d40? still relevant?

[drewwhitehead]

I know the camera is a bit on old side, but are they still relevant? I've been considering an upgrade to the d5100 and wondering if the cost is worth it.

Just a little background. About all I shoot is one home a month. I'm a realtor/photographer. Most of the stuff ends up getting shrunk down in the websites and mls that we use. They say 4mb or less. I'm also not looking to go to a full blown camera either, i.e. d3 or the like.

I'm also kind of stuck in the nikon world too due the extra lens I have, Tamron 10-24mm.

Just looking for ideas and pointers basically. Thanks in advance.

 

[mulo]

I've been considering an upgrade to the d5100 and wondering if the cost is worth it.

for the little shooting you do, probably not

 

[Bear]

Just answer these basic questions:

1. Does your camera do what you need it to do?
2. Is there anything you'd like your camera to do that it isn't.
3. Is the camera starting to fall apart?

From what you said, the answers are Yes, No, and No. In which case you don't need a new camera. If anything, you may have to buy a new battery for it at some point.

The only real reason to upgrade a camera is when it no longer does what you want it to do. My camera is 6 years old and I see nothing enticing about any upgrades.

 

[drewwhitehead]

Just answer these basic questions:

1. Does your camera do what you need it to do?
2. Is there anything you'd like your camera to do that it isn't.
3. Is the camera starting to fall apart?

From what you said, the answers are Yes, No, and No. In which case you don't need a new camera. If anything, you may have to buy a new battery for it at some point.

The only real reason to upgrade a camera is when it no longer does what you want it to do. My camera is 6 years old and I see nothing enticing about any upgrades.

It does the basics of what I would like it to do. Being that wifey and I are starting a family in the not so distant future, video would be nice to add. I understand that video cams do video better than dslrs, for the most part, I'm sure there is an exception to every rule though.

The main concern was the quality of image, aside from 6 vs 16 megapixels.

 

[Bear]

It does the basics of what I would like it to do. Being that wifey and I are starting a family in the not so distant future, video would be nice to add. I understand that video cams do video better than dslrs, for the most part, I'm sure there is an exception to every rule though.

The main concern was the quality of image, aside from 6 vs 16 megapixels.

Well, if you want video, that would mean the camera no longer does everything you need it to. :roll eyes:

Also, even if you get a new camera for video, consider keeping the D40 for the real estate stuff (depending on how much you could sell it for).

Anyway, unless there is something wrong with the camera or the lens, for the real estate stuff, you don't need a new camera. 6MP sounds like more than enough for what you're doing.

 

[initialsBB]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

The D40 is one of my favourite DSLRs of all time. I love it's simplicity and it gives great results even though it doesn't have as many megapixels as others. I have the d5000 and although it is a very capable camera, I still long for the D40's no nonsense design.

If you really want to upgrade then look at the D7000, which is another fantastic camera, but if I were you I wouldn't bother going to the D5100. The D40 is still a great camera !

 

[floling]

i think it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's the person behind the camera!

further i think it's much more efficient to get a good lens, than a good camera.

i'm still using the "old" d200, and i'm very happy with it!

cheers
-> www.500px.com/floling

 

[paolo-]

Getting some strobes would probably do much more for your photo than getting a new camera. Especially if your pictures are getting shrunk I don't think you'll see much of a difference. Strobes will let you take much more interesting pictures than a new body.

 

[drewwhitehead]

Getting some strobes would probably do much more for your photo than getting a new camera. Especially if your pictures are getting shrunk I don't think you'll see much of a difference. Strobes will let you take much more interesting pictures than a new body.

Thanks for the input guys. I'm with you on the concept of "not the camera making the photographer".

Being an admitted novice, by strobe, you your not talking about a hot shoe flash right? I do have a speed light to prevent the lens shadowing in the picture.

 

[paolo-]

Thanks for the input guys. I'm with you on the concept of "not the camera making the photographer".

Being an admitted novice, by strobe, you your not talking about a hot shoe flash right? I do have a speed light to prevent the lens shadowing in the picture.

I'm more of a video guy, so I may not have been using the right terminology but by strobe I mean an off camera flash fired wirelessly so you can have more control over light.

 

[whoathere]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Definitely still relevant.

 

[peepboon]

My homie Drew took this on a Nikon D40.

If you don't believe me, check out the Flickr.

CLICK