Before I get into this too much more, I will do a "pre-emptive strike" as it were and point out that, yes, I own a D40 (and a D50). I used to bash the D40 to bits when it came out, yet ended up getting it because although I already had the D50 I wanted something as a "portable alternative" for taking shots of our newborn, or for having something always with us when those artistic moments appear before you. I knew of the AF-S only limitation but figured at least it was better than the point & shoot I was always carrying with us at the time when the D50 was left home.
But, a very key point, I also knew I was sort of stepping out on a limb with the AF-S thing. I chose to believe that Nikon would surely update their lineup to AF-S, so it would ultimately not really matter so much
Nope, still hasn't happened. If you want a 50mm f/1.8, there is no AF-S. Same for an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. Heck, even with the lowly Canon Digital Rebel--the old one, or the "Altoids wanna-be" XT (the Canonites used to hate it when I called it that), you can use the Canon 50mm 1/.8 that costs all of 50 bucks--and get full-functionality with it. Same with Pentax, if I'm not mistaken.
That, to me, totally kills the excuse that "certain compromises must be made for a price-point" or the argument of "the target market won't care." Heck, the target market surely isn't going to buy an SB-600 or even SB-400, but thank goodness we still have hotshoes--and manual-modes, and aperture-shutter priority as well.
Heck, and yes I've said it 1 million times already it seems, but my first 35mm SLR was the Nikon EM, which was an entry-level Nikon if ever there was one. Yes it ditched manual-mode and didn't have depth-of-field preview or a PC-sync socket, multiple exposure, etc. Compromises were made for the price point, totally understandable. But the big selling point I used to hear was how it allowed you access to all of Nikon's lenses. And heck, except for the 6mm f/2.8 fisheye and maybe 2 other lenses currently made at the time, that was true. At least 95% of the CURRENT LENSES being made that would fit the top-of-the-line F3 would also fit the lowly EM.
You understood it wasn't going to work with pre-AI lenses like the F3 would, that was an understandable compromise. But with lenses that were in the CURRENT lineup at the time, at least 95% of them worked.
"Current" is the word to me here--and the big thing where I feel sort of stung by Nikon (thank goodness I still have my D50) is that a good half of their lens lineup still isn't AF-S. Limited compatibility with lenses not made any longer is one thing, functional limitations with lenses in the current lineup is another thing altogether. No one else in the business is doing this, and the target market may not care--and that is where I say if that is their attitude so be it, but an SLR isn't for them.
But instead of keeping the AF motor--don't tell me it can't be done to keep size down, Pentax does it--Nikon is giving them a useless and silly "animation mode" for people like my relative I mentioned who couldn't see the value of an SLR due to lack of movie mode. Good grief.
(On a lighter & cooler note--the original thread was posted from my Palm Treo 650. How cool that I can engage in this topic even away from home, most totally cool. And yet another case of focusing on what matters vs silly gimmicks. To wit--I almost got the iPhone until I found out it can't copy-paste. Of course the average buyer doesn't care, they want silly skins and ringtones, and don't care because lack of copy-paste doesn't hinder this. I'd rather have copy-paste. Functionality is what matters, not gimmicks. Gimmicks are okay if they aren't used as a substitute for functionality, when they are that is appalling.)
---
LRH
http://www.pbase.com/larrytucaz
http://larrytxeast.smugmug.com/ (inactive)
