How much is my D40 worth?

[tron]

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

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

 

[Big Mike]

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

 

[Destin]

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

 

[joealcantar]

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

 

[oldmacman]

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

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

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

 

[penfolderoldo]

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

 

[tron]

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





o

 

[480sparky]

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

 

[tron]

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

 

[Destin]

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





o

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

 

[tron]

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

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

 

[Destin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kerbouchard]

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

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

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

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

 

[Destin]

Your right. I was 15.

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

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

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

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

 

[Kerbouchard]

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