Nikon D40 Review is up !!!

--The D40 is inferior to the D50, period. It is not much smaller and is a Nikon exercise in cost-cutting. Also, the review made no mention of the fact

the list price has no bearing on reality. The D40 is selling for up to $100 MORE than the D50. As long as people keep accepting these step-downs in quality and performance, the more of them we'll see. Not to completely knock Nikon since the D80 and D200 are fine examples of great (though the feature set on the D80 lags the competition) cameras.
-Rich
Olympus E-1 and lots of lenses
CANADIANS using UPS: Beware hidden brokerage charges!



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

Cephalotus said:

paulskimcb said:

And, to be fair, the D40 gets an 8.5 in image quality, the K10D a
7.5. Personally, I can think of no more significant category than
image quality; it was certainly front and center when I decided on
my D80.

Click to expand...

You bought your DSLR based on a number on this site?

Amazing.

But it clearly seems that numbers and ratings are important to
people when making a decission.

Click to expand...

No, but when I read reviews, which I read a lot of before making a $1200 purchase, the thing I gave the most weight to was the assessment of the overall image quality of the various cameras I was looking at.

Is that really all that unreasonable?
--
-pjm

I never gave a damn about the meter man until I was the man who had to read the meters.

I finally understand PA's recommendation system.

And I support him. If one simply adds all the points, a gifted but also sometimes faulted performer like K10D could give someone an unpleasant surprise if they don't read the review carefully and simply goes by the total points.

Both K100D and D40 are more balanced performers and they deserve a good rating.

If someone can live with the particular weakness of K10D, nothing in PA's review would prevent them do so, the data and analysis are all there.

rander3127 said:

--The D40 is inferior to the D50, period.

Click to expand...

Yeah, don't let the facts ruin your truth

According to the D40 review over on http://www.imaging-resource.com , and on what I've noticed in the store, there is a lag between changing shutter speed or aperture settings and what's shown on the LCD. Shawn Barnett of Imaging Resource says there is no such lag between making an adjustment and what he sees in the viewfinder display, only on the LCD. What do you think?

Looking into the battery compartment I saw several contacts close to those for the battery. Could these be for a possible optional battery grip?

Thanks.

The D40 is a competitor tot he K100D, not the K10D, and the K100D also got Highly Recommended score. Regardless, I've already seen one thread mentioning it.
--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light.

http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/

Yes there is a lag time between turning the command dial and the display of change in the graphic** mode.

In the classic** mode the display shows the changes immediately.

paulskimcb said:

No, but when I read reviews, which I read a lot of before making a
$1200 purchase, the thing I gave the most weight to was the
assessment of the overall image quality of the various cameras I
was looking at.

Is that really all that unreasonable?

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if pixel peeping at test targets from a tripod under studio light with a stopped down prime lens has so much impact on real life performance, that this would be my main buying reference, especially if all the findings are "condensed" into a highly subjective and "virtual" number by one reviewer.

If you read that a Pentax K10D has an image quality of 7,5 points and a Nikon D40 has an image quality of 8,5 points would you believe, only based on that number, that the D40 has a better image quality.

I would argue, that a K10D can produce a better (technical) image than a D40. Just use the lowest ISO setting, stopped down prime lens and RAW...

The numbers do not tell such things.

It's full of pages with extreme pixel peeping of jpg files, but wouldn't someone with such a preference for the last % in maximum image quality use RAW anyway?

And wouldn't someone prefer to use prime lenses instead of kit lenses? But why would someone then would chose an D40, which does not offer AF with almost all of those lenses and which does not offer mirror prefire to give maximum sharpness with tele and macro lenses at critical shutter speeds?

I do not want to critisize the D40, but I fail to see the practical relevance of the "image quality" part on that test.

Is a D40 really suitable for those seeking for maximum image quality, when the use of most prime lenses is limited to MF only and when a camera does not offer mirror prefire?

If not, why is it so important if the jpg camera is 0,87% better or worse than another camera and how could that number on image quality be so important?

Phil Askey said:

If people think the rating is that "simple" then they're missing
the point. If the total score were relevant we'd put it at the
bottom of that table.

Click to expand...

Well, Phil, why don't you tell us about your rating system. Since it isn't "that simple", do tell us how do you do that? Tell us, for example, why rate EOS 400D build quality 8.5 and Pentax K10D 9.0? Why rate EOS 400D Value 9.0 and Pentax K10D 9.0? Why rate Nikon D80 Features 9.5 and Pentax K10D 9.5?

Oh, yes, I see. It's not "simple". Sorry.

Regards, just.

or is just me ? I am impressed. I didn't want a D80 after seeing image samples, but after seeing samples from the D40 I kinda want one.

--
---------------------------------------------------------
Nikon D50
50 1.8, 18-70 DX, 55-200DX, 70-300G, Canon 500D
SB600

than on the D50, i noticed the metering looks more balanced - not as bright as the D50/D80
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Nikon D50
50 1.8, 18-70 DX, 55-200DX, 70-300G, Canon 500D
SB600

Cephalotus said:

paulskimcb said:

No, but when I read reviews, which I read a lot of before making a
$1200 purchase, the thing I gave the most weight to was the
assessment of the overall image quality of the various cameras I
was looking at.

Is that really all that unreasonable?

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if pixel peeping at test targets from a tripod
under studio light with a stopped down prime lens has so much
impact on real life performance, that this would be my main buying
reference, especially if all the findings are "condensed" into a
highly subjective and "virtual" number by one reviewer.

Click to expand...

Dude, lighten up. Someone said the Pentaxers would have a fit over the relative ratings, I answered that in the most important category, Image Quality, the reviewer in question scored the camera considerably higher.

If you read my second post, I CLEARLY STATE that I looked at many reviews from many sources in making my decision. It was a hard decision; this was my first dSLR, and I felt I was buying into a system, not just buying a camera. So I read reviews, and for me the most important element of those reviews was the assessment of the camera's image quality. In other words, Image Quality was ultimately more important to me than whether or not the camera could fire off remote flashes wirelessly.

I never, anywhere, said I based my decision to buy my D80 solely on the IQ rating in the DPReview review. If I implied that, it was PURELY UNINTENTIONAL. I do not have a dog in this fight; I simply made an observation about the releative scores in the IQ category of these two cameras, by way of noting it as ONE POSSIBLE REASON that the reviewer seemed to favor one camera, the D40, over another, the K10D.

I DO NOT EVEN CLAIM THE THE IQ OF THE D40 IS SUPERIOR TO THE IQ OF THE K10D. I MERELY CLAIM THE THE REVIEWER, BY VIRTUE OF RATING THE ONE AN 8.5, AND THE OTHER A 7.5, SEEMS TO THINK THAT THE IQ OF THE FIRST IS BETTER THAN THE IQ OF THE SECOND.

Please let me know if that is still in any way unclear...

Paul

--
-pjm

I never gave a damn about the meter man until I was the man who had to read the meters.

interesting... so you think the optics are the same? the shots i've seen with it on flickr are sharper than with my old 18-55... maybe that copy is better though. the close focus ability and decent wide angle sharpness of that lens are kind of a unique combination -- you have to pay a LOT more to find something comparable.

Thom Hogan said:

canterel said:

disappointed that it doesn't include more particulars on the lens.
i'm really interested to know how it differs from the 18-55 lens
kitted with the D50.

Click to expand...

The wave motor was changed. In theory, slightly faster to focus
points.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x,
S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

Click to expand...

--
http://flickr.com/photos/pgoyette

I still have a hard time with the lack of hot buttons for The 3 Kings + Drive Mode (as I like to call it) but I am impressed with regards to these things:

• It helps re-establish that 6mp is actually a lot of picture resolution
• Its small size is a bonus
• Larger screen is nothing to sneeze at
• Lack of hot buttons can be sort-of worked around with "my menus"
• Again--after all this time, Nikon is still squeezing still more quality from essentially the same 6mp sensor

It still irritates me regarding the lack of hot buttons, although to be fair the Pentax bodies--even the K10D!--lack these, which is silly. But if the "My Menus" works well as I've heard, that might be so awful.

But again, getting back to the 6mp thing--between the 350D/XT users last year laughing at us D50 shooters about how "behind" Nikon was with the D50 being 6mp instead of 8mp, and seeing as how the 11x14s from my D50 are just gorgeous (and I've heard of people getting 20x30s that were from 6mp d-SLRs), it helps those of us in 6mp land rest a little easy that we're not being "left behind" in that regard. 6mp is no less in quality today than it was in 2002, when the Canon D60 and Nikon D100 started making it semi-affordable.

---



LRH
http://www.pbase.com/larrytucaz
http://larrytxeast.smugmug.com/

Peace Larry. We are on the same page now.

jeff-c said:

Yes there is a lag time between turning the command dial and the
display of change in the graphic** mode.

In the classic** mode the display shows the changes immediately.

Click to expand...

It's strange that Phil hasn't mentioned it since the lag happens in "default" mode and Phil tends to review features in the "right-out-of-the-box" state.

Cephalotus said:

It's full of pages with extreme pixel peeping of jpg files, but
wouldn't someone with such a preference for the last % in maximum
image quality use RAW anyway?
And wouldn't someone prefer to use prime lenses instead of kit
lenses? But why would someone then would chose an D40, which does
not offer AF with almost all of those lenses and which does not
offer mirror prefire to give maximum sharpness with tele and macro
lenses at critical shutter speeds?

I do not want to critisize the D40, but I fail to see the practical
relevance of the "image quality" part on that test.

Is a D40 really suitable for those seeking for maximum image
quality, when the use of most prime lenses is limited to MF only
and when a camera does not offer mirror prefire?
If not, why is it so important if the jpg camera is 0,87% better or
worse than another camera and how could that number on image
quality be so important?

Click to expand...

I think, just as MP count is status for the average consumers, the
status on these forums is the ultimate theoretical image quality,
even on models for consumers. Hence the obsession over the
last "0.87%", rather than a more "whole package" view.

But as you argue above, the D40 may make reaching those
theoretical levels a lot of work in practise. I had expected a
Recommended only for the D40, because of the industry's
poorest support for affordable AF lenses. Sigma mount and
4/3rds look very well equipped in comparison.

Nevertheless it was a nice read. Big thanks to Phil for giving
us so many reviews of lately, must be long days and very
little sleep. Hope he will get a Merry Christmas now and some
stress-free time.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Beanboy said:

D50 isn't just on/off for auto ISO, you can set min shutter when it
kicks in.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see what your reply to my post has to do with what I wrote.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

Beanboy said:

D50 isn't just on/off for auto ISO, you can set min shutter when it
kicks in.

Click to expand...

Thanks, good to know. So the difference is being able to set the
highest allowed iso on the D40?

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Erik37 said:

Thanks, good to know. So the difference is being able to set the
highest allowed iso on the D40?

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Click to expand...

Correct.

Also increases sensitivity in 1/3 EV steps versus the 1EV steps you can do manually; may be able to eek out a bit more from the taken photo.

Finding it very useful set a 1/60 doing low-light work with the 50mm F1.8 lens, especially in drastic lighting conditions.