High praises for the D40; I don't get a couple of things

I read the entire thread on the D40: "Is the D40 really that good!" and I am blown away by the positive comments on this camera.

I have a D200 and I know the amount of post-processing I have to do on each image to bring the best out of it - I usually shoot in NEF.

So I have been considering a lighter body for snapshots and to shoot exclusively in JPEGs that do not require any post-processing.

If the D40 is that good then it begs the questions: Has Nikon made a mistake in bringing out the D40x and the D60? Are they worse than the D40?

I can't compare ..... but I LOVE my d40x. If anyone thinks it was a mistake, I am grateful for the error!
--
Kathy
'All the world's a stage.'

Me too !!

This topic has been dragged up and down many times... and we are all very happy with our respective cameras, so I don't think anyone really loses - they are all great cameras capable of producing fantastic results in the right hands.

--
Albert-O
-----------
Please visit me at
http://www.berto.zenfolio.com

NikonConvert said:

I read the entire thread on the D40: "Is the D40 really that good!"
and I am blown away by the positive comments on this camera.

I have a D200 and I know the amount of post-processing I have to do
on each image to bring the best out of it - I usually shoot in NEF.

So I have been considering a lighter body for snapshots and to shoot
exclusively in JPEGs that do not require any post-processing.

If the D40 is that good then it begs the questions: Has Nikon made a
mistake in bringing out the D40x and the D60? Are they worse than the
D40?

Click to expand...

I think the D40x and the D60 also got the same kind of processing that gives punchy images straight out of camera. The D200 requires a little more work in PP.
--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/

Oops, when I said "Me too", I meant I agreed with KT Mae... that I also love my D40x . Just wanted to clarify.

cosilver said:

Me too !!

This topic has been dragged up and down many times... and we are all
very happy with our respective cameras, so I don't think anyone
really loses - they are all great cameras capable of producing
fantastic results in the right hands.

Click to expand...

--
Albert-O
-----------
Please visit me at
http://www.berto.zenfolio.com

PerL said:

I think the D40x and the D60 also got the same kind of processing
that gives punchy images straight out of camera.

Click to expand...

That's what I had thought, and the D40's flash sync speed is higher.

In any case, I see a cult-like attachment to the D40 here, which is not necessarily a negative thing.

I for one am happy for the D40 users, and I have indeed seen some fabulous images taken with it in this forum.

But Nikon could not have degraded with the subsequent models. I just wish that they had kept the same flash sync speed in the D40x and the D60.

NikonConvert said:

If the D40 is that good then it begs the questions: Has Nikon made a
mistake in bringing out the D40x and the D60? Are they worse than the
D40?

Click to expand...

Of course not - there's nothing terrific about the D40 except the price - the many positive comments are mostly repetitions, and the reason it received such positive press in forums is mainly because of KR's comments.

It's a good entry level SLR camera, nothing more, nothing less. It's no better than most others, and the D40X and subsequent D60 are the same basic body with improvements and added features. They are all light, compact, relatively inexpensive, and produce good IQ given good lenses of course. The internal software processes the image data so that it will appeal to novice users accustomed to compact cameras. Some post processing can make improvements but they will not be as dramatic as most other SLR's that don't over process in the camera. Even so, adjustments can be made to in-camera processing. Read the reviews, particularly those here at DPReview to get more in-depth and accurate data and comments.

Rob Paul said:

... Even so, adjustments can be made to in-camera processing.
Read the reviews, particularly those here at DPReview to get more
in-depth and accurate data and comments.

Click to expand...

You're right, but I, as a D200 user, am actually tickled to see so much unbridled enthusiasm from the D40 users, which in many ways quite the opposite of what I usually see in the D300 - D100 forum, where, it seems - at times - that unless one got the latest and the greatest gear, one was somehow a very boring and backward person.

I have owned a range of DSLR models since the D100 first came out in 2002. I think it is fair to say that if you are serious about your images you may always have a need to PP them - even those from the D40.

I have worked with Photoshop since the mid 90s, originally using transparency scans. I have spent a lot of time creating and collecting PS Actions. If you are sick of long post processing routines, you may not necessarily be able to ELIMINATE PP altogether but I have found that most casual D40 jpegs can be optimised pretty well with a few judicious mouse clicks in Action "button" mode.

I would resoundingly agree with those who have heaped praise on this inspired little camera design. For a wide variety of reasons, it is arguably the best walk around compromise available today:

• the low pixel density sensor provides wonderful low noise high quality IQ
• the excellent kit lens is wildy underrated by those who haven't used it
• the 6 megapixels is tons for just about ALL web work and almost all hard copy and publication needs
• it is light as anything: you can carry it around all day without it dominating your life
• it is cheap as anything: if it wears out buy another one, no sweat
• it doesn't attract attention like a big heavy camera would ("we don't want professionals here without royalty agreements, buddy!!")
• it is unobtrusively quiet and just plain FUN to use

What more can one possibly want?

--
david h. (blackheathman)
http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs

NikonConvert said:

PerL said:

I think the D40x and the D60 also got the same kind of processing
that gives punchy images straight out of camera.

Click to expand...

That's what I had thought, and the D40's flash sync speed is higher.

In any case, I see a cult-like attachment to the D40 here, which is
not necessarily a negative thing.

Click to expand...

Its about the same with D50. In the case of the D40 I think it was because it was surprisingly good. People didnt expect that Nikons cheapest DSLR would have the best IQ of the then current 6 mp cameras. It is also a very nice camera to use with its small size and very silent, smooth shutter.

NikonConvert said:

I for one am happy for the D40 users, and I have indeed seen some
fabulous images taken with it in this forum.

But Nikon could not have degraded with the subsequent models. I just
wish that they had kept the same flash sync speed in the D40x and the
D60.

Click to expand...

--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/

The deciding factor for my purchase of the D40 was simply cost. It was the cheapest available by some margin, and that meant I could get a great FLASHGUN with the spare cash.
Twice in one week! Any more retro word requests??!! Yonks? Chuddy?

Cheers.....!