File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/ im thinking about getting a dslr deciding on a canon 400d or the nikon d40x which would you recommend. has any one had exp. with either pros/cons?
>> Anonymous
Can we PLEASE just have a sticky, or FAQ with a quick summary of the entry level DSLR's and higher quality point and shoots ect?

This is getting stupid
>> Anonymous
Since d40x sucks at AF i'd recommend the 400D.
>> Anonymous
I've found with the d40, people laugh at the thing on top that flips up.


great for taking pictures of people. laughing.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
inb4 shitstorm
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>230428
A200 > All canon and nikon entry level cameras.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>230430
I LOL'D.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>230423
400d. buy it and work with it.

i have the d40. i know i should probably regret it like everyone says, but i do just fine with the kit lens for now.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>230436
i can vouch for this...
i've owned the 400D a few months after release. So well over a year now.
It's a good reliable low end SLR.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If I see this fucking thread one more time.
>> Anonymous
>>230423
D40 owner here. I only got it because it was cheaper.
Get the Canon 400D if you have the money. I got the D40 mostly because I need it for the yearbook this year and the school-supplied cameras are shitty bridge cameras and I want to actually learn something. I'm going to switch to canon when I have the money. I could probably sell my nikon stuff right now and buy the cheapest canon kit but I'm too in love with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4.
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>230423
Oh and the D40X has no true advantage over the D40. You're buying into the megapixel BS.
>> Anonymous
>>230469
Moreover, the D60 has no advantage over D40x at all, and D40 has no true advantage over D50 except a bigger screen.
LOL HOW DO I IMPROVED CAMERA?
>> Anonymous
D50 has internal AF motor, D40 doesn't. *sniff*
>> Anonymous
d40 if you're on a budget...Canon if you're not.

find a second hand Olymbus e-500 if you're smart.

Better equiped than both said cameras, I found an ex display referbished (basically new) model for £200 (around $400 USD). Only let down with it is that at high ISO it performs less well than the canon. But still, its a fantastic camera. Very easy to use, and probably takes better photos than the nikon, and comes with all the functionality of a camera worth twice the money.

Best £200 I've spent in years.
>> Anonymous
>>230491
>around $400 USD

That's expensive. I'm currently trying to sell my E-500 for $250 and nobody's interested.
>> Anonymous
Olympus actually makes some kickass camera gear and /p/ doesn't often seem to realize.
>> else !L6xabslN96
so does anyone know it nikon plans to actually make lenses for the d40 or will they just leave it in a pool of its own castration blood?
>> Anonymous
>>230521
I've heard rumors about them planning to upgrade the 28, 50 and 85mm primes with built-in motors somewhere by the end of the year. However, this might've been a delusion of some D40fag.
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>230522
You'd think they would... The screw-drive lenses are really annoyingly loud and they're losing market share to Sigma with their 30mm f/1.4 HSM which I tried and was awesome but too damn expensive.
>> Anonymous
>>230528
This lens probably won' t be any cheaper. If it's an f/1.4 like it's rumored to be, well, do you know how much the last 28/1.4 Nikkor went for?
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>230530
I guess it was expensive, but at least they would have an excuse, that they have better optical and build quality than the Sigma version.
>> Anonymous
>>230532
It was $1,800. There are cheaper new Leica lenses. It's even more now used. (It's discontinued.)
>> Mutt !!mIF4ZkWn+B/
>>230534
Then I guess nikon's going to miss out on a pretty large gap in their lens system, a normal prime for the DX format.
>> Anonymous
Thats what I don't get about Nikons...they upgrades to their cameras aren't really upgrades at all.
>> Anonymous
>>230538
What do you mean? Everyone except D40 users has the 28/2.8 and the 35/2 in autofocus. With manual, there's a different 28/2.8 and a 35/1.4. And that's not even counting used, which granted gets Nikon no money.

The D40 just isn't meant for serious users. Not that serious users don't use it, but it's designed for the just the 18-55-possibly-with-the-55-200/just-the-18-200, auto-everything crowd.
>> Anonymous
>>230558
>The D40 just isn't meant for serious users.
Well, Canon Rebels and Olympus 4xx series are meant for the same crowd, yet aren't nearly as crippled compared to the higher-level bodies. The E-420, in particular, is designed for blondes and fashionfags judging by the ads, but it has more customizable settings and options than a D80 for fucks sake!