Nikon D40

[steve_barrett]

Today, I looked at a Nikon D40, a D80 and a D200. I was struck by the brighter

focus screen of the D40 compared to the other two. Based on that, it seems the

issue of the D40 not being able to auto focus any AF lens that don't have

internal focus motors isn't that big of a deal. It was very easy to focus

manually. Am I missing something? Admittedly, I've never used an AF camera so

that isn't a feature I'm used to.

[Matt Laur]

Were you seeing all three cameras with the same lens mounted? Regardless, there are far, far more features that differentiate those three cameras... it seems unlikely that you'd realistically be choosing between them. If you have the budget for the D200, but want something a little lighter (though not as rugged!), then get the D80 and put the difference in cash to lenses, strobes, etc. If you truly are OK with the D40's reduced features, speed, etc, then you can buy it, lenses, accessories, AND several tanks of gas to take you places to shoot great pictures.

 

But there's so much more that separates those cameras - how do you see yourself actually using it?

[larrybc]

I would be sure to compare the D40's viewfinder against the D80 and D200 with the same lens and with working batteries. I don't know about the D40, but the other two require power in order for their viewfinders to be nice and bright, due to the lcd overlay they use to display the grid pattern and some other info in the viewfinder.

 

larsbc

[ShunCheung]

My brief experience with them is that the viewfinders for the D200 and D80 are similar, and they are better than the on for the D40.

[jeffrey_kempster]

I'm with Larry. The D80 and D200 probably did not have batteries in them. I just bought a D40 and was shocked that the viewfinder was not dark. The D40 does NOT need a battery like the other two do.

[iancoxleigh]

And to add to what Larry said, the brightness of the viewfinder is also going to depend on the maximum aperture of the lens attached. Make sure you look at each camera with an equally fast/open maximum-aperture lens.

 

But, really there is a lot, lot more differentiating these cameras! Read a few reviews.

[marike1]

I was in B & H today to pick up a new lens, and I had a chance to check out the D200 and

D80 for the first time. The first thing I thought was how large and bright the D200's

viewfinder was. It was like my first time looking through an F100, and comparing it to my

N80. The D200 and D80 made my D70 seem like I was looking through a tunnel.

 

I'm sure the D40 viewfinder is an improvement over previous DSLR's like the D70, but I

don't

think there is any way it's pentamirror finder can compete with the brightness of the

proper pentaprism of the D200 and D80.

[steve_barrett]

Being a longtime Leica M6 user, batteries don't enter into my mind as a major issue!

 

It could well be that there were no working batteries in the D80 and D200. I was impressed with the D40 screen, in any case. If the other two screens are even better with batteries, that would be great.

 

I've never had a digital camera and want to see what they're all about. My first thought was to get a D200, but I fear that may be way more than I want/need.

 

I imagine using whatever digital I decide on with just one prime lens to start, possibly a 35mm AF F2 or 50mm AF 1.8. Of course, if I get the D40, it will come with the 18-55 Zoom.

 

What I'm hoping for are some thoughts regarding using no-motor AF lenses on the D40 although they have to be focused manually. Everything I read suggests this is a major 'flaw' with the D40. Is it really? What are the issues of manually focusing a lens on a DSLR?

[mawz]

Steve, I've currently got a K100D, which has a similar finder to the D40 (Larger actually, at .85x to the D40's .8x, both are 95% on DX format) and I used to have the D50, which has a finder smaller than the D40's.

 

Simply put, the issue is focusing accuracy. These finders are not all that well suited to focusing lenses accurately, especially fast/long lenses like a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8. You can do that with the K100D, although not well, the D50's smaller viewfinder is simply unable to handle a 50/1.4. The D40's about midway between the two for focusing ability.

 

The screens in these cameras are designed to be bright, not easy to focus.

 

The D80 and D200 are significantly better for this sort of use. Larger viewfinder with a much better screen for MF. However their finders are rather dim when unpowered due to the LCD overlay which needs power to go completely transparent.

[michael s.]

I can foresee two issues in manually focusing a Nikkor AF 35/2 or AF 50/1.8 on a D40 (or for that matter on a D50/D70/D70s):

 

1. The manual focus rings on those AF lenses have nowhere near the feel and firmness of the focus rings on the manual focus Leica lenses you're used to at this point.

 

2. The vf magnification may cause you some problems when shooting those lenses at large apertures. D80 and D200 do have the higher mag viewfinders. (If you plan on shooting largely at or near f/8 then you may be fine on any of the dslr cameras because dof will "cover" you.)

 

Incidentally, I recently peeked through a D40 and also found it surprisingly bright. I have the D70.

[michael s.]

Quick follow-up: at the store I visited the D50 with kit lens 18 - 55mm and the D40 with kit lens 18 - 55mm were *exactly* the same price.

 

Having bigger hands, and wanting the AF to work on those very good and reasonably AF Nikkor primes that do not have AFS, I'd have an easy time grabbing the D50 .... if it were me. :)

[steve_bingham]

I agree with Michael. In my opinion the D50 is a better camera at the same price! For a LOT of reasons. If smaller and slightly lighter is important, then get the D40. If being able to have a better, and often times less expensive choice in lenses, the D50 is better.

[anthony_bez]

I would also recommend the D50 over the D40. And as you want to use non AFS lenses, it really is a no brainer decision!

[berg_na]

I see no reasons to pick the D50 when the D40 actually has significantly better image quality (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page22.asp" target=blank>link</a>).

[donald_miles1]

The disparaging comments about the Nikon D40 are really unwarranted. It is a far better

camera than the D50 or and more real-world usable than the larger/heavier prior D70 or

its succesor D80 (I had a D70 for 2 years and just replaced it with a D40). While the D200

is obviously more-accomplished as a professional tool, it is also much heavier/larger and

much more expensive than the D40. For 99% of the photo situations most people will

encounter, the D40 will do just fine. For a comparison of the D200, D80, D70 and D50

with the new D40, go here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/d200-d80-d70-d50-d40-5d-xti.htm

and for a full review of why the D40 is the best everyday DSLR for most serious

photographers, go here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

The viewfinder is fine in the D40. All the comments about manual focusing are a little

beside the point in 2007: the 18-55mm zoom kit lens that comes with the D40 is a terrific

lens and can easily be paired with relatively inexpensive AFS tele zooms (or, if you save for

the amazing new Nikkor 18-200mm VR, you'll have a lens that replaces ALL your lenses).

Let's see some comments from folks like e who actually USE the D40 ?

[ecarter]

Huh? Far better?

 

I've dealt with D40, D50, D70 and at least have handled a D80.

 

I'd agree that the D40 has merits over the D50 so long as you don't already have a stable of non AF-S lenses you intend to autofocus with. If you do, then the D40 simply won't work for you as it doesn't have the drive pin to focus those lenses. If you're just getting into the system and have no interest on those non AF-S lenses or don't have any and don't intend to get any, the D40 is fine.

 

Otherwise, the D40 has a better continuous shooting capability and arguably better image quality out of the camera, though the D50 isn't a slouch in this regard either. The viewfinder is pretty comparable to the D50 from what I saw - better than the D70 but not as good as the D80 by any stretch of the imagination. I prefer the interface on the D50 to the D40 (though for general use I'm still with my D70 and its top LCD and 2 control dials).

 

The only advantages I can see for it to the D80 though is cost and weight/size. For people who want a ultra-lightweight camera or on a tight budget, the D40 is fine but it certainly isn't better than the D80.

 

I like the D70 kit 18-70 better than the 18-55 that comes with the D40. As far as the "amazing" 18-200 VR, well I'm gonna agree to disagree. Not that it isn't good, but it isn't about to replace my f/2.8 or faster lenses. VR is nice, but it isn't a substitute for the wider aperture - it just helps kill your camera shake, not motion blur in your subjects. Sometimes there's no substitute for getting that higher shutter speed.

[steve_hovland]

I am dithering between a D40 and D80.

 

With my P&S I almost never use the viewfinder, so I may not care about the viewfinder. The diopter on the D80 is much better, but how much is that really worth.

 

I might miss the high speed sync, but I can easily compensate with a neutral density filter when using fill flash in sunlight.

 

The D80 kit price with 18-55 is twice what the D40 kit is. I'm not sure that I would get twice as much camera.

[oscar_joachim]

Thanks to Photo.net, I managed to make up my mind on what DSLR to get. After being a film freak for thirty odd years I have since, only used a Sony R1 bridge camera. But it niggled me that I had all my wonderful Nikon lenses lying around growing old. I needed a camera which could use all of them. Someone suggested a D200 and boy am I glad I did not spend on it. Apart from the price, the D200 is not compatible with all my lenses as I understand. The D40 is a proper classic design in that it is very backward compatible and like the Leica M series, will I hope, be used for a long time.

 

I by sheer chance saw Jessops selling the D40 for under �300 with a �30 cash back. Also, they are giving away a truly fantastic camera bag, the best I have had. Also, as if this is not enough they are selling their own dedicated flash for half price when you buy the camera (�50). This is not a plug for Jessops, but I think they are clearing the shelves and we photo freaks benefit.

 

I have had two days of absolute delight playing with the camera. I tried on it decades old lenses. I have a Nikkor - SC 55mm 1.2 lens. Film enthusiasts will recognise this lens. Fancy, on a D camera it becomes something like a 75mm I am told and with it wide open at 1.2 gives fantastic opportunities for portraits. I have seen a lot of people find manual focusing a bit of trouble. But it is very well worth it. I have always used old technology and used a hand held meter and manually focused and so this is not so daunting. Besides, you are using a fabulous lens which will cost an arm and a leg to buy in digital form today. There is no need to even use a meter. The screen is the best friend you have in this. Guess meter and adjust if necessary. So, I stick all my old lenses on the D40 and to make matters even better used an old manual flash gun with them. A combination of the old wide open lenses and an iso of 1600 gives us wonderful opportunities to take low light photographs.

 

The camera is very light and could be taken with you everywhere. With the kit lens it does all you would want and at very little cost. This is what I mean by the Nikon D40 being a classic camera.