Finally decided... (I think!)

Cavallino

Cavallino

Cavallino

Soldato
Joined
8 Dec 2004
Posts
15,129
Location
Hampshire
Ok! So it seems I maybe going for the Nikon D40X!
I found a package that has the camera and a lens for £340 all in.

The lens is a "Nikkor 18-55". Is that a typo? Or is there such a thing as "Nikkor"?

And is this lens motorised?

And finally is it any good?

Sorry for too many questions, but thanks for your help in advance :)
 
Excellent, thanks guys :)

Although I was told that this particular shop was stopping the D40X to make way for the D60.

You reckon it would be worth paying an extra 100 quid or so and waiting for the D60?
 
Once again! Many thanks MK and everyone!
(Btw congratulations on winning that cash prize MK :))

It seems this particular shop has no more D40X's due to the D60 being released soon :(

Do you guys think that the D40X will come down in price once the D60 hits the scene?

Also, martin, thanks for your input as well, what you said made perfect sense.

Looking at this...

1355607147_f5fed92c23.jpg


Was this photoshopped/ (i.e. with regard to the colours?)

Bloomin Beautiful :D
 
martinturner said:
Cavallino - I know you are ideally after a D40x, but a high street catalogue store has a D40 going for £279.99 which is pretty good. Depends if you want the mega pixels? Did not find they made a slightest bit of difference when I was making the choice.
Click to expand...


Hmm interesting.
Apart from the MP difference, what other differences are there between the D40 and D40X?

Was that price including a Nikkor lens?
 
Hmm bit of a disagreement here.

Ok so robert you're saying to go for the D50 due to better selection of lenses available for it?
I thought all lenses were interchangeable since D40 and D50 are the same manufacturer? (Or have I missed the pont here?)

And why do you prefer Canons over D40?
 
robertgilbert86 said:
I certainly do not perfer Canons! I think they are stingy with lens caps and badly design cameras (but that's getting off-topic). The point I was making was that even a die-hard Nikon fan like myself would choose a 400/450D over the D40.

All Nikon lenses (bar a couple of ancient ones) will fit the D40, but not all of them will auto-focus.
Go look at some lenses now, the ones with 'AF-S' in the title will auto-focus on the D40. The ones with just 'AF' in the title will not auto-focus on the D40.

Both AF and AF-S will auto-focus on any Nikon DSLR camera EXCEPT the D40, D40X and D60.
Click to expand...

Oh I see!

So presumably 'AF' lenses do not have motors in them and they need a motorised camera body?

Can I just clarify robert - This is my first EVER SLR camera (Digital or negative). I know I wont be going crazy with it initially. I will start off with the bog standard lense and perhaps go up to a 200+ or 300mm lense to do some wildlife shots.

But bearing in mind Im not looking for the cutting edge ultra high tech options. Just something which is discernably better than standard "point and shoot" box digital cameras.
 
Last edited:
robmiller said:
Yep. As a budget user, there are quite a few good-value Nikon and Sigma lenses that you're missing out on; most of Nikon's prime lenses, for example (prime lenses are ones with a fixed focal length, i.e. ones that don't zoom) and some good Sigma bargains like the 24-70 f/2.8.

It's not a huge problem, though. Certainly Sigma are conscious of it; they've recently released HSM versions of loads of their bargain lenses (the 18-50, 18-200, 55-200 etc.). It's up to you whether you can live without those lenses, or whether you want to spend a bit more to be able to use them.
Click to expand...

Hmm I see rob. Cheers for your explanation.

So generally prime lenses (i.e. fixed focal length - no zooming?)
And what is the significance of HSM lenses? self motorised?
 
Seems Im back to square one again lol.
It seems that if I go with a body that is not motorised, I will be losing out on potentially good and cheap lenses.

Ugh.
 
robertgilbert86 said:
Just get a second hand D50, that is pretty much as low spec as you can get and it does me just fine.
Click to expand...

Just saw your website robert, noticed you're studying at Warwick!
Im also studying for an MBA at Warwick!

Ill pop into *OOPS* over the weekend and have another look and assess my choices...
 
Last edited:
Hmm cheers Sol and Buff.

Here is how I see it (from reviews that I've read).

The D40/D40X is easier to use out of the package, i.e. it has an edge over the EOS 400D in terms of colour vibrance in its photos without having to faf around with settings, as opposed to the 400D.

But the 400D can use non-Motorised lenses I think? And also it has that sensor cleaning feature which the D40/D40X does not have.

So this is why I was thinking about the D60, but it is pricey for what extras it does offer over the D40X.

Shame, I'm travelling on business on Monday and a certain retailer in Gatwick Duty Free was stocking the D40X + Lens for £340. But when I called them up, they say theyre out of stock and cant source units from any neighbouring branches. They did say they are getting a delivery on Monday morning, but I wouldnt hold my breath.

Anyway I think in my mind of minds, I may opt for the D40X.
(It does take VR lenses right? Sol mentioned that the D40 does so I assume the D40 does as well?)
 
Sol said:
The D40, D40X and D60 all take the same lenses (HSM, AF-S etc) and most VR lenses appear to be AF-S by default although not always. Why are you thinking of the D40X over the D40 anyway, only real different is the 10mp which is negligible to be honest.

To Buff, I don't really believe that but anyway you can still select 200 so I don't see that as a negative feature like Ken does.
Click to expand...

Well... just incase I want to blow up pictures on print one day :)
Besides whats the price difference between D40 and D40X?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom