File :-(, x, )
NIKON D40X Anonymous
I just got a brand new Nikon D40X, 10.1mp camera with 35-50mm and 50-200mm nikkor lens' thrown in.

£470 ($965 U.S.) Did i do good?

Anyone got any personal experience with this thing? I hear its pretty good.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2006:11:14 13:59:34Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:11:14 16:51:57Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/4.5ISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias-1/2 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Chib
>>I hear its pretty good.

you didn't do any research bedore you purchased it?
>> Anonymous
Nikon doesn't make neither 35-50mm nor 50-200mm lenses. What the fuck did you buy?
>> Anonymous
ITT: I laugh
>> Anonymous
Sage for yet another "buy first, ask questions later" thread.
>> Anonymous
>>92113

OP: yes, ive read into it, and ive used many similar. i wanted to see if anon had any experience with it, and your thoughts.

(18-55 and 55-200mm, my bad)
>> Anonymous
>>92120
shoulda gotten a D40 if youre going budget. or saved up a little more and gotten a D80. the D40 with the same two lens kit is $650. also, doesnt af non AFS lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>92123

True, but i wont be using older lens'.

Every review just says its "the D80 in the D40s body".. sounds fine to me, kind of like getting jenna jameson in Anne Hathaways body..

...damn that sounds like a night in.
>> Anonymous
>>92124
youre missing out on the awesome primes.
>> Anonymous
>>92120

You've read into it so much you have no idea what the lenses are that you've bought and came here to ask about it all after you already bought it. Smart thinking.

You made a bad purchase. You should have done as per>>92123
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92128

What, buy a D80? why? there isnt that much difference.

Less auto focus points, and i have to be a little careful about my pick of lens', but thats it.

..of course i knew what size the lens' were, i forgot the sizing ok? God forbid a little human error ever ruins your day!

General concensus elsewhere says its an ok buy.. /P/, you are failing me here..
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>92130
Who needs autofocus anyhow? If you're going to buy a dSLR and do things your way, at least decide what you want in focus yourself..
>> Anonymous
>>92130

Not much difference? GTFO.

You came in asking after you had bought it if it was okay. That in itself is retarded. You've wasted your money, good luck.
>> Anonymous
>>92131

You need a history lesson. Don't you remember it was exactly that that caused so many pros to switch from Nikon to Canon?
>> Anonymous
>>92130
its not that /p/ fails, its that /p/ is old and bitter. D80 has commander mode for wireless flash built in which is nice. D80 uses a better autofocusing system. its not just more points. RAW + Jpeg fine. two command dials. top LCD screen. DoF preview. Better viewfinder. easy bracketing. more ISO options.
>> Anonymous
>>92131
except you cant really see shit with the viewfinders on these cameras since they are made with autofocusing in mind.
>> Anonymous
>>92132

Youre just jealous, its a good camera! Now go wash your hands and off to the cage with you.
>> Anonymous
>>92136
Which is why you get a focusing screen.

But yeah, screw autofocus-centric designs. I honestly wouldn't mind a DSLR without it. If you really need autofocus for <135mm lenses, you're doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>92141

Jealous of a bad, overpriced and crippled budget SLR? I think not. Washing anyone's hands won't make all those troublesome facts mentioned here disappear.

It's a bad buy and the OP is a moron.
>> Anonymous
ITT we ask about a purchase we made but defend it anyway because we don't want to admit it was a bad purchase.
>> Anonymous
>>92146
that burrito i just finished was delicious!
>> Anonymous
ITT theres a lot of people who dont have a decent camera. Im defending it because every professional opinion says its a decent but pricey starter dslr.

I was hoping for realistic constructive criticism, some people tried that, but i forgot that you can never keep complete shitsacks out can you...

RAGE TRANSMITTION >>><>><<<>>><<
>> Anonymous
Maybe if you weren't such a butthurt moronic faggot then people would be more interested in talking to you in a nicer way.
>> Anonymous
>>92152
have you read the thread? the D40x has no real improvement over the D40. the D80 does. thats why it was recommended you have either gotten a D40 or a D80.

ITT we continue to defend our bad purchase by blaming trolls, even though theres not a single troll in this thread.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
General consensus among reviewers is that you're better off getting the d40 rather than the d40x; for the price of the d40x you're better off getting the d80, due to it's extra options which are certainly significant, while the differences between d40 and d40x are minimal. Hence the d40x being overpriced; the pricing pretty much defeats it's purpose as a partially crippled but entry level dslr, whereas the pricing of the regular d40 does not.
It is not a bad camera though. And whether or not the "crippling" matters depends on you and your shooting preferences. Autofocus is nice, but unless you're shooting something fast-moving, not critical, so yeah, this wouldn't be a good camera for animals or sports photography. So it wasn't a bad choice, just not the best choice for the price range.
>> Anonymous
>>92159

NOW were getting somewhere. ok, at the end of the day, the D80 is bloody expensive, and i cant afford it without going hungry SO the next choice in my book was the D40X. Maybe i read all the reviews wrong, but you cant deny that a lot of people think this IS a good camera..

I wouldnt of bought it if the image quality, the options AND the free lens wasnt there. It seems easy to use, and reliable. Maybe it isnt kicking the D80s ass, but it definately gives it the evil squint. happy snapping steamed trolls.
>> Anonymous
>>92167

You'd better hurry, your WAAAAAAmbulance is about to leave.
>> Anonymous
>>92167
its called saving up for a few more weeks. the D40 is a decent camera. the D40x is basically the same thing. yes, its a decent camera. for the price no its not good. D40 would have saved you tons of money, with little to no difference.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92159
>General consensus among photographers is that you're better off getting the d40 rather than the d40x;
Fix'd. Photographers know that the D40 is a better deal than the D40x. Reviewers are mostly ZOMFG MOAR MEGAPIXZULS!!!!1! without really considering whether or not the extra resolution actually has any real effect.
>> Anonymous
>>92159
>>92169
this is basically what this entire thread has said. you obviously cant read something and absorb it.
>> Anonymous
I can't believe this guy is still trying to defend his bad decision. What an idiot.

He was probably hoping he could simply bask in the glory of people saying "yeah! good job!". How DARE we criticise him!

If you don't like the answers you might get, you're better off not asking the question.
>> Anonymous
>>92174

hahha, i respect the critcism you guys have given, and i understand that the feeling here is that the d80 is better, the d40 is cheaper. I
m not chasing fast moving objects but i do need poster sized prints. so for decent quality 10mp pictures i was looking for something like this. youre right it was too much money, and i really should of saved up (happy anger boy?).

As long as the thing does clear pictures and isnt totally fail, i can live with it. The price is pretty good for it with a free lens.

I feel the shit storm already...
>> Anonymous
>>92177

MOAR MEGAPIXELS = BETTER PICTURES!!!!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>92177
just so you know, there was no free lens in your purchase.

D40x with 18-55 = $619
55-200 = $169
total = $790

-or-

D40 with 18-55 and 55-200 = $649
price difference between D40 and D40x = $150
total = $800

add in extra cost for being in the UK, and yeah, nothing was free.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92179

According to this d40x test image. yes.

>>92180

ok, not free, a little cheaper. the cameras in the uk. no extra charge.

lol, cant believe anyone had anything good to say about this camera. youre right it was a lot of money, but the spec seems good. Im not disappointed anyway.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40XCamera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:01 04:22:15Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length20.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3872Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Grow out of this family photo book mentality with print sizes. "poster" size" isnt a big print.

for the op. its a good camera and i hope you have fun using it.
>> Anonymous
>>92183
that image is supposed to shot more megapixels means better image? ok. stop trolling us now
>> Anonymous
>>92184
define poster size, and define a big print. poster size for one person can be hugely different from poster size for another person.
>> Anonymous
>>92185
shot = show
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92184

I hear you, but it is being used for presentation images up to A+ sizes!

thanks anyway for the reassurance, damn...maybe i WAS looking for that pat on the head.

PS i have many other cameras to talk about if you'd like.. haha ok no.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:28 19:48:07Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3264Image Height2448
>> Anonymous
there seem to be a lot of angry nerds in /p/ that spend more time bitching about other ppls cameras when they take fuck all pictures them self.

the best thing for the op to do would be never to listen to a word 90% of you say and have some fun with whatever camera he has.

its about as futile as fighting over the ps3 being better than the 360...etc...etc

YATCH!!!
>> Anonymous
>>92194
You still don't need that many megapixels.

As the size of a print increases, the farther away it's viewed, and so the less detail it has to have to look right. How do you think they print billboards?
>> Anonymous
>>92197

so why does ANY camera have over a certain amount of mp??????? i CANT TINK of ANY other reason DUUURRR HUUURRRR>
>> Anonymous
>>92202

wow. idiot.

Anyways, megapixels are not a *bad thing* necessarily.

They increase the size of the image. BUT THAT IS IT.

The problem is that the sensors are staying the same size, and unless you use a full frame camera the sensors just aren't that big.

But alot of people buy cameras BASED ON HOW MANY MEGAPIXELS THEY HAVE (because for some reason they have been taught that megapixels = quality)

So camera makers continue to push more megapixels onto already full sensors, increasing noise and decreasing image quality.

tl;dr Megapixels are used as a selling device, but in many cases too many are put onto a small sensor impacting negatively on image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>92202
Almost no one needs a Porsche, but every car needs a certain amount of horsepower to propel it forward.

Is that extra horsepower nice? Yes, but it comes with tradeoffs: less gas mileage, for instance.

Are those extra megapixels nice? Yes, but they come with tradeoffs: more noise and less dynamic range, for instance.

About six-seven megapixels is the point where, for a DX sensor, more starts making not much positive impact. The only thing they're useful for is if you crop a lot. I don't know the point where the negative impact gets severe; I don't anyone's bothered to make one, like they have with point and shoots.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92202
Marketing, mostly.

Anything above about 6-8 megapixels just isn't really that useful. And I say that as the owner of a 10MP camera.

Make a 16x24 print of a shot from a 6MP and a 10MP camera. You won't be able to tell which is which.
>> Anonymous
>>92202: not OP

>>92205OP sez: i see what you mean, and thats why i went for a nikon, theyre meant to have great quality. which the demo images i can find seem to support pretty well. We went over and over how i should get a D80, but im skint...

wouldnt changing the ISO/shutter speed help avoid problems with the "3 sensor" AF?
>> Anonymous
>>92210

right ok but what if you want to print bigger? 16x24 isnt really that big. infact its kind of small.
>> Anonymous
>>92211
iso and shutter speed have nothing to do with the AF system. the D80 uses a better autofocusing system, making it faster/more accurate/etc.
>> Anonymous
I saw the set that you bought in the best buy circular today for 799USD

Looks like you overpaid.
>> Anonymous
>>92214
going too far past that is gonna look like ass anyway because the dpi of the print is getting too low even with a 10mp image. but then again, like another said you stand farther back from bigger prints anyway, so it still isnt that big a deal. if you want to stand a nose length away from a 40x60 or something, then have fun doing that.
>> Anonymous
>>92218

word. ok i dint realize that printer technology was that shit still where digital is concerned.
>> Anonymous
>>92223
it has nothing to do with printer technology. you have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
>> Anonymous
OP here: can i conclude this thread? no probably not.

Basically im happy with it, the pictures are awesomely high in detail, the colour is great, and the menus are piss easy. Despite the D80 having great..stuff, and the D40 being cheaper, this camera suits what i needed it for... taking pictures of your naked children. LOL i kid i kid.

Expensive or not. Big thanks to all that commented, even you Angry troll boy, i love you too despite your massive anger problem.

tata.
>> Anonymous
>>92228

enjoy your camera.
>> Anonymous
i dub this thread most useless thread ever posted.
>> Anonymous
maybe you should let it in that that its a good camera. go crazy.
>> Anonymous
Haw haw. You bought a shit camera :/

Should've gone Canon.
>> Anonymous
Another point to remember is that buying a camera for "the extra megapixels" and then buying shitty consumer lenses means you aren't getting any real benefit from it due to the poor quality of the glass being a limitation.
>> c8h10o2n4
i'd rather get a good old fashined slr again. i really think nikon is the better brand talking about ease of use. everything is where i hat put it if i designed a camera. BUT not the D40 it sucks! seems to be the only exception rly. i got a f75 an a couple of lenses (only thing that really matters, rest is personal preference!) an i would never change it for a d40.
>> Anonymous
Who many I got a new D40/D40x threads has it been this week?
>> Anonymous
>>92239
No thanks, I do not like plastic toy bodies.