights photography (who would have thought that seasoned pros would be using D40's to do this...)

Still, the lens limitations are severe, and make these to cameras (IMHO) not recommendable.

I think the D80 is an excellent camera if you are looking for a new Nikon, and the D50 (basically a very similar camera to the D40 without the lens limitations) is a great choice for a starter used DSLR.


----------



## Davec223

While I understand what you are saying, I would have thought that most people looking to buy a DSLR will do a large amount of research before they spend their hard earned cash, (I know that I did before I brought my camera.)
 This is the sort of thing that I would look at before buying it and I am sure a lot of other people would as well. I feel that you are portraying a very negative view of a very good budget DSLR. All the reviews that I have read have explained this in very basic terms so that it is clear that not all lenses work with the D40/D40x. I feel that you will be putting a lot of people off it when in actual fact it will be ideal for them as they are looking at getting something that produces excellent pictures and will quite possibly only want 1 or 2 lenses.
 The other thing that you have failed to point out is the fact that all of the lenses can be used as manual focus lenses with the D40/D40x so you haven't quite portrayed the entire picture.
Just my 2 pennies worth.


----------



## Helen B

I've been using Nikons since 1971, and every single Nikon lens I own works with my D40x. It also works surprisingly well with bellows for macro work. I think that is a great little camera.

Best,
Helen


----------



## chris_arnet

I agree. when i got in it was a debate between the rebel or the d40.

after i did the research, i picked the rebel.

however dont get me wrong. Nikon makes great cameras, especially film. im just not to fond of their digital series at all.


----------



## sabbath999

Helen, you are absolutely right about the camera "working" with most Nikon lenses (except the really weird ones like the fisheyes that stuck into the camera bodies... lenses that work with no modern Nikon).

You absolutely can put one a 1971 non-AI lens on the front of a D40 camera and take pictures with them. 

But...

To be perfectly clear here, only AF-S & AF-I (not counting some of the Sigmas) autofocus on the D40...

Additionally, pre-AI manual focus lenses (the really old Nikkors) made from 1959-1977ish mount on the D40, but the meter doesn't work... (these don't even mount on the D80 however).

Manual focus AI lenses, AI-s lenses and AI-converted lenses (manual focus lenses made from 1977 ish to the F-3 era of the mid 1980's) also mount to the camera just fine, and you can take pictures with them... however, the light meter will not work a with them at all.

Basically, the camera will only take pictures with pre-AI, AI, AI converted manual focus lenses in completely manual mode with no light meter (or, obviously, auto-focusing).

The millions of autofocus lenses out there made from 1986-present that are not AI-S or AF-S will not autofocus, but they will meter on the camera... there is a vast supply of good used Nikon glass that simply isn't fully compatible with the D40/D40X.

So, while you can actually take pictures with a lens from 1971, it won't have any meter (light meter or flash) and can only be done completely manually.

That, in my opinion, isn't really a selling point for a camera for a beginner.

Compare that with a Canon XT, which will work with just about any EOS lens one cares to slap on it. It doesn't compare favorably.

IMHO


----------



## Coldow91

I think that for me the D40 has been the perfect fit. I am not at the point yet where the Af-s thing is particularly limiting. I don't really mind manual focusing, and for action shots where autofocus helps I use the 55-200 VR Af-s. I think that in the future I may upgrade to a d70 so that I have the autofocus capabilities but right now I think that the D40 was the perfect fit for me.


----------



## Helen B

sabbath999 said:


> ...
> So, while you can actually take pictures with a lens from 1971, it won't have any meter (light meter or flash) and can only be done completely manually.
> 
> That, in my opinion, isn't really a selling point for a camera for a beginner.
> 
> ...



All I'd like to add is that there are many different kinds of beginner, and I'm not convinced that one answer fits all of them.

Best wishes,
Helen


----------



## Hill202

I agree with you Sabbath. I have the D40 with the Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon 105 Macro and 2 kit lenses. The D40 does take great pictures with these lenses, but I passed over quite a few less expensive lens because of the auto focus problem ( such as the 50mm 1.8). I also wish the D40 offered bracketing.

The only positive I see, is when I decide to upgrade to the D80, I'll have a less expensive spare body.


----------



## jedithebomber

Sir, you are being a Troll digging up nothing but a Cannon vs. Nikon argument. Perhaps the next mod through would be so kind as to lock this thread.

I love my D40, I will upgrade sooner rather than later, however I am sure I will keep the D40 till it dies. Lightweight, easy to use, extremely cheap. Great casual shooter.


----------



## shivaswrath

Sabbath999 is VERY RIGHT, and having JUST received a D40x as a present, I'm QUICKLY realizing how "rich" i'll have to be to either get lenses that have AF-S in the Nikor line or deal with some of the quality control problem laden issues with Sigma HSM lenses. . .

NOT IDEAL for a beginner, but I'll give a positive spin = 
1.  I will be forced to learn on whatever lenses I can afford to get for a LONG time since they are so bloody expensive and not rack up 5-7 lenses for every purpose under the moon. . .
2.  I have a real nice, small, light DSLR that cranks out amazing pictures (versus the Canon options I had)
3.  If/When I upgrade to better Nikon bodies, these AF-S limited lenses will carry over fine.

That being said, I had seriously considered the Pentax K100D with the built in shake reduction and autofocus. . .ironically, it was too heavy, but I've realized that those features built into the body add weight.  . .so do I regret the D40x, not really, I got it because it was heavily menu driven and felt great in my hands; NOT to contradict Saabath, but TRY OUT all cameras, I had completely dismissed the D40/x series until I actually picked it up and felt it (I thought the Cannon felt too toyish and the Pentax too heavy). . .good luck, and admins, maybe make this is a STICKY?!!


----------



## Garbz

Helen B said:


> All I'd like to add is that there are many different kinds of beginner, and I'm not convinced that one answer fits all of them.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Helen



I just wish to add too that while we may often flick off the AF switch on our cameras, this is the last thing a beginner is expecting to do. With their first taste of real photography the last thing they expect is their expensive toy to not be able to autofocus.

I have often chimed into this debate as well. For the cost of a D40x and a good kit lens you could grab a D50 and a second hand AF lens and get much better photos with far less limitations.

This question is asked once or twice a week and I think someone should finally make a sticky thread!


----------



## Antithesis

I think there are many positive points to using a d40x, so far I really do love the little thing. It's my first dSLR, and I think it makes a great first camera. It also makes a very good travel camera as it is capable of taking some awesome pictures but doesn't have the added weight of a larger body. I'm currently using the two kit lenses and I don't feel I've really been too limited by the quality of the glass (focal length is a different story, birding in costa rica with a 55-200mm f4-5.6, LOL), but the images are as sharp as I need them for now. When the time comes that I move into a professional realm I'll start thinking about nicer equipment, but as a student it works very well. Sure I have regrets now about not springing for a d80, but when I first saw one it seemed like there was too many buttons, now I kinda wish I had those buttons. 

I think all in all I can recommend a d40x for beginners. It's not intimidating like the semi-proish camera's, it's nice and simple and a good little camera to learn on. You might find the lens compatibility an issue later on down the line, but the consumer lenses that nikon makes are just fine and won't limit you anytime soon. 

And also, I think I read this in passing, isn't the new d3 AF-S only as well? And I remember reading somewhere that nikon was planning on moving towards the new focusing system on their newer cameras. Don't quote me on that by any means, I don't remember the source and they too may have just been hearing a rumor. If someone can verify or deny this, awesome.


----------



## sabbath999

Antithesis said:


> And also, I think I read this in passing, isn't the new d3 AF-S only as well? And I remember reading somewhere that nikon was planning on moving towards the new focusing system on their newer cameras. Don't quote me on that by any means, I don't remember the source and they too may have just been hearing a rumor. If someone can verify or deny this, awesome.



No, both the D3 and D300 are fully compatible with all standard AF lenses. Additionally, both can meter AF-I lenses.


----------



## thefizzle

I have been lurking here for a bit, and haven't felt the need to post, until now. I understand that the op's post was his opinion and he said so, but i have a few issues with what he said.  


 -most people spend more money on glass than bodies, if you want good glass you'll probably move past a d40/x anyway.


 -AF is a luxury not a necessity, many people shot many great photos for a long period of time without it...i don't use it, and i don't know anyone who is really dependent on it (altho' i'll agree that is probably unusual).


 -a beginner camera is just that, one for a beginner, if you only spend $400 on a body how much are you going to be prepared to spend on lenses?


 I'm not trying to stir up argument, or be a troll, but i felt that a blanket statement about the suitability of one camera over another for a beginner is inaccurate. Do your research and decide what you need. The reason one user finds a certain camera unacceptable may be exactly the reason another finds it perfect. Again, it's about taking pictures that you like and having fun.


----------



## Antithesis

sabbath999 said:


> No, both the D3 and D300 are fully compatible with all standard AF lenses. Additionally, both can meter AF-I lenses.



I see. 

Good idea warning people about the downfalls of the d40x. I like the camera, but when doing my initial research most of the reviews could only praise the sensor and the size, but didn't go too much into lens compatibility. The review that really sold me on it was on dpreview.com, but to a noob like myself I didn't know that AF-S mean "Works with like 4 lenses". I was thinking I'd be able to use most of the Nikon AF lenses, I was just confused. I think it's probably pretty common.


----------



## Alpha

I absolutely agree with you, Sabbath.


----------



## JerryPH

sabbath999 said:


> No, both the D3 and D300 are fully compatible with all standard AF lenses. Additionally, both can meter AF-I lenses.


 
Yup, and on top of that, even though the D3 is a full frame camera, it does have a lower MP mode that permits it to use DX lenses as well.

The D40 was a camera made for people who wanted a low end or beginner level dSLR. As such, Nikon had to sacrifice something to keep costs down, the location of the autofocus mechanism. When it first came out, I can see people being P/Oed at not having the range of autofocusing lenses that their D50 buddy has, but then again, they paid less. Now, Sigma alone has 7 lenses that will work with your D40 and other manufacturers have lenses for it as well, and if that is not enough for you... simply don't purchase it... or learn to manually focus your D40.

Is it a good intro level camera? yes. Is it autofocus compatibe with all lenses, no. As long as the puchaser does their homework and finds out what lenses are available for it and can make a decision knowing this, I do not see an issue. 

This camera introduced a niche that other manufacturers were trying to open (entry level dSLR for the masses), and I think it did it better than anyone else.


----------



## TunaMR2

As a beginner myself, I couldn't disagree more.  Sure you can only use a few lenses, but the lenses that DO work are great and have gotten good reviews and done excellent in lab tests especially at their price point.  Most beginners won't be ready to get a ton of different lenses just yet, anyway.  I have my 18-55 kit lens and my 55-200 VR, both of which are cheap and like I said earlier, get excellent reviews.  Sure they aren't the greatest build quality like the more expensive lenses, but they're just fine for a beginner, and at their price, they're throw-aways anyway.  I haven't broken any of mine yet, and if/when I do, it's only $250 for my most expensive lens that I own.

I'll upgrade eventually, but right now my D40x has been the perfect camera for this beginner.


----------



## D40

I will agree with this threads begginer, I purchased the D40 KNOWING it would need AF-S lenses but I thought at the time I would be happy with the 18-55 and 55-200. Now that I have a DSLR I have learned a lot and want to do more with Photography than what I had intended from the start. SO, I will have to upgrade my Camera body. I am hopeing for the D200 or D300 in the future. I think the biggest thing is I am missing out on a some cheap fast prime lens that people love.


----------



## Alex_B

On a side track ...



Davec223 said:


> While I understand what you are saying, I would have thought that most people looking to buy a DSLR will do a large amount of research before they spend their hard earned cash



No!

Most people do not really ... I know this sounds strange, but most people buy based on advertisements, on what staff in the shops tell them and they buy what their buddy tells them to buy.

Those of us who really get informed, think about pros and cons of each candidate piece of equipment ... those of us are a rare breed.


----------



## smcaskil

I recently purchased a D40X, knowing the lens restrictions.  

For me it was a good purchase because it is a major upgrade to my Olympus P&S but is something that I could afford to get and still have money to buy more lenses for later.  

Eventually I am sure that I will probably want a lens that won't work on this camera and will have a real use for that kind of lens.  At that point, I will have outgrown this camera in terms of skill anyway, so I won't be bothered having to purchased a more expensive body that will allow more flexibility.

But for me, the hobby photographer who just wants a good camera that does not break the bank, I think this was a good fit for me.


----------



## ShaneAR

Yep, I agree with some other comments here.

I'm new to the world of photography and dSLR.  A few weeks back I purchased the D40 after a fair amount of research and I couldn't be more pleased. 

 I knew very well its lens limitations, and still judged it a great fit.  When the time comes that I find myself NEEDING more lens choice, that would probably be the same time I would want a new camera body regardless of my current body.

Bottom line, it takes great pictures and, in my opinion, a great choice for a beginner.  I think Nikon did well with the D40.

So, I understand the inital poster's reason (and he has valid points, indeed) but the title should be more of "consider this..." rather than "Don't". To assume that all beginners have the same needs and wants for their first system is simply wrong: There's not only black and white, there are shades of gray in between.

My two cents...


----------



## petey

It's cool with me if you have your own opinion. I bought my D40 not knowing a thing about taking pictures. So far it has done me well. I held on to the N60 and still use it now and then too. 

I don't know enough about cameras or lenses. I like the small body a lot. I had the opportunity to buy a D50 but that thing was so bulky and loud I passed over it. Many of the pictures I have taken with the D40 have gotten rave reviews. I value the technical information and expertise you guys offer here. I'm learning a lot just lurking. That said I never want this hobby to end up on my evergrowing list of things I learned so much about I ended up forgetting how to enjoy.  

Cheers,


----------



## Garbz

May I be as so bold as to suggest the word beginner be split into two categories? In this thread alone I see people who fit in both.

There are those people who are just coming into their first DSLRs who want a simple hobby to kill some time and something to do and play with. Something that doesn't end up costing them any real money, and something to keep them occupied or to capture their kids growing up, or holiday photos.

Then there's those who are looking for a starting platform to get more serious. These are the people who typically ask a lot of questions and you see them wondering how people do various things. Those people who want to do what the best of them do but simply currently lack the finance.

Now the former group will be perfectly content with the D40/x and an 18-70, and 55-200mm lens at the most. They will love the camera and never think twice about their purchase.

However if you are one of those people who have wondered what a prime lens is and why some people use them then you fall in the latter category and the D40 is a colossal waste of money. For those people who are looking for a start into a hobby that may consume parts of their lives like so many on this forum who are passionate about it the D40 is quite possibly the worst camera you could buy because of it's limitations.

Also I've seen a few of you argue you don't need AF, or as thefizzle put it AF is a luxury. That is a huge load of crap. AF is a tool in the camera. I challenge you to point your D40 with a 200mm f/2.8 at something on the horizon and get the shot in focus. AF may have been a gimmick back in the days of bright viewfinders with split prism focusing planes, but with todays crap dark small viewfinders AF is a necessity not a luxury.


----------



## TunaMR2

Garbz said:


> May I be as so bold as to suggest the word beginner be split into two categories? In this thread alone I see people who fit in both.
> 
> There are those people who are just coming into their first DSLRs who want a simple hobby to kill some time and something to do and play with. Something that doesn't end up costing them any real money, and something to keep them occupied or to capture their kids growing up, or holiday photos.
> 
> Then there's those who are looking for a starting platform to get more serious. These are the people who typically ask a lot of questions and you see them wondering how people do various things. Those people who want to do what the best of them do but simply currently lack the finance.
> 
> Now the former group will be perfectly content with the D40/x and an 18-70, and 55-200mm lens at the most. They will love the camera and never think twice about their purchase.
> 
> However if you are one of those people who have wondered what a prime lens is and why some people use them then you fall in the latter category and the D40 is a colossal waste of money. For those people who are looking for a start into a hobby that may consume parts of their lives like so many on this forum who are passionate about it the D40 is quite possibly the worst camera you could buy because of it's limitations.
> 
> Also I've seen a few of you argue you don't need AF, or as thefizzle put it AF is a luxury. That is a huge load of crap. AF is a tool in the camera. I challenge you to point your D40 with a 200mm f/2.8 at something on the horizon and get the shot in focus. AF may have been a gimmick back in the days of bright viewfinders with split prism focusing planes, but with todays crap dark small viewfinders AF is a necessity not a luxury.



I don't necessarily agree, to be quite honest.  I've only been at this a few months, but I fit in to the latter group I'd say.  I read a lot and try to get a better understanding of how everything works.  But to me, as a beginner, I have so much more to learn about photography that right now, the D40's limitations aren't really limitations to me.  The lenses I have are plenty good in quality for my skill level I think.  Maybe in a year or so I'll be ready to upgrade.  At which point, I'll be getting rid of a cheap camera that takes good quality pictures, 2 cheap lenses for some better quality lenses, and keeping my cheap 50mm 1.8.  In the end, I don't think it will have been anything near a crippling financial hit for me to upgrade to a new body like some people are making it out to be.  If you're experienced in photography and moving from film to digital, it's probably not the camera for you.  If you're taking good pictures with a P&S and want to move up to a DSLR, it may or not be.  If you're brand new (like me) and want to learn, it has plenty of features for you to play with and learn, and has some good, affordable lenses available, and is a very good option, IMO.

Now, do I think it's a good idea to sink a bunch of money into AF-S lenses for your D40?  Probably not.


----------



## Antithesis

D40 said:


> I will agree with this threads begginer, I purchased the D40 KNOWING it would need AF-S lenses but I thought at the time I would be happy with the 18-55 and 55-200. Now that I have a DSLR I have learned a lot and want to do more with Photography than what I had intended from the start. SO, I will have to upgrade my Camera body. I am hopeing for the D200 or D300 in the future. I think the biggest thing is I am missing out on a some cheap fast prime lens that people love.



I think the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 might be the very reason I sell my d40x to get a d80 (or a d200 if one pops up for cheap). I think in the long run, the money you can save on the cheap (yet awesome) lenses that won't auto-focus on the d40x, easily justifies the cost of the d80 or even the d200. Not to mention you can get used Nikkor AF lenses on ebay all day, but the AF-S ones are rare and expensive (unless you want the consumer lenses). 

I think the d40x does have some utility in certain situations. It makes an excellent lightweight travel camera and is perfect for any situation where you want a smaller, lighter camera. It's still capable of some amazing pictures, I think you'd just have to drop the money on a higher-end lens to really utilize it. I think later in life when I have the income to justify having multiple camera bodies, I'll probably own one for traveling and street photography. In the meantime I have one for sale


----------



## Jestev

I completely agree with Sabbath. I love to use my AI and AI-S lenses on my D50, but when I do so it's in situations where a lack of AF is ok. I have a ton of AF lenses and only one (that I can remember) AF-S lens.

The D50 is a far better beginner camera than the D40/x; however, I will hand it to Nikon for making a camera that has really gained popularity. Of course, it does worry me about if they will begin making all of their camera bodies in the same fashion (w/o AF-servo).


----------



## sabbath999

jedithebomber said:


> Sir, you are being a Troll digging up nothing but a Cannon vs. Nikon argument. Perhaps the next mod through would be so kind as to lock this thread.
> 
> I love my D40, I will upgrade sooner rather than later, however I am sure I will keep the D40 till it dies. Lightweight, easy to use, extremely cheap. Great casual shooter.



I just noticed this particular reply, somehow I had missed it before. 

Since I have a different opinion about one camera in a line of cameras... one that I own and have taken thousands of pictures with... I am a troll?

If you had bothered to read my post, which you obviously either didn't or you didn't understand what I was saying, you can see that I advised people to either buy a used D50 or a D80 in the Nikon line instead of the D40/D40X.

This has nothing to do with Canon vs. Nikon, this has to do with Nikon D40/D40X vs. Nikon D50 & D80. You did not see a bunch of glowing praise for Canon and Nikon bashing, largely because I don't care for the Canon Rebel XT/XTi very much either... I included them to show that other lower end cameras are not crippled.

Feel free to agree with me or not, like the others have. I respect THEIR opinions since they don't feel the need to call names.

Yours? Take a guess what I think of it.


----------



## JIP

Wow Sabbath we agree on something again!!!

And I agree you are no troll this is an important opinion to give to the many "what DSLR should I get" people who will not read this and will simply post again.


----------



## JerryPH

I saw it... and treated it with the respect due it... I ignored it. 

I presumed that they either were insulted when faced with a true fact and sensitive to it becuase they were a D40 owner... or really did not read Sabbath's post properly. 

In either case neither would have warranted a response.


----------



## Alpha

This is silly. The D40 is not a pro camera. Take it for what it is: a well-priced DSLR that is largely so well priced because of its limited capabilities. You're fooling yourself to think otherwise.


----------



## LeftBehind

This thread lacks Pentax love.


----------



## JIP

As it should the only thing I can think of that is worse than a D40/40x is a Pentax Dslr.


----------



## Helen B

It's being used by quite a few pros I know. Maybe it is more of a camera for pros than for beginners. "Look, I don't need no big fancy camera, I can do it with this little thing."

Best,
Helen


----------



## Don Simon

JIP said:


> As it should the only thing I can think of that is worse  than a D40/40x is a Pentax Dslr.


 
 I know, they're appalling, using the same sensor and equally good image  quality and allowing you to use autofocus with autofocus lenses. It's much  better to cut costs and make people buy all new lenses. And you don't need a top LCD anyway, because Nikon says so. And the K10d is  particularly bad compared to the D40/D40x, what with its two control dials, and  letting you change things without going through menus, and having weather  sealing... yeah I can see how a D40/x would be better :lmao:


----------



## dpolston

We're missing the point. The D40 _is _an entry level camera. It's not a "pro" camera. It is however more advanced than a point and shoot, which I think makes it more appealing to some new photographers. We as enthusiast's  should welcome those passionate new budding photographers and not discourage these kinds of purchases or debate things that might be over their head.

If you know what you do about the D40's limitations and still make the choice to purchase it, you know what you're getting into. Those who don't know, because they're not as "_____ retentive_" as we are, will someday learn or probably not even care. "God Bless Um... keep shooting!"

On a pro note however... I don't think the _camera _has anything to do with it at all (not to open that can of worms). You (as pros) probably shoot more D200's, DX2's and soon the D3's, but this makes a nice, easy little backup camera for you. My back up camera is the D70. I shot the crap out of it until I needed more versatility and bought the 200. Frankly, even though I would love to have the D3, I'll probably get another 200 because it is all the camera I need for now. 

The D40 is what it is... period.


----------



## RacePhoto

When you move up, sell the camera and the lenses that are specific to it, you'll get a better price and be able to move on. Someone else will be happy to get into a good used camera.

At least the DSLRs hold their value pretty good.


----------



## Double H

Lots of great points being made here. I bought a D40 for my wife. She wanted something that took the darn picture when you pressed the darn button. She loves it. However, we have had to send the body back for a major error, and now the lens has stopped working properly. I had to use it when my Fuji S2 took a crap on me while I waited for my S5 to arrive. It did ok, but it's no pro unit. IMHO, it does not withstand very much normal camera-abuse. So for her it's fine, but for me it cannot stand up to my Pro rigs. I suppose Nikon took the AF out of the body to save on manufacturing costs and thus make it affordable to the beginner/novice. Let's face it, when shooting active kids, or even an energenic model, AF is vital for great captures. If I had to do it over, I may have spent the extra dough on a D80, or perhaps just given her my Fuji S2.


----------



## EljayK004

While some of the ideas are solid, I think the original topic is off-kilter.  First off, a lot of beginners want a smaller camera, by taking the AF motor out, you save size and weight.  Secondly, if someone does get really interested in photography, when its time to upgrade, they will buy something better, and the best part is, they will be able to use every lens they already own.  Next, most of the target market for the D40 isn't interested in lugging around 15 lenses.  Most purchasers bought it because it was lightweight, and easy to use, not because it was "pro-model durable."  Do you seriously think most _beginners_ are going to carry 8 specialty lenses around with them?  No, most will likely carry the kit lens and an intermediate zoom, and nothing else.  Furthermore, most of the target market want to push the shutter-release and take a picture, not fiddle with DOF, or bracketing, or things more advanced users enjoy.  Another problem with this argument is, if someone goes out and uses the D40 like a pro, how long will it last?  I wouldn't bet on it being very long.

The major problem I have with this argument is, sabbath, you aren't looking at this like the majority of potential D40 buyers, you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is _very_ interested in photography.  To us (those very interested in photography) lens useability is important, but to a begineer, who doesn't have a stockpile of glass, it isn't nearly as important.  Most people whio buy a D40 will never be able to tell you the extolls of a "thrifty fifty."  Most probably won't even know it exists unless a friend mentions it.  Sure it would be nice to have "cheap" lenses available, but I don't think most D40 buyers care beyond a couple of "cheap" zooms.  

I think Nikon did an excellent job with the D40, and we should try to get as many D40s into hands as possible.  Why, you ask?  Because these people are people who probably would never have taken an interest in photography before buying the D40, and the more people we can bring into our hobby the better it is for all of us.  If they decide to upgrade one day, then it worked on many, many levels and is benificial to everyone from the manufacturers, to artists, to the hobbyists, and to the pros.

I've got a friend who owns a D40 and absolutely loves it.  In a few years he may upgrade, but he may not, its too early to tell right now.  I'm working extremely hard to turn him into a photographer as opposed to a snapshot "artist."  One day he might catch the fever, but if he doesn't, he still enjoys his camera, and that is the most important part.  *Remember the technical apect of the thing is unimportant, its all about making great photos and the D40 can make great photos.*  People used MF lenses for years, people used lightmeters and grayscales for years, people used manual winding for years and yet they still took great photos.


----------



## Antithesis

EljayK004 said:


> While some of the ideas are solid, I think the original topic is off-kilter.  First off, a lot of beginners want a smaller camera, by taking the AF motor out, you save size and weight.  Secondly, if someone does get really interested in photography, when its time to upgrade, they will buy something better, and the best part is, they will be able to use every lens they already own.  Next, most of the target market for the D40 isn't interested in lugging around 15 lenses.  Most purchasers bought it because it was lightweight, and easy to use, not because it was "pro-model durable."  Do you seriously think most _beginners_ are going to carry 8 specialty lenses around with them?  No, most will likely carry the kit lens and an intermediate zoom, and nothing else.  Furthermore, most of the target market want to push the shutter-release and take a picture, not fiddle with DOF, or bracketing, or things more advanced users enjoy.  Another problem with this argument is, if someone goes out and uses the D40 like a pro, how long will it last?  I wouldn't bet on it being very long.
> 
> The major problem I have with this argument is, sabbath, you aren't looking at this like the majority of potential D40 buyers, you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is _very_ interested in photography.  To us (those very interested in photography) lens useability is important, but to a begineer, who doesn't have a stockpile of glass, it isn't nearly as important.  Most people whio buy a D40 will never be able to tell you the extolls of a "thrifty fifty."  Most probably won't even know it exists unless a friend mentions it.  Sure it would be nice to have "cheap" lenses available, but I don't think most D40 buyers care beyond a couple of "cheap" zooms.
> 
> I think Nikon did an excellent job with the D40, and we should try to get as many D40s into hands as possible.  Why, you ask?  Because these people are people who probably would never have taken an interest in photography before buying the D40, and the more people we can bring into our hobby the better it is for all of us.  If they decide to upgrade one day, then it worked on many, many levels and is benificial to everyone from the manufacturers, to artists, to the hobbyists, and to the pros.
> 
> I've got a friend who owns a D40 and absolutely loves it.  In a few years he may upgrade, but he may not, its too early to tell right now.  I'm working extremely hard to turn him into a photographer as opposed to a snapshot "artist."  One day he might catch the fever, but if he doesn't, he still enjoys his camera, and that is the most important part.  *Remember the technical apect of the thing is unimportant, its all about making great photos and the D40 can make great photos.*  People used MF lenses for years, people used lightmeters and grayscales for years, people used manual winding for years and yet they still took great photos.



I have to totally agree with this. Without the d40x I wouldn't have ever gotten into photography. I'm still a beginner but I've taken a super strong interest in photography to the point where I'm now studying it in school and spend most of my time thinking about photography or taking pictures. I think the d40x still has a lot to offer but I'm getting ready to upgrade to a d80. I get to shoot a wedding with my buddy next weekend (as a backup shooter using a d200) and it's probably time to ditch the starter camera. But hey, it got me started on a possible career path and gave me direction where before there was none. 

I don't think I was ever unhappy with the image quality that the d40x was capable of, even on the kit lens. It should hold most beginners over for a while, and to some people it'll be far more camera than they will ever need. My cousin's got a d80 and he rarely uses any of the manual modes.


----------



## petey

EljayK004 said:


> I've got a friend who owns a D40 and absolutely loves it. In a few years he may upgrade, but he may not, its too early to tell right now. I'm working extremely hard to turn him into a photographer as opposed to a snapshot "artist." One day he might catch the fever, but if he doesn't, he still enjoys his camera, and that is the most important part. *Remember the technical apect of the thing is unimportant, its all about making great photos and the D40 can make great photos.* People used MF lenses for years, people used lightmeters and grayscales for years, people used manual winding for years and yet they still took great photos.


 
I accept photography as both art and science and will not argue either view over the other. I question what serious polished professionals think about such matters. 

I confess when someone tells me my D40 pictures "look professional" or "could win a photo contest" it makes me feel like I stole something. I feel good inside (but not professional). 

Thank you sabbath999. You sir are not a troll.


----------



## Battou

Helen B said:


> I've been using Nikons since 1971, and every single Nikon lens I own works with my D40x. It also works surprisingly well with bellows for macro work. I think that is a great little camera.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



I have not read the whole thread yet but I do wan't to say this. A beginner is not likely to have a collection of lenses at hand, Much less know they will work. Also bear in mind, Older lenses can at times be hard to acuire and that it would be easier for todays beginners to find new lenses thus restricting them (in a way) to the lens series sabbath999 noted.



jedithebomber said:


> Sir, you are being a Troll digging up nothing but a Cannon vs. Nikon argument. Perhaps the next mod through would be so kind as to lock this thread.



When It is comming from a person who owns and uses the camera he is advising against, the comments are sound and are not trolling material. This is experiance sharing


----------



## Helen B

Battou said:


> I have not read the whole thread yet but I do wan't to say this. A beginner is not likely to have a collection of lenses at hand, Much less know they will work. Also bear in mind, Older lenses can at times be hard to acuire and that it would be easier for todays beginners to find new lenses thus restricting them (in a way) to the lens series sabbath999 noted.



I agree that they are not likely have a collection of lenses, but disagree about the lack of availability of them. High quality manual focus Nikon primes that will work surprisingly well on the D40/D40x are comparatively easy to come by in every part of the world I have worked in, and cheap for what they are. (Nikon and Canon are different in that respect, because of Canon's change of lens mount, and because Nikon was by far the dominant pro brand at one time.) The old manual focus primes will not suit every beginner, of course - I'm not trying to suggest that, I'm just trying to give information to help beginners make their own minds up.

Good luck,
Helen


----------



## compugeek722

I think that those brand all have relatively expensive glass and I was thinking for a dslr more along the lines of a pentax.  They have some great glass at great prices, and a plethora of lenses to choose from. Not to mention that the camera has the af motor built into it so the lenses don't require the motor in themselves which brings down cost... The only problem I've read on the latest pentax models are the auto white balance settings... But who ever uses that anyway????


----------



## shivaswrath

compugeek722 said:


> I think that those brand all have relatively expensive glass and I was thinking for a dslr more along the lines of a pentax.  They have some great glass at great prices, and a plethora of lenses to choose from. Not to mention that the camera has the af motor built into it so the lenses don't require the motor in themselves which brings down cost... The only problem I've read on the latest pentax models are the auto white balance settings... But who ever uses that anyway????



mind you that's why the Pentax bodies are A LOT heavier than the D40. . .

I'm happy with my D40x, probably move into photography as a full fledged hobby because of it. . .I find myself framing pictures in my head (that would look hot, that wouldn't, oh if I only had my camera). . and I'm travelling a lot because of my job and have now included my D40x as my "other" essential in my carryon (along side my ipod, etc.!!)

it serves it's purpose, and I'll be able to sell the body in 2-4 years for a D80 or whatever the hell else Nikon creates at that point and STILL use my lenses. . .

Just sucks that any descent lens with AF-S or HSM (Sigma) starts at $370 at the cheap end up towards $1500, but  I'm okay with that since I'll be sticking with Nikon until the end. . .


----------



## Don Simon

shivaswrath said:


> mind you that's why the Pentax bodies are A LOT heavier than the D40. . .


 
Without lens or battery, the K100d is just under 100g heavier than the D40. I don't know if I'd consider that a LOT. The D50 came in near the K100d's weight, the D70 exceeded it, and I don't recall too many Nikonians complaining that either was unbearably heavy. No, the K100d is heavier mostly because of the shake reduction system (the K110d, without shake-reduction, actually weighs only 9g more than the D40... and retains a top LCD _and_ an autofocus motor). In use either Pentax will however be heavier due to using AA batteries. But my point is not about how good a Pentax is or how well it compares to Nikon, that's not what this thread is about... my point is, an AF motor really does not add that much weight. It's a cost-cutting thing, why pretend it's anything else?

I agree we shouldn't tell people "Don't buy the D40", you should simply point out the potential limitations. But is it really going to _put people off photography_? No, at worst it puts people off a Nikon D40. There are other cheap entry-level bodies which buyers can consider, including Nikon's very own D50 (as Sabbath999 recommended) which I still see on sale in several places.


----------



## sabbath999

ZaphodB said:


> Without lens or battery, the K100d is just under 100g heavier than the D40.



Not to be picky or anything, but what use is a K100d without a battery?

Body only comparisons make sense (lens weight is always going to be variable with different brands), but neither the K100d or the D40/D40x will work without batteries... so it seems to me that the only weight that really matters is body weight with batteries and memory cards included.


----------



## petey

ZaphodB said:


> There are other cheap entry-level bodies which buyers can consider, including Nikon's very own D50 (as Sabbath999 recommended) which I still see on sale in several places.


 
The huge difference is in size/weight and sound.


----------



## Battou

Helen B said:


> I agree that they are not likely have a collection of lenses, but disagree about the lack of availability of them. High quality manual focus Nikon primes that will work surprisingly well on the D40/D40x are comparatively easy to come by in every part of the world I have worked in, and cheap for what they are. (Nikon and Canon are different in that respect, because of Canon's change of lens mount, and because Nikon was by far the dominant pro brand at one time.) The old manual focus primes will not suit every beginner, of course - I'm not trying to suggest that, I'm just trying to give information to help beginners make their own minds up.
> 
> Good luck,
> Helen



Oh yeah, I am well aware of the difference in availability of lenses between N&C. As a Canon carrier I search up and down looking for glass here locally, I have to go to the Antique shop not far from where I live to find anything, and find little more than Nikon equipment. Not every city has a camera shop or a place where camera shop owners can sell their equipment outside the shop.

When there is a beginner who lives in a city that has such places where they could upgrade and/or get glass and advice with ease, Yeah there should not be a problem with the body. However for those who live out in the boonies or small cities and don't have access to equipment shops aside from internet, this camera should be out of the question. They would be better served to get a prolevel camera, Should they decide to pursue photography further and more seriously this will be an advantage to them as they won't need to travel to find a place to replace gear and/or pay ridiculous shipping costs all over again, and if not they could always phence it for a decent price or use it for snap shots. I agree with you on the fact that old manual focus primes will not suit every beginner, that is all the more reason for beginners outside of places with knowledgeable shops not to go with this. If you have no place to go for face to face advice on how to use it regularly, they are boned until they figure it out even if they do have access to the equipment.

Entry level equipment is only as good as the users ability to upgrade it, be it glass or bodies, regardless of quality in manufacturing or out put.


----------



## Alpha

MaxBloom said:


> This is silly. The D40 is not a pro camera. Take it for what it is: a well-priced DSLR that is largely so well priced because of its limited capabilities. You're fooling yourself to think otherwise.



I couldn't agree with you more, Max. I think you've hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Don Simon

sabbath999 said:


> Not to be picky or anything, but what use is a K100d without a battery?
> 
> Body only comparisons make sense (lens weight is always going to be variable with different brands), but neither the K100d or the D40/D40x will work without batteries... so it seems to me that the only weight that really matters is body weight with batteries and memory cards included.


 
Sabbath... Fair point, and I did say it would weigh more "in use" for that exact reason. But again I wasn't trying to compare weight just for the sake of comparing weight or to say they were a similar weight. I was responding to a specific claim that it was the AF motor which made a Pentax dSLR weigh more than the D40 - I was pointing out that this was clearly not the case, and suggesting that the removal of the AF motor is a cost-cutting measure more than anything else.




petey said:


> The huge difference is in size/weight and sound.


 
Again I guess it depends on your definition of "huge". The D50 is 100g heavier than a D40 and a bit larger. It's not exactly a D2X or a Mamiya. From that perspective I can't imagine a situation in which I'd think "I couldn't possibly carry a D50 round... but a D40 would be just fine!" Pocket-sized or not, you still have to put a lens on it. As for sound, I didn't consider the D50 all that loud... and I certainly wouldn't consider the Canon XTi/400D a loud camera. The XTi's dimensions are virtually identical to the D40 and it weighs only slightly more.

Obviously it depends on your priorities. For Sabbath999 it seems the huge difference is in compatibility and limitations. For me as well that would be more important than having a camera that's a bit smaller and lighter, and a lot more important than the relative amount of sound it makes. For you those things may be more important. So there's obviously a place for the D40 and photographers who are grateful for what it offers. My point was that it's not like the D40 is the only small and affordable entry-level dSLR. Yes some other ones are a bit larger and heavier but it's still only relative (they're all heavier than a point-&-shoot, and all lighter than a mid or pro-level dSLR). So I don't understand this idea that's going around of the D40 being the great democratic dSLR without which people would be unable to take an interest in photography  points to Nikon for marketing anyway


----------



## shivaswrath

interesting points on the K100d, I sincerely thought the weight came from the AF no the SR - the AA battery was also a turn off for me, the local camera guy pointed that out quick when I was comparing the two. . .having AF built in would be so nice though, but I'm sure whatever AF-S lenses I'm saving up for now will pay dividends when I upgrade to a D200/300, etc. down the line. . .


----------



## sabbath999

shivaswrath said:


> (clipped) but I'm sure whatever AF-S lenses I'm saving up for now will pay dividends when I upgrade to a D200/300, etc. down the line. . .



As long as they are the better ones (i.e. not the 55-200 VR, etc) you are absolutely right.


----------



## shivaswrath

sabbath999 said:


> As long as they are the better ones (i.e. not the 55-200 VR, etc) you are absolutely right.



I hear you! I'm considering selling it soon actually, it's a great starter lens for outdoor photography, but anything indoors/low lighting, I've found myself messing with metering and exposure comp's and taking about 2 dozen shots before I get it right. . .I just might have to get a used kit lens, anyone selling?


----------



## miky360

someone sticky this, this is great


----------



## JerryPH

shivaswrath said:


> I've found myself messing with metering and exposure comp's and taking about 2 dozen shots before I get it right. . .I just might have to get a used kit lens, anyone selling?


 
Thats not the camera's fault, but the person behind the lens.  The fact that it takes you 24 shots before getting it right points to that.  It's just a question of experience, thats all.  Knowing how and what to do and applying it... means you would get it from the first shot... or not more than 1-2 shots into it.  

I am sure in time you will be able to evaluate a scene, preset the camera in a few seconds and be spot on, or VERY near first time out.  That's what expereince and concerted practice will do for you.

As far as kit lenses... even for a stark raving newbie, I would suggest not going for kit lenses.  They are "affordable" for a reason... their performance is nowhere near as good as what one could get for that extra $100-$150 for a better lens.  About the only exception to that would be the 18-200 VR (and then, not by any great amount).  

I always urge everyone to stay away from them... unless they really do not care about getting pictures any better than most low end P&S cameras can do out of the box.  Everyone that I know that has ever invested in one and developed more than a passing interest in photography are always sorry for doing that and always wish they had put the money into a better lens from the start.

It is good to learn from your mistakes, but it is smarter to learn from the mistakes of others.


----------



## bmwardo

Interesting thread, I am trying to absorb all the info but it brings up some excellent points and things for me to consider.


----------



## shivaswrath

JerryPH said:


> Thats not the camera's fault, but the person behind the lens.  The fact that it takes you 24 shots before getting it right points to that.  It's just a question of experience, thats all.  Knowing how and what to do and applying it... means you would get it from the first shot... or not more than 1-2 shots into it.



lol, I heard a smacking sound from that comment
seriously though, you are right, my newness to this realm is my shortcoming for sure. . .

are the kit lenses that bad? it's so funny to see SUCH polarizing opinions on them!

that made me feel better for getting the d40x body only! much like my body selection, I'm going to a local store to see how the Sigma 18-50 HSM MACRO, 30mm f/1.4 HSM, and other goodies pan out. . .used Nikkors in those ranges are wicked expensive. . .

And while I shop, I'll continue to practice and learn the art of metering and exposure :thumbup:


----------



## Helen B

I've just found out that you can cut a Nikon K3 focusing screen down to fit the D40, and it is very easy to change. You don't need to make the little tab - you can just cut it down to a plain rectangle.  The K3 is the $30 screen with the split-image rangefinder prisms. It improves manual focusing and has no effect on any other functions. I can provide more details if anyone wants them.

I'll cut another one down for a friend, and take pictures.

Best,
Helen


----------



## thefizzle

helen, i'd be interested in seeing that.


----------



## Don Simon

Helen B said:


> I've just found out that you can cut a Nikon K3 focusing screen down to fit the D40, and it is very easy to change. You don't need to make the little tab - you can just cut it down to a plain rectangle. The K3 is the $30 screen with the split-image rangefinder prisms. It improves manual focusing and has no effect on any other functions. I can provide more details if anyone wants them.


 
Very interesting. And at $30 a lot cheaper than the KatzEye option. Add a small fee for cutting and you have a nice business idea there. 

Fitting a manual-focus screen is a great idea though. I know plenty of people focus manually with D40s, Rebels etc, but for me almost any dSLR is horrible for manual focusing. Guess I've been spoiled by film cameras. If I were in the Nikon system I could definitely see myself using the D40 with a split-image screen as a manual-focus backup, or for specific uses (for example I'd much rather use manual focus for macro). This little modification would be a great improvement IMO (if the camera can't autofocus with autofocus lenses then why not make the most of manual focus?)


----------



## sabbath999

Helen B said:


> I've just found out that you can cut a Nikon K3 focusing screen down to fit the D40, and it is very easy to change. You don't need to make the little tab - you can just cut it down to a plain rectangle.  The K3 is the $30 screen with the split-image rangefinder prisms. It improves manual focusing and has no effect on any other functions. I can provide more details if anyone wants them.
> 
> I'll cut another one down for a friend, and take pictures.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



I for one would like details... perhaps you could do a thread of it on its own with pictures of the process. Does it meter exactly the same?


----------



## Snyder

Well I never intended in buying this camera but the price is right and I found they are having a sale at a local store of all digital cameras they only have a D40 kit for only $365 going rate for this is over $500 so ya im going to buy it and im debating if I want to try to sell it or use it as my crap camera in cases of high risk of breaking the camera. Though I want to get a D300 eventually but first I need some more good glass lenses.


----------



## Ordy

The D40 is a beginners camera.  I read dozens of reviews and every single one of them state it's for beginners.

With that said I purchased one for my 13 year old daughter. They sold it with the kit lens and a non-VR 55-200mm zoom for about $680.00. 

After I bought it my daughter asked for a Macro lens. I knew about the camera not being able to meter and so I purchased a second hand Gossen Luna Pro incident light meter from ebay for $28.00.  The lens, a 55mm F/2.8 Micro Nikkor set me back $87.00 on ebay. Does she miss not being able to autofocus with the macro lens? Not really, she normally sets her 18-55mm kit lens to manual when she used it for close up work. As far as using an external meter she loves using the incident light and spot metering feature on the Gossen. She saids it allows her the flexibility to define shadows more accurately.

Presently I'm looking to buy a Non-Ai manual focus lens since this camera can accept those lenses without a hitch and she can use her incident light meter with it also. 

If anything, as a beginner, she should know how to use an external meter.  So, as it stands, that limitation of the D40 worked out great in my daughters case.

Ordy


----------



## Snyder

With Macro photography a D40 will work fine cause most cases you will get better result manually focusing unless your blind.


----------



## Don Simon

Snyder said:


> With Macro photography a D40 will work fine cause most cases you will get better result manually focusing unless your blind.


 
Or unless the companies design their cameras for autofocus, which means no manual focusing aids like microprism or split screen, and they need to keep costs down, which means a dark pentamirror and small viewfinder. Oh wait, that's exactly what happens.


----------



## KaleyEs

Having had the D40 since practically the day it came out, and being a beginner who wants to go into more advanced photography, it is definitely a limiting camera.  It is a "soccer mom" camera.  Yes, it gives you options that you can't get with a point and shoot, and you can change lenses (albeit the more expensive ones), but that's all that really separates it from a point and shoot.  

I became frustrated with the camera about 5 months after getting it.  I wanted to move into studio photography and found out that it is much more difficult to sync multiple flashes with it.  (I don't know the ins and outs of this so don't snap back).  I found that very frustrating.

I also was looking to expand my lens collection and I have found AF very useful.  I like having it there.  I bought the 50mm 1.8 even though I knew I would have to manual focus all the time.  I love the lens regardless, but it would be nice to be about to AF with it.  

I think the D40 is meant for people who want a fancy point and shoot with a few extra options.  Or for people who have tons of money to spend every time they want to buy a lens.


----------



## Lorielle99

MaxBloom said:


> I couldn't agree with you more, Max. I think you've hit the nail on the head.




agree also, i have it and im a begginer. and i love it.


----------



## NateS

I agree with so much in this thread (and the original post).

I had a D40 kit for 2 months and got rid of it for a used D70s (should be here Monday).  It took no time at all to find that the limitations of lenses was going to make me unhappy.  I really wanted a 50mm f1.8 and wasn't about to try and keep up with my son with manual focusing.  Not only that but as I learn and get better, I'm going to keep finding limitations. 

I bought the D40 kit with the expectations to upgrade in a year and a half or so.  Little did I know that it would be more like 2 months before I was unsatisfied.  All the lenses I wanted were 500 and up.  Now most of the lenses I want are around 300 or under (mostly primes like 50mm f1.8, 85 f1.8, and 35 f2)


----------



## jstuedle

I agree the D40 is not for the aspiring photographer that is going to grow a system out of there first DSLR. But face it, most who buy this camera are point and shooters that just want a little better than the P&S they got at WalMart or Walgreens. OTOH, how many decades did we go without auto focus, and even light meters? I still use a lot of MF glass, so to me that would not be a limitation. I have not used the D40, but for a camera to keep in the car or take where a D200 might be a temptation to the local low-life, it has it's place. Even for the serious armature or pro.


----------



## khristeeanos

This thread deserves a sticky if it doesn't have one.

Extremely helpful information. :thumbup:


----------



## ANDS!

> I think the D40 is meant for people who want a fancy point and shoot with a few extra options.



I suppose if someone considers the flexibility of lens choice on an dSLR one of those "few extra options" then agreed - totally no difference between the D40 and a Coolpix.

For those that actually want an entry level camera, the D40 is fine to use as a starter.  It's just like a motorcycle - you're not gonna tell someone to hop on a Hayabusa, you recommend the moderate Ninja - both have enough power to get you where you need to go, and fast - but one is simply more advanced than the other.

As for being able to buy a D50 - sure, but its more than likely not going to come with a robust waranty/return policy as a D40 will have from someone trying to clear out stock.

I wouldn't get one if I could afford a D80; but if the D40 was in my price range, and my comfort level I would jump on one - it is far from a bad camera, it simply isn't a very "advanced" one (and isn't meant to be).


----------



## Helen B

Answering another thread has reminded me that the D40 and D40x are compatible with pre-AI lenses, while a lot of the other Nikon digital bodies are not. This means that if you can use a light meter or a histogram and you are capable of focusing manually you can use pre-AI lenses, some of which are very good quality and excellent value.

Best,
Helen


----------



## SwEetAbbOttMeOHmy

I love my D40x it does great for what I need.


----------



## jteknet

jedithebomber said:


> Sir, you are being a Troll digging up nothing but a Cannon vs. Nikon argument. Perhaps the next mod through would be so kind as to lock this thread.
> 
> I love my D40, I will upgrade sooner rather than later, however I am sure I will keep the D40 till it dies. Lightweight, easy to use, extremely cheap. Great casual shooter.




I have to say, I'm with you and all the other D40 owners on the site. Kinda got my blood pressure up (as it does anytime I see D40 bashing) I spent $650 on a camera I want to feel is the BEST without people saying it sucks. I mean, it's a no-brainer that my camera vs a new $3,000 DSLR is going to suck. 

If you can afford those cameras, FANTASTIC, some of us can't.


----------



## ANDS!

> I mean, it's a no-brainer that my camera vs a new $3,000 DSLR is going to suck.


 
Your camera does not suck.  It is not as full featured as a D300 or D3; but either in the hands of a capable photographer with some good glass is going to produce incredible results.

Yea, this thread is weird - and a little disappointing.


----------



## jteknet

ANDS! said:


> Your camera does not suck.  It is not as full featured as a D300 or D3; but either in the hands of a capable photographer with some good glass is going to produce incredible results.
> 
> Yea, this thread is weird - and a little disappointing.




Suppose I picked the most disappointed thread on the forum to read / reply to as my first thread seeing as I just bought my brand new camera and I'm in love with it. 

I just got back from a three hour basketball game and took 475 pictures. I'm going to use Aperture to weed out my rejections (which I still don't delete) then I'm going to keep my ultra-clear "normal" quality D40 pictures.  But, I'm hijacking this thread. I might make a new one with a couple pictures I took if I find some that are interesting. Might just wait for something better / creative to take pictures of and post them suckers. =)

Thanks for cheering me up, letting me know that my camera does, indeed, not suck.


----------



## Tayfun

shivaswrath said:


> mind you that's why the Pentax bodies are A LOT heavier than the D40. . .
> 
> I'm happy with my D40x, probably move into photography as a full fledged hobby because of it. . .I find myself framing pictures in my head (that would look hot, that wouldn't, oh if I only had my camera). . and I'm travelling a lot because of my job and have now included my D40x as my "other" essential in my carryon (along side my ipod, etc.!!)
> 
> it serves it's purpose, and I'll be able to sell the body in 2-4 years for a D80 or whatever the hell else Nikon creates at that point and STILL use my lenses. . .
> 
> Just sucks that any descent lens with AF-S or HSM (Sigma) starts at $370 at the cheap end up towards $1500, but I'm okay with that since I'll be sticking with Nikon until the end. . .


 

As my opinion the major advantage of Canon and Nikon is their large lens choice availbility. But this is not true for D40/40x. Actually a little larger and heavier body will be a plus for me that changes to users thought but normally no one will choose a limited lens availibility. Pentax is a choice with limited lens availibity but Shake reduction + good sealing + Dust Reduction are all extras and if compared by D40/40x lens availibility is maybe more. No reason for D40/40x, Pentax is better choice.


----------



## Joves

While Im no fan of the D40, I would not go so far as to say it is a do not buy. For some people it is great. And it is a viable step up from P&S cameras. It is faster on start up and, there are a few non-Nikor alternatives out there. If Im not mistaken the Tamron AF Di IF lenses are compatable. If I owned a D40 I would look at some of those and, see if that is the case. The Tamrons are not that bad for a good price.They have their own internal motors so they do run off of the contacts. While some of you may not like the D40 much like myself, there are others that will be quite happy with it. Atleast the Nikon kit lenses are better that some other brands kits. I still use my 18-55 that came with my D50. It is a fairly good little lense. What drew me in here was the title. It was just asking to be flamed.


----------



## Coldow91

Joves said:


> If Im not mistaken the Tamron AF Di IF lenses are compatable.



Can some one verify this? I would be interested in whether this is tru or not. (Joves-I am not questioning what you said I am just asking for verification)


----------



## Joves

Coldow91 said:


> Can some one verify this? I would be interested in whether this is tru or not. (Joves-I am not questioning what you said I am just asking for verification)


I know. That is why I suggest going to the local store and, mounting it to see. But I do know they have an internal motor. Or better yet go to http://tamron.com and, see or cantact them.


----------



## jols

sabbath999 said:


> I am posting this thread here so I can reference it to people in the future, since the 'what DSLR should I buy' question comes up every single day here in the beginners forum.
> 
> Many beginners see the D40 and D40x cameras at a great price point, and think "man, that sounds like a great price for a DSLR."
> 
> It is a great price.
> 
> But.
> 
> There is a big-time catch with these camera models that leads me to advise you to not consider buying one of them as your first DSLR.
> 
> I own a D40, and due to the lens limitations, I cannot recommend buying either it or a D40x to anybody who wants to take their photography seriously, or to expand their photographic equipment collection in the future.
> 
> The fact that the D40/D40x series can only autofocus with lenses that are Nikon AF-S series or some of the Sigma line is a non-starter for me... You probably already know this, but the D40/D40x do not contain an autofocus motor in the camera body. lenses that need the camera body's motor to focus simply will not focus on these two cameras. It is beyond me why Nikon did this, it seems very silly to me.
> 
> Generally (and yes, this is a wild generalization) the Nikon branded lenses with internal focus motors (Nikon calls them AF-S) are the more expensive and higher end products. There are a couple of inexpensive lenses (the kit lens, the 55-200 VR telephoto come to mind), but many of the other inexpensive lenses like the under $200 70-300D, the $100 wonderful little 50 mm f/1.8 and a bunch of very inexpensively priced used AF lenses simply will not focus on these cameras.
> 
> I purchased my D40 after my two D80's just to have a spare body around, and to shoot macro with my 105 VR. It does do a good job at that, it is very annoying that half the lenses I own won't work on it.
> 
> When you get ready to move up in lens, with the D40/D40x series you are looking at either buying an inexpensive telezoom of limited potential (the 55-200 VR) or spending a boatload of money on glass.
> 
> In the end, if you plan on owning a DSLR system, don't limit yourself from the start. If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there.
> 
> I don't really care that much for the Canon XT/XTI series either, but that is more because they feel clunky and cheaply made to me and the kit lens is not nearly as good as the one Nikon sells... but at least they can use the full range of lenses in the Canon line, and nobody should EVER decide which DSLR camera family to adopt based solely on the quality (or lack thereof) of a kit lens.
> 
> The D40's have excellent picture quality, and the 1/500th of a second flash speed make it a strange but wonderful choice for shooting flash Friday Night Lights photography (who would have thought that seasoned pros would be using D40's to do this...)
> 
> Still, the lens limitations are severe, and make these to cameras (IMHO) not recommendable.
> 
> I think the D80 is an excellent camera if you are looking for a new Nikon, and the D50 (basically a very similar camera to the D40 without the lens limitations) is a great choice for a starter used DSLR.


 

what a load of crap!!!


----------



## Helen B

Tayfun said:


> As my opinion the major advantage of Canon and Nikon is their large lens choice availbility. But this is not true for D40/40x. Actually a little larger and heavier body will be a plus for me that changes to users thought but normally no one will choose a limited lens availibility. ...



More types of Nikon lenses can be mounted on the D40 and D40x than on any other Nikon digital camera, including the D300 and D3, as far as I know. The only thing is that they may be manual focus, or manual focus and manual exposure, only. This is not always a problem.

Best,
Helen


----------



## petey

Everyone should own a D40.


----------



## Joves

petey said:


> Everyone should own a D40.


No thanx! Im saving my pennies for a D3.


----------



## jols

Joves said:


> No thanx! Im saving my pennies for a D3.


 

well you would wouldnt you as you already have a d80.

what a pointless post


----------



## Garbz

Wow 4 trolls within an hour. 



Helen B said:


> More types of Nikon lenses can be mounted on the D40 and D40x than on any other Nikon digital camera, including the D300 and D3, as far as I know. The only thing is that they may be manual focus, or manual focus and manual exposure, only. This is not always a problem.



Nearly. The D40/x can indeed hold just as many different lenses as the D3 and D300. The only exception to the Nikon rule is the D50 as far as I can remember as it didn't have the AI connection ring and thus required lenses with a CPUs in them (basically any lens made after the early 90s).

I personally don't see why people are still defending the D40 in all terms. Yes you can use nearly all lenses, yes you can manual focus. But the point is when you spend $600 on a camera you want the option to autofocus. Especially with the tiny and dark viewfinder which has absolutely no split prism and is nearly impossible to get in focus like on the D40. It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens.


----------



## Alex_B

Garbz said:


> Wow 4 trolls within an hour.



Well spotted 

But this easily happens when people start discussing camera hardware, ...


----------



## Alex_B

but I might remind you all that this thread has some constructive elements ...  part of the sabbath - Helen discussion


----------



## Helen B

Yes, the news that you can fit a cut-down K3 screen into a D40 could be useful. I haven't forgotten about it - I'll post the details after the holidays.

In answer to my comment about being able to mount more types of Nikon lenses on the D40 and D40x than on the D300 and D3:


Garbz said:


> Nearly. The D40/x can indeed hold just as many different lenses as the D3 and D300. The only exception to the Nikon rule is the D50 as far as I can remember as it didn't have the AI connection ring and thus required lenses with a CPUs in them (basically any lens made after the early 90s).
> 
> I personally don't see why people are still defending the D40 in all terms. Yes you can use nearly all lenses, yes you can manual focus. But the point is when you spend $600 on a camera you want the option to autofocus. Especially with the tiny and dark viewfinder which has absolutely no split prism and is nearly impossible to get in focus like on the D40. It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens.



Garbz,

You cannot, as far as I know, mount pre-AI lenses on the D300 and D3 because the AI coupler could get damaged - this applies to most Nikon bodies with the exception of those made before AI, and the F3, F4, F6, D40 and D40x. (What company to be in!) There are cheap, good lenses among those, including the 28 mm f/3.5 that was offered here recently. That, to me, means that there are more lenses that can be mounted on the D40 than on the D3 and D300, not less. As an aside, there are many times when I wish that my fancy new lenses had simple depth of field scales on them, it being easy enough to make the adjustment for the cropped sensor.

By providing these facts, rather than opinions, other people can make their own minds up. It isn't a matter of _'defending the D40 in all terms'_. Some of us think that the D40 has advantages as well as disadvantages. Different people have different requirements, so as I wrote way back in this thread, one size does not fit all. 

Most of what you have written in the above post is only your opinion. I think that I've ventured outside the point and shoot arena, and my opinion is that the D40x has been very good value for money for me. I don't need autofocus and autoexposure. Though the viewfinder isn't as large and bright as others, I found it usable with most of my manual focus lenses even before I did the surprisingly simple $30 upgrade to a K3 screen. I'm not saying that everyone will find the manual focusing usable on the D40 for all conditions. I think that it should be left to the individual to decide whether or not the D40 or D40x is right for them.

Best,
Helen


----------



## sabbath999

I may be wrong, but I think there are only a couple of types of Nikon lenses that cannot or SHOULD not be mounted on the D40/D40x.

One type is the old fisheyes where the lens extends back into the body... this requires a camera (like the Nikon F that they were designed to fit) with a dedicated mirror lock up. Mounting one of these on your D40/D40x will destroy the lens or the body, or more likely both.

The only other lenses that I know of were some of the weird Pronea lenses from the early 2000's that were Pronea specific... the ones that recessed into the camera body.


----------



## TamiyaGuy

. I just bought a Nikon D40, like, two days ago. I've heard alot about the lens limitations on the '40, and was really surprised when the old lenses from my Nikon F301 fitted perfectly. They didn't autofocus, but they never did on my F301 either.

In my opinion, the D40 never was designed to beat the crap out of every other DSLR, and the reason it has these lens limitations is because of the size of the thing! I mean, it's tiny. And if all you're ever going to do with an SLR is make a couple of A4-size prints, play around, and show your photos to friends and family, a Nikon D40 is perfect for that. If you're really thinking of making photography into a job, then you'll have done your homework and know that a D80 would be a better choice.

The lens limitations you talk of are really only a matter if you're looking to go pro. IMO, a 18-55mm macro lens and a 55-200mm long telephoto lens is perfect for almost all of my situations. Admittedly, it focuses a bit slow, but I find ways around that.

And, of course, there's that classic saying the pretty much sums it all up in a sentence: *The camera doesn't make the photograph, the photographer does.*

If you've got talent, you don't need top-of the range lenses. It might not look as good as if it was taken with a better lens, but it'll look a million times better than a photo taken with a top-of the range lens but taken by a complete idiot.


----------



## Tayfun

Helen B said:


> More types of Nikon lenses can be mounted on the D40 and D40x than on any other Nikon digital camera, including the D300 and D3, as far as I know. The only thing is that they may be manual focus, or manual focus and manual exposure, only. This is not always a problem.
> 
> Best,
> Helen


 
Yes Helen you are right may be all of the nikon lenses are compatible by D40/40x and I respect to large lens choice of Canon and Nikon. But in D40/40X maybe manual focusing can be enjoyable for many people but if you have no choice of autofocusing, it is ridiculous. There are other oportunities of Nikon it is all right, but not for D40/40X. If D40/40X is a model to be compete by Pentax or other same price cameras, it is a looser. I forced myself to buy it but couldn't find any reason not to buy Pentax. But only talking about D40/40X not complete Nikon models.

Best Wishes.


----------



## NateS

I see all these people talking about manual focusing not being much of an issue.  I'd love to see some of you try and take a picture of a 4-12 month old baby at f1.8 using manual focus.  I had a hard time getting good shots with autofocus the way my son bounces and "wabbles".  The kit lens, while good quality for what it is, has absolutely horrible bokeh in my opinion.  If you are going to do any subject isolation (whatever you can with that lens) then the bokeh isn't going to look great in many situtations and that can ruin a picture in my opinion.  

My biggest problem with the D40/D40x is the fact that the release of these two cameras caused (to my knowledge) the discontinuation of the D50/D70/D70s all of which are better camera's in my opinion than the D40(x).


----------



## petey

TamiyaGuy said:


> In my opinion, the D40 never was designed to beat the crap out of every other DSLR, and the reason it has these lens limitations is because of the size of the thing! I mean, it's tiny.


 
Much quieter too. 

People just don't like the annoying sound of a motor during a shoot. 

They get all dressed up and pay their hard earned money. 

The least we could do for them is to keep things quiet and peaceful.


----------



## adolan20

I love my D40x.  It's small, works well, and even though I have to buy AF-S lenses to autofocus, there are still plenty of lenses to choose from.  Also, I'm sure Nikon and other lens manufacturers will come out with more.


----------



## ShaneAR

Ordy said:


> ... I knew about the camera not being able to meter and so I purchased a second hand Gossen Luna Pro incident light meter from ebay for $28.00.
> 
> Ordy



Sorry to jump in here, but I hadn't read this thread in a while and just noticed the above comment.

Is he referring to it not metering at all or not metering well??that comment left me confused as my D40 meters fine (based on my all of 3 months photography experience  )


----------



## LoKaM

Just want to add my two cents.

I recently bought a D40 with the kit 18-55mm AF Lens and I couldn't be more pleased. It's nice, light and small, and suits my beginner needs perfectly.

If the lens limitation ever become a problem for my photography needs, I will just buy another body, since I will probably need one at that point anyway.


----------



## sabbath999

ShaneAR said:


> Sorry to jump in here, but I hadn't read this thread in a while and just noticed the above comment.
> 
> Is he referring to it not metering at all or not metering well??that comment left me confused as my D40 meters fine (based on my all of 3 months photography experience  )



Using old manual lenses, which fit just fine on the camera, it does not meter at all.


----------



## shivaswrath

you should try the new 18-55 kit lens with VR, great shots in low light situations, just got released. . .



LoKaM said:


> Just want to add my two cents.
> 
> I recently bought a D40 with the kit 18-55mm AF Lens and I couldn't be more pleased. It's nice, light and small, and suits my beginner needs perfectly.
> 
> If the lens limitation ever become a problem for my photography needs, I will just buy another body, since I will probably need one at that point anyway.


----------



## sabbath999

shivaswrath said:


> you should try the new 18-55 kit lens with VR, great shots in low light situations, just got released. . .



Do you have it?

I would be very interesting in hearing a detailed review of this lens... I wonder if the image quality is the same, better or worse than the standard kit lens.

I am a BIG fan of VR.


----------



## Coldow91

Based on his sig he does. I am wondering how this lens compares to the kit lens as well.


----------



## Mav

Despite the OP's viewpoint which I respect, there are still a good number of beginners and other D40 owners here (perhaps even a majority?) who bought the D40 and have no regrets. It's a great little camera at a great price, and it's incredibly easy to use. Like some of them said, if it wasn't for the D40 they might not have ever gotten into photography in the first place.

Just my $0.02 on some of the points that have been made...


"*If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there.*"

A few people made this point. The mere fact that you now have a DSLR class camera with the D40 means you get:

- super fast focusing
- far more resolution
- 2.5 fps, _and it will re-focus and re-meter each frame_
- clean iso800, and completely usable iso1600. No P&S can touch this.
- iso3200 when you need it. Again, no P&S can touch this.
- the ability to use external flashes for bouncing, which most P&S's don't let you do.
- the ability to switch lenses and choose among many, despite no AF on some of them.
- The D40 specifically has 1/500s flash sync, which is extremely important for outdoor action in the sun. This is better than any current Nikon DSLR, including the $5000 D3.
- depth of field control. Even with the 18-55, you still have far more depth of field control than a P&S.

You get all this just for getting a DSLR and I haven't even started on the lens issues yet. Considering you can get a basic D40/18-55 kit for only a little bit more money than one of the "prosumer" P&S cameras out there, I'd say the D40 is an incredible value. And judging by the sales figures and the fact that Nikon has passed Canon in Japan as far as DSLR marketshare thanks to the D40, I'd say that the consumer buying public generally agrees.


*"Also I've seen a few of you argue you don't need AF, or as thefizzle put it AF is a luxury. That is a huge load of crap. AF is a tool in the camera. I challenge you to point your D40 with a 200mm f/2.8 at something on the horizon and get the shot in focus."*

Easy, just focus to infinity and you'll nail it. 

You really _DON'T_ need AF all the time. I put my 10.5mm fisheye on my D40 all the time and get a lot of great photos with it. The depth of field is so huge with the fisheye even wide-open at f/2.8 that you can pretty much just park the focusing ring at 6 feet / infinity and everything is in focus. Wide angle lenses are also incredibly easy to manually focus. Putting my 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, or 85mm f1.8 on my D40 and trying to manually focus for wide-open shots, yes that's a bit harder, particularly if the subject is moving. But guess what? _Even my D80 with the same exact lenses can have trouble keeping moving things in focus on a prime wide-open. Duh, because you have a tiny depth of field and a moving target at close range. That's why you stop down._ I gave up on trying to keep my 9 month old in focus as she's moving about and usually shoot my 50mm lens at about f/4 now.

You don't _neeeeeeeeeeeed_ AF support just to enjoy primes. My 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest and contrastiest lens that I own. Images look fantastic with it straight off the camera, and it's one of the few lenses I own that really doesn't need any post processing or sharpening done to the images straight off the camera. I have DxO with its calibrated module, and guess what? There's no distortion to correct, and no sharpening that needs to be added. It basically does nothing besides what ever other things I might do to images on my own. It's incredible, all for 100 bucks! You're only really asking for trouble when you try to shoot at larger apertures than f/2.8, at which point the modern focusing screens stop showing any differences. No problem. Get one of these K3 screens that Helen will hopefully post the goods on, or the Katz Eye screen. I'm seriously tempted to do this on my D40 because I love it. Ultra small and lightweight primes along with the ultra small and lightweight D40 body is the perfect combination.


*"It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens."*

Again, manually focusing is not impossible. And just because you have a prime doesn't mean you MUST shoot it wide-open. f/2.8 and smaller apertures you can get good results, while still enjoying the benefits of primes. I've tried it and done it. And not ALL non AF-S lenses are a burden to autofocus. The 10.5mm fisheye is brainlessly simple, as will be most wide-angles. Even telephotos might not be so bad provided you're zoomed in enough to fill the viewfinder. And as some others pointed out, manually focusing is actually _preferred_ for macro photography. I wouldn't hesitate to pickup a used 55 or 60mm f/2.8 micro lens and plop it on the D40 and manually focus.

You can still get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you want a large aperture prime, and a whole ton of other Sigma HSM lenses. There's tons of great Nikon AF-S lenses out there that are affordable ($500 or less) like the 18-135, this new 18-55VR, and the 70-300VR. Just over that range is the 18-200VR. Want f/2.8 zoom lenses? You can get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM for well under $500. The D40 is a huge seller, and the 3rd party lens makers know this, and more and more "AF-S equivalent" lenses are coming out all the time. I'm sure Nikon will eventually offer more AF-S lenses as well, particularly primes, but you can't re-build your entire lens lineup overnight.

Basic D40 kits are being sold in the upper-$400 range right now (just checked B&H, $469.95). That's not a whole lot more money than the more advanced P&S's out there and you get FAR more capability. It's an outstanding value, which is why so many people buy them, and have no regrets even in spite of some of its limitations.


*"I always urge everyone to stay away from [kit lenses]... unless they really do not care about getting pictures any better than most low end P&S cameras can do out of the box. Everyone that I know that has ever invested in one and developed more than a passing interest in photography are always sorry for doing that and always wish they had put the money into a better lens from the start.*"

This is OT, but I started with an 18-55 kit lens, think it's a great little lens, and have a ton of great photos to show for it where people honestly couldn't believe that I took it with the cheap crappy kit lens of all things. I hardly shoot with it anymore because now I have other lenses with either more range, or more speed, but it doesn't mean it's not a good lens. The 18-55 is perfectly capable of making thousands of great photos.
Here are just three of many great photos that I've taken with the cheap crappy 18-55 kit lens. :mrgreen:

By the way, the one with my daughter on a swing was made possible thanks to the D40's *1/500s flash sync.* I tried the same shot with my D80 which only does 1/200s flash sync, and at that crappy slow flash sync speed it just couldn't fill in the deep shadow on her face from the mid-day sun (flash power becomes more efficient at higher sync speeds). I had to toss every single photo from the D80 just for that reason alone, and it's one of the best features of the D40, and one of the things I hate the most about my D80. The 400D/XTi is no better than my D80 at 1/200s flash sync. I've thought about selling my D40 a few times to fund some glass, but it's just such a great little camera, and the fast flash sync speed is insanely useful, so I've held onto it for that among other reasons. As a sidenote, the D40x only does 1/200s flash syncing, which is one of the reasons I got the D40 and not the "x". Cleaner high ISO performance from fewer MP's on the sensor was another.

~~~~~~~

I think warning people about the limitations of the camera is a great idea. But at the end of the day people will decide on their own if these limitations matter to them or not. As Helen stated, there are many different kinds of beginners, so there really isn't a one size fits all answer. There are many different forms of photography, people will be looking to do a zillion different things with their cameras, and depending on all of those, the limitations may or _may not_ matter. I do not see FLOODS of disgruntled D40 owners pouring onto forums complaining about what they could have researched and figured out beforehand, which tells me that most 40 owners are probably pretty darned pleased with their cameras. I know I am!


----------



## ghpham

You nailed it pretty good.




Mav said:


> Despite the OP's viewpoint which I respect, there are still a good number of beginners and other D40 owners here (perhaps even a majority?) who bought the D40 and have no regrets. It's a great little camera at a great price, and it's incredibly easy to use. Like some of them said, if it wasn't for the D40 they might not have ever gotten into photography in the first place.
> 
> Just my $0.02 on some of the points that have been made...
> 
> 
> "*If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there.*"
> 
> A few people made this point. The mere fact that you now have a DSLR class camera with the D40 means you get:
> 
> - super fast focusing
> - far more resolution
> - 2.5 fps, _and it will re-focus and re-meter each frame_
> - clean iso800, and completely usable iso1600. No P&S can touch this.
> - iso3200 when you need it. Again, no P&S can touch this.
> - the ability to use external flashes for bouncing, which most P&S's don't let you do.
> - the ability to switch lenses and choose among many, despite no AF on some of them.
> - The D40 specifically has 1/500s flash sync, which is extremely important for outdoor action in the sun. This is better than any current Nikon DSLR, including the $5000 D3.
> - depth of field control. Even with the 18-55, you still have far more depth of field control than a P&S.
> 
> You get all this just for getting a DSLR and I haven't even started on the lens issues yet. Considering you can get a basic D40/18-55 kit for only a little bit more money than one of the "prosumer" P&S cameras out there, I'd say the D40 is an incredible value. And judging by the sales figures and the fact that Nikon has passed Canon in Japan as far as DSLR marketshare thanks to the D40, I'd say that the consumer buying public generally agrees.
> 
> 
> *"Also I've seen a few of you argue you don't need AF, or as thefizzle put it AF is a luxury. That is a huge load of crap. AF is a tool in the camera. I challenge you to point your D40 with a 200mm f/2.8 at something on the horizon and get the shot in focus."*
> 
> Easy, just focus to infinity and you'll nail it.
> 
> You really _DON'T_ need AF all the time. I put my 10.5mm fisheye on my D40 all the time and get a lot of great photos with it. The depth of field is so huge with the fisheye even wide-open at f/2.8 that you can pretty much just park the focusing ring at 6 feet / infinity and everything is in focus. Wide angle lenses are also incredibly easy to manually focus. Putting my 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, or 85mm f1.8 on my D40 and trying to manually focus for wide-open shots, yes that's a bit harder, particularly if the subject is moving. But guess what? _Even my D80 with the same exact lenses can have trouble keeping moving things in focus on a prime wide-open. Duh, because you have a tiny depth of field and a moving target at close range. That's why you stop down._ I gave up on trying to keep my 9 month old in focus as she's moving about and usually shoot my 50mm lens at about f/4 now.
> 
> You don't _neeeeeeeeeeeed_ AF support just to enjoy primes. My 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest and contrastiest lens that I own. Images look fantastic with it straight off the camera, and it's one of the few lenses I own that really doesn't need any post processing or sharpening done to the images straight off the camera. I have DxO with its calibrated module, and guess what? There's no distortion to correct, and no sharpening that needs to be added. It basically does nothing besides what ever other things I might do to images on my own. It's incredible, all for 100 bucks! You're only really asking for trouble when you try to shoot at larger apertures than f/2.8, at which point the modern focusing screens stop showing any differences. No problem. Get one of these K3 screens that Helen will hopefully post the goods on, or the Katz Eye screen. I'm seriously tempted to do this on my D40 because I love it. Ultra small and lightweight primes along with the ultra small and lightweight D40 body is the perfect combination.
> 
> 
> *"It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens."*
> 
> Again, manually focusing is not impossible. And just because you have a prime doesn't mean you MUST shoot it wide-open. f/2.8 and smaller apertures you can get good results, while still enjoying the benefits of primes. I've tried it and done it. And not ALL non AF-S lenses are a burden to autofocus. The 10.5mm fisheye is brainlessly simple, as will be most wide-angles. Even telephotos might not be so bad provided you're zoomed in enough to fill the viewfinder. And as some others pointed out, manually focusing is actually _preferred_ for macro photography. I wouldn't hesitate to pickup a used 55 or 60mm f/2.8 micro lens and plop it on the D40 and manually focus.
> 
> You can still get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you want a large aperture prime, and a whole ton of other Sigma HSM lenses. There's tons of great Nikon AF-S lenses out there that are affordable ($500 or less) like the 18-135, this new 18-55VR, and the 70-300VR. Just over that range is the 18-200VR. Want f/2.8 zoom lenses? You can get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM for well under $500. The D40 is a huge seller, and the 3rd party lens makers know this, and more and more "AF-S equivalent" lenses are coming out all the time. I'm sure Nikon will eventually offer more AF-S lenses as well, particularly primes, but you can't re-build your entire lens lineup overnight.
> 
> Basic D40 kits are being sold in the upper-$400 range right now (just checked B&H, $469.95). That's not a whole lot more money than the more advanced P&S's out there and you get FAR more capability. It's an outstanding value, which is why so many people buy them, and have no regrets even in spite of some of its limitations.
> 
> 
> *"I always urge everyone to stay away from [kit lenses]... unless they really do not care about getting pictures any better than most low end P&S cameras can do out of the box. Everyone that I know that has ever invested in one and developed more than a passing interest in photography are always sorry for doing that and always wish they had put the money into a better lens from the start.*"
> 
> This is OT, but I started with an 18-55 kit lens, think it's a great little lens, and have a ton of great photos to show for it where people honestly couldn't believe that I took it with the cheap crappy kit lens of all things. I hardly shoot with it anymore because now I have other lenses with either more range, or more speed, but it doesn't mean it's not a good lens. The 18-55 is perfectly capable of making thousands of great photos.
> Here are just three of many great photos that I've taken with the cheap crappy 18-55 kit lens. :mrgreen:
> 
> By the way, the one with my daughter on a swing was made possible thanks to the D40's *1/500s flash sync.* I tried the same shot with my D80 which only does 1/200s flash sync, and at that crappy slow flash sync speed it just couldn't fill in the deep shadow on her face from the mid-day sun (flash power becomes more efficient at higher sync speeds). I had to toss every single photo from the D80 just for that reason alone, and it's one of the best features of the D40, and one of the things I hate the most about my D80. The 400D/XTi is no better than my D80 at 1/200s flash sync. I've thought about selling my D40 a few times to fund some glass, but it's just such a great little camera, and the fast flash sync speed is insanely useful, so I've held onto it for that among other reasons. As a sidenote, the D40x only does 1/200s flash syncing, which is one of the reasons I got the D40 and not the "x". Cleaner high ISO performance from fewer MP's on the sensor was another.
> 
> ~~~~~~~
> 
> I think warning people about the limitations of the camera is a great idea. But at the end of the day people will decide on their own if these limitations matter to them or not. As Helen stated, there are many different kinds of beginners, so there really isn't a one size fits all answer. There are many different forms of photography, people will be looking to do a zillion different things with their cameras, and depending on all of those, the limitations may or _may not_ matter. I do not see FLOODS of disgruntled D40 owners pouring onto forums complaining about what they could have researched and figured out beforehand, which tells me that most 40 owners are probably pretty darned pleased with their cameras. I know I am!


----------



## shivaswrath

Hey Sabbath,
Yeah, I do have it, been taking some great practice pictures around town and in the house, SO NICE to have a lens that covers a more "versatile" range; only having the 55-200 though forced me to be creative, I have become lazy.

So far, I think it's just a great upgrade to the ranted/raved kit lens, with the additional benefits of easier shots at night from the VR. . .I'll post up pictures showing a diversity of shots once it actually clears up around here and there is some sun and foliage/landscape (CT and NY have been ugly lately). . .

If you are in the area, you can definitely stop by and check it out/try it out. . .I'm not sure where you live. . .you did inspire the purchase, suggesting I get a used kit lens way back when, so since you saved me $300 (I was considering the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM at $500), it's the least I can do



sabbath999 said:


> Do you have it?
> 
> I would be very interesting in hearing a detailed review of this lens... I wonder if the image quality is the same, better or worse than the standard kit lens.
> 
> I am a BIG fan of VR.


----------



## Mathias13

I recently got the D40X as a christmas gift and I love it


----------



## petey

Will this lens fit on a D40 ?


----------



## Mav

It'll physically mount to the camera, but you'll have no metering and no autofocus.  If you feel like manually focusing and guessing at the exposure until you get it right (or use an external meter), yes, it will work.


----------



## Antithesis

It's kinda funny, I sold my d40x to pick up a d80 so I could use AF lenses (namely the thrifty-fifty) and now I find myself looking at AF-S lenses. In all reality, it's probably not a good arguement for changing cameras. Both the d80 and d40x are good cameras, I just think they each have their different place. One day, when they release a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S (or any other AF-S primes), the d40x will be an awesome little pocket SLR and hopefully people will change their opinion.


----------



## Tasmaster

Mav said:


> It'll physically mount to the camera, but you'll have no metering and no autofocus.  If you feel like manually focusing and guessing at the exposure until you get it right (or use an external meter), yes, it will work.



Oh please get it right people, i see this posted all the time. Of course the D40 will meter with the 50mm 1.8, and every other Nikon lens with a CPU in it. If you are a total beginner with an extensive collection of 1950's and 60's lenses, tough luck, it won't meter with those.

Oh, and where you were debunking the (completely ignorant) comparison to a P&S you forgot the single most important thing: shutter lag! This is the one reason why i never owned a digital P&S. I could live with any other compromise but that one.


----------



## Mav

Tasmaster said:


> Oh please get it right people, i see this posted all the time. Of course the D40 will meter with the 50mm 1.8, and every other Nikon lens with a CPU in it. If you are a total beginner with an extensive collection of 1950's and 60's lenses, tough luck, it won't meter with those.


petey was asking specifically about a *Series E* lens.  This is an AI spec lens before the 1986 AF/CPU era lenses and will not meter on the D40 as I originally stated.  Yes, any 1986 or newer AF/AF-D/AF-S lens including the current AF 50mm f/1.8D will meter on the D40, but this isn't one of them. 



Tasmaster said:


> Oh, and where you were debunking the (completely ignorant) comparison to a P&S you forgot the single most important thing: shutter lag! This is the one reason why i never owned a digital P&S. I could live with any other compromise but that one.


Yes, that's another good reason, although I've had 4 P&S cameras and have never had any complaints about shutter lag.  The latest one I've tried does have "lag" but that's from it still trying to achieve focus lock.  Assuming it has it already, it's quite zippy.  It has much more trouble focusing than any DSLR will, especially in marginal light.


----------



## Tasmaster

Mav said:


> petey was asking specifically about a *Series E* lens.  This is an AI spec lens before the 1986 AF/CPU era lenses and will not meter on the D40 as I originally stated.  Yes, any 1986 or newer AF/AF-D/AF-S lens including the current AF 50mm f/1.8D will meter on the D40, but this isn't one of them.



My apologies, i didn't notice the E on the post title. But i do read things like "AF lenses won't work with the D40" from time to time, hence my haste to reply and the tone of my post. Again, my bad. I was just browsing through the very informative links in your sig and read this thread again .


----------



## Northsider

I have the D40x and I am quite happy.  Granted I don't know a whole lot about cameras and I am just getting started with photography more seriously...


----------



## Early

I have to agree with sabbath999.  One of the main reasons I got into Nikon was because of  their compatibility, which they now seem to be abandoning.


----------



## Tasmaster

One entry-level camera that won't auto-focus with some lenses means that Nikon is abandoning compatibility? :er:


----------



## Early

Tasmaster said:


> One entry-level camera that won't auto-focus with some lenses means that Nikon is abandoning compatibility? :er:


Yes, and it isn't only that. They have lenses out now that you can't even use on an older camera, such as a FE-2 because there isn't any aperture ring.  They have become Minoltafied, and I'm!


----------



## Tasmaster

Ok, apart from the D40 and G lenses (neither of which concern 95% of beginners), compatibility remains pretty good, no? To the point that it arguably stopped Nikon from producing more ultrasonic motor lenses until now - and still is.


----------



## Mav

Tasmaster said:


> My apologies, i didn't notice the E on the post title. But i do read things like "AF lenses won't work with the D40" from time to time, hence my haste to reply and the tone of my post. Again, my bad. I was just browsing through the very informative links in your sig and read this thread again .


No worries, yeah I see the same thing all the time too and it drives me crazy. :mrgreen:


----------



## sabbath999

I do ask readers to keep a couple things in mind when reading this post.

1) Feel free to substitute the D60 with any remarks I said about the D40x... they are basically the same camera, with a couple new features on the D60... 

2) At the time this was originally posted, the street price on the D40 was about $579. Now, you can get them factory refurbed for as little as $379. At under 400 clams, the D40 is a SCREAMING buy, even with the outlined limitations... that is cheap enough to bypass pretty much any objection I have with it...

Of the 3, even if all prices were equal, I would buy the D40 first, the D60 second and the D40x last.

I shot some pictures with the D60 today ($749 at Sams Club) and while I really liked the new lens, the camera did not really impress me any more than my D40. The Active D-Lighting is the only additional feature I found even slightly compelling about it.


----------



## brileyphotog

this "problem" with the d40 cameras has already been discussed to death in other threads


----------



## Tasmaster

It is not a "problem", it is a limitation. The difference in wording is very very significant for beginners.



			
				sabbath999 said:
			
		

> Of the 3, even if all prices were equal, I would buy the D40 first, the D60 second and the D40x last.



Tottaly agree.


> 2) At the time this was originally posted, the street price on the D40 was about $579. Now, you can get them factory refurbed for as little as $379. At under 400 clams, the D40 is a SCREAMING buy, even with the outlined limitations... that is cheap enough to bypass pretty much any objection I have with it...


Well, that was the point all along. I believe that the D40 has always been the cheapest DSLR around, hasn't it? Both now and back when it first appeared. No matter how cheap you buy it, this does not negate the lens limitation, however. So seemingly this goes against your OP. Not to mention that nowdays there is an extensive selection of affordable "baby" DSLRs, and beginners have a lot more choices if they don't like the lens thing.

At the end of the day, it is a compromise like everything else. The D40's limitation is a compromise for affordability (which really means for Nikon to hit a very specific and very lucrative market niche), just like Nikon's relative lack of USM lenses is a compromise for compatibility.

That's why i object to the thread's title (not to mention the "lenses won't work" thing - that's a lie as they work just fine and take great photos) and generally biased arguemnts. It can be important limitation, yes, so inform your readers about it and try to make them understand. Don't make decisions and blanket statements for them. To be tottaly honest i was very surprised to see that getting a D40 for $200 less suddenly makes it ok for you to pay $1000 more for some lenses. I know that wasn't what you meant, but it is essentially what you are saying. Compared to the strongly worded OP, it looks like a real sharp U-turn while nothing has changed on the camera itself.


----------



## petey

The beauty of the D40 is priceless.


----------



## Sarah23

Well...I looked into the D40 and the Rebel XTi when buying...and went for the XTi just because I knew I could upgrade lenses without having problems. At this point I cant spend a HUGE amount of money on photography, and until I get good, I dont think I need a "pro" camera. I would love to upgrade to a Nikon one day, but for now, being a very enthusiastic beginner, I am happy with my choice.


----------



## sabbath999

Tasmaster said:


> I believe that the D40 has always been the cheapest DSLR around, hasn't it? Both now and back when it first appeared. No matter how cheap you buy it, this does not negate the lens limitation, however. So seemingly this goes against your OP.



The D40, factory refurbed with a one year warranty, is now a $400 camera.

Price DOES matter when it comes to value.

At $400 for the whole kit (as opposed to $600+ if a person were to have gone into Best Buy and bought one at the time my original post was made last year) it makes the D40 in the "disposable" range... you have really "invested" very little in it the camera, and when you set it aside for a much more capable camera you have lost less...

To me, 1/3 less price on this camera is a tipping point on it... it becomes worth living with the limitations of the camera if you only pay $400 total for the whole kit, IMHO... realizing that to do more advanced work you are going to want to replace it fairly soon. You can add to the basic package the 55-200VR for only $179 smackers, get a memory card for it, and do the whole entire deal for what the camera costed at the time when I originally made that post.

With the kit lens & the excellent little 55-200 VR for 600 George, a beginner can really get his feet wet for the same cost that Best Buy would have charged for the camera alone 5 months ago. That is a big difference... and, in my mind, ENOUGH of a difference to matter.

For a lot of people, $200 is a lot of money.

Do I think it is a great cameras for beginners, from a features-standpoint? No. Do I think the lens limitations are severe? Yes. 

However, for $400 clams, it is just TOO accessible for everybody to ignore (this is assuming you actually pay $400 for it, not the retail price of $549...)

Where I come from people consider it a good thing to change your mind when new information appears (with apologies to Dr. Einstein for stealing his line).


----------



## Tasmaster

sabbath999 said:


> Where I come from people consider it a good thing to change your mind when new information appears (with apologies to Dr. Einstein for stealing his line).



Sure it is a good thing, and i am glad that you recommend the camera. Don't get me wrong, when people ask me about the D40 or generally for an entry-level DSLR i make sure to point out the lens limitation, complete with the advice that they _will _need more lenses if they get into photography, and i also point out the bunch of other excellent entry level DSLR's out there and their advantages (frankly the D60 is way behind the competition in terms of features).

My point was that $200 cheaper or not, it still doesn't auto-focus with non-USM lenses, so a price drop alone shouldn't change anything. The same limitations still apply (and the cost diference for AF-S lenses compared to AF is more than $200). I don't see how anyone who wouldn't get a D40 because of the AF limitation would change their mind no matter what the price was.

As for selling the camera to replace it, a factory refurbed camera would sell for significantly less than one that was bought in mint condition, so the financial benefit is really smaller than the price difference.

I hope this makes sense, i'm kind of being the devil's advocate here.


----------



## onlybo

Yes,i totally agree it ,and if  you`re a nikon fan ,you should choose D80 as your first DSLR.
and if u love the CANON band,i suggest u choose 400D or the new arrival 450D.


----------



## LuisAugusto

And if you love Minolta, then the Sony A200 (or the A300, if you want live preview).

It's just my happiness because my A200 will arrive soon


----------



## Mav

Tasmaster said:


> when people ask me about the D40 or generally for an entry-level DSLR i make sure to point out the lens limitation, complete with the advice that they _will _need more lenses if they get into photography


Not necessarily true.  Being "into" photography doesn't necessarily mean that you're also going to by default want to try out a zillion different lenses.  A friend of mine is into photography and you should see the stuff he cranks out with just his D50, 18-55, and 50/1.8 lenses.  That's all he's got, and that's all he needs.

My point was that $200 cheaper or not, it still doesn't auto-focus with non-USM lenses, so a price drop alone shouldn't change anything. The same limitations still apply (and the cost diference for AF-S lenses compared to AF is more than $200). I don't see how anyone who wouldn't get a D40 because of the AF limitation would change their mind no matter what the price was.[/quote]Because the cheaper price now means you can spend more money on nicer glass which makes the bigger difference in the first place.  Yeah AF-S glass is more expensive, but in almost all cases you're getting far more than just AF-S.  Image quality is almost always a lot better.  The $500 70-300VR blows the older 70-300 lenses away in terms of overall image quality and usability.  You'd be much better off getting a D40 and one of these rather than a more expensive D80 just so you can use the $130 70-300G lens, which is a pretty crappy lens to begin with.  The new AF-S 60mm f/2.8 micro is an expensive $500 micro lens, but is said to be a whole lot better than the older AF-D version which sells for $200 less.

And if you've read through this entire thread you'll see that most of the D40 owners here are OK with and really don't care about the limitations.  It doesn't matter to them.  The people that disliked it enough to sell it for something else seem to be in the minority.  It's certainly worth pointing out, but not _everybody_ is going to want a zillion lenses.  I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of D40 shooters that picked up a two lens 18-55/55-200 kit at Costco couldn't be happier and have all they need.


----------



## Antithesis

I moved from a d40 to a d80 for the sake of being able to use non-AF-S lenses, and while I do get the benefit of using the 50mm f1.8, I now find that I lean more towards lenses with AF-S, atleast lenses with a decent focal length. If you plan to get some higher end glass down the line, it is going to have AF-S, and the difference between the d80 and the d40x at that point is pretty nominal. 

I've also found that the d80 can actually be kind of intimidating to beginners. The body is a bit larger than the d40, there are a lot more controls that don't really make much sense to a beginner and there is a pretty hefty price difference. The d40 is a wonderful camera for beginners, and given the image quality of nikons low-end glass, doesn't really provide any serious limitations to beginners.


----------



## Mav

onlybo said:


> Yes,i totally agree it ,and if  you`re a nikon fan ,you should choose D80 as your first DSLR.
> and if u love the CANON band,i suggest u choose 400D or the new arrival 450D.


$400 extra not spent on a D80 is $400 more that you can put into nicer lenses instead, which make the FAR bigger difference in image quality and the photos you take.  There's nothing reasonable that I can't do with my D40, and when I'm truly trying to be serious I find that my D80 still isn't serious enough and thus is wasted money.  If you really need to be serious you'd be better off getting a used D200 rather than a D80, or stepping all the way up to the D300.  If you just want to use non AF-S prime lenses, just get a used D50 or D70.  So I find myself agreeing with Ken Rockwell again, heh heh. 

So having been there and done that, I'll now repeat the same advice that a friend of mine gave me when I was first starting out, which I only partially took.  Get the _cheapest body_ that will meet your needs, but the very _BEST LENS_ that you can possibly afford.  My friend shoots Canon and got a Rebel XT on clearance when the XTi was coming out, and then slapped the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens on it.  I thought he was crazy buying a $1000 lens and putting it on a "cheap" body.  And what's my favorite combo now?  My little D40 but with a Nikon 17-55DX f/2.8 lens which was more expensive than the Canon lens.   And I'm in love.

My style demands zooms though.  I liked playing around with primes, but they're just not flexible enough for me anymore (try chasing a soon-to-be-walking 11 month old around the house and you'll know :mrgreen: ), and thus I'm no longer biased into needing screw driven primes.


----------



## Village Idiot

onlybo said:


> Yes,i totally agree it ,and if you`re a nikon fan ,you should choose D80 as your first DSLR.
> and if u love the CANON band,i suggest u choose 400D or the new arrival 450D.


 
I think that if you're an informed noob that seriously wants to get into photography, you should skip the entry level cameras all together and go with the d70-d80 or the 20d-30d-40d.


----------



## Tasmaster

Mav said:


> And if you've read through this entire thread you'll see that most of the D40 owners here are OK with and really don't care about the limitations.  It doesn't matter to them.  The people that disliked it enough to sell it for something else seem to be in the minority.  It's certainly worth pointing out, but not _everybody_ is going to want a zillion lenses.  I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of D40 shooters that picked up a two lens 18-55/55-200 kit at Costco couldn't be happier and have all they need.



Have i mentioned that i am a D40 owner and i love it? 

To be honest when i am talking about new lenses i am really talking about new _f/2.8 or lower_ lenses, but that's just me because i need them and like them. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 like everyone else and taken some great photos with it. If you don't need fast lenses the D40 is an even better deal and there isn't a reason why you shouldn't get one if you are a beginning photographer. If you are a pro, i bet that you will love it as a tiny, light, DSLRP&S .

For what it's worth, i am not sure i like the D80. It is probably technically equal and better than the D40 in every respect, but the 40 is a camera that i can throw in my backpack and never think about it until i want to take a picture. I'm not sure the D80 would have the same feeling, and that counts for me. 

If you already own a D40, the next step up is the D300. Unless maybe we see an equally brilliant next-gen D80 replacement soon.


----------



## LuisAugusto

Village Idiot said:


> I think that if you're an informed noob that seriously wants to get into photography, you should skip the entry level cameras all together and go with the d70-d80 or the 20d-30d-40d.



Sometimes noobs, or even not-so-noob people doesn't have enough money for that, I will practically study photography as my university career, but at this moment, I don't have enough money to buy something more expensive than a Sony A200.


----------



## Village Idiot

LuisAugusto said:


> Sometimes noobs, or even not-so-noob people doesn't have enough money for that, I will practically study photography as my university career, but at this moment, I don't have enough money to buy something more expensive than a Sony A200.



Used 30D = $600
Used 10D = $280
Used 20D = $400


----------



## LuisAugusto

Village Idiot said:


> Used 30D = $600
> Used 10D = $280
> Used 20D = $400



Here in Mexico that's 100% out of possibilities, but I guess it's possible in USA.


----------



## Village Idiot

LuisAugusto said:


> Here in Mexico that's 100% out of possibilities, but I guess it's possible in USA.


 
Really? You couldn't look on a photo forum and find some one selling used that's shipping internationally. People will do that at the POTN forums. I'm sure they will at FM and Nikonians as well.


----------



## photogincollege

I cant believe this thread is still going ha ha.  You sure did stir up the hornets nest huh sabbath?  How about we all just agree that some people are willing to buy the d40 line and live with the limitations, while others are not, to each his own.  And END THIS ARGUMENT.  lol.  That is all, (mash reference).


----------



## Mav

sabbath has already recanted :mrgreen:


----------



## ir0n_ma1den

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/

I have to disagree with sabbath999. Just click on the link above. These photos were taken with the D40 and are absolutely stunning! Now for the D40x, I agree, don't buy it. Besides, if you are buying a D40 you probably don't have enough money to buy all the nice non- AF-S lenses anyways, so the D40 is great for the beginner.


----------



## sabbath999

Mav said:


> sabbath has already recanted :mrgreen:



Recanted only when the price of the camera with lens is less that $400. Not one penny more.


----------



## LuisAugusto

Village Idiot said:


> Really? You couldn't look on a photo forum and find some one selling used that's shipping internationally. People will do that at the POTN forums. I'm sure they will at FM and Nikonians as well.



Because my beloved country will charge me 26% more, and for that kind of camera, the shipment to Mexico is around 130 dollars, 600 bucks became 900 that fast.

Plus, buying used will left me with a lot of doubt because, as it being send from USA, I can't feel and look at it until I payed it.

Lastly, the photographer matters more than the camera.


----------



## abuccanero

I was looking at getting a D40 for awhile and still have not made up my mind on what DSLR to get.  Does the D70 have any of the limitations of the D40?  Or is the D70 good for someone who has been using manual focus film cameras for about a year now and wants to upgrade to Digital.


----------



## Steph

abuccanero said:


> I was looking at getting a D40 for awhile and still have not made up my mind on what DSLR to get.  Does the D70 have any of the limitations of the D40?  Or is the D70 good for someone who has been using manual focus film cameras for about a year now and wants to upgrade to Digital.



The D70 does *not *have the same limitations as the D40/D40x/D60 and is often considered to be a better camera for somebody who already knows a bit about photography.


----------



## abuccanero

Not sure if this is the right place to keep asking these questions but is it comparable to a canon XT?  better or worse?


----------



## Bevel Heaven

smcaskil said:


> I recently purchased a D40X, knowing the lens restrictions. But for me, the hobby photographer who just wants a good camera that does not break the bank, I think this was a good fit for me.


 
I think that not EVERYONE goes big in photography.

I also think that not everyone will get multiple lens.

I see lots of people buying a DSLR because they simply want to step up and get "a better REAL camera" so they buy a kit from COSTCO or wheverever,.............  COuld be a D40 with a 18-55 or with a 18-135 or ehatever........  And they are MORE than satisfied. 

I owned a D40 at one time.  And a D80, and now a D300.  Previous to that, several different P&S.  Previous to that film bodies and multiple lenses etc all MANUAL FOCUS only....

To say the D40 or D40x is a horrible beginner camera is rubbish.  To say it is a horrible beginner camera for someone who will continue on to buy multiple lenses is still rubbish..........  You can;t base everything on the fact that a certain '50mm lens won;t work on this' make it crap..

C'Mon.  Not everyone has the bankbook or desire to take this to the next level.  Now tell everyone plainly about this particular camera's limitations, that you can ONLY use an AF-S lens etc........  FINE!!!  GREAT!!!   OK NO PROBLEMS!  There are lots of choices out there for AF-S lenses in quite a range.  Bet that those will do just fine for most people too.

_* The above is only MY opinion, and not an attack on any one poster or on the OP either._


----------



## anubis404

I was going to write one of these, but you beat me to it.

The D40 is a good camera, but the lens selection is limited. If you don't have enough money for a D80 or above, then you probably don't have the hundreds, even thousands to blow on large and expensive AF-S lenses. Nikon's AF and AF-D line of lenses is as valuable to the budget photographer as Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are. Nikon's reasons for denying these users access is beyond me.


----------



## Jaszek

Haha great job bringing an almost one year topic back lol


----------



## Idaho21

> While I understand what you are saying, I would have thought that most people looking to buy a DSLR will do a large amount of research before they spend their hard earned cash, (I know that I did before I brought my camera.)



I agree. Although my reply doesn't pertain to Nikon, it has to do with my choice of a beginner DSLR.
I did a lot of reading, and made an informed decision. I decided on the Sony a200, and have been 100% completely happy with it so far. It was easy to learn how to use, there are tons of Minolta lenses out there for sale that are great quality and take very good pics, the image stabilization that the a200 uses is in the body, not the lens, and it won quite a few awards when it was introduced. 
The nice thing as well is that when I decide it's time to upgrade to either a Sony a350 or a700, all of my lenses, batteries, and all of my accessories are 100% compatible. All I have to do is purchase a new body. 
If you haven't, give the Sony a200 serious consideration, as it's a great beginner's DSLR.


----------



## Domokun

manual focus ftw


----------



## fiveoboy01

Domokun said:


> manual focus ftw



Though this guy might be joking a little, I agree in a way.

95% of the time I manually focus.  It's not difficult and sometimes the camera cannot get the right focus, either that or I want to manipulate the depth of field.  Even for some action shots I'll focus on a spot ahead of time but of course this is due to my lens' autofocus limitations.

From what I understand, some of the higher-end(and of course expensive such as the 70-200 f2.8 or 200 f2) AF-S lenses have very fast autofocus mechanisms.  Some of the lower end AF-S lenses(such as my D60 Kit lens or the 55-200 VR) do not have very fast autofocus mechanisms and hence have trouble with tracking moving subjects.  

My question is, if the focus motor is moved to the camera itself(D50, D70), is autofocus performance still dependent on which lens you are using or is it more about the motor in the camera?

And yeah, where do people dig these threads up...


----------



## LuckySo-n-So

> And yeah, where do people dig these threads up...


 
Every so often, a poster comes along who does something very strange.  These posters are RARE.  Often heard, but never seen.  Some think they only exist in mythology--like bigfoot.  No actual proof that they exist.  

The kind of poster I am talking about uses the SEARCH function.  About as rare as the coelecanth or*  le loup garou.*


----------



## Katier

Don Simon said:


> Without lens or battery, the K100d is just under 100g heavier than the D40. I don't know if I'd consider that a LOT. The D50 came in near the K100d's weight, the D70 exceeded it, and I don't recall too many Nikonians complaining that either was unbearably heavy.



to be honest weight isn't an ISSUE IMO.. it does depend on the photographer I guess but I find my heavy K200D is nicer to use than my older lighter K110D and my older fuji 5600 ( which weighs next to nothing).

I find I get more stable pictures with the 200D as the weight works to help stabilize. It's not that heavy that it's a strain to carry tho. And as you point out.. pro's use a LOT heavier kit all the time.. Lightweight simply means cheaply made.


----------



## AlexColeman

I really have to agree. I   can see why the D40s are lucrative, but they have no amenities.


----------



## epp_b

Holy bump, batman! 

The only real issue I have with the D40 is handling (though it's still better than Canon's Rebels), though Nikon _could_ easily fix that with firmware.  DOF preview would be nice, but I can live without it.  In-body AF would also be nice to have, but I'm given to understand that the system is slow and noisy and that even the cheapest AF-S lenses are better.

The overriding problem here is that Nikon's biggest strength is also it's biggest weakness: compatibility.  Nikon's total compatibility (metering, AF, etc.) is hindered by their quest for mounting compatibility.

Sure you can mount any lens since the mid-70's on Nikon's newest bodies, and even lenses as old as 50 years with some modifications; and you can mount some new lenses on old bodies as well.  On the other hand, you practically need a college-level textbook full of charts to know what will and won't be compatible between a given lens and body (AF, AF type, metering, metering type, EXIF recording, etc.).

With Canon, an EOS lens is an EOS lens is an EOS lens, so everything works on everything (save for EF-S/EF, but that's irrelevant anyway), no charts to bother with.  As a result, they have a big selection of affordable lenses to choose from for any body.  Too bad Canon bodies have the ergonomics and comfort of a brick.


----------



## anubis404

LuckySo-n-So said:


> Every so often, a poster comes along who does something very strange.  These posters are RARE.  Often heard, but never seen.  Some think they only exist in mythology--like bigfoot.  No actual proof that they exist.
> 
> The kind of poster I am talking about uses the SEARCH function.  About as rare as the coelecanth or*  le loup garou.*



Lol this thread was actually linked in a more recent thread. Didn't realize it was a year old until I saw the dates. Oops! lol


----------



## mrodgers

LuckySo-n-So said:


> Every so often, a poster comes along who does something very strange.  These posters are RARE.  Often heard, but never seen.  Some think they only exist in mythology--like bigfoot.  No actual proof that they exist.
> 
> The kind of poster I am talking about uses the SEARCH function.  About as rare as the coelecanth or*  le loup garou.*


I had a look the other day at the very first posts in this forum.  Guess what the majority of those posts were?  Yup, they were "what camera..." posts, LOL.  After reading this bump and the comments about the bump, I was tempted to bump one of those 5 year old threads and tell them "this has been asked all over the forum, use the SEARCH function" as a joke, LOL.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So

I am in no way implying that I include myself in the mythical group known as " the searchers." But when I do use the search function I usually get my answer.


----------



## Flower Child

thank you for making this thread, sabbath99. I was going to town to get a D40, which was going to be a very big step for me moving up to a DSLR, and i noticed this thread, and i read it completely through. I can say I didn't want to believe that the D40 wasnt that good at first but I am very serious about photography so I forked out the extra bucks and got the Nikon D80 and I am SOOOO happy I did. I think I would have had buyers remorse if I had got the D40. I would have definetly felt the need to upgrade immediatly if I had bought the D40, I think with my D80 I will be a very long time until I will need to upgrade. Fellow beginner photographers, if you are very serious about photography get the good camera THE FIRST TIME.


Thanks for your thread Sabbath


----------



## LuckySo-n-So

The only regret I'm having now is that there is no AF motor, but I only have one lens that doesn't work with it, with no prospects for a new lens in the near future.

Also, I regret that the D200 has fallen about $3-400 bucks since I bought my D40.  Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## adamwilliamking

D40 is made for people looking to get into SLR's that WILL be purchasing the cheaper DX lenses. If they were going to be throwing down multiple G's on lenses than they would not be buying a 350 dollar body. End of story.


----------



## fightin14

Well I have not read all the posts on here because I lazy, but for the most part I agree with Sabbath. I do not like the d40 for many reasons. One the lens thing, I thing would become very annoying when trying to buy new glass. Two, I currently have a d200 and previously had a d50 and the d200 has great controls. Two scroll "switches" one for ap. one for shutter. i don't think I could ever get used to not having this. The d50 not as easy as the d200 but still easier than the d40. With all this being said the d40 can be a great camera if you don't plan on exspanding, if you will leave you camera on Auto and don't care about glass quality and availability the d40 is for you. But the two or three times I used my stepmoms D40 I had to put it down because it was a pain in the ass to me. I appologize in advance for any grammer mistakes in this post because like I stated earlier I am lazy so there is no proof reading here.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

adamwilliamking said:


> D40 is made for people looking to get into SLR's that WILL be purchasing the cheaper DX lenses. If they were going to be throwing down multiple G's on lenses than they would not be buying a 350 dollar body. End of story.



exactly, most people sho buy D40's don't expand past the 18-55.


----------



## sabbath999

Sw1tchFX said:


> exactly, most people sho buy D40's don't expand past the 18-55.



Exactly true...

Having said that, this forum really isn't where people who have this philosophy hang out.

Most people here want systems they cay GROW with... and frankly the D40 isn't the best choice for growth.

I wouldn't have posted this on, say, Amazon.com's review section because most of the people there just want a DSLR that just a fancy point & shoot.

Here, people want (generally) a DSLR that they can use to start building a system. There are better choices for that than the D40.


----------



## adamwilliamking

Well if someone is looking to "grow" they're going to be stuck either way, unless they buy a full frame camera from the gate. Anyone who is buying a first Nikon DSLR be it a D40, 60, 90, 300 is going to be "wasting" money everytime they purchase a DX lens (in your theory), because once they upgrade to a full frame these DX lenses will bang out a crappy 5mp photo on your 21 mp sensor. So by your theory the only way to properly grow in a Nikon camera without wasting money is to throw down 3 g's for a D700 out the gate.


----------



## MikeBcos

This thread was started because at the time, the D40 was very limited as to lens choice, currently Nikon list 49 autofocus lenses on their web site, of those, 26 are AF-S, I may be wrong, but I don't believe Nikon have released a plain AF lens in a while, all the new ones have been AF-S.

Nikon Camera Lenses

I bought my D40 because it does what I need and 6mp is enough for the print sizes I make. I looked at lens choices at the time and decided that there were enough AF-S lenses out there to meet my future needs. I was starting from scratch, I did not have a collection of non AF-S lenses that would go to waste.

It is also the opinion of my local Nikon dealer that in-body focus motors are going away, otherwise, why would Nikon be offering so many lenses for what many consider to be nothing but beginner cameras? I tend to believe him, I will be buying some better lenses this year, they will all be AF-S, I believe that those lenses are not only what I need for my D40, but will also be what I need for its replacement in three or four years.


----------



## puyjapin

I can see what your saying about the limitation of AF lenses, but what is wrong with the 70-300 AF, that would Af on a D40 wouldn it? And as you said some of the sigma lenses would also. Does anyone know if the 18-270 tamron will AF on the D40? ORis it only nikon af or some sigmas?


----------



## puyjapin

Sw1tchFX said:


> exactly, most people sho buy D40's don't expand past the 18-55.


 

dont they?seems like a few on here do including me as i intend to get the 70-300 vr


----------



## adamwilliamking

puyjapin said:


> dont they?seems like a few on here do including me as i intend to get the 70-300 vr


 
Yeah, I think he was just exagerating, however, very few D40 owners buy a D40 with intentions of expanding out of the DX series lenses.

70-300 vr is most certainly part of the DX format.


----------



## puyjapin

so am i correct in thinking not all modern nikon lenses that state AF will AF on the D40? they have to state DX to AF on the D40 CORRECT??? Other than that any nikon lens will fit but wont AF?


----------



## Coldow91

there are also people who use the D40 with plans on expanding but in the opposite direction. Pre-Ai glass goes for pennies and is often of great quality. This is the way I am going. Manual Metering is fine for 90% of my shots, and with a focusing screen focusing could not be easier. There is also lots of Af-S glass for those who want it. 

I personally cannot stand Canon XTi's or their lower end bodies....I wouldn't mind a 5dMk2 though


----------



## adamwilliamking

puyjapin said:


> so am i correct in thinking not all modern nikon lenses that state AF will AF on the D40? they have to state DX to AF on the D40 CORRECT??? Other than that any nikon lens will fit but wont AF?


 
Only Nikon "AF-S" will work "perfectly" with the D40. 
"AF-S" is determining the type of Auto Focus System. 
"DX" is the style of sensor, and/or the size/crop of the sensor. 

Any Sigma lens with HSM "Hyper Sonic Motor" will focus and meter on a D40.


----------



## epp_b

> The 70-300 vr is most certainly part of the DX format.


The 70-300 VR is an FX lens.



> so am i correct in thinking not all modern nikon lenses that state AF will AF on the D40? they have to state DX to AF on the D40 CORRECT??? Other than that any nikon lens will fit but wont AF?


No.  "DX" means "crop frame" and it has nothing to do with the AF system.  Plainly speaking, the lens need to have a built-in motor for autofocus to function (Nikon AF-S, Sigma HSM, etc.).

Canon has been doing it this way from the get-go with their EOS system, but Nikon started out using in-body AF motors that drove the AF mechanically instead.


----------



## puyjapin

So this affects metering too then?
whats pre Ai glass?
wont the lenses marked just AF work ok on the d40?


----------



## sabbath999

adamwilliamking said:


> Well if someone is looking to "grow" they're going to be stuck either way, unless they buy a full frame camera from the gate. Anyone who is buying a first Nikon DSLR be it a D40, 60, 90, 300 is going to be "wasting" money everytime they purchase a DX lens (in your theory), because once they upgrade to a full frame these DX lenses will bang out a crappy 5mp photo on your 21 mp sensor. So by your theory the only way to properly grow in a Nikon camera without wasting money is to throw down 3 g's for a D700 out the gate.



Not at all.

I don't recommend DX lenses, with the exception of the 55-200 VR which is dirt cheap. One can buy any of the full frame Nikon Lenses and use them with any DX camera... of course, with the D40/40x/60 (which wasn't introduced for quite a while after this post was orignally made).

What I have CONSISTENTLY recommended was that a person spend his/her money and resources on buying the finest quality glass and spend as little as possible to get the job done on the body.

I have never varied from that. I do not recommend DX lenses (again with that one exception) at all, nor do I regularly use any but the 18-55 VR (which came in a kit) and the 55-200. All of my other lenses, the 70-200 VR, 105 VR, 70-300 VR, etc. are full frame.

I have absolutely no intention of buying another DX lens, and only own the 2.

Nikon makes a LOT of good, relatively inexpensive FX glass, including the excellent and extremely cheap 70-300 G and the 50 1.8 G that people on a budget can pick up and use for years. Moving a bit up the line, the FANTASTIC 80-200 f/2.8 is well under one grand in the non-AF-S version. Pro level optics at a cheap price in that one as well. Or how about the excellent 60mm Macro 2.8 D? The sharp as a tack 50mm f/1.4 D? The blistering little 35mm f/2 D or the f/2.8 28mm D? All of these fantastic lenses, none of them will autofocus on the D40.

The lack of autofocusing with non-AF-S lenses was only one part of the article however. I find the 3 focus points a much bigger challenge personally with the D40.

I have a D40 and I use it a LOT. Most of the Hawaii pictures I have posted here over the last month or so have been taken with it, because it is light, cheap and if I drop it or trip when walking across a field of broken lava and it gets smashed I won't lose any sleep over it.

The little thing has fantastic image quality, that has NEVER been an issue.

Having said all that, I use the camera in strictly defined roles... where I want something light and cheap to carry around. Sooner or later it is going to die a horrible death, and I can live with that.

Any other camera in the Nikon system other than the D40/40x/60 can work fully with FX lenses... I can't imagine wanting to buy DX lenses for these cameras, so that kind of nips your argument in the bud. 

Buy DX lenses if you like... I have no intention of doing it myself.

For starting out as a camera to build a system off of, I would rather have a D50 or a D70 (available used for the same money or less than a D40 now and at the time this was originally posted) than a D40.

Your milage may vary.


----------



## puyjapin

question would u buy 1. the 70-300 vr or 2.the tamron 18-270 vc both of which i am told will AF on my d40. If i got the tamron i would not need my kit 18-55 ever again but if i got the 70-300 id be changing the lenses all the time until i buy a wide angle etc


----------



## sabbath999

I would have to look LONG and HARD before I bought the Tamron... simply because that is a HUGE zoom range, and generally something with that large of a range suffers from SERIOUS image quality issues.

The Nikon 70-300VR is excellent in image quality.


----------



## Brentnow

Sabbath999, I just wanted to say you take beautiful pictures. Your zoo shots of the polar bears first caught my eye, and then I kept viewing. So many great images. Great work!


----------



## Sherman Banks

Brentnow said:


> Sabbath999, I just wanted to say you take beautiful pictures. Your zoo shots of the polar bears first caught my eye, and then I kept viewing. So many great images. Great work!



Way to resurrect a thread with something absolutely unrelated! :thumbup:


----------



## UUilliam

every one knows that Nikon D40 isnt compatible with Autofocus...
But it is great for a BEGINNER camera..
i personally prefer Manual focus...

only good thing about Auto focus is if your shooting auto-motive or other fast moving objects that you dont have time to focus on...

but D40 is a great camera for anyone...
why does Ken rockwell still use a D40 if it is the case a beginner shouldnt use them? yet he is a professional...


----------



## UUilliam

Sherman Banks said:


> Brentnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sabbath999, I just wanted to say you take beautiful pictures. Your zoo shots of the polar bears first caught my eye, and then I kept viewing. So many great images. Great work!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to resurrect a thread with something absolutely unrelated! :thumbup:
Click to expand...


he is new... he is trying to get posts... as this is his first post OR he is OP...


----------



## inTempus

UUilliam said:


> why does Ken rockwell still use a D40 if it is the case a beginner shouldnt use them? yet he is a professional...


:lmao::lmao:


----------



## Brentnow

Sorry, yes I am new. I didn't notice the thread was over 3 months old (plus my own post's lack of relevancy to the equipment topic). Thank you for your patience.


----------



## Dao

Brentnow said:


> Sorry, yes I am new. I didn't notice the thread was over 3 months old (plus my own post's lack of relevancy to the equipment topic). Thank you for your patience.




It's alright ..  This is a good thread anyway.  Welcome to the forum!!


----------



## anldyxp_gd3

just look at it this way. You pay less for the D40 and pay a bit more for lenses with motors. On the other hand, you pay more for a body with a motor and less for lenses without motors. It kinda evens out IMO. I own a D40 and a D90. I bought my D40 second hand off a friend because I had always been into photography but could never justify spending 500 on a camera(let alone if I would even be remotely good at photography).  After 6 months of owning the D40 i've progressed quite dramatically in a short period of time and felt limited from not having dedicated buttons and went for a D90. As for not being able to use the 50mm f1.8. Thats why nikon has the 35mm F1.8 now, which i own as well and its a damn good lens for 200. except the fact that i waited 8 weeks for it. LOL!


----------



## KmH

As far as having an auto focus motor in the body or not, others may want to note that no Canon SLR camera has had a focus motor in the body since they changed to the EF-mount in 1987.

Every Canon lens made in the last 30+ years has required a focus motor in it so the user could AF.


----------



## SrBiscuit

i dont like this thread. 

the D40 was a grerat choice for me, and i have yet to be limited by it.
will i upgrade in the future?...sure.
but this was a great jump off point for me.


----------



## psmeraldi

I think that it is useful if someone from time to time says something critic against some product; finding negative reviews is quite difficult.
This is one of the reasons why kenrockwell.com is so successful.

Paolo

Photos by Paolo Smeraldi - www.paolosmeraldi.com- powered by SmugMug
Paolosmeraldi.com


----------



## CygnusStudios

This is a very simple topic. Go to any online forum, type in D40/60 and see how many threads are started about these systems. 
The vast majority of unhappy Nikon users own these systems. I am not saying that everyone who owns one is unhappy, but when compared to the complete lineup it is stacked.

Now do a search for D90/300/700/D3 and see how how many are unhappy. Seems like the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## choudhrysaab

this thread reminds me of a conversation i had with one of my co-workers who's also into photography and he said the same thing that buy once/buy big but then again my problem obviously was the budget so i bought the Canon XT and a few months later sold that and got an XSi.
he was right too because you end up losing money on the investment (purchasing a lower end camera) but from looking at my budget i couldn't get anything better at that time.


----------



## ~myStical~

Yeah, I'm a beginner who owns a Nikon D40. Now that I want to take my photography to the next level .. buying lens ...I'm having a hard time finding lens that is compatible with the nikon d40 and auto focuses.

Should I sell my nikon d40 and and save some money to buy the nikon d80 ? would that be a good idea?


----------



## andrew99

~myStical~ said:


> Yeah, I'm a beginner who owns a Nikon D40. Now that I want to take my photography to the next level .. buying lens ...I'm having a hard time finding lens that is compatible with the nikon d40 and auto focuses.
> 
> Should I sell my nikon d40 and and save some money to buy the nikon d80 ? would that be a good idea?



Pretty much all of Nikon's current lenses are AF-S.. they even have an AF-S 35mm prime.  

The D80 is already a few years old and obsoleted by the D90.. I think it would be worth it to save for the D90 and buy a few good lenses in the mean time, rather than buying a D80 which you'll want to replace next year.


----------



## nathan1999

why not?


----------



## MojicaPhotography

I can agree that when buying a camera model we should consider that lenses are an issue. I would recommend going to review website such as dpreview.com and see if the results of such camera and lenses work well with what you want to focus on.


----------



## jackieclayton

I love my D40x... I contemplated selling it when i bought the 700, but its such a great camera... i won't part with it


----------



## Pubb

I have loved my D 40, I am a Noob I admit it but it has fit me well. I kinda figure when I find the limitations of the D 40 and am truly annoyed by them that just means it is time to upgrade. It is also a way I can involve my kids, 11 and 15 with my hobby. I do not really worry to much but them hurting it. 
This camera will get passed down to my kids, will it have really great glass, prolly not but I just started on this photography road. Btw my first car was not a BMW but it did not mean i did not love it or it failed to do all the things I needed it to do at 16, that was the start of another journey.


----------



## jnm

bought a D40 originally because i didn't know if i'd catch the bug or be any good.  upgraded to a D90 after a bit.  i'm not at all concerned that i bought the D40 first and it's now likely to sit most of the time.  if i had to do it again i'd do the same thing.


----------



## Vicelord John

So you bought a D40, and then you were annoyed that your lenses didn't auto focus?

Sounds to me like someone didn't do their research and you're trying to blame it on Nikon.


----------



## boogschd

MojicaPhotography said:


> I can agree that when buying a camera model we should consider that lenses are an issue. I would recommend going to review website such as dpreview.com and see if the results of such camera and lenses work well with what you want to focus on.



whoa . my friends last name is "mojica" and shes got a d40 . lolz

(wthellbumpthread)


----------



## SwiftTone

Thanks, this thread has been helpful. I think the D40 is the right camera for me, for now.


----------



## reznap

You get points for using the search button but I think you lose half of them for bumping an ancient thread.


----------



## ghache

i bought a d60, sold it for the same price i paid for it a year after. okthxbye


----------



## Aayria

reznap said:


> You get points for using the search button but I think you lose half of them for bumping an ancient thread.



:lmao:


----------



## mostly sunny

Davec223 said:


> While I understand what you are saying, I would have thought that most people looking to buy a DSLR will do a large amount of research before they spend their hard earned cash, (I know that I did before I brought my camera.)
> This is the sort of thing that I would look at before buying it and I am sure a lot of other people would as well. I feel that you are portraying a very negative view of a very good budget DSLR. All the reviews that I have read have explained this in very basic terms so that it is clear that not all lenses work with the D40/D40x. I feel that you will be putting a lot of people off it when in actual fact it will be ideal for them as they are looking at getting something that produces excellent pictures and will quite possibly only want 1 or 2 lenses.
> The other thing that you have failed to point out is the fact that all of the lenses can be used as manual focus lenses with the D40/D40x so you haven't quite portrayed the entire picture.
> Just my 2 pennies worth.




Dave-- I didn't do any research.. I was looking for a good camera.. The dude told me the 7D was good.. so I bought it..

I guess I just got lucky.. but it sure it a lot of camera for me.. But I do intend to learn how to use it.


----------

