Nikon D40 Review is up !!!

Started Dec 20, 2006 | Discussions
Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Wile E wrote:

I was under the impression that this is a camera that cannot
autofocus with 75% of Nikon's own lenses and 99,9% of third party
lenses. That means you have a cheap camera that only takes a few
and expensive lenses (at the currens AF-S line-up). I am not saying
anything about the further quality of the cam but the above alone
should disqualify it for a highly recommended IMHO.

RW

I could not agree more myself....shame on nikon, Should have lost the HR on that alone...
--

Aby Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Well, for a first tep-in DSLR you can't go wrong!
I've looked very carefull at the sample pictures. Nothing wrong with it!

With ISO 1200 the noise is still under control and with the kitlens it's also oke! No CA; sometimes a little soft (on the left side of the picture), but printable without any problems on A3.
Now....who is printing larger than A3!!!!!
If you do, you have already another DSLR.

And too little lenses...???; it's not an issue! Most first DSLR users are shooting with the kitlens; and in time (if they are more experienced) they will switch to whatever is new and better. That's the way it works and Nikon knows it!

Good review with accents on points who are relevant for first users.
Compliments to Phil...

K.R.

-- hide signature --

Arno

Image hosted free thanks to ImageShack ( http://www.imageshack.us ).

Erik37 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,558
Well said

I agree,
A substantial part of what makes Nikon one of the obvious choices
for a DSLR is the broad lens lineup and the existance of legacy glass.
With the D40 this is no longer the case.

This is glossed over far too lightly in the review, and to be fair to Phil
also at other major review sites.

I think this is worse than the crippling of the 300D.

Dave Oddie wrote:

I think this is a significant development (if that is the right
word) and who is to say if Nikon thinks they can get away with it
they won't drop backward AF compatibility with the next generation
D80 level camera?

Yup, that's my worry too and makes me less prone to chose Nikon
than before. Letting Nikon get away easily in the reviews is not in
the best interest of the end users.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Aby wrote:

Well, for a first tep-in DSLR you can't go wrong!
I've looked very carefull at the sample pictures. Nothing wrong
with it!
With ISO 1200 the noise is still under control and with the kitlens
it's also oke! No CA; sometimes a little soft (on the left side of
the picture), but printable without any problems on A3.
Now....who is printing larger than A3!!!!!
If you do, you have already another DSLR.

And too little lenses...???; it's not an issue! Most first DSLR
users are shooting with the kitlens; and in time (if they are more
experienced) they will switch to whatever is new and better. That's
the way it works and Nikon knows it!

Good review with accents on points who are relevant for first users.
Compliments to Phil...

K.R.

A fair point, but I very much doubt the noise control is better than a number of other 6mp cameras out there..in fact I notice a bit more NR being used..some smearing to a point..not a huge issue. But why would anyone buy a camera when they have pretty much Nikon premium lenses as their only AF option? This is a budget camera..not a pro end.
--

Wile E Regular Member • Posts: 458
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Speaking of first time users...where do the third party lenses come in in your story...? I thinks this issue deserves some big attention in a review for a camera that targets exactly that segment.

RW

Aby wrote:

Well, for a first tep-in DSLR you can't go wrong!
I've looked very carefull at the sample pictures. Nothing wrong
with it!
With ISO 1200 the noise is still under control and with the kitlens
it's also oke! No CA; sometimes a little soft (on the left side of
the picture), but printable without any problems on A3.
Now....who is printing larger than A3!!!!!
If you do, you have already another DSLR.

And too little lenses...???; it's not an issue! Most first DSLR
users are shooting with the kitlens; and in time (if they are more
experienced) they will switch to whatever is new and better. That's
the way it works and Nikon knows it!

Good review with accents on points who are relevant for first users.
Compliments to Phil...

K.R.

Erik37 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,558
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Aby wrote:

And too little lenses...???; it's not an issue! Most first DSLR
users are shooting with the kitlens; and in time (if they are more
experienced) they will switch to whatever is new and better.

But at that time, how much will they have to pay to get a body
with lens compatibility? We don't know and that's the scary part.

Also, some of those DSLR+kit only users might be better
served by a brigde camera.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

ohyva Veteran Member • Posts: 6,342
Re: I wonder

if in practice no difference between 6 and 8 MP cameras and in practice no difference between 8 and 10MP cameras, so 6 and 10MP cameras must deliver about the same. Sound odd and not quite according what I have seen.

Also I wonder why buy top-notch lenses delivering 2000 LPH if the differences between cameras are not significant. You should do just fine with good consumer lenses delivering something like 1600 LPH. But again not quite what I have experienced in my own photography.

I really love those pics where in (U)WA landscapes the foliage is dranw clearly or when in portraits the hair etc is drawn clearly. There I see I want even more MPs and even sharper lenses I have today. I love the situation when I need in RSP to turn the sharpening a bit lower to get more natural looking images as the original RAW file is so sharp as itself.

Phil Askey wrote:
I see you've swallowed the megapixel pill whole.

DigitalPowerShot wrote:

"who needs 8MP?" :-))))) Very objective!

...and the ISO comparison: no word about the superior 350D (wich is
discontinued) !!

Phil's reviews are not that objective and honest as they used to be.
Simon is more objective in this respect.

Where is the sentence...?: "the camera is not bad at all, but the
competition had a very good 6MP (entry level) camera years ago. Now
entry level cameras have 10MP!!!)

Aby Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

IMO this D40 is for a large group that says......hhmmmmm; now I can buy a DSLR besides my compact cam.

They don't even think about the possibility to change lenses; just go with the standard lens and take pictures....

A very laaarge group of the Homo Sapiens are consumers..... sometimes with impulse-buying behavior...... so IMHO there is a huge market for this little beast! Ans That's the reason for Nikon to launch it. Nothing else.....
Just making money.....yeeeeaaaaaahhh
--
Arno

Image hosted free thanks to ImageShack ( http://www.imageshack.us ).

Aby Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Well, that's easy.....
They buy a 55-200 Nikon AS-F for 170 bugs and are satisfied!!
And there are other lenses as well. I don't see problems.....

Wile E wrote:
Speaking of first time users...where do the third party lenses come
in in your story...? I thinks this issue deserves some big
attention in a review for a camera that targets exactly that
segment.

RW

Aby wrote:

Well, for a first tep-in DSLR you can't go wrong!
I've looked very carefull at the sample pictures. Nothing wrong
with it!
With ISO 1200 the noise is still under control and with the kitlens
it's also oke! No CA; sometimes a little soft (on the left side of
the picture), but printable without any problems on A3.
Now....who is printing larger than A3!!!!!
If you do, you have already another DSLR.

And too little lenses...???; it's not an issue! Most first DSLR
users are shooting with the kitlens; and in time (if they are more
experienced) they will switch to whatever is new and better. That's
the way it works and Nikon knows it!

Good review with accents on points who are relevant for first users.
Compliments to Phil...

K.R.

-- hide signature --

Arno

Image hosted free thanks to ImageShack ( http://www.imageshack.us ).

Erik37 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,558
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Aby wrote:

IMO this D40 is for a large group that says......hhmmmmm; now I can
buy a DSLR besides my compact cam.

"Now"?
But there is nothing special about the D40 price. Nothing new here.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

dijital New Member • Posts: 13
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Its almost like lot of people want to scream D50 whenever D40 is bought into picture...anyway, Its now clear from the review that from an image quality point of view the fight is too close and it looks like D40 is better in some aspects...

I have been using an S1 IS for almost 2 years now and would love to upgrade to D40... and I am not looking at having 5-10 lenses in my kit..

I just want a good quality camera and a good lens... and for that I dont think D40 will disappoint me...and it wont disappoint many users either...

Infact, I am sure prices of AF-S lenses will plummet just as prices of SLRs have...and D40 will be trigger since it will drive lot of volumes...

I was badly waiting for the review and I am satisfied with it. It would be great if Phil has targetted the review a bit more towards lesser enthusiastic audience also. Eg: Most users would have loved to see portrait samples. I dont see any portrait samples.

Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Erik37 wrote:

Aby wrote:

IMO this D40 is for a large group that says......hhmmmmm; now I can
buy a DSLR besides my compact cam.

"Now"?
But there is nothing special about the D40 price. Nothing new here.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Exactly...if you look about over in the uk..it costs more than the D50 in many places?

Just how much money did they save on that AF motor? Not a lot I can tell you, this had nothign to do with costs...it was a deliberate strategy...

A £299 D40 or less....yeah...I could forgive it..this bring nothing new to the table...nothing at all.

-- hide signature --

thomas2279 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,876
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Maybe Nikon will introduce some AFS replacements to existing AFd brand in 2007 so the issue of Lens incompatible will be less of an issue

However Nikon should had announced some replacement to these lens upon D40 launch, like the excellent 50mm 1.8f
--

paulskimcb Contributing Member • Posts: 921
Re: Well said

Erik37 wrote:

I think this is worse than the crippling of the 300D.

I think that there is a difference here. If I understand correctly (and I could be mis-remembering), the 300D crippling was a deliberate "greying-out" of functionality from the camera. It was not done to same $ in production; it was done to differentiate the 300D from the higher-end dSLRs in the Canon line. Canon actually "disabled" the finished camera, to drive people who wanted certain features into the next price class.

Not having the AF mechanism in the D40 body DOES save money in production, and enables Nikon to offer the camera at a lower price to consumers. It's not like the cameras are constructed with an in-body auto focus mechanism, which is then disabled just before the camera ships in order to make consumers consider the D80...
--
-pjm

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

Aby Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Erik37 wrote:

Aby wrote:

IMO this D40 is for a large group that says......hhmmmmm; now I can
buy a DSLR besides my compact cam.

"Now"?
But there is nothing special about the D40 price. Nothing new here.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Exactly...if you look about over in the uk..it costs more than the
D50 in many places?

NOT in The Netherlands. There's already a first pricedrop or the D40!
Not huge, but memarkeble....; its 30 euro cheaper than the D50.
I'm curious how fast the pricedrop for the D80 wil be??

Just how much money did they save on that AF motor? Not a lot I can
tell you, this had nothign to do with costs...it was a deliberate
strategy...

A £299 D40 or less....yeah...I could forgive it..this bring nothing
new to the table...nothing at all.

-- hide signature --

-- hide signature --

Arno

Image hosted free thanks to ImageShack ( http://www.imageshack.us ).

Tim39 Senior Member • Posts: 2,887
Agree

Corporate strategy and economics clearly aren't his long suit.

sjofi wrote:

Yeah, don't let the facts ruin your truth

-- hide signature --

Tim

Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: Well said

paulskimcb wrote:

Erik37 wrote:

I think this is worse than the crippling of the 300D.

I think that there is a difference here. If I understand correctly
(and I could be mis-remembering), the 300D crippling was a
deliberate "greying-out" of functionality from the camera. It was
not done to same $ in production; it was done to differentiate the
300D from the higher-end dSLRs in the Canon line. Canon actually
"disabled" the finished camera, to drive people who wanted certain
features into the next price class.

Not having the AF mechanism in the D40 body DOES save money in
production, and enables Nikon to offer the camera at a lower price
to consumers. It's not like the cameras are constructed with an
in-body auto focus mechanism, which is then disabled just before
the camera ships in order to make consumers consider the D80...
--
-pjm

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

That AF motor would likely cost "peanuts" what it will cost however is sales. A serious error of judgement from Nikon.

-- hide signature --

Aby Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Erik37 wrote:

Aby wrote:

IMO this D40 is for a large group that says......hhmmmmm; now I can
buy a DSLR besides my compact cam.

"Now"?
But there is nothing special about the D40 price. Nothing new here.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

Exactly...if you look about over in the uk..it costs more than the
D50 in many places?

Just how much money did they save on that AF motor? Not a lot I can
tell you, this had nothign to do with costs...it was a deliberate
strategy...

Deliberate strategy???????

A £299 D40 or less....yeah...I could forgive it..this bring nothing
new to the table...nothing at all.

-- hide signature --

-- hide signature --

Arno

Image hosted free thanks to ImageShack ( http://www.imageshack.us ).

Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Aby wrote:

Deliberate strategy???????

Pretty simple to me...why else remove the AF motor other than to promote your own ssm range of lenses, and stop users having a stab at most sigmas, and all the tamrons! And nikon doesnt make money off s/h lens sales on ebay etc....

Please don't tell me cost..I worked in electronics long enough to know a lousy motor costs not a whole lot...lol

Hey maybe I am super sceptical..but really...if the boot fits....

-- hide signature --

Tim39 Senior Member • Posts: 2,887
Re: A little bit surprised about the highly recommended...

Unquestionably would have been the best marketing move. Imagine they're rushing to fill that void, though as many have pointed out, they presumably have the luxury of a little time before some novice buyers start to yearn for better glass.

thomas2279 wrote:

However Nikon should had announced some replacement to these lens
upon D40 launch, like the excellent 50mm 1.8f
--

-- hide signature --

Tim

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads