Nikon d40?

I've decided that I want to upgrade from a point and shoot to a dslr, and I've been thinking about the

nikon d40. I want to get one asap, and this one seems like a pretty nice camera, and I can get it for $500

with the 18-55mm lens on bhphoto. Does that sound like a good deal? I've been told the 18-55mm

would be good for what I shoot, which is mainly portraits, my puppy, and other random things like that.

Sounds like the D40 is plenty adequate for your stated requirements. be sure to purchase lenses with AF-S for that D40 body. I prefered the 18-70mm AF-S lens when I owned both lenses for a brief period.

If you don't mind a refurbished kit you can save $100:

 

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?addtocart=INKD40KR&src=itemlist

I just bought a D40 to be a backup for my D50. I'm pretty happy with it. I like the big screen, I like the menu system, the shutter is quieter. I do think it's too small, and my hands are on the small side for a man. The lack of an AF motor is a bummer, and this will limit your lens choices down the road.

I normally use a D300 and a D200 and I've got a D40 for vacations / walking around with... It's a great little camera.

 

Check out the local Target or www.target.com. They carry the D40 and I seem to remember them being less than $500 with the kit lens (18-55)

 

Dave

A 3rd party battery grip is available (about $50) for the D40 which makes it much more comfortable for those with larger hands.

I have a D40x, and my wife has a D40. At this point in time, I would ask yourself what you are willing to spend. If you have a couple hundred extra dollars, I would look at a D60. 10 MP vs. 6, and Adaptive Dynamic Range to boot. Yes, yes, the D40 has a better Flash sync speed, but when it gets right down to it, a 4 MP difference in resolution is fairly significant (especially 6 vs. 10...10 vs. 14 not as bad). My wife and I took very similar pictures of our cat, and we decided to see once and for all how much the resolution mattered. at 11X14, her image is pushing the limits of the camera. At 16X20, the image is useless. My 10 MP image looks quite crisp at 16X20, and at 20X30 shows SOME deterioration.

 

Most people will tell you that "for what you are using it for" 6 MP is enough. I say you never know when you're going to get that magical shot that you want printed BIG. A D40 will run you anywhere from $400 - $500 with Kit lens. A D60 starts at $750 with VR kit lens (anti-shake). If you have the extra dough, I'd get the D60, but the D40 is a fantastic camera if you are limited on funds.

6 MP are enough :)

Would one rather have $6.00 or $10.00 ????? .......one day you might be short 4 bucks....,raf

I'm sure that it's been pointed out many times before, but the change from 6 megapixel to 10 megapixel only allows printing about 29 percent larger in the linear dimension. The ratio is sqrt(10/6) = 1.29.

 

To look at it another way the D40 has 3008 pixels in the long dimension, the d40x has 3872, a ratio of 1.287.

 

So to take Ryan's example if a d40 is OK at 11x14 you'd expect a d40x to look similar at about 14x18 - no larger.

Megan,

 

For your stated purpose, the D40 is terrific choice. I have both a 6MP and 10MP camera and honestly don't see much difference in image quality. You can get absolutely stunning images

from the D40 and at a price point that makes it hard to resist. Although I don't own the

Nikon 18-55mm, it has the reputation of being a great little performer. You can do an

Internet search to substantiate this on your own. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase the Nikon

D40/18-55mm combination. Go for it.

We have all forgotten that unless printing a 4X6, 8X12, or 20X30, one has no choice but to CROP very valuable pixels to get the proper ratio. Yes, you start with a 6 MP image, but thanks to the lousy 3:2 ratio, you're automatically going to lose at least 1/6 of your pixels in the long dimension if you want an 8X10 (or 16X20 for that matter). Therefore, you are leaving yourself only 5 MP for that, while a 10 MP camera leaves you about 8.33, or a ratio of 1.67 (8.33MP/5MP)...a bigger advantage to the higher-res sensor.

 

Even at 11X14, you lose 1/7 in the long dimension, you will have 8.5 MP left from 10 MP, and only 5.1 left from 6 MP. Your ratio is going to be around 1.65 (roughly 8.5MP/roughly 5.1MP). 11*1.65 = 18.2, and 14*1.65 = 23.1...an 11"X14" at 6 MP would be a 18.2" X 23.1" (bigger than 16"X20") at 10 MP. All in the numbers.

 

And that is if you are cropping from one border to another! If one poorly composes a shot (say you had to fire quickly) and you are taking a smaller area, say maybe only half of the total frameor less, now you only have 3 or 4 MP, which is barely enough to constitute an 8X10 at 300 ppi. I encountered this while shooting with the D40. I had to fire quickly at 18mm, and by the time i cropped the subject to the image composition was correct, I had only 2.7 MP remaining. using the aforementioned ratio above (1.29), a 10MP crop of that same image would have left me 3.5 MP...still not great, but better for a 300 ppi print. If you're shooting an upredictable puppy/dog, you're gonna want cropping space.

 

Basically, if you go with 6 MP, be prepared to make sure every shot is composed perfectly if you want any kind of a large print size.

 

Of course, if you are only planning 8X10's and smaller, everything I just said is bunk. For 8X10's and under, it's true, resolution doesn't matter, but above that, yes it does. Most of my shots wind up as 11X14's, 13X19's, and 16X20's, and a "magical shot" gets a 20X30 (no cropping needed, same ratio as sensor). I have one 30X40 from the D40X's 10 MP, and I had to crop to get the right ratio. There's almost no way a 6MP sensor would even come close to that after cropping.

This would all be assuming your 18-55 will even resolve 6MP to it's full potential, let alone 10!

 

Get the D40.

So it sounds like for printing I'd rather go bigger, but I mean I don't think I'm going to be

doing big prints, probably only 4x6's so I think the d40 is good. I will have to go to target

and see if they have it there, that would probably work out better too. And I have fairly

smaller hands, so it being smaller would probably be an advantage :) And about the lenses, I

think the 18-55 would do me good for a while, and when I want another lens I'd most likely

have more money to spend on an more expensive lens, in all, I think it would work :)

Thanks everyone!

I just checked target online and they have it for $500, and it's available at the target near me,

so I'm most likely going to go there and get it. I didn't think target would have it, thanks!

the Nikon 55-200 VR lens couples great with the 18-55. $200 - $250. Good luck!

Having shot with several P&S digicams, I was set to get a Canon G9 around the holidays. As I was about to get it, the D40 went on sale for the same price. Already having small sensor P&S cameras, I opted for the D40 because I like selective focus in portraits, and the small sensor cameras don't allow for this right out of the camera.

 

I am so glad that I went with the D40. The larger capture surface and longer lenses (compared to the P&S digicams) make for greater DOF control and better high ISO performance. I have several 11 X 14 inch prints and over a hundred 8 X 10s from this camera, and they are terrific from the 6 Meg files.

 

FWIW... while I am new to digital photography, I have shot for decades with Nikon gear, and know how to shoot for the effect I want (lighting, DOF, composition, etc...), and it was very quick for me to get productive with the D40. It is a blast to mount and shoot with 40 year old lenses, and see what they can do with a digital capture. The D40 is simply fun to use and delivers good results. It was for me 500 Dollars well spent, because I am shooting again with the same excitement that I had 20 years ago.

 

FWIW 2... The kit lens is not bad, but I have been using mainly a 35mm f/2.0 or 50mm f/1.8. The wider f-stop allows for better DOF control, and the results make the manual focus needed worth it. You may add 100 Dollars and get as a minimum the 50mm f/1.8 lens to make a nice addition to your kit.<div></div>

Ryan,

 

In your second paragraph I think that you have missed the all important square root factor. While a 10 megapixel camera has about 67 percent more total pixels than a 6 megapixel one, it has only about 29 percent more in the long dimension (and 29 percent more in the short).

 

Using your example and taking your assumption of a loss of 1/7 in the long dimension, the D40 will be left with 3008*6/7 = 2578 pixels while the D40x will be left with 3872*6/7 = 3319 pixels. Again the ratio is 1.287 and as I said before if a d40 is OK at 11x14 you'd expect a d40x to look similar at about 14x18 and no larger since 14 times 1.287 is 18, not the 23 you've assumed.

 

It's true that the 10 megapixel camera has an advantage for cropping but it's not so great as one might first think and what's more, as others have pointed out, it assumes that the optics are up to job as well.

this topic seems like deja vu.

Get the D40. The extra money for the D40x is not worth the features you get, even before you start taking pictures. Nikon created the D40x to cover a price point in there camera lineup.

Megan

You may want to check your local Ritz Camera store too. I bought the D40 from my local store for $499.00 with the same lens.

Richard B.

Get the D40, Megan. You'll love it. You don't have to pay tax if you buy online from a different state. Check amazon.com...they usually offer them without tax and many times without shipping costs. And they have the best return policy I've seen.

<p>

Have fun with your camera.

Megan, please opt for the D40X if you can. It has quite a bit more resolution. Like someone said, if you come across a great shot that you'll want to blow up to a big print, the D40X will deliver a noticeably better image.