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

Started May 28, 2007 | Discussions
PalmsWestPhoto Forum Pro • Posts: 10,003
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

*isteve wrote:

What planet are you from?

looks to me he is from earth. Where are you from ?

Nikon had lens compatibility lists for their cameras forever. Nobody ever copmplained before.

Actually before everybody always said how good nikon was because they dont have compatibility issues like canon going to EF mount yet nikon had compatibility issues that differ from camera to camera

But these are documented.

It isnt like you'd expect to be able to mount any size wheel on your car. You look which ones will fit and those are the ones you get

But for some people that may require too much intelligence to figure out ...

-- hide signature --

Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Ken_5D Forum Pro • Posts: 11,820
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

PhotoTraveler wrote:

The one that doesn't give hoot about 3rd party stuff.

If I go buying a car/truck, I don't expect the dealer to explain
what 3rd party items work with it. It's completely non important to
the situation. If you care about 3rd party stuff, you go
investigate that on your own.

So you wouldn't mind finding out:

That is uses non standard tires so you have to buy tires from the Dealer and a couple of retail stores at best?

Oh and it uses a new type of oil so all your oil changes need to be done at the dealer?

And and BTW.... we removed cruise controll, High beam lights, and all the 12 volt cigarett lighter sockets. other than that its a great starter car...priced just a little bit more than our competors with all these features included.

Just sign right here...

-- hide signature --
PhotoTraveler Forum Pro • Posts: 11,700
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

None of those things does a dealer need to tell me, since I can look right at the car and see what it has. Even look at the window sticker and look. Plus anyone buying a car is going to look at what the car comes with, that's part of looking at cars. Furthermore if we stick with car dealers, they rarely have a clue about the cars at all. I've pointed out lots of stuff on a vehicle, or corrected a sales rep when shopping for a car. They have no idea what they are selling.

Oh, and cars come with un-common size tires all the time, but you can read the size of them right on the sidewall of the car. But since car makers don't make tires, it's a non issue, they make sizes that fit with what tire makers make. Thus to my point, if it's something that the car maker doesn't make/sell, they make sure it's something you can get. Tires would be the Media card of cars. Different wacky oil, yep that happens. My last car had a grade of oil that wasn't that easy to find. Did it matter? no. Since I still could get it, and I have no issue with the dealer or maker, I could look at the manual before buying it and know what grade of oil it took, and as time went on, that grade became more common.

Remove the cruise control and cig lighter? Great I want those banned, so that's a step in the right direction. Can we get horns and car alarms removed too?

I also wish when I bought my truck I could have paid more to get it without ABS.

Anyways. A sales person is there to help you, and answer your questions, and not lie. To say they have to let you know everything about something is down right silly and impossible. How do they know what you know. How do they decide what is a problem.

Nikon doesn't hide the fact it has no AF motor in the body. They don't hide the features it doesn't have. You can just look at the camera or look at a spec sheet and see what it has.

If I was a camera sales person, it's doubtful I'd mention the AF motor thing because it wouldn't matter. But if the customer asked about working with other lenses I would of course bring it up. But if they are just looking at the kit and asking questions about it, no point. Your just confusing the customer at that point. And or it could be seen as pressuring the person to buy a D80. It's not like the kind of person who is looking at a D40 knows anything about autofocus. They just know they hold the button down some, it focus's. Acting like the body motor matters is like those who think the average consumer knows anything about USM/HSM/SSM/SDM/AFS motors for AF over previous designs. They don't know and don't care since either way the camera still focus's. They won't care that Sony doesn't have cheap SSM lenses since it doesn't matter to them, they won't care that the Nikon doesn't have an in-body motor because the kit still works all the same.

There is also nothing wrong with selling a product that is low on features.

Ken_5D wrote:

PhotoTraveler wrote:

The one that doesn't give hoot about 3rd party stuff.

If I go buying a car/truck, I don't expect the dealer to explain
what 3rd party items work with it. It's completely non important to
the situation. If you care about 3rd party stuff, you go
investigate that on your own.

So you wouldn't mind finding out:
That is uses non standard tires so you have to buy tires from the
Dealer and a couple of retail stores at best?
Oh and it uses a new type of oil so all your oil changes need to be
done at the dealer?
And and BTW.... we removed cruise controll, High beam lights, and
all the 12 volt cigarett lighter sockets. other than that its a
great starter car...priced just a little bit more than our
competors with all these features included.

Just sign right here...

PhotoTraveler Forum Pro • Posts: 11,700
Re: D40 at 6 mp was highly recommended too ???

Clearly what you do is not possible. As people have pointed out, it's impossible to take photos with a D40. It doesn't have bracketing, or an in-body AF motor, how can anyone possibly use it. You must be mistaken and are not using a D40.

Next thing you know you will tell me People have found a way to use Sony and Pentax cameras even though they have very little in SSM/SDM lenses, how can they possibly autofocus. Or that people can take shots with a 400D, it doesn't have a stabilized kit lens or in-body stabilization, it must be impossible for them to get a crisp photo.

Waldo_O Senior Member • Posts: 1,538
Re: D40x........does it deserve such high praise?

Peter Bendheim wrote:

Methinks it takes great images and a brilliant price and that if
you want all the features you talk about buy a fancier model...yes,
they exist...if it had everything the D200/80 etc had there would
be no need to have a model range...

Is that not obvious???

But that logic doesn't lend itself to a good conspiracy theory...

So, horses for courses, as they say. having said that I think the
D40 is a brillianrt camera that provides outstanding IQ in an easy
to use package that price wise could not have been even concieved a
few years ago.

Can you actually disagree with that?

Well, I do seem to remember the prices being a bit higher a few years ago....

Having said that, the camera earns its rating on what it is for the
money paid and in the class of camera it finds itself. No-one is
saying that it's the same as a D2x or 1DS111just because it has and
excellent rating.

Wow, an entry level DSLR with excellent IQ... obviously targeted at a specific audience. But the missing features seem to be a real dealbreaker for some of these guys Peter, you know, the ones with 5D's that couldn't wait to get their paws on a D40.

Oh well, better luck next time Nikon.

*isteve Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

If you dont think its important fine. You are presumably an informed buyer and therefore make a conscious choice having read all the reviews.

But given that the camera is aimed at compete beginners according to you, it would be nice if at least the reviewers could point out some consequences of this design decision for the benefit of the uninitiated, assuming as you say that all salespeople can be expected to do is fleece you.

Thats what reviews are for, right? To help non-experts and experts alike make sensible buying decisions and not have to rely on unscrupulous salespeople? The third party lens issue was not mentioned by Phil anywhere, or by any other reviewer I can think of.

There are a large number of excellent low cost third party lenses (and second hand lenses) that can help someone on a budget build up a low cost system. Unless they bought a D40/x of course.

PhotoTraveler wrote:
None of those things does a dealer need to tell me, since I can
look right at the car and see what it has. Even look at the window
sticker and look. Plus anyone buying a car is going to look at what
the car comes with, that's part of looking at cars. Furthermore if
we stick with car dealers, they rarely have a clue about the cars
at all. I've pointed out lots of stuff on a vehicle, or corrected a
sales rep when shopping for a car. They have no idea what they are
selling.

Oh, and cars come with un-common size tires all the time, but you
can read the size of them right on the sidewall of the car. But
since car makers don't make tires, it's a non issue, they make
sizes that fit with what tire makers make. Thus to my point, if
it's something that the car maker doesn't make/sell, they make sure
it's something you can get. Tires would be the Media card of cars.
Different wacky oil, yep that happens. My last car had a grade of
oil that wasn't that easy to find. Did it matter? no. Since I still
could get it, and I have no issue with the dealer or maker, I could
look at the manual before buying it and know what grade of oil it
took, and as time went on, that grade became more common.

Remove the cruise control and cig lighter? Great I want those
banned, so that's a step in the right direction. Can we get horns
and car alarms removed too?

I also wish when I bought my truck I could have paid more to get it
without ABS.

Anyways. A sales person is there to help you, and answer your
questions, and not lie. To say they have to let you know
everything about something is down right silly and impossible. How
do they know what you know. How do they decide what is a problem.

Nikon doesn't hide the fact it has no AF motor in the body. They
don't hide the features it doesn't have. You can just look at the
camera or look at a spec sheet and see what it has.

If I was a camera sales person, it's doubtful I'd mention the AF
motor thing because it wouldn't matter. But if the customer asked
about working with other lenses I would of course bring it up. But
if they are just looking at the kit and asking questions about it,
no point. Your just confusing the customer at that point. And or it
could be seen as pressuring the person to buy a D80. It's not like
the kind of person who is looking at a D40 knows anything about
autofocus. They just know they hold the button down some, it
focus's. Acting like the body motor matters is like those who
think the average consumer knows anything about
USM/HSM/SSM/SDM/AFS motors for AF over previous designs. They don't
know and don't care since either way the camera still focus's. They
won't care that Sony doesn't have cheap SSM lenses since it doesn't
matter to them, they won't care that the Nikon doesn't have an
in-body motor because the kit still works all the same.

There is also nothing wrong with selling a product that is low on
features.

Ken_5D wrote:

PhotoTraveler wrote:

The one that doesn't give hoot about 3rd party stuff.

If I go buying a car/truck, I don't expect the dealer to explain
what 3rd party items work with it. It's completely non important to
the situation. If you care about 3rd party stuff, you go
investigate that on your own.

So you wouldn't mind finding out:
That is uses non standard tires so you have to buy tires from the
Dealer and a couple of retail stores at best?
Oh and it uses a new type of oil so all your oil changes need to be
done at the dealer?
And and BTW.... we removed cruise controll, High beam lights, and
all the 12 volt cigarett lighter sockets. other than that its a
great starter car...priced just a little bit more than our
competors with all these features included.

Just sign right here...

-- hide signature --

Steve
Pixel peepers miss the big picture.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

*isteve Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

PalmsWestPhoto wrote:

*isteve wrote:

What planet are you from?

looks to me he is from earth. Where are you from ?

Nikon had lens compatibility lists for their cameras forever.
Nobody ever copmplained before.

The issue was hardly ever on this scale before, was it?

Actually before everybody always said how good nikon was because
they dont have compatibility issues like canon going to EF mount
yet nikon had compatibility issues that differ from camera to camera

But these are documented.

Actually no, the third party lens compatibility is NOT documented anywhere except possibly by the lens maker. Besides the compatability issues generally apply to older glass. Very few current third party lenses for Nikon mount have issues on most Nikon bodies AFAIK. And all current 3rd party Canon mount lenses work on the 400D.

Canon took a calculated risk with the EF mount because engineering wise they had little choice. It causes a lot of pain even so.

This on the other hand is just a marketing decision. Its not something I expected from Nikon.

It isnt like you'd expect to be able to mount any size wheel on
your car. You look which ones will fit and those are the ones you
get

Thats a poor analogy. This is more like saying you can only use 1 brand of tyre on your car, and it happens to be the most expensive one.

But for some people that may require too much intelligence to
figure out ...

Whats to figure out exactly?

-- hide signature --

Steve
Pixel peepers miss the big picture.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

PhotoTraveler Forum Pro • Posts: 11,700
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

Uh, I would say this is minor for them.

In around '74 the changed something in one the linkages that caused damage to the camera if you mix matched pre and post 74 lenses and bodies. I think if you had a higher level body, the older lenses would still work right.

Of course later they brought out lenses with roms, and the old bodies had no way to read that. Same for when they brought out AF lenses, those clearly don't work on non AF bodies, you have to manual focus. Really nikon has just given the D40 a mount that is rather mid 1980s style.

Later they removed aperture linkage for manual focus lenses, so manual nikkors only fully work on higher end bodies like the D200 and up.

They removed the Aperture ring from the lenses recently, this is the G lenses (G is for "Gone is your aperture ring"). So these lenses cannot be used on older bodies with no on body aperture control.

Removing the AF motor is no different, it's just the evolution of things. Nikon clearly survived fine when they tossed Manual Focus lens support on bodies. Forcing people to stop them done manualy. Now they make people have to manual focus some older AF lenses if they use those.

Nikon has probably the least consistent mount out there. Maybe pentax has done more wacky over time. But both are in the same boat of keeping a legacy mount going. So this stuff happens. Canon and Minolta did do overs, which causes big pains up front, but now have caused them to be very stable for 2 decades.

But for Nikon, they have to make changes sometimes to move things forwards. Anyone could see the AF motor going away, it was the clear next step and the value of that motor was reduced with every new lens they made. The 10.5 DX fish is the only modern era lens they have that is not AFS. Everything since has been AFS.

Life moves on.

*isteve wrote:

Nikon had lens compatibility lists for their cameras forever.
Nobody ever copmplained before.

The issue was hardly ever on this scale before, was it?

*isteve Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: Seems everyone missed an obvious point...

Thanks for explaining the legacy issue in more detail.

My issue is not so much the fact that they dropped support for screw focus lenses (though I think that would put me off buying one its probably fine for most folk) but that no-one including reviewers pointed out what that actually means to buyers who would naturally assume that a current, up to date, AF nikon mount third party lens would definately work on their new camera.

There is not a lot of choice out there for budget 70-300 lenses for instance, or super-zooms, if you dont have a screw drive. Sure there are alternatives even from Sigma, Tokina and Tamron that use in-lens motors, but there are plenty of equally nice ones that dont.

Nikon are entitled to make any choices they want, my issue is primarily that the true implications should be discussed in any consumer based report, since thats the whole point of them. I am not arguing about Phil's ratings or his impression of IQ. Just the things he omitted to mention.

PhotoTraveler wrote:
Uh, I would say this is minor for them.

In around '74 the changed something in one the linkages that caused
damage to the camera if you mix matched pre and post 74 lenses and
bodies. I think if you had a higher level body, the older lenses
would still work right.

Of course later they brought out lenses with roms, and the old
bodies had no way to read that. Same for when they brought out AF
lenses, those clearly don't work on non AF bodies, you have to
manual focus. Really nikon has just given the D40 a mount that is
rather mid 1980s style.

Later they removed aperture linkage for manual focus lenses, so
manual nikkors only fully work on higher end bodies like the D200
and up.

They removed the Aperture ring from the lenses recently, this is
the G lenses (G is for "Gone is your aperture ring"). So these
lenses cannot be used on older bodies with no on body aperture
control.

Removing the AF motor is no different, it's just the evolution of
things. Nikon clearly survived fine when they tossed Manual Focus
lens support on bodies. Forcing people to stop them done manualy.
Now they make people have to manual focus some older AF lenses if
they use those.

Nikon has probably the least consistent mount out there. Maybe
pentax has done more wacky over time. But both are in the same
boat of keeping a legacy mount going. So this stuff happens. Canon
and Minolta did do overs, which causes big pains up front, but now
have caused them to be very stable for 2 decades.

But for Nikon, they have to make changes sometimes to move things
forwards. Anyone could see the AF motor going away, it was the
clear next step and the value of that motor was reduced with every
new lens they made. The 10.5 DX fish is the only modern era lens
they have that is not AFS. Everything since has been AFS.

Life moves on.

*isteve wrote:

Nikon had lens compatibility lists for their cameras forever.
Nobody ever copmplained before.

The issue was hardly ever on this scale before, was it?

-- hide signature --

Steve
Pixel peepers miss the big picture.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

Tim in upstate NY
Tim in upstate NY Veteran Member • Posts: 7,120
sheesh

*isteve wrote:

This on the other hand is just a marketing decision. Its not
something I expected from Nikon.

......Getting a little sanctimonious there?

...Since you shoot with another brand of camera, it's difficult to even imagine what you've been expecting from Nikon. Maybe you'd like to see them get bought out like Pentax after ignoring the rules of the marketplace for several years.

 Tim in upstate NY's gear list:Tim in upstate NY's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 +3 more
Nikon133 Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: D40x........does it deserve such high praise?

Nice one

PhotoTraveler wrote:

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Sure not everyone will demand a high feature set......

My only concern is that unsupecting buyers new to SLR land may get
less than they bargained for (aka limits on lenses for one thing)

Are people aware of the weak spots?

They aren't weak spots. They are only weak spots if you think they
are.

The people buying them aren't aware of them because they don't know
about them and never will even if you tell them about them because
they don't care since what is your weak spot has no impact on them
at all.

You are definitely very bent about this camera. It's not limited,
it's a cheap camera, and cheap things only do so much.

For the target people it's aimed at it doesn't even need A, S and
M mode. It could just be a P mode only camera and have an on-off
button and the bulk of the people using it would be thrilled with
it. If haven't had a feature before, or used a feature before, you
won't have a sense of missing something.

You have made a lot of post about this thing and I doubt if you
talked to a potential buyer they would see the camera any different
after talking to you. If you bring up the AF drive issue they would
ask you "so does the kit lens work", and once you say "yeah, it
works" they would be happy. If you bring up the bracketing they
would ask "do I need that", if you say "yes because of bla bla",
they would look at you with a bit of a blank stare and then ask "is
that important, do I need that for every shot", and if you keep
going further on that path the person would either still buy it
because they have decided it is as important as video out to them,
or they would put it down and go back to P&S cameras where they
don't have to think about bracketing because you have just
explained how complicated it is to us an DSLR.

-- hide signature --

Check my profile before clubbing me for my user name, please... (some signature)

 Nikon133's gear list:Nikon133's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D70s
*isteve Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: sheesh

Tim in upstate NY wrote:

*isteve wrote:

This on the other hand is just a marketing decision. Its not
something I expected from Nikon.

......Getting a little sanctimonious there?

...Since you shoot with another brand of camera, it's difficult to
even imagine what you've been expecting from Nikon. Maybe you'd
like to see them get bought out like Pentax after ignoring the
rules of the marketplace for several years.

I dont give a flying hoot what camera anyone uses or buys - I dont judge people by such rediculous criteria. I have owned 2 nikons in the past and liked them very much. In fact I switched from Canon because Nikon maintained compatability with their older mount and I bought some nice old tele MF primes at the time.

I would have no issues about owning another, indeed they share a lot "good points" in common with Pentax and I really like the flash system. If my K10D could have iTTL as an upgrade it would be a no-brainer. I also recommended Nikon D50s to a number of friends looking for a good inexpensive entry to SLRs. Despite its 6MP is was a really nice little camera and gave away very little in terms of day-to-day functionality.

However like most people, since buying my first Pentax I have accumulated some nice glass that I want to hang onto. Even then I would probably have sold up and jumped if Pentax hadnt delivered up the K10D just in time. Pentax's strange decisions over the years have caused me plenty of ulcers but hopefully a buyout will get them on a more commercial footing and enable them to deliver on their promising roadmap.

But one thing that I liked most about Pentax was that even on their lowliest models you could buy just about any Pentax mount lagacy lens and it would work just fine. It didnt attract all that many new users but it kept a lot of old Pentax film users loyal. Nikon used to be quite similar.

I just think its an odd and unusual decision by Nikon given their generally good history in compatability, but my point initially was that I think the full implications need explaining to noobs WRT third party lenses. I have already had one friend who was disappointed. I dont have any issues with anyone buying anything if they are appraised of the facts, thats all.

So you can call me sanctimonious if you like, but I assure you this is not a "brand biased" comment on my part. I have owned and enjoyed them all over the years.

-- hide signature --

Steve
Pixel peepers miss the big picture.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

Angelo Jacinto Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: D40 at 6 mp was highly recommended too ???

I don't mean to start a Canon-Nikon flame war here, but I don't see why this camera is generating such an enormous amount of interest. This ground has been covered before by cameras like the Canon 300/350D or the Nikon D50/D70 and they're far more capable cameras than the D40/D40X. It's like the camera took a step back instead of a step forward, and people are falling for it.

tom sugnet Veteran Member • Posts: 3,342
Re: D40x........does it deserve such high praise?

I find cameralabs.com review of Nikon D40x more accurate:

'the Nikon D40x was arguably released to compete directly against Canon’s best-seller and indeed they’re priced virtually the same from internet dealers. So how does the D40x measure-up? Well both cameras deliver roughly the same quality results, although the D40x has punchier output by default and its kit lens is superior. The D40x is also friendlier in operation, which will please first-time DSLR owners, although experienced photographers will prefer the Canon’s quicker access to settings like ISO and White Balance.

So far so close, but the Canon 400D / XTi boasts a much more sophisticated 9-point AF system, anti-dust features, depth-of-field previews and greater compatibility with older or budget lenses; and unlike the D40x, it also comes with RAW processing software and a TV out cable. It all depends on your preferences, but the Canon is a technically more powerful and better-featured camera.'

 tom sugnet's gear list:tom sugnet's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Samsung NX1000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon D5500 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
d94ka New Member • Posts: 9
Re: D40x........does it deserve such high praise?

Ken_5D wrote:

DOF not nessicarily DOF preview should be in any class and
bracketing should be in any class more than a couple of sessions
long.

FE2 Ahhh... one of the greats...

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/fe2/basic1.htm

In '78 i bought an Canon A-1... but also lusted after the F1
There is something nice about those old tanks...

Yes, they are very nice. I have an FE2 and an Olympus OM-4, and they are both brilliant pieces of mechanics making the D40 seem like, not a toy perhaps, but close. However, I think the D40 (and the E-410/E-510 I suppose) are the closest you can come to those old cameras with a digital SLR. If you like them it surprises me that you're so negative towards the D40.

All of my lenses work as well on the D40 as on the FE2 except for the fact that I have to find the exposure manually (which is seldom a problem, due to the instant feedback -- often it is even a relief since I don't have to worry about the camera making wrong decisions). When people say that the D40 isn't compatible with "legacy" lenses it sounds strange to me since the legacy lenses for me, are all manual. The AF lenses are of no particular interest to me.

I was expecting to have problems to focus manually, with everything I have read about tunnel-like viewfinders on digital SLRs, but in fact it is almost as easy (even easier perhaps) to focus the D40x as the FE2 (mine has a type E screen, with no split prism). The 50/1.8 AI-S and the D40x is a splendid combination.

For me, the D40 is a long awaited return to a size of camera that fits me better than the clumsy D70, D50 and D80. It is simply quite a bit more elegant and it is not that far from the digital FE2 that I have wanted for a long time. So I bought it, and I am very, very pleased with it. It does a very good job of not being in the way.

jackbw Senior Member • Posts: 1,702
Re: D40x........does it deserve such high praise?

tom sugnet wrote:

I find cameralabs.com review of Nikon D40x more accurate:

It's a very balanced summary comparing the D40x and 400D. Obviously it doesn't mean the D40x shouldnt deserve the praise it is getting, personally I think it does. Its just that the 400D isn't getting enough praise. I used to have a 300D and owning it for 2 years while seeing other brands struggle with high ISO noise, I had high expectations from Canon for being ahead early. The subsequent kit lenses, grip and build quality were big letdowns for me. But I realize the same high expectation happens among Nikon users who were let down by the stripped down feature set of the D40/x.

FujicaMan Regular Member • Posts: 127
Re: D40 at 6 mp was highly recommended too ???

Angelo Jacinto wrote:

I don't mean to start a Canon-Nikon flame war here, but I don't see
why this camera is generating such an enormous amount of interest.
This ground has been covered before by cameras like the Canon
300/350D or the Nikon D50/D70 and they're far more capable cameras
than the D40/D40X. It's like the camera took a step back instead of
a step forward, and people are falling for it.

Like most people in this thread you worry to much about specifications. Knocking the cameras at the bottom end of the market regading in body AF motors and DOF preview buttons has been beaten to death and hasn't stop this camera selling.

The D40 is cheaper, smaller, lighter, battery lasts longer, bigger LCD and view finder and after reading the reviews takes better pictures. With the market it's aimed at this is what people are interested in not DOF preview buttons and a duplicate in-body focus motors.

Obviously it's not perfect but it is a step forward, if the D50 was still Nikons entry DSLR the Canon 400 would be thrashing it, that's why Nikon is successful and you just sit at your desk and moan.

OP Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: D40 at 6 mp was highly recommended too ???

FujicaMan wrote:

The D40 is cheaper, smaller, lighter, battery lasts longer, bigger
LCD and view finder and after reading the reviews takes better
pictures. With the market it's aimed at this is what people are
interested in not DOF preview buttons and a duplicate in-body focus
motors.

The VF gets called "large" yet its smaller than the A-100.

Buyers should get a P&S compact if they cannot work out what DOF is.....or are not able buy nikon's screw driven lenses.

Obviously it's not perfect but it is a step forward, if the D50 was
still Nikons entry DSLR the Canon 400 would be thrashing it, that's
why Nikon is successful and you just sit at your desk and moan.

Its not a step forward...the VF is a bit bigger than the D50, wow big deal that was the smallest APS VF on the market! Its smaller thant the D50, its nice to hold (if you dont have large hands)....wow knock me over.

Its got a 2.5" LCD........just like every single camera has had for AGES.....

This is standard stuff! The D50 is older.......it had a 2" LCD........time moves on........nothing groundbreaking here at all.

Even the D40 6mp isnt selling any cheaper than the D50 was during its last days.........where is the value?

D40X is selling a tad cheaper than the Canon 400, same as the A-100 in the UK..........

Again where is the value? If nikon are ripping out specs and parts (AF motor)....to save cash......it sure isnt finding its way into the street price.

Is this going to kill Canon 400 sales? Not a hope in hell........

-- hide signature --

Clint is on holiday! Soon to return!

vincent_ph Forum Member • Posts: 56
I think so, yes.

As with most, I was very skeptical with the D40/X. I do own a lot of lenses that need the in body AF motor. So being skeptical, I didn't pay much attention to the new release bodies.

Recently while shooting PJ in the streets of Manila, I encountered a very well known PJ in the Philippines who is also an acquaintance of mine, and I was shocked at what he had hanging around hi neck.. a D40 and with a kit lens, no less. I asked him what happened to his 1Ds MkII and 5D, he just answered that the he really likes the D40's colors and loves its size and excellent weight, just perfect for PJ style shooting, he said. When I asked about the AF speed and Metering capabilities, he just laughed at me, answering that its fast enough if you're fast enough (replying to the AF speed) and that metering is still up to the Nikon standards dating back to the film days. He also shared that he has shot some catalogues with his brand new D40, which it would seem has gained his and his peers respect, adding that another die hard Canon user has been swayed into using a D40 primarily due to the price but eventually because of the colors and convinience of the Nikon.

To end with, we compared shots at the end of the day, me using my D80 (18-70 AFS) and his D40 (18-55 AFS) on his laptop and unless you're pixel peeping, I can honestly say that the D40 can be just as good as a D80 in good hands, nevermind the 4 Megapixel difference. My skepticism aside, I'm currently in the process of trying to convince myself not to buy another body....

Just my 0.02

-- hide signature --

Equipment in profile.

Two Truths Veteran Member • Posts: 5,269
Re: Why? bcos primes work for u doesn't mean work for all

Because using prime lenses is half of the magic behind SLR cameras.
The other half is the viewfinder.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads