The recently announced Nikon D40 could be the camera that wins over the hearts and minds of a whole new generation of DSLR owners and it’s being released right before the Christmas buying season.
Why? For two reasons, price and brand. There are a number of digital SLR cameras in the sub $500 range; the Pentax K100D and Olympus E300 among them but the Nikon brand of digital cameras is better known. Canon don’t have any current camera to compete at this price range, yet.
What camera will parents buy their offspring this Christmas? The more expensive Canon 400D or the Nikon D40? I think it’s a no-brainer which camera they’ll buy. The Nikon is the perfect “starter camera” for junior. It’s relatively cheap, looks professionally black, makes the click sound when you take a photo like “real cameras” do and you can use other Nikon lenses. What is there not to like?
Well, the Nikon D40 is great but for the price there have been compromises made. The DP Review preview of the camera compares it favourably to the Nikon D50, emphasising the extra features the cheaper camera has. The biggest drawback is an issue with lenses. It can’t auto-focus with traditional Nikon lenses because it doesn’t have an internal focus drive motor. This is arguably worse than the Canon limitation on EF-S lenses. At least Canon EF-S cameras can take advantage of proper Canon lenses.
Perhaps the biggest negative on the D40 is that it doesn’t have an internal focus drive motor and hence no mechanical focus drive pin, instead it only has CPU contacts which means it can only Auto Focus with AF-S and AF-I lenses (those with built-in focus motors). Indeed our ‘standard’ lens the Nikkor 50 mm F1.8D (and the F1.4D) are manual focus only on the D40. The images below show the difference between the mount on the D40 and D80, the D80 has a mechanical focus drive pin at about the 7 o’clock position.
Canon need a sub-$500 DSLR to compete. Once you’re hooked on a brand of camera it’s much easier to stick with that brand. The controls will be familiar, you can use the same lenses, you visit the same online discussion boards.
Personally, I think it’s great that DSLR technology is so cheap. It’s not that long ago that the only digital SLR was priced beyond the budgets of anyone but the professionals. Isn’t Moore’s Law great?
Ken Rockwell has a great review of the Nikon D40. I think he likes it:
First impressions are:
Super-duper light weight = too much fun!
54 replies on “Nikon D40 tips the scales in Canon vs Nikon fight”
Ken Rockwell’s “review” is more like an advertisement. It doesn’t weigh up the pro’s and cons but just keeps on ringing how great it is without much justification and certainly no comparisons to competing products – which is really required since the d40 is nearly the same price as a higher end Olympus E500.
Yeah. I’m about to choose between Nikon D40 and Canon EOS 400D (maybe 350D) as my first DSLR. If anyone can guide me on this I would be glad. It is also important for me as I will begin collecting lenses for either Nikon or Canon depending on what I buy.
For an example my uncle has a friend who is a professional photographer who uses Nikon. He wished he’d gone for Canon.
well i work in a certain photographic retailer and i am totaly unimpressed by the d40. me and other colleuges see the d40 a massive evolutionary step backwards for nikon.
firstly the price does seem good but what you may not of realised is the cost of lenses for it. as there is no AF function inside ur going to be payin a hell of a lot more to get a motorised lens for it.
average cost is Â£100 more than the 400d and as i own a 400d have nothing bad to say about it. plus for Â£100 pound more ur gettin a higher spec camera, such as 10mp instead of 6 (not that relavent intodays world), 9point AF instead of 3 and a self cleanin sensor which if you get dust in your nikon its going to be costly to remove it. another thing is just the huge range on lenses you can get for canons such as 350d or 400d as they take pretty much any Canon AF lens.
i just want to warn you of a costly mistake you could be making, that is all
The issue with limited autofocus lenses that will work with the D40 will soon become a non-issue. Nikon knew all along that this lense issue will be the most negative aspect of the camera since the only available AF-S lenses are those priced at the U$1000 level.
Not anymore. Nikon will release this April, the 55-200 AF-S VR lense for a list price of only U$250! Perfect for the D40 and D40x.
Yeah, chew on it for a while. Consider that very carefully. Af-S, and VR, 55-100mm, U$250.00.
It is made of plastic, but so what? The kit AF-S lense has plastic body material but look how well reviewed it is in terms of performance. I have a D40 kit and am very pleased with the camera and lense.
Nikon D40 owners shall have the last laught, after all!
just a correction. that’s a Nikon 55-200mm, AF-S, VR, G-ED lense for U$250.00
Glad you are happy, “D40 Happy Shooter.” But you neglected to point out that as attractive as the new lens is (Nikon 55-200mm, AF-S, VR, G-ED lense for U$250.00) it is STILL a G-series lens. So for those of us who have older manual focus Nikon’s (e.g. the venerable FM2), this lens is much less attractive.
See http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g for more info:
“These newest AF lenses have no aperture ring. This means that they will not work on manual focus cameras since there is no way to set the aperture. You can put them on, just that every shot will be made at the smallest aperture and your metering will be way off (probably about SIX stops underexposed) since the camera has no way to know what the aperture will be.”
Put another way, “The Nikon D40 is a great camera for beginning photographers.” (from http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/nikon-d40-guide.html) Well said. But for the rest of us, or those looking to get into Nikon’s line a bit more deeply, the D40 and D40x are a pass.
Overall a brilliant camera. Each system has its pro’s and con’s. For me, a proffesional photographer who covers weddings, this camera is a perfect. Its lieght wieght, so slips in as a backup, and as far as lenses go, most of the pro lenses are SWM [the type that only works on the D40/d40x]. For those who have a huge stock of Nikon lenses, then more than likely the D40 wouldnt be in your ‘category’, as this is aimed at beginers – but between me and you, im happy with shooting a wedding on this, the quality is the same, it has all the core features of even the higher nikons, and it has three important aspects that Canon lack – 1. Auto ISO [Great for changning light scenarios, prevents those ‘blurred’ photos] 2. A massive screen – you can view all your photos on the cameras screen, and they look the same when you print them [the Canon’s screen looks different to final print quality] and 3. Nikons EXCELLENT flash system [Just point n shoot flash system, great results all the time! Easy]. All this helps me get on with the important things – taking great photos!
” Indeed our â€™standardâ€™ lens the Nikkor 50 mm F1.8D (and the F1.4D) are manual focus only on the D40. ”
don’t get stuck with nikkor lenses.. sigma has a 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM, and if using nikkor lenses you mentioned above, what’s wrong with manual focus? doing it manually adds another value in the photograph anyway..
I am also looking to purchase a Nikon or Canon camera and your comments have helped tremedously!
What’s the difference between the D40 and the D40X?
My girlfriend and I own a D40. We have a friend who owns a D40x and by comparing the them, i say that we prefer our D40 than the D40x. The biggest difference is in the sensors. D40 has only 6.1 megapixels and the D40x has 10.2, but this should not matter unless your printing a picture larger than 14 x 20”, and do you really need to print anything larger than that? and if you do 6.1 megapixel is still enough to increase the size of the picture for a few inches or so. 10 megapixel to 6 should sound like a big difference right? well, it’s not! if you’re thinking that the 10 megapixel’s print-out should near double the size of what 6 can do, then you’re a victim of the “Megapixel Myth.” in order to double the size of the print-out of the 6 megapixel, you should have a 24 megapixel camera! It’s hard to explain but I’ll try my best, a 6 megapixel’s image dimension is 3008 x 2000 (3898 x 2589 for the 10 megapixel) in order to double that you need to multiply the overall dimension by four, since a normal picture has four sides.
Actually kenrockwell.com can explain all this to you more clearly.
The biggest turn-off of the D40x for me is the flash sync. The D40’s shutterspeed can be set to 1/500s with the flash on and the D40x can only be set to 1/200s. The fastest ISO for the D40x is 100 (200 for the D40) So what? nikon made the D40x to have the 100 so that it could process the image faster because of the bigger file size due to it’s higher 10 Mp sensor or else it’ll be like watching a snail go up a wall. And thats another thing to like about the D40 it could process faster and could hold more images than the D40x. I think the D40x is a weak attempt to create competition with Canon’s 400D (Digital Rebel XTi), but at this moment I think the D40 is ahead of both of them in all aspects except for the megapixel thingy.
Well, if you think of buying a perfectly good camera choose between the D40 or the D80 (or the D200 if you’ve got deep pockets)
D40 because it offers all the goodies that D40x do (except for the fps, that’s frames per second, 2.5 for the D40 and 3 for the D40x, but its hardly noticeable especially when the noise reduction is on and that 10mp, but who cares?) and its $200 cheaper!
D40’s price (philippines): P23,000.00 = $500 (US Dollars)
D40x’s price (philippines): P30,000.00+ = about $650-700 (US Dollars)
D80 because its a lot better than the D40x, but double the price and weight of the D40 and less fun.
D200 because its a D200! 😉
All in all D40 is a hell of a DSLR! 😉
Hi to my girlfriend Emmy! mmwah!! ;-x
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm to be exact.
I originally turned away from the D40 when it first hit the streets because of the lens issue and the limited number of decent compatible lenses available. However, since then Nikon has released several new lense with the VR (vibration reduction) technology which are affordable and take great shots (55-200, 70-300 and 18-200). The areas still lacking are the primes. Those who already have an arsenal of good Nikkor lenses will not want this camera and those who want more features will probably want to look at other models D80 and on up. I just bought the D40 and really like it so far. Haven’t played a lot with it or used it in challenging situations but so far the pictures have been great. For the average Joe, this is a nice camera for the price.
I like the Nikon SLRs and DSLRs over the Canon and the Canon point and shoots over the Nikons, but I am interested in how the D40 stacks up against the Rebel. Anyone tried both?
One thing about the D40 I wish was better – I wish the viewfinder was larger. I got so used to the viewfinder on the Nikon N80 (film SLR, love that camera), that the one on the D40 seems so small in comparison.
No doubt the D40 is the best value for money around.With both Nikon and Canon the case for expensive bodies is not produce better images, they just have more functions. As for Canon vs Nikon you will find so-and-so’s uncle who is a pro who said this or that, but few world renowned photographers who shoot down the the manufacterer (of these two) he/she does not use, or go on attributing their success to their camera body. I own and use a D80 extensively, and it is seldom that I use functions there that cannot be found on the D40.I know that because I used to own a D50, the D40’s predecessor (before I dropped it into the ocean). If you do not own legacy lenses, all lenses you are likely to buy will be motorized so it will fit the D40.I think far too many people “invest” in more expensive bodies because they think it will make them take better quality pictures.Ultimately you buy an SLR to control things like white balance, ISO, shutter speed and aperture.The D40 shines in ease of using controls. If the body does not make much of a difference, the glass does. The Nikon 18-55 kit lens is still a cheapie, but there is no comparison in choosing it over the Canon 18-55. The kit lens upgrade options (18-70, 18-135, 18-200VR) are also way more attractive than the Canon 17-85 IS.Hey, I love Canon. I got great service from my point and shoot, printer, Video camera and Scanner. But a cheap lens on an expensive body is useless.Rather go the other way round, unless you can afford a proper alternative lens. The D40 kit is a robust camera with a semi-decent lens (relatively speaking).If you buy the 18-70, you can even have a decent lens. Or you can stay with the 18-55 and buy a 70-300 extra. Or just buy the excellent 18-200 VR. So many (non bank breaking) choices!
how is the print quality of the nikon d40?
In response to dennis P’s question.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:09 am Richard Stokes says: “A massive screen – you can view all your photos on the cameras screen, and they look the same when you print them [the Canonâ€™s screen looks different to final print quality]”
I haven’t printed any pictures larger than 4×6 so I can’t tell you what they look like enlarged but the pictures are very sharp and look great at that size. With the resolution, I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t look just as good enlarged.
As far as color rendition, my experience has been the same as Richard Stoke (above quote), i.e., the print looks the same as the image you see on the screen.
Have had the camera 3 months and have been extremely pleased. No complaints. Just wish I could afford the 18-200mm VR lens though. I’ll probably end up buying the 55-200mm VR lens and a flash. If you do buy the D40 kit, buy a good multi-coated UV filter (multi-coated is the key) like B$W and a fast SD card such as the SanDisk Ultra III or Extreme II.
Anyone out there tried out the 55-200mm VR lens?
will be buying the d40 with the 18 – 200 vr lens after A LOT of home work
Well, after read the reviewer from the pros like Ken Rockwell & Thom Hogan.
I choose D40 with lens 18-200mm VR (it cover from wide to zoom). It’s perfect especialy for traveling.
No need 18-55mm & 55-200mm VR (two lenses).
Canon never make the lense 18-200mm until I wrote this comment.
We are so new with this DSLR-world and would like to buy a new camera for our trip this weekend. Can you tell me what is the difference between 55-200mm IF-S and AF-S with D40??
and is the D40 the best for beginner travel pictures
“We are so new with this DSLR-world and would like to buy a new camera for our trip this weekend. Can you tell me what is the difference between 55-200mm IF-S and AF-S with D40??”
The Nikon’s calls this lens “Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor.” Nikon sells two versions of this lens. The important thing to know is to get the VR version. VR standing “vibration reduction”. Don’t even bother with the non-VR version. There is no comparison, the VR version is so superior. The VR version has “VR” in red letters imprinted on the side of the lens.
See my post on October 11 on getting a good multi-coated UV filter and fast SD card.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“and is the D40 the best for beginner travel pictures”
The D40 is great for beginners and takes great shots. It has come down in price since I bought it four months ago and is between $450-475 with 18-55mm lens from reliable vendors. It’s the best DSLR buy on the market. The controls are easy and you can use it in the automatic mode or do things manually.
hi i am stuck on what camera to buy with what lens, i have a budget of Â£300-400 i require a camera with about 10 mp, and a telephoto lens as i am into wildlife photography, could anyone give any advice on a good cameras/lens
I’ve been using the D40 since last spring. I’ve taken over 10,000 shots since then and I absolutely love it! I do a lot of youth sports â€“ soccer, volleyball, baseball, and basketball. I think Iâ€™m getting great results. I also use it for nature, family pictures, and some artsy fartsy stuff.
Itâ€™s fast enough to catch 18 year old soccer players on a dead run, the built in flash is simple and effective, and the 6 mega pixels have been plenty.
See for yourself at my flickr site here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmm7/
I also have the 55-200 VR lens and thatâ€™s been a great investment.
i own just d40, i am new user of slr camera and i dont know about slr camaras first time i touch slr, but every time i m trying to do someting new and want to know batter my cam. and i done it now i m very satisfide with mt d40,
Im a first time slr user. I did my homework too, browsed the reviews, check the shots, reviewed the lenses. My decision is to get the :
D40 with the 18-200VR lens.
Cheap body..means I wont painfully miss it if i upgrade later to higher end body or even the FF. My point is to learn slr photogrpahy with a cheap ..somewhat ‘disposable’ camera but provide good quality and training for using the higher end later. Also to get a very nice, highly rated and reusable lens (if i upgrade later). Lightweight and mobile.
So why not canon? No good qualilty lens for cheaper body products. So called ‘L” series lenses are just too much for my pocket for a beginner.
I’m trying to decide on a digital SLR. I’ve read so many reviews, I’ve confused myself. I want to be able to shoot low light, fast action pictures without using a flash. I’m trying to capture some sports and dance pictures. Any suggestions? I’m looking at the Nikon D40 and Canon XTI.
I’m trying to choose between the D40x and the 400D as well. I am mainly going to be using it to take photos of my kids who will not keep still. Can anyone tell me which will be better for this purpose? I am just starting out and don’t know much and I’ve read that Nikon’s auto mode is a bit better than the Canon but I also read that if I was to take pictures of fast moving objects the Canon is definitely better? Not sure if my kids is classified as fast moving objects….
The comments here have been great. I am starting to sway towards the D40 Nikon. It seems the standard lens is a 18-55 but I’d like to take wide nature pictures as well as family parties. Is it better to opt for a different lense instead such as 55-200 mm? It seemed to be only $150 for this lense? What kind of advantage will I gain by going to a wider lense?
Also, does the standard D40 have VR (Vibration Reduction) featue, or do I have to pay extra for that?
JamesK, The 18-55 afs nikon lens is now available with VR. With Nikon the VR (vibration reduction) is only in lenses with VR in the name (not in the camera body) Regarding wide-angle lenses…the smaller the number, the wider the lens view, ie: 18-55 is wider than 55-200mm.
Sigma do a fantastic wide-angle lens, which will auto-focus on the D40. It is the 10-20mm Zoom, and gets great comments over at dpreview(dot)com. Do a search in the Nikon D40/40x/50/80 forum.
As regards Nikon versus Canon…you are best going to a good camera shop, and handling both/all the cameras you like the spec of. You might just “click” with one of the menu systems, or you might like the “feel” of one brand over the other.
Image quality is not really an issue nowadays, between the main camera brands…they are all fantastic, in the right hands (I just wish I could improve my hands! 😉 )
Thank you so much for taking time and responding.
One final question: Are wide lenses appropriate for zooming as well or are mostly used for close ups?
Hi JamesK, not a problem!
You can get wide-angle zoom lenses, and long, also known as telephoto zoom lenses. Wide angle lenses are well known for landscape photos, you can get a very dramatic sweeping scene, but telephoto lenses can also be used to isolate part of a landscape, also being very dramatic.
The “Zoom” designation only relates to the lenses ability to change focal length, ie: from 18mm to 55mm.
Fixed or Prime lenses cannot change focal length, but very often have greater image quality and sharpness. (you can zoom with your feet!)
It can be difficult to see the difference though, unless you are printing poster-size!
I can vouch for the Sigma 10-20. What a lens, the wide angle is really an interesting perspective, not only for landscapes (allthoug it helps a lot there). Of course Sigma’s availble in Nikon/Canon mounts. On the Nikon – Canon issue. No one is “better” than the other.It’s just my humble perception that the typical upgrade options are cheaper on a Nikon.The Nikon “kit lenses” are the 18-55, 18-70, 18-135 and the legendary 18-200VR.Canon’s basic 18-55 is softer than the Nikon counterpart, and the typical upgrade option is the over priced 17-85 IS, which has way more distortion than the longer range sharp 18-200VR. On bodies, all DSLR bodies on the market have 95% of the often used functionality, so there’s little reason not to go for the cheapest. A nice LCD screen to review pictures can make your experience more fun, and the D40 has an excellent 3 inch screen. I own a D80, and if I’m forced to use a D40, I doubt I would miss much, though I come to like the seperate status screen on the top of the body, which the Canon 400D hasn’t got anyway. Practice (experience from my friends) has shown the dust shaker of the 400D is not really going to save you trips to the sensor cleaner, so I’m tempted to classify it as a gimmick. Nikon is not gimmick free. That’s why I’m saying buy the least expensive Canon/Nikon body.
Of course Canon has got legendary lenses in the upper range (as does Nikon).
you guys are awesome. thanks so much for taking your time to post all these things. i’m a beginner looking at the nikon D40 +- x, canon rebel xti, and the sony a100… any thoughts on the sony? gimmicky? totally ignorant.
thanks so much
hmm… guess my last attempt to post a reply didn’t work – here we go again.
thank you all for taking the time to post all of this. I am beginner looking to secure my first DSLR before heading to Europe for the first time. was told to look at the Nikon D40x and the Canon Rebel xti. dude at the store recommended the Sony A100. All $699 USD. Sony has internal IS; others don’t. My camera mentor recommended against the Sony (which is basically minolta) mostly bc of good past experience with Canon / Nikon. From what everone has said above, it looks like the Nikon D40 with the 18-200 VS lens is my best bet, but can anyone comment on the Sony? Might be a little gimmicky; I don’t know, but it was a little larger whcih was more comfortable for my big clumsy hands.
Thanks so much
I’m not real familiar with the Sony except that at slower shutter speeds it appears that there is considerably more noise than on the Nikon or Canon. I think it performs well but one thing to consider is the price and availability of good lenses for the A100.
The big consideration of me would be (and I’m comparing it to a Nikon D40 which I like better than the D40x or D60) is that any advantage of the IS on the Sony does not in my mind justify the difference in price. I’d rather spend the extra $$$ saved on a lens or flash for the D40.
It is amazing how easy the D40 is to use. You can just point and shoot and have a great photo evertime. I was leaning towards the D40 because of the size and feel for my girlfriend. I now have had a couple chances to use other Dslrs and the D40 fits the best into my hand. Comfort is very important when taking 250 photos at a fellowship or at the park.
What I love is the color it produces. Sure you can use fireworks, but there is nothing better than saying I didn’t edit this.
The only thing I don’t like is that it doesn’t have a “Time Lapse” feature or maybe I have not found it yet. It has so many features and adjustments. With a turn of a dial you can adjust shutter speeds, arperture, and many other features. I got mine refurbished on Ebay(dot)com for $408 including the 18-55 autofocus lens and shipping. The person sells lenses for great prices as well. Email me at acar.soner@gmail(dot)com and ill send you the link from ebay.
Really, is there anyone here that has bought the D40 and doesn’t like it? I don’t think so. 🙂
Sorry for bieng so unorginzed and for the bad spelling; I just got so excited about the D40.
I’m not a professional, but an advance amateur. Why I love my D40? Simply because of its size and what it can do for the price. Agree that there are better cameras in the market no doubt about it.
To use my skills to the fullest, I played with the camera for a month for a variety of shots at different times of the day till I got the best out of all the functions… created a set of pictures of natural outdoors and sent it to a local nature reserve magazine. Got an email last night from them in appreciation of my work. They were all accepted!
The D40 is a very good camera for the price you pay so stop raving about others! Got money, go buy!
Canon is one of the leading manufacturers in the world, i am not just saying this because i work for them its a fact. Even i admit nikon is good but not better. Have you ever compared menu structurs between the d40, d40x and the canon 400d? Try changing the ISO on the d40x when your trying to take a picture of a moving object, oh wait because of nikon stupid menu structure it takes about half an hour to change the iso, now try with a canon 400d oh look a button called ISO hmm simply press that and youve changed it. Canon menu are very easy to use, the 400d out specs nikons low end slr and always will. Compare the 450d to the d60 and you will see how canon again out does them.
Many thanks to you all. I have been weighing up between the D40 and D40X and this forum has helped me make my mind up. Im going for the D40. Its currently ludicrously cheap – Â£286 in Great Britain off Amazon (April 2008). For the cost difference with the D40X I can afford a Nikon flash.
Thanks to you all. Great forum
nikon, no dought. I had the same dought, even against 400d, I wouldnâ€™t change my d40 for a 400d, I have friends with 400d, no wayâ€¦ itâ€™s like a little porche against a huge american car, the porche can seem to have less, but it will win in any race. nikon d40 is a new generation camera, if u are starting in fotography, youâ€™ll loose lotâ€™s of months to start getting the photo u want with canon. nikon is love from the first time. I would prefer a thousand times d40 and spend the extra in better lens. thereâ€™s no owner of d40 that wonâ€™t talk with u pationately, the reverse is not true. belive me. anyway, both are good cameras. good luck. =)
Im going on a holiday to cyprus next month and I am looking for a good affordable camera, I want to take nice shots of ruins , nature and everything else really.
If been swaying towards nikon for a while now, it was either the 400d or the d40, but the nikon seems like the best buy hehe, sorry “Canon Representative” 😉
I need to look into the lenses a bit more cause I dont really know much about them yet.
I read that 18-55 is better then 18-200 because of the wider angle? Why is that 18-200 seems wider? hehe I must be such an amateur.
And I read that the Nikon doenst have a dus cleaning program or thing inside as compared to the 400d, is that a big deal? I mean what is the chance of getting a hair or nice dust particle inside your lens?
And finally how does the dus removing work? Does it just send air true the lens or…?
Any insight will be greatly appreciated!
If you’re looking for a digital SLR, the D40 is the best value on the market, great pricing, easy to use and good pics as well. I’ve had mine for almost a year and love it.
If you have the $$$, spring for the Nikon 18-200mm VRII lens. It’s pricey (at least for what I can afford) but well worth it. For an all in one lens it cannot be beat. I was saving to get the 55-200mm VR but my son convinced me otherwise (‘It’s too much of a bother switching out lenses and you have the chance dust collecting on the sensor”). He should know since he uses the 18-55mm and 55-200mm, so I took his advice and saved and saved and saved and bought the lens. He was so right about the convenience – the flexiibility of being able to go wide or zooming in at anytime is priceless . You’ll want to have it if you’re going to take shots on vacation -trust me.
Buy the D40 and use the money you save on the 18-200mm VR.
Query from a starter in digital photography
Great comments on the d40, as I understand from the local Nikon rep d40 are out of production. any suggestion to an alternates to the d40
I hadn’t heard any news that the D40 has been discontinued. The D40 is still widely available. It’s a better alternative than the next camera up, the D60. It’s much cheaper and provides better performance.
I have no complaint with this little Nikon
I am a fast sports buff – I shoot, Astro-turf hockey, rugby and baseball (sometimes under light) and all I
have is 2 d40 bodies, one has a fast mid-range 18-70 DX attached and the other a AFS 70-200vr 2.8
With this combo… I have twice the flexibility, on a shoot, (with instant access to two great lenses) and on bodies that are not only cost effective but also produce results as good as any other Nikon I have ever used, with exception to the D700 with FX sensor.
And as for the FPS, I practice close cropping and fire, selectively, on ‘single shot mode’ and this has never let me down. I have.. very few miss focus shots and never have to BIN tons of wasted ones after a shoot.
Any tips on cleaning sensors?
I have to say the d40 is better. I have been looking at all the flickr photos taken both with nikon d40 and rebel xsi. almost all photos of the d40 looked amazing, they make it appear as if the subject in focus is three-dimensional. the longer you look at the subject the more it seems to pop out. I have seen good pics taken with the canon but they are so few and don’t have the same or enough of the 3d effect i notice with the nikon, and looking at the exif details the settings were never on auto for the canon, pics taken with the canon only look good when exif settings show a manual change in the camera options. This is the opposite for the nikon…all photos that looked amazing were surprisingly all set to auto in the exif details.
It seems the d40 was made for the newbies. Every shot is an amazing shot. While the canon and other expensive dslr cameras are made for students and professionals who really know what they are doing (which requires years of experience and schooling).
But from what I have seen on flickr…even the d40 pics beat the amazing shots of the higher end cameras. i guess education and experience still cant beat a computer.
check it out for yourself – google “nikon d40 flickr”, click the flickr camera finder search result. for the canon google “canon xsi flickr”
I agree with the posts that say to get the inexpensive nikon d40 and purchase a better lens.
I have been a great proponent of the D40 in this thread the past couple of years and still am. Great camera. Love the 18-200mm VR lens. Save up and get it. They work great together.
Let me introduce another camera into the mix which costs more (1.5-2x) – the Nikon D90. The D40 is still the best buy on the market, but the D90 is a great camera. Is it worth the extra $450 or so? Depends on your budget. If you can save the extra dough in a reasonable amount of time and it won’t be a hardship, I’d go with the D90. If not, go with the D40.
I also own a Nikon D40 – and I really do love it! I use the stock lens which is great, but invested into the 55-200mm VR lens, which I use quite frequently, also with great results. I won’t comment on any technical issues but I can say that from a user perspective, I have never regretted getting this camera – it is light, small(er), inexpensive and it enables me to take beautiful pictures…that is, if I have a certain shot in mind, the camera doesn’t let me down with the result. I said this before, and I say it again, it’s not the really the camera that matters but the person using it. of course, it has to be a quality machine, which is always the case with a Nikon, Canon, Olympus, some Sony DSLRs but it all boils down to the user. Put a Stradivarius into the hands of a noob and it will sound like crap, or give a generic made violin to a pro and it will sound amazing…that’s the main point. Cheers!
Ho-hum, yup, the D40 is okay (I started using one about 2 months ago) but…… hasn’t anybody noticed just how bad it overexposes? I mean, nobody at all? I’m making the transition from film SLR to digital, and to be honest I’ve been shocked by the washed out skies, etc. The camera seems to take light, and then blow it out of proportion! I have a little Canon A570IS and it gives MUCH better results, I’m sorry to say….
Photocurious, try reading the owners manual. You can adjust the ISO, saturation and exposure levels to fit your creative requirements… that’s why people buy SLR’s. If you’re just going to snap pictures then stick with the point-and-shoot (Canon makes good ones), but if you want to take photographs then remember what Ansel Adams (para-phrased) said, “It’s not the camera but the twelve inches behind it that makes great photographs.”
I get photographs that are every bit as fabulous (technical quality, of course) with my D40 as are those that I take with my D200.
The D40 was my first foray into the world of digital photography (I shot film for years) and I’ve never regretted it. Invest two or three hours in reading the manual and playing with the settings on your camera and you will be become a total fan.
Hehe, I do know what they say about the 12inches behind the lens. Truth is, I do like the camera: after film, digital is wonderfully immediate and flexible. I achieved a lot of good results after much (and sometimes not so much) adjustments. My only complaint was that, normally, if I do snap a quick picture in say A or P mode, the camera tends to overexpose and I guess I found that a little frustrating to begin with, it seemed a little inconsistent, varying between really good looking shots and washed out ones. I’m much happier with it now, after much fiddling and not unhappy with the results! A nice camera overall