Nikon D40 vs D40x, 1st DSLR

pilotkid

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 22, 2006
915
51
Chandler, AZ/Chicago, IL
Hello, and thanks in advance for your replies. I'm looking into buying my first digital slr camera and have been recommended the nikon D40. After doing research on the D40 I have found out about the x version with 10.1mp's vs 6.1 with the regular D40. Money is a factor in this decision(i'm a college student, when is money not a factor,lol) so I'm trying to see if the extra money for the D40x is worth is. I went down to our local Ritz camera shop and they have a package deal where you get the camera and two lenses, and i'm thinking thats what i'm going to get. Tell me if you think the kit is worth it(link below).
Thanks alot everyone! OH and how do they work with Macbooks?
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1161.htm
 

Kamera RAWr

macrumors 65816
May 15, 2007
1,022
0
Sitting on a rig somewhere
While the package seems alright, Ritz is usually over priced anyway. Check out Amazon, Adorama, and B&H. My peronsal recommendation would be for the D40 with the kit 18-55mm lens. The 10MP of the "X" version may be a bit much for your first SLR considering that its not a whole lot different and being that you are a student, the extra expense isn't justified IMHO. Play around with the kit lens for awhile and see what you feel yourself missing, perhaps you'd rather have a wider angle than telephoto zoom... although the 55-200mm VR is pretty good bang for the buck, should you choose to buy it.

I think the D40 would be a great first dSLR to get you more into photography, learning manual controls, etc. Looking forward to seeing photos posted by you :)
 

pilotkid

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 22, 2006
915
51
Chandler, AZ/Chicago, IL
While the package seems alright, Ritz is usually over priced anyway. Check out Amazon, Adorama, and B&H. My peronsal recommendation would be for the D40 with the kit 18-55mm lens. The 10MP of the "X" version may be a bit much for your first SLR considering that its not a whole lot different and being that you are a student, the extra expense isn't justified IMHO. Play around with the kit lens for awhile and see what you feel yourself missing, perhaps you'd rather have a wider angle than telephoto zoom... although the 55-200mm VR is pretty good bang for the buck, should you choose to buy it.

I think the D40 would be a great first dSLR to get you more into photography, learning manual controls, etc. Looking forward to seeing photos posted by you :)
Thanks for your reply. I was kind of hoping people said that the regular D40 would be fine...Any other opinions out there?
 

dingdongbubble

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2007
538
0
The D40x is slightly better than the D40 although not by too much. you should save the money and invest in a lens or two.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
Hello, and thanks in advance for your replies. I'm looking into buying my first digital slr camera and have been recommended the nikon D40. After doing research on the D40 I have found out about the x version with 10.1mp's vs 6.1 with the regular D40.
Any 6MP DSLR will be more than adequate. I'd resist two lens kits at first if I were you- you may want a completely different lens down the road and kit lenses are good, but not great and certainly not specialist lenses which fit a particular form of photography.
 

Mantronix

macrumors regular
Apr 21, 2007
177
0
Louisiana
I bought a Nikon d40 and I'm very happy with it. I thought about getting the d40x but I decided to save the extra money and buy a better lens kit for it. The 6mp is perfect for an amateur photographer like myself.
 

Kamera RAWr

macrumors 65816
May 15, 2007
1,022
0
Sitting on a rig somewhere
I bought a Nikon d40 and I'm very happy with it. I thought about getting the d40x but I decided to save the extra money and buy a better lens kit for it. The 6mp is perfect for an amateur photographer like myself.
Reading your quote made me think that the OP could upgrade his/her kit to the 18-70mm lens, which is not bad at all... The 18-200mm VR is fantastic, but probably out of range for a student on a budget
 

pilotkid

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 22, 2006
915
51
Chandler, AZ/Chicago, IL
Reading your quote made me think that the OP could upgrade his/her kit to the 18-70mm lens, which is not bad at all... The 18-200mm VR is fantastic, but probably out of range for a student on a budget
Ok, guys thanks for your replies. Now, I'm probably going to go buy the camera today BUT a good friend of mine has suggested that the Canon Rebel XTi is better. What is your guys opinion on this? For $749 I can get the D40 with the 18-55mm and a 55-200mm and a couple of DVDs and a carrying case. OR I can get the Canon XTi for $799 with a 18-55mm....Which do you guys think? Quick responses would be appreciated since I plan on going down and making a purchase in a few hours. My mission with the camera. One its replacing my Sony Cybershot DSC-H1. I just want to venture out into the DSLR cameras, pretty much just taking pictures for fun and seeing what I get. I like the face that with the D40 kit that I'm looking at that I'll get a nice telephoto lenses with it. I like taking pictures of airplanes,lol. Also, I like taking pictures of buildings downtown and stuff like that. So based on that do you all still agree that the D40 with the two lenses is the camera I should pick? Thanks everyone!!!!!!:D
 

Kamera RAWr

macrumors 65816
May 15, 2007
1,022
0
Sitting on a rig somewhere
I think most people here will tell you the same thing... that the D40 and Rebel are both good cameras, both have their advantages and disadvantages. Just try them both out at the store and make the decision yourself. Best I can tell you :)
 

Poncho

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2007
353
147
Holland
I bought a Nikon D40 about three weeks ago after reading a similar thread here.

I love the thing.

Even managed to get it working in capture mode from my Macbook like a pro.

Pictures in just automatic mode are brill.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,379
110
Location Location Location
The Canon 400D is better?

Just stick with the Nikon D40 and 18-55 mm + 55-200 mm lenses. You'll be able to do 90% of what you want to do with those lenses. With time, you may find that those 2 lenses do around 70% of what you want to be capable of doing with your camera, which would mean it's time for a new lens. That's when the fun really begins. ;)
 

deanfinder

macrumors newbie
Aug 19, 2007
5
0
I was also considering the D40 and the D40x for my first dSLR. On Nikon's comparison chart, it says the D40 has a "combined mechanical and CCD electronic shutter" and the D40x has a "electronically-controlled vertical-travel focal plane shutter". The latter is what the other Nikon models, like the D80 and D200, have. Can anyone explain what the difference is, and if the vertical travel shutter would be better in the long run? Thanks!
 

pilotkid

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 22, 2006
915
51
Chandler, AZ/Chicago, IL
Well I went and got the Nikon D40x with the two lenses. I ended up getting the x because I took my parents with me to get in and they surprised me and payed for it and told me to just get the X version...Hopefully later tonight I'll get to post my first picture on here. Thanks again for everyones relies and advice, its much appreciated!
 

michodave

macrumors newbie
Aug 25, 2007
1
0
This has been one of the most helpful threads. Question, I am convinced that Nikon is for me but still on the fence for 40 or 40x. Money is not really an issue but dont want to throw it away. I am an ameteur and most after outdoor sports shots. Some say 6MP is enough and quicker even though its at a 2.5fps. Being an ameteur, am I going to see the issues on the 40x with the flash lag?
 

pilotkid

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 22, 2006
915
51
Chandler, AZ/Chicago, IL
This has been one of the most helpful threads. Question, I am convinced that Nikon is for me but still on the fence for 40 or 40x. Money is not really an issue but dont want to throw it away. I am an ameteur and most after outdoor sports shots. Some say 6MP is enough and quicker even though its at a 2.5fps. Being an ameteur, am I going to see the issues on the 40x with the flash lag?
Hey, hows it going. I have no idea about the flash lag issue(thats way above my knowledge base,haha). However on the 40 vs 40x issue, I have VERY happy with my 40X! The way I see it is you can get the 40 with the 6.1mp and maybe in 6 months to a year you'll decide thats just not enough. Then you'll have to go out and spend all that money and then some again, why not just do it right the first time and get something that you'll be happy with longer? Instead of spending money on buy a camera with more MP's in six months to a year buy another lenses for the D40x! Another thing is, yes it does 3 fps instead of 2.5, that little extra might help if your focusing on getting sports shots.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,951
3
Gone but not forgotten.
This has been one of the most helpful threads. Question, I am convinced that Nikon is for me but still on the fence for 40 or 40x. Money is not really an issue but dont want to throw it away. I am an ameteur and most after outdoor sports shots. Some say 6MP is enough and quicker even though its at a 2.5fps. Being an ameteur, am I going to see the issues on the 40x with the flash lag?
I've shot a lot of sports in low light conditions and you can forget about a built-in flash unit being useful at all for sports and the burst speed of 2.5 fps isn't going to matter, if you're using a flash.

I shot lacrosse with a guide number 50 (50 metres at a certain focal length, etc.) flash with the game going from sunlight to twilight to dark and the flash covered things pretty well. That compares to the guide number 13 flash usually built into some SLRs and you can see that typical flash units don't cover enough. Since they get their power from the camera battery, you'll need more power to use it.

Metz sell a number of good units at all price points that fit into the hot shoe or on a bracket/grip. Some can use high power to give a very quick refresh but those kits usually cost more than the camera body they're supporting.
 

Kamera RAWr

macrumors 65816
May 15, 2007
1,022
0
Sitting on a rig somewhere
For a beginner the D40 is more than enough. If you're sure photography is something you enjoy, you can invest in better glass since you'll outgrow the body much faster. The good glass will last you through quite a few bodies. Can't say enough for the 18-200mm VR. If you start with the D40 and use it for a year or two, possibly much more.. until you outgrow it. You'll be in a better position to determine what features you need and want in your next body. And your lenses of course will transfer...that is unless you upgrade to the new FX sensor in the future. :)
 

66217

Guest
Jan 30, 2006
1,608
0
This has been one of the most helpful threads. Question, I am convinced that Nikon is for me but still on the fence for 40 or 40x. Money is not really an issue but dont want to throw it away. I am an ameteur and most after outdoor sports shots. Some say 6MP is enough and quicker even though its at a 2.5fps. Being an ameteur, am I going to see the issues on the 40x with the flash lag?
I have just bought today the D40x, and I must say it is an incredible camera. I am also a beginner, but when the quality of my photos starts to improve, I would like to be able to print large photos and put them somewhere in my house. So the extra 4MP are good for me.

And for the flash lag, I don't believe there is any major disadvantage for a beginner. I have shot with the D40 and the D40x and both seemed almost the same for me. Granted, I haven't used them a lot, but I couldn't notice anything different with respect to the flash.
 

termina3

macrumors 65816
Jul 16, 2007
1,078
1
TX
This has been one of the most helpful threads. Question, I am convinced that Nikon is for me but still on the fence for 40 or 40x. Money is not really an issue but dont want to throw it away. I am an ameteur and most after outdoor sports shots. Some say 6MP is enough and quicker even though its at a 2.5fps. Being an ameteur, am I going to see the issues on the 40x with the flash lag?
If you've got the cash, D300 (it's double or triple what the D40x is... in fact as well as price). Out in November.