D40x........does it deserve such high praise?

Started May 28, 2007 | Discussions thread
*isteve Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

I have no doubt that the output from the D40X is very good and just what newcomers to SLRs would find pleasing. Full marks.

But dropping support for screw mount lenses does not just cut users off from half of Nikons lens lineup (mostly primes and older lenses of less interest to newbies) but a very high proportion of budget third party lenses in Nikon mount.

Budget model? If its a budget model I would like to be able to use some decent budget lenses like the Tamron 70-300.

And in the UK at least, its lack of options do not seem to have done much to keep the price down. The A100 and 400D are around the same price with none of the compromises and the K100D is £100 cheaper.

I think reviewers should at least provide some warning to prospective (mainly newbie) buyers of exactly what this lack of support really means. As far as Phils review the issue was glossed over and third party lens compatability was not mentioned. When a friend of mine bought a D40 and found out about this she was so upset (the salesman had somehow failed to tell her as well) she exchanged it for a 400D the next day and gave the salesman a chewing out he'll remember for a few days. Thats my girl....

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Of course I expect every reviewer to come to their own conclusions,
such is the nature of a review site..paper or on the internet.

But however cute the D40 range of cameras are, is it too cut down
to really merit the real contender title?

A list of areas that could be considered minus points:

No in camera motor, limits lens choice.
No exposure/wb bracketing.
3 point AF system.
Reduced on body controls.
No DOF preview

As ever its not all bad...but considering the UK price is about
£430, level with the A-100, and a little less than the Canon 400.
Does a price of £300 sound a bit more like it? After all if Nikon
chopped out so much, to reduce costs, surely the buyer would be
able to live with this more.

I find it hard to understand how maker gets high praise for
chopping out features (some of which are pretty damn
handy...exposure bracketing is an absurd one to leave out) Sure
some on the list are not deal breakers...but

Buyers looking to expand their lens range with s/h or non nikon
lenses are going to have some serious limitations, who wants to buy
an AF lens that wont AF? I could say that this is an interesting
ploy to help nikon lens sales

This might be a good camera for someone new to SLR's, a P&S
dabbler..or upgrader..might just not care and get the twin lens
kit, serious users are going to find that the shortcomings are less
easy to live with.

Imagine a slightly larger body (its too small for my hands), and
all the issues above addressed.......Nikon could have had a real
killer camera here, they missed the chance.

Every camera is far from perfect...Canon 400, Sony A-100, Pentax
K100 series all have weak spots, but surely this is a cut down
camera too far.

What do you think?

-- hide signature --

Pixel peepers miss the big picture.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow