D40-still worth buying?

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've recently sold my compact kit with everything I acquired to use with it, and now going to enter DSLR world (with VERY limited budget, though) - not that I don't have money, but don't want to spend much.<br>

I come up with two kit options to start with, all outdated models, but in new condition:<br>

Nikon D40 + 18-55 VR for approx. $300<br>

Canon Rebel XT + 18-55 IS for $240<br>

Few questions:<br>

1) Are these two worth buying for indicated price now in 2011, or should I keep a little more to buy something newer? I'm going to use either of them for a year or so and then update to more advanced body(if I feel the need for one)<br>

2) Which one is better to start with?:) Maybe kind of stupid question, but I got crazy doing 'online' research, and based on hands-on experience with both of them-I'm happy with ergonomics of both. BTW, I have Nikon 50mm E series(AI-S) lens from film days, if it makes any sense(I know D40 will neither meter, nor operate in A mode with it).<br>

Please kindly share your opinion. My pros and cons(which are important to me) regarding each camera...<br>

Pros:<br>

Canon: cheaper overall, better AF, better high ISO image quality<br>

Nikon: build quality+better kit lens, auto ISO, 1/500 sec flash sync<br>

Cons:<br />Canon: "cheaper" feel and look, small LCD<br>

Nikon: 3 AF points, need to invest in more expensive AF-S lenses<br>

Please suggest...</p>

<p>for some, the 1/500 flash sync would be a big plus. also in 2011, nikon now has several AF-S lenses under $500: 50/1.8 G, 35/1.8, 55-200 VR, 50/1.4G, 700-300 VR (refurb), 18-70, 18-105 VR, 55-300 VR, etc. just add the 35/1.8 and poss. a tele and you're good. no offense, but the XT looks like a toy camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The D40 wasn't a bad entry level camera 5 or 6 years ago but doesn't compare with Nikons D5100 ; but for $300 its worth it as a cheap way of getting into the Nikon system. The D40 has better low light performance than the later D40s, as it only had 6 megapixel sensor. As for whether you want to go the Nikon or Canon route; there no real answer as both systems have good capabilities.</p>

<p>After 6 years - the D40 is still my camera of choice for vacations and family outings. </p>

<p>It give good low light performance, Lack of an AF motor isn't crippling, and it's easy enough for the kids to use - unlike my D700. Plus it doesn't scream PRO. </p>

<p>The prices seem to be average - I can't comment on the build quality of the canon - but the D40 is a Plastic (mostly) body with some (minimal) metal - particularly around the lens mount. </p>

<p>When I was choosing a system - it came down to the menus and button control. For me - the Nikon menu layout and button placement made a lot more sense than the Canon's did. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>A D40 can still take great images. For your budget, that's not a bad choice at all. </p>

<p>The Canon is nice, too. I HATE the way Canons feel in my hands. It's a personal thing. They're roughly equal.</p>

<p><strong>@Eric Arnold:</strong> I'm afraid there are no much choices for reasonable budget in Nikon AF-S family of lenses. E.g., Nikon 50/1.8 G is $220, while Canon's analog is less than $100... It's funny: buy cheap body and stick to expensive glass, or invest a little more to better body (once!) and have broaaad range of fine lenses.<br>

To my understanding D40 is good if one's going to happily live with kit lens, once gets more serious, MUST buy more advanced body and then go on with more lenses...</p>

<p>The D40 is still very well worth getting if it has low shutter cycles. If you do or plan to use flash for both inside and outside, the hybrid shutter that allows the fast flash sync of 1/500th second is wonderful - you can even go higher than that if you uses a non-dedicated flash unit. The best thing about the D40 is its very clean, smooth IQ, 6MP is plenty if you are not cropping to death your files - plus, I have printed clean 8x10's shot at ISO 1600, no issues.<br>

Many lenses are now AF-S types, even the third-party makers have the built-in motors. TBH, the older D-type lenses that don't have a motor are kind of noisy with AF if you use a screwdriver focus motor, this while thing of lack of AF-S compatibility is overdone.<br>

Canon had it right from the get-go with their USM optics.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>buy cheap body and stick to expensive glass, or invest a little more to better body (once!) and have broaaad range of fine lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Invest" a little more on a better body once is wishful thinking. As the OP clearly understands in the thread subject, DSLR bodies get out of date quickly. After a few years, you want to upgrade the body again, and again .... Digital cameras are not investments; they depreciate rapidly but are a "necessary evil" if you want to capture images.</p>

<p>If you have a choice, invest in lenses. Most of the Nikon AF lenses that are not AF-S are older designs that do not work as well on modern DSLRs that have very dense pixels, although the D40 is not modern any more and its pixel count is low in today's standards.</p>

For that money I'd take a D40. It's a decent camera, and very compact if that's what you want, and if you end up not

liking it you can always resell it - you won't lose much (if any) money on it.

<p>Incidentally, I just bought D40 for a 100 Euros just for the heck of it, mainly for the 1/500 sec flash sync and the ability to use pre-AI-lenses. Is it still worth buying, it depends how you are going to use the photos you take with it. If you shoot mainly for web and small (read: not huge) print use, low pixel count does not matter and it's well worth buying if the price is right and resources are low. I've shot with both bodies (Rebel XT & D40) and between those two bodies I would choose D40.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid there are no much choices for reasonable budget in Nikon AF-S family of lenses. E.g., Nikon 50/1.8 G is $220, while Canon's analog is less than $100... It's funny: buy cheap body and stick to expensive glass, or invest a little more to better body (once!) and have broaaad range of fine lenses.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lazyz, where are you getting a canon 50/1.8 for $99? Amazon's current price is $149. also, that lens doesnt have a USM motor; in fact, Canon doesn't offer USM in a 50 until you get to the $500 50/1.4. the true equivalent is the $120 nikon 50/1.8 AF-D. true, that won't AF on a D40. however, $100 difference is not unreasonable as far as lenses go. and even $220 isn't what most people would consider "expensive glass."</p>

<p>i realize that, at entry-level, the prices for getting into DSLRs may seem like a lot, but your statement doesn't ring completely true in today's market. maybe a couple of years ago, the relative lack of AF-S lenses was more of an issue for owners of lower-end bodies, but since then, nikon has filled out its line with several choices at prices i would consider reasonable. before the 35/1.8, which was $200 until recently, the only prime lens choice which would AF on non-motorized bodies in that focal length was the Sigma 30/1.4, which is about $450-$500.</p>

<p>adding to the "broaaad" range of choices are the numerous 3rd party lenses which now offer built-in motors. some of their prices are quite reasonable -- compare the $650 tamron 17-50 VC with the $1300 nikkor 17-55, which lacks stabilization, for example. so while on some level it's true you get what you pay for, to complain about lack of choices in 2011 when you're getting more than was possible for that same money just 3-4 years ago seems whiny and unrealistic.</p>

<p>just to put things in context, the 18-55 VR is about $150 new. so, in essence, you're paying $150 for a APS-C camera body -- less than you would for a mid-range P&S. doesn't get much more reasonable than that. add a 50/1.8 G for $220 and you're still around $500, which is less than a D3100 or d5100 with just one lens.</p>

<p>in any event, the d40 was perhaps nikon's best entry-level DSLR ever. stop complaining, buy it, and get out there and take some pics.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just bought D40 for a 100 Euros just for the heck of it, mainly for the 1/500 sec flash sync</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The highest shutter speed on the D40 (as well as D70 and D70s) is 1/200. Anything higher than that is done by switching the sensor on and off. However, the sensor will still be blasted with light for 1/200 of a second, which causes an unusual effect when you shoot the sun, a melting look (see the droop at the bottom of the disc of the sun in the photo below). That being said, I'd also buy a D40 for 100 Euros!</p><div></div>

<p>ABSOLUTELY WORTH IT! You'll be happy. </p>

<p>I gave my D40 to one of my granddaughters some three years ago because my brother sold me his D60. I thought it was an upgrade. Not.........</p>

<p>My other granddaughter is getting the D60 for her graduation this June.............And guess what? I'm getting a D40. Aside from its great feature, it's still lighter than my everyday-carry D90 with the 35mm AF-S.</p>

That Nikon 50mm AFS lens looks like it might also be an optical upgrade over the usual 50/1.8 lenses. We'll have to

wait and see whether it seems to be worth the higher price. But since the camera the OP is talking about includes an

AFS kit lens the AFS issue isn't such a huge deal...

I would advice a Nikon D50 ($100 to $150), which camera can go with the AF-lenses. A lot of those AF or AF-D lenses can be bought second-hand for a 1/10 of the price of the new AF-S lenses, and some of those older lenses used to be the pro-lenses (for $50,-). Build quality is most of the time better then of a new lens.

In my opinion is that the way to go when you are on a budget. $300,- for a D40 with a kit lens is far too much. I have not used Canon camera's, but they will be as good as a Nikon.

<p>I am in the real estate profession and shoot listings for our agents, the D40 is the perfect tool for this endeavour - fast flash sync, smaller file sizes to work with, plus clean images. Many of my shots have appeared on brochures and publications. I'd like to get another body, or maybe a D50.</p>

<p>I think $300 for D40 is too expensive.</p>

<p>The Rebel XT is an amazing camera. I recently bought the 60D, but still use the Rebel XT here and there. The only reason why I even bought a 60D was simply to have video capabilities with my DSLR. If I didn't want video or care about it much, I would've saved myself the $1000 bucks!<br /> I've never used a D40 so I can't say much about that, but I can guarantee that you'll enjoy the RebelXT. I've had it for over 4 years now and i've only needed to send it out for warranty once. Fortunately I bought an extended warranty through my retailer and they took care of it since it no longer had the manufacturer's warranty. That happened about 2 years ago and I've never had any issues with it since.<br /> I do, however, have a few dead pixels, but absolutely nothing that will prevent you from getting quality images. Easily photoshoped and definitely hard to notice if you don't. With some better glass on the XT it will take some amazing shots for $250.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I can guarantee that you'll enjoy the RebelXT.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How does this guarantee work? If the OP does not enjoy it, do you provide a full refund out of your pocket?</p>

<p>Where do you get a new D40 with lens for $300? I just bought one used for $240 without any lens. I am very happy with the image quality. I also use D7000 and D700 and yet I am happy with D40 especially for travel when I want to travel light. I don't print large though and I don't crop too much either, so 6MP is enough for me.</p>

<p>The D40 may be one of the most under-rated cameras out there. I love mine, and have shot music CD cover photos with it. The 1/500 flash sync is a great asset. It's cheap, small, light, and you can take it anywhere. Mine has proven more robust than expected and keeps on working hard, earning its keep several times over. </p>

<p>Sorry I couldn't respond right away, coz of time difference...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>just to put things in context, the 18-55 VR is about $150 new. so, in essence, you're paying $150 for a APS-C camera body -- less than you would for a mid-range P&S. doesn't get much more reasonable than that. add a 50/1.8 G for $220 and you're still around $500, which is less than a D3100 or d5100 with just one lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you so much, Eric. I was thinking about this reasoning, but perhaps needed one more eye-opener :-) One more dummy question, though: What's the difference between say 50/1.8 AF-D and AF-S? Is the second one just quiter due to SWM motor?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does this guarantee work? If the OP does not enjoy it, do you provide a full refund out of your pocket?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL xD</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=76615">Jessadang Soutonglang</a> , May 03, 2011; 07:36 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think $300 for D40 is too expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you think it's worth, then? $150 for body means I'm getting a DSLR body for less than my compact's price. D40 seems to be still good camera, not a collector's item like D1H :)</p>

 

 

<p>I wouldn't buy it. KEH is selling them in EX condition for $350-$400 with a lens, and I see them go for a little under than on ebay. For that price, you've have to be a fool not to buy a new D3000 at $500 with improved performance, VR lens, and a warranty. Or the D3100 at $600, which is just an amazing camera for the price.</p>

<p>If you could get a D40 without a lens for $200-$250, then I'd say it was worth it. It isn't a bad camera, but prices on used Nikon gear have recently gone up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or the D3100 at $600, which is just an amazing camera for the price. If you could get a D40 without a lens for $200-$250, then I'd say it was worth it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zack, I've already told that getting new D40 for around $300, well in S.Korea body is 210$ and 18-55 VR is about $110. D3100 at $600 is almost twice as expensive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The highest shutter speed on the D40 (as well as D70 and D70s) is 1/200. Anything higher than that is done by switching the sensor on and off. However, the sensor will still be blasted with light for 1/200 of a second, which causes an unusual effect when you shoot the sun, a melting look (see the droop at the bottom of the disc of the sun in the photo below). That being said, I'd also buy a D40 for 100 Euros!<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Y/00YfcM-354579784.JPG" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="10" width="612" height="382" /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, I really did not get your example. 1/500 is flash sync speed, who's gonna shoot the Sun with fill flash? :)</p>