File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So, verdicy on the D40/D40X?

These things are selling like hot cakes at the moment, so what does /p/ think of them?
Good photographer's cam, or strictly for amateurs? Worth paying for the extra 4 megapixels?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2007:03:20 08:42:45Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width300Image Height300
>> Anonymous
Very good. Just be aware that it doesn't have AF motor. In my opinion it's not worth to get D40X, better look at D80.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I got my D40 like four days ago, I'm satisfied for what it is.

Picture is shopped and sky is overexposed to begin with, not to mention I know less about photography than the average /p/ guy does, still it's taken with D40.
>> OH SHI- Anonymous
>>42390
I know where that is!
>> OH SHI- Anonymous
>>42398

I Don't!
>> Anonymous
>>42402
Well, that's not very surprising...
>> Anonymous
>>42364

Not a bad dSLR at all; be aware that it only has three AF points and doesn't have an AF motor driver in the ring mount for the older Nikon lenses.

They sell pretty fast because they are the least expensive dSLRs out there.
>> Anonymous
It's cheap for a reason. Nothing wrong with that, but I think a person could outgrow it really fast.
>> Anonymous
>>42423
> only has three AF points
And they are good for what? I have never used any other than central AF point on my DSLR...
>> Anonymous
>>42434
Mroll Tore!
>> Anonymous
>>42438

I'm not trolling. I should have specified the D40 over the D40X. I think the D40 is a nice camera and all, but I think the lack of features just makes it not worth the cheapness. I'd rather go D40X if I wanted a Nikon in that range.
>> Anonymous
>>42442
What the hell man? D40 and D40X are basically the same! OK, X can shoot a bit faster, which is important for very, very few people and has 10MP instead of 6MP, which again isn't getting in your way to take awesome pictures. I'm not responding to you anymore..
>> ac
>>42443
The guy you're responding clearly isn't trolling. There are a lot of things the the D40/D40x can't do that higher-end Nikons can do, so it's a valid argument that one could outgrow it pretty quickly.

That being said...

I completely disagree that you'll quickly outgrow the D40 or D40x. I especially disagree with his assertion that the D40x is so much better than the D40, since their only real difference is in resolution and price.

There's not much that a D40 series can't do that the higher-end Nikons can. There's the lack of AF on old lenses, sure, but I'm guessing that Nikon's going to start making all of its lenses AF-S from now on. There are things you can certainly do more easily or more quickly on the more expensive bodies, but when faced with the choice of a couple extra button presses and paying a thousand bucks plus for another new camera body, most people are going to realize that they're quite happy with the D40 for a good long while.

(And in the interests of full disclosure: I've only used a D40 at Best Buy. I'm a Canon guy, myself)
>> des
>>42445
>>I'm guessing that Nikon's going to start making all of its lenses AF-S from now on.

I doubt they'll make lenses that won't sell well on the D40 in AF-S unless there's another reason for an update. Like all the primes under 200mm :/
Every zoom though? Yeah, I'll habeeb that
>> Anonymous
it's a good entry-level slr cammera for the price. if you want more go for the D80 or above.

as far as the lenses go, the point is moot unless you have a big lens stock or plan in buying older lenses. However most of the RD nikon is doing these days are lenses with built in cpu and focus motor and motion compensation technology.

If you really want these lenses, they run you more than the d40x..which would then make sense to get the d80 instead.

http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d40x/#more-2212
>> Anonymous
While we are at it, I'm looking for such a trivial thing as monitor cover for my D40, but there is none, or at least I can't find one. So I thought, if the screen size is the same as D80's, then maybe D80 monitor cover (BM-7) could fit on D40, or not?

Regards the D40 Vs. D40x, Ken Rockwell has an interesting article on this topic, I know most of you /p/ guys hate him so the bottom line is - Nikon D40 is superior.
>> Anonymous
no. Nikon D80 FTW.
>> Anonymous
>>42456
I'm not comparing D40 to D80 for Christ's Sake!
>> Anonymous
I would definitely recommend passing on the D40. If your looking for an entry level Nikon, either get a D50, D70 or D80.

I have a D70s which can be found for dirt cheap and it's an amazing camera.
>> Anonymous
>>42482
except the d40 replaced the d50, so you're choices are d70 or USED d50

I use a d50, I got it a few months before the d40 was released (and the 50 was discontinued) and it's a fine camera. I think I would miss the small screen on top of the d50, if I were to go to the "other" entry-level dSLR. also, the fantastic 50/1.8 does not have internal autofocus, so you're ultimate budget SLR won't work right with your favourite budget lens.
>> Anonymous
I got a new D50 even after the D40's came out and "replaced" them
>> Anonymous
Sorry I'm not into the world of Dslrs yet, but could someone explain to me the no "internal" autofocus motor. Does it have AF or no?
>> Anonymous
>>42550
yes it has af, but only with lenses that have the af motor built into them. most lenses have a small hole with a gear in it that meshes with a small gear on the camera body which then drives the focusing mechanism. the D40 lacks this internal motor, so it cant drive the focusing in a lens that doesnt have its own built in motor. instead, the camera tells the lens it needs to focus, and the lens will use its own motor to focus instead of being driven by a motor on the camera body.
>> Anonymous
>>42554
If the lens doesn't say Af-S (for nikon lenses), Or HSM for Sigma lenses, Etc. then it won't Autofocus on the D40 or D40X
D50, D70, D80 all those work with the older screw driven lenses, But the D40 will only with those compatible lenses.

Though if you do get a D40, theres 2 lenses I think are kind of "mandatory" (without spending a fortune)
Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF-s
and Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM
>> ac
>>42550
Without going into the full history of the thing...

Nikon's original method of autofocus when they first came out with an AF camera system was to add a motor to the camera body which connects to the lens with a little screw thingy. This let them maintain backwards compatibility with their manual-focus lenses, unlike Minolta and Canon, who came out with full new systems (Maxxum and Eos, respectively) that were incompatible with their old systems.

Eventually, Nikon realized that it was a hell of a lot easier to have the autofocus motor in the lens itself because then you could make the body cheaper (the lenses are the real money makers anyway--Sell the blades, give away the razor) and because it's really difficult to make a one-size-fits-all motor that can drive the autofocus in a little 50mm f/1.8 as well as a 600mm f/4.

So, in addition to the AF lenses (which use the little screw to autofocus), there are AF-S lenses (which just autofocus like Canon lenses by communicating electrically with the motor built into the lens).

The Nikon D40 and D40x are the first Nikon cameras that don't come with an autofocus motor in the body, so while they can still use the AF lenses in manual mode, they can only autofocus if it's an AF-S lens.

So, it has autofocus, but only on some lenses.
>> Anonymous
I like my D40, the only problem I have with it is the noise reduction doesn't do as much as I'd like. but only really shows on high contrast photos.
Don't really use the auto-focus. i'm happerier with manual anyhow.
>> Anonymous
It's impossible to compare d40X to d80, but what about d40X and canon eos 400D (digital rebel XTi). Which one is worth buying?
>> Anonymous
I held both in my hands and I preferred the ergonomics of the 400D.

Also, most of my friends shoot Canons, so having the ability to share lenses is great.
>> ac
>>42678
I prefer the handling of the 400D/XTi. However, there's a very good chance that that's simply because I own an XTi and have only touched the D40 in Best Buy. Their technical aspects are pretty much identical. D40x doesn't have dust-reduction, XTi has worthless dust reduction. D40x can't use older Nikon lenses in autofocus mode, XTi can't use manual Canon lenses at all (so you can be assured that any Canon lens that'll mount on the XTi will be usable, but you don't have the option of using the really old dirt-cheap stuff).

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Oh, and also, with the D40x, you have the option of getting the D40 instead--they're the same camera, just one has kinda worthless extra resolution. XT vs XTi has a bunch of extra bullet points that you have to consider between them that make the XT a worse camera.

Go try 'em both out, decide which one you prefer.