Yay! New Camera

[Yakamoto]

Just got myself a new Nikon D40, last night. Still trying to learn it though.
I refuse to shoot in auto (idiot mode) But it's nice to have when my wife needs to use it. So far I'm really impressed by the quality of the shots, of course I'm comming from a point and shoot so that might be the reason.
I was torn between the D50 or the D40 but it was Dpreview, and some user
reviews on Fredmiranda.com that put the D40 over the edge (at least for me)
As of now I just have the kit lens, but I'll be getting an AF-S 55-200 soon.
The lack of lens (primes) was a let down, but I'm really no pro, so I see no need to have them. (Yet).
Hopefully, I can get some pics up on the P.O.T.D thread soon.

If you're a D50 fan please don't thrash me This camera is serving two masters.

 

[beloved84]

i was holding the d40 today, i gotta say, its light, small, and the LCD screen is HUGE! i want one.

 

[bozigle]

I refuse to shoot in auto (idiot mode) But it's nice to have when my wife needs to use it.

Errr i hope your wife is not going to that forum!

bozigle

 

[Yakamoto]

Errr i hope your wife is not going to that forum!

bozigle

Lol...Yes she does actualy, but she's the first to admit she can't/won't learn the manual settings.

 

[Yakamoto]

i was holding the d40 today, i gotta say, its light, small, and the LCD screen is HUGE! i want one.

So far I'm loving mine, a great walking arounder. Not to mention quick on the draw. If it feels right I'd say go for it.

 

[miloblithe]

The lack of lens (primes) was a let down, but I'm really no pro, so I see no need to have them. (Yet).

Just had to check. You probably already knew, but Nikon has primes at 300, 400, 500, and 600mm that are AF-S.

More importantly, Nikon seems committed to the idea, so you'll probably see a lot more AF-S lenses in the future. If you don't have old lenses around that you wanted to use, I don't think the lack of the motor is a huge obstacle.

 

[Yakamoto]

Just had to check. You probably already knew, but Nikon has primes at 300, 400, 500, and 600mm that are AF-S.

More importantly, Nikon seems committed to the idea, so you'll probably see a lot more AF-S lenses in the future. If you don't have old lenses around that you wanted to use, I don't think the lack of the motor is a huge obstacle.

Saw them, a little too rich for my blood..Plus can you imagine a 600mm on a little D40 As far as Nikor updating their AF-S line-up in the future let's hope, cause that'd be great. If not, it's OK. I grew up on manual focus before all you young whipper-snappers came along with your automatic this and that.

 

[compuwar]

Just had to check. You probably already knew, but Nikon has primes at 300, 400, 500, and 600mm that are AF-S.

More importantly, Nikon seems committed to the idea, so you'll probably see a lot more AF-S lenses in the future. If you don't have old lenses around that you wanted to use, I don't think the lack of the motor is a huge obstacle.

As someone who wouldn't let go of his 400mm AFS-II, I'll just say that you do miss a lot of high-quality relatively inexpensive used glass if you must shoot AFS.

 

[Jay42]

I refuse to shoot in auto (idiot mode) But it's nice to have when my wife needs to use it.

Oh man, I laughed, but its even funnier if you switch wife and idiot.

 

[OwlsAndApples]

So far I'm loving mine, a great walking arounder. Not to mention quick on the draw. If it feels right I'd say go for it.

I was torn between the D40 and the D50 too, but went for the D50 (partly in hope for some oldish lenses from a photographer I know). I couldn't make the choice now though, I can't find any D50s near London, luckily i've already got mine though!

 

[Clix Pix]

To clarify things: you CAN use other lenses on the D40, it's just that they will not autofocus. Therefore, you can pick up the tiny little 35mm f/2 prime or the 50mm f/1.4 and have yourself some prime, fast glass on that camera. For telephoto, rather than the 55-200mm, see if you can pick up one of the new reasonably-priced 70-300mm VRs. It is an AF-S lens and is getting excellent reviews. For the wife, if she doesn't want to get into changing lenses at all, pick up the 18-200mm VR and that will give her plenty of reach on both ends (wide-ish to tele) without the need to swap out lenses.

 

[jsnoah]

New D40...

I am a Canon guy so pardon me if my commentary sounds a bit biased... Why the hell would would Nikon make a new DLSR with only 6.1MP... Why just bolster they higher MP camera(s) with great features meanwhile keeping the pricepoint? I mean, $500 is a sweet deal... But I would drop a couple extra bucks down on the Canon XTi(10MP) or the Nikon equivalent. Just seems like a ste backwards.. Unless of course I am just missing something completely.

 

[miloblithe]

I am a Canon guy so pardon me if my commentary sounds a bit biased... Why the hell would would Nikon make a new DLSR with only 6.1MP... Why just bolster they higher MP camera(s) with great features meanwhile keeping the pricepoint? I mean, $500 is a sweet deal... But I would drop a couple extra bucks down on the Canon XTi(10MP) or the Nikon equivalent. Just seems like a ste backwards.. Unless of course I am just missing something completely.

Well, the difference between $500 (D40) and $1000 (D80) is a lot to most people. The XTi is also a lot more at $750-$800. While there are consumers like you who might gladly spend 50-100% more to get a better camera, a lot of other consumers will decide that they'd rather spend that money on something else, like lenses, a better flash, rent, or food.

A lot of those consumers might also realize that in most cases, if they are only printing 5x7 prints, there is no noticable difference between 6 and 10 megapixels.

 

[Yakamoto]

To clarify things: you CAN use other lenses on the D40, it's just that they will not autofocus. Therefore, you can pick up the tiny little 35mm f/2 prime or the 50mm f/1.4 and have yourself some prime, fast glass on that camera. For telephoto, rather than the 55-200mm, see if you can pick up one of the new reasonably-priced 70-300mm VRs. It is an AF-S lens and is getting excellent reviews. For the wife, if she doesn't want to get into changing lenses at all, pick up the 18-200mm VR and that will give her plenty of reach on both ends (wide-ish to tele) without the need to swap out lenses.

Thanks Clix Pix,
Those are great ideas.

 

[persianpunisher]

18-200mm VR is a GREAT lens, although good luck on trying to find one. At $899 retail, they go for over a grand on eBay due to limited quantities. Congrats on the D40, I was considering that over the D50, but just couldn't resist the 50mm f/1.8 prime. Sharpest lens nikon has, and its fast

 

[Grimace]

my father is thinking about getting this camera after shooting Nikon film for a long time. Sounds like a big success!

 

[Clix Pix]

my father is thinking about getting this camera after shooting Nikon film for a long time. Sounds like a big success!

If your dad has a bunch of Nikon lenses already, he actually might want to consider the D200 because that camera works really well with the oldies-but-goodies in terms of metering and such. There is a specific function for using non-CPU lenses and that can be really useful. However, yes, the D40 or the D80 will work with the older lenses, too.

 

[uberfoto]

I am a Canon guy so pardon me if my commentary sounds a bit biased... Why the hell would would Nikon make a new DLSR with only 6.1MP... Why just bolster they higher MP camera(s) with great features meanwhile keeping the pricepoint? I mean, $500 is a sweet deal... But I would drop a couple extra bucks down on the Canon XTi(10MP) or the Nikon equivalent. Just seems like a ste backwards.. Unless of course I am just missing something completely.

Most consumers (like you) are megapixel happy but more pixels does NOT mean a better image. You really don't need more than 6 megapixels if you are printing stuff 18x24 and smaller anyway. If it's a good clean shot, 24x36 certainly isn't out of the question. Yes, the ability to crop-in is nice but there are still downsides. There are a lot of consumers that have dated computers, a larger file is going to be slow to edit and take up a lot of space on a computer. Also, if you're shooting larger files, you need larger memory cards which increases the purchase expense. Remember, this is Nikon's entry level dSLR. Canon currently doesn't have anything to compete with it. To get into an XTi you can near double the price of the D50. The D40 might be a little more right now but give it some time and the price will probably be closer to where the D50 is now. The D40 is still rather new.

Because when you try to capture more pixels on the same size sensor the real estate becomes awfully cramped reducing the efficiency of each pixel, therefore creating more noise.

The difference between a 6 and 10MP image isn't THAT drastic anyway. You're talking 800x500 more pixels (IIRC).

 

[miloblithe]

...Canon currently doesn't have anything to compete with [the D40]. To get into an XTi you can near double the price of the D50...

Isn't Canon going to keep selling the Rebel XT (350D) for a while? That'll sell for a pretty comparable price point to the D40, like $500-550. It's an interesting option for people in that price range.

 

[uberfoto]

Isn't Canon going to keep selling the Rebel XT (350D) for a while? That'll sell for a pretty comparable price point to the D40, like $500-550. It's an interesting option for people in that price range.

Good point. The XT will compete with the D40/50's price but it is still a couple years old. The new "thing" in all the dSLR's is 2.5" LCD's, better autofocus, and new firmware & color processing. It's an old camera competing with new bodies.

It all still goes back to personal preference and feel anyway...

 

[jsnoah]

true

Well, the difference between $500 (D40) and $1000 (D80) is a lot to most people. The XTi is also a lot more at $750-$800. While there are consumers like you who might gladly spend 50-100% more to get a better camera, a lot of other consumers will decide that they'd rather spend that money on something else, like lenses, a better flash, rent, or food.

A lot of those consumers might also realize that in most cases, if they are only printing 5x7 prints, there is no noticable difference between 6 and 10 megapixels.

Point taken but then I would go find an XT or the Nikon equivalent. I am just thinking that Nikon is fooling themselves if people are going to want to take a step back(in a way) when something close in price and more equipt is available. You are right though. I have a regular Digital Rebel(waiting to upgrade to XTi) and I just had my first flawless and un pixelized 20x30 print. 8x10 was previous biggy...