Why are D40s selling for more than D70s on eBay?

General prices for D40s are higher than D70s.

 

I don't know why.

 

There are a lot, like a lot, of D70s listed as not working or parts only too. Is that why? Crappier camera perhaps?

 

I'm looking for a couple digital Nikon beaters, that's all. One for time lapse stuff and one for IR conversion.

 

 

 

Ps, if you have one you want to get rid of send me a PM. I'm looking for beater quality, just needs to put clean images on a card. Nothing else matters(ugly is fine, 50K+ shutter is fine). Mod, if this is a posting violation, just delete this ps please.

<p>Demand. The D40 has a good reputation. Most were lightly used by people who took them on trips and used them for family snaps. I suspect most D70 users piled on the actuations.</p>

<p>Age of the camera body is one thing. The D70s body is a *souped up* D70. And, of course, supply and demand....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My understanding is that the D40s has lower noise than the D70s. </p>

<p>My D70 died the 'blinking green light of death.' Fixed by Nikon at no charge after the warranty had expired. But the used price has to be affected.</p>

<p>I imagine people may like the smaller size of the D40 and its use of SD cards. Personally, though, I prefer the D70 for its support of mechanical autofocus.</p>

<p>The Ken Rockwell Effect.</p>

<p>Lex, I thought that particular sequence of letters (beginning with K and ending in l) was eternally banned from being spelled out on this site. I know you're an ex-moderator and all, but really......</p>

<p>Being able to flash sync at just about any speed is why both of them are popular in the used market, so it might just be the slightly newer chip.</p>

<p>Probably just that the D40 is newer and specs out similarly, that's all.</p>

<p>The D40 is more consumer friendly but the D70S is the better camera by far. They were also priced very differently when new, with the D70S being considerably more expensive. If the D40 is priced higher it's because more people want an easy to use consumer type of camera.</p>

<p>I have a D70s and I am amazed by the realism of the images it produces. One of a wet road and leaves looked exactly the same as reality. Nikon did very well with that camera.</p>

<p>I too noticed that the price for D2xs was way higher on <a href="mailto:Am@zon">Am@zon</a> (almost 6K) than the price for D3s (bit over 5K), why the heck is that?</p>

<p>Kris: that would be an outlier, or someone just hoping to take advantage of others' ignorance. Not in keeping with reality, and easy to ignore.</p>

<p>It's because the D40 is newer. Since cameras are based on electronics and processors, their value is tied to those electronics. Just as a 5 year old computer is worthless, that's the assessment of the D70 too. If you want a real slap in the face, look at the used prices of a D1! The D70 was already out of production before the D40 was available. Also, the lower end camera is more in demand because it's more useful to more photographers looking to get into photography. My first personal DSLR was a D40, and I really enjoyed that camera. I was not so impressed with the D40X, D60, or D3000, so I often recommended that new photographers try to get themselves a used D40. The price discrepancy is the same with all other cameras, too. For example, I realized 2 years ago that the D80's used prices were higher than a used D200's, so I sold it. Now, with the D300 being trounced by the D7000 in discussions, the same is going to happen with those cameras as well.</p>

<p>Kris, a D2X is realistically worth $800-$1,100 today. At that price, I'd prefer the D300s myself, but different strokes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lex, I thought that particular sequence of letters (beginning with K and ending in l) was eternally banned from being spelled out on this site. I know you're an ex-moderator and all, but really.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo Joe, just make a post mentioning "Ken Rockwell," and you'll realize that what you thought was incorrect.</p>

<p>Moreover, Lex is not an EX moderator. He is the current moderator for this forum and some others, such as Beginners, the OT Forum, etc.</p>

<p>As far as I know, the D40 (there is no D40S; therefore D40s is just the plural form of D40) and the D70/D70S use the same 6MP CCD sensor with electronic shutter. However, the D40 has newer electronics around it.</p>

<p>Shun is correct - the D70 and D40 both use the same sensor - the difference being the firmware, electronics and hardware around the sensor.</p>

<p>The D40 (not the D40x) is one of the better consumer bodies of the 2000's - Nikon tried to kill it several times and couldn't do it - because everything that came out was compared to it and fell short (D50,D60) - finally succeeding with the D5000 and D3000. The D40 is still in high demand and the supply is no longer available.</p>

<p>D70 has had some bad press about both the battery and the BGLD. I had a D70 and sold it at some point (after getting a D200) and to date it is truly a camera I miss. The D70 does have the BGLD (Blinking green light of Death) Issue (which I believe Nikon has now dropped or will soon drop support for) - so that could be some of the reason for the price difference.</p>

<p>But in general - look at the pricing of a D100 now vs new - D1, D1X, D2x, D2h. All can be had for a fraction of their new price on various sites.</p>

<p>As for the D2xs on Am*zon - I never look at used stuff on there since it is a fixed price buy, not an auction, and Barnum's slogan is in full force - "There's a sucker born every minute..."</p>

<p>Dave </p>

<p>I own, just to mention digital, a D3s, D700, D300 . . . and . . . the beautiful D40/18-55mm non VR, ED lens, (plastic but incredible sharp lens) with battery handgrip, two batteries in the grip driving the camera, an SB-400 on it all the time, (I hate popup flash) and doing all my social photographs, including friends weddings and baby shover etc., occasionally my landscape and portrait photography too. Never quit on me, and I like the quality of the image it produce, and even shopping to buy a second body, just incase. It is a most successful small Nikon ever produced, excellent for images to enlarge / print to 8x10. I even printed a 12x12 print successfully. Why I need a D3s? For low light or no chance to use tripod situation, and probably for my ego. Just kidding. One more! I can use, any of my old lenses, including the non AI lenses too. And many of those old glass working beautifully, definitely some of them better then all those plastic kit lenses today.</p>

<p>I've never gotten the BGLD, but I have seen a lot of heavily-used D70s with card readers that no longer work properly. If you use a brand-new card they'll run fine, but after a couple months it decides it doesn't like that card anymore. Maybe I'm a newb and this is what the BGLD is though. Either way, I've only seen this on my own D70, and other D70/D70s cameras that I knew were heavily used, so I assume this means that they were at the end of their service life. I know mine had about 35,000 shots on it when this started to happen, and I think the D70 was only rated for 40-60 thousand.</p>

<p>The difference in price must be due to age, as I'm not aware of any objective improvements the D40 made over the D70. I wouldn't be surprised to see a D40 outsell a D3000 though; despite being better at averything on paper, the D3000 is actually a bit more likely to clip highlights.</p>

<p>I suspect this is because the D40 was based on older higher-end tech, while the D3000 was a budget camera from go.</p>

<p>Richard, my somewhat facetious reference to Ken Rockwell may not have been as obvious as I'd assumed.</p>

<p>The D40 retains relatively higher popularity and resale value, compared with other dSLRs, because Rockwell heavily hyped it as "all anyone needs" (and variations of that phrase). In effect, he promoted it to a level comparable to those cult classic lenses such as the Kiron and Vivitar Series 1, which have also retained high popularity and resale value because there's so much chatter about them online. If KR had hyped the Pentax K2000 or Olympus E-20 as "all anyone needs", used models of those bodies would likely hold their value well and be in high demand.</p>

<p>The answer is obvious if you have used both cameras.</p>

<p>Yeah, Ken Rockwell...</p>

"The answer is obvious if you have used both cameras."

 

I have used neither of them.

 

A three minute time lapse video at 30fps will go through 5,400 shutter clicks minimum, correct? I would not want to put

that on a camera I care about. Nor would I want a keeper to be pulling stuff out of, to convert to IR.

 

I will keep trolling on eBay for beater Nikons, thanks for the advice.

<p>I'm just curious about why the D60 is considered worse than the D40. Unlike the D40 it had Nikon's first iteration of the active D-lighting system as well as better dynamic range and (slightly) better handling of highlights. It also had a dust-reduction system. The one notable shortcoming that has been repeatedly pointed out by (oops) Ken Rockwell is a slower flash sync speed.</p>

<p>Active D-lighting is just a post-processing trick applied during the JPEG conversion. If you shoot in RAW, then you can do the same thing later; D-lighting has no effect on RAW. The D40 sensor has GREAT colors. The sync speed that is touted as being so amazing has its drawbacks, as the electronic shutter meant that blooming was an issue, as was dynamic range, so don't believe everything you read. If you really need sync speed, the D90 with an SB600/700/800/900 and Auto FP is the way to go anyway. Overall, it wasn't that the D60 is worse than the D40; the D60 is basically a D40 with the EXPEED processor and the sensor from the D200/D80. It's just that the D60 isn't worth paying more than the D40 for. That precious little price difference is a lot of money to a new photographer, and is better spent on accessories that will last, such as a $150-$200 tripod and head, 35mm f/1.8G, 55-200mm VR, etc. If you're finding the D60 for less than a D40 today, then by all means go for the D60. Also, cameras like the D60 and the D3000 are often bashed on forums not because they're worse than their predecessors, but they aren't enough of an improvement over them. The D5000 is a very good upgrade as well, it's the D90/D300 sensor with the D200's AF engine. The only cameras I would really avoid is the D80, as it didn't have that great of a meter, and the D50/D70/D100 because of their age. I think the best bang for your buck used cameras that you can buy today are the D90 or D200, depending on what you care about in terms of features vs sensor performance.</p>