D40?

robmiller

robmiller

robmiller

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,520
Location
London
I was considering a more advanced compact for my next camera; I currently have a Powershot A95, and was considering moving to a G7 or S3 IS for my next upgrade. However, after reading this the D40 looks pretty ideal as a first SLR.

What do you think? Would it be better going second hand and getting a D70 or something, or is the D40 as good as the review makes it sound? What's the kit lens like? (edit: I'll mainly be doing landscapes and portraiture; I'm guessing it's fine for the latter and alright-ish for the former, right?)

I'm looking at ~£470 for the D40, a 2GB SD card and a polarising filter: much less than I thought I'd be spending if I went for a dSLR, so I'm quite tempted.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
D50 or D70/D70s, D40 isn't worth it for the amount of features lost compared to those two in my opinion.
 
What key features are lost between them, though? I'm doing a side-by-side comparison of the D40 and the D70 here and it really doesn't seem that vast—certainly not as vast as the price would imply. There are even lots of things that the D40 does better than the D70.

As far as I can tell, going from the D40 to the D70 you gain:

  1. Faster shutter speed (1/8000 compared to 1/4000)—I genuinely do not care about this. 1/4000 is way more than fast enough for what I'll be shooting.
  2. Slightly faster shooting (2fps compared to 1.5fps)—however, the D40 is limited by card size rather than the D70's 12 image limit, so you lose a little too. Still, I don't think I'll ever want to shoot more than 1.5fps.

And lose:

  1. Screen space (1.8" vs. 2.5")—not a dealbreaker, but nice to have.
  2. General newer things on the D40—SD vs. CF, etc.
  3. Compactness—the D40 is quite considerably smaller, by the looks of things.

I don't really see anything that justifies the price increase :/
 
the D40 doesn't have the "screwdriver", and thus unable to use a large chunk of Nikon glass. That alone should make you want to stay away.

The D40 is a step backwards from the D50, Nikon is trying to cut cost in the entry level SLR and to lower its price to attract consumers. Don't fall for it !
 
robmiller said:
What is a screwdriver :o

And I'm probably going to use about three lenses ever, does it matter too much?
Click to expand...


The lack of a screwdriver motor to use standard AF lenses destroys compatibility with a wide array of great Nikon and 3rd Party glass, and will doubtless lead to piles of questions on camera forums about "Why won't my camera work with my lens" Also the lack of a top LCD is crap. Hello massive battery drain.
 
Hmm.

How much do second-hand D80s go for, roughly?

Edit: Hmm, D70s seem to be about ~£400-£500 by the looks of the 'bay...
 
Last edited:
A 350D, maybe? ~£480 with the kit lens.

I'm struggling to balance features with cash; I definitely want to keep it <£500 and lower if possible, but then again I don't want to lumber myself with something that I'm going to grow out of in a few months. Hmm.

Edit: dSLRs are so complex, I'm scared :(
 
Last edited:
The D40 isnt as bad as made out above imo.

Its a fantastic camera for those new to DSLRs, and is now a better option than a bridge camera for those wishing to take their photography more seriously.

The only downside is the lack of a built in focusing motor, which means that you cannot use lenses without a built in motor themselves. This does limit the chocie of glass, but for a beginner this isnt so bad. I think every new Nikon lens will have their Silent Wave Motor built in. I also think that Sigma and Tamron etc will also start builing their own versions into some of their newer lenses. I think they will have to do this in order to ensure that they do not lose out on this whole section of the market - the budget market is their territory. Nikon sell the D40 with a the new 18-55 kit lens, and a 55-200mm is also available. For a beginner these are all that is really required to get going.

The only lenses of any consquence that cannot be used are the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and the Sigma 70-300 APO (and its contemporaries I guess)

If you consider the D40 to be more of a bridge camera / beginners SLR then it really doesnt seem so bad at all.

I dont think the lack of top LCD is a huge deal, as the rear screen will do fine instead. Battery life may be affect, but then battery life on DSLRs is so great anyway, and isnt this what Canon do anyway?

Some of the compromises made have been made in order to reduce the size and weight. Again, this will attract beginners who dont want to carry around a huge chunky SLR.

I would say however, that a 2nd hand D70 is a better buy. A 2nd hand D50 possibly isnt I dont think.

With regard to price, the D40 is brand new, so expect a price decrease of at least £50 over the next few months.

My 2p. :)
 
Because it's a new camera the D40 is a bit overpriced. I would look around for the last of D50 stock, which should be slightly cheaper than a new D40 or even a good second hand D50. I would expect a good D50 to go for about £300 second hand.
 
Well i managed to get my d40 with a 1gb sandisk extreme 3 card from Jessops for £405 about a month ago. They matched some silly internet offer then messed up the pricing so i got it super cheap haha. :D

I really like it so far, and like people have mentioned, the only downside i can really see at the minute is the lack of motor built in for the lenses. But again, there is the telephoto lens for around about £140 on the auction site which seems like a good buy. And for a beginner like myself that's pretty much all i'll be needing for the next couple of years anyway.

When i come to sell it in 2 years time I'd hope not to have lost too much money on it anyway being as I got the package relatively cheaply.
 
Joe T said:
The D40 isnt as bad as made out above imo.

Its a fantastic camera for those new to DSLRs, and is now a better option than a bridge camera for those wishing to take their photography more seriously.

The only downside is the lack of a built in focusing motor, which means that you cannot use lenses without a built in motor themselves. This does limit the chocie of glass, but for a beginner this isnt so bad. I think every new Nikon lens will have their Silent Wave Motor built in. I also think that Sigma and Tamron etc will also start builing their own versions into some of their newer lenses. I think they will have to do this in order to ensure that they do not lose out on this whole section of the market - the budget market is their territory. Nikon sell the D40 with a the new 18-55 kit lens, and a 55-200mm is also available. For a beginner these are all that is really required to get going.

The only lenses of any consquence that cannot be used are the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and the Sigma 70-300 APO (and its contemporaries I guess)

If you consider the D40 to be more of a bridge camera / beginners SLR then it really doesnt seem so bad at all.

I dont think the lack of top LCD is a huge deal, as the rear screen will do fine instead. Battery life may be affect, but then battery life on DSLRs is so great anyway, and isnt this what Canon do anyway?

Some of the compromises made have been made in order to reduce the size and weight. Again, this will attract beginners who dont want to carry around a huge chunky SLR.

I would say however, that a 2nd hand D70 is a better buy. A 2nd hand D50 possibly isnt I dont think.

With regard to price, the D40 is brand new, so expect a price decrease of at least £50 over the next few months.

My 2p. :)
Click to expand...

Ugh, now I'm swinging back to the D40, damn you! :p

As someone who's going to buy perhaps two or three lenses (for the first two years or so at least, after which I'll probably end up upgrading the D40 anyway) will I really notice the lack of an AF motor?
 
Rob, its a toughie. It kind of depends on what the market does over the next year. The lenses that you would not be able to use are the cheaper lenses, so in some ways it could be a good thing! :p

I cant give you a straight answer on this Im afraid.
 
Hmm hmm hmm.

I'm not buying immediately anyway; probably some time in the next 2-3 months when I've saved up
shobon.png


Anything predicted to happen in the next three months that I should know about, or shall I just play it by ear?
 
I was planning to get a d50, but as this is my first dslr, hell, even one of my first cameras, i saw the new d40 and thought it was a better option to go for as i was new to an slr camera. Im over the moon with it, the photo quality is excellent, and imo the features will last me for a few good years. The price i payed was also probably one of the main reasons i went for it aswell, i got the d40 and 18-55mm kit lens + 2gb SD disk for £399.99 on the 20th december.

The reviews i have read pretty much state that the d40 is practically a d50 with some added new features, and minus a few that don't really matter. I don't exactly know much about dslr's, but at the moment i can't look at my d40 and say, i wish i had the d50 right about now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom