D40X and 55-200 VR (Finally some announcements from Nikon)

[janvanlaethem]

I haven't read the dpreview article yet, but there is a short notice on the Chasseur d'Images webpage (www.photim.com for those who speak French) that puts the new D40x in perspective.

 

Amongst the differences between the D40 and D40x:

 

* 10 Mpix sensor and processor: Nikon has taken the electronic circuit for signal treatment and the 10 Mpix sensor from the D80.

* ISO 100 to 1.600 (plus 'Hi' 3.200 ISO).

* Shutter: The same as on the D80, with synchro-X at 1/200s.

* Frames per second: improved from 2.5 to 3 fps and the buffer allows up to 100 Jpeg shots in continuous mode.

* Power on: almost immediately (0,18 s).

* Autonomy: the 10 Mpix sensor is less power hungry than the 6 Mpix sensor of the D40. The autonomy of the D40X goes up to 520 shots, versus 470 for the D40 (Cipa protocol, with 50% of the shots using flash).

 

Prices in Europe:

* D40 with zoom AF-S 18-55 Mod. II reduced from 600 to 580 euros.

* D80 with 18-55 Mod. II at 990 euros.

* D40X expected to cost 830 euros with zoom 18-55 Mod.II. It will not be available body only (a D80 body only costs 850 euros!).

 

(end of quote)

 

It looks more like a downsized D80 to me than a grown up D40. I wonder why they didn't place it square in the middle of the D40 and D80 and called it the D60 or something similar.

[ray .]

You rock, Shun. ;)

[aaron l]

Looks like fun for the low end market. What about the Dx/h series that's getting long in the tooth...

[leicaglow]

I'd be pi**ed if I just bought the D40. Why add VR to an already dog of a lens? It's like adding $4000 in performance tires and wheels to a Geo Metro.

[lester_hawksby1]

How do d40 users feel? Well, this one's pretty happy with the plain 40 and would have chosen it over the 40x even if it had been out at the same time and same price... which it wasn't.

 

From my semi-serious point of view, additional pixels take up significantly more storage and probably aren't quite as clean noise-wise at higher ISOs. In return, I'd get only a slight improvement in maximum print size and an almost-insignificant higher frame rate to eat up even *more* storage.

 

Since the d40's great strength is as a walk-around handheld camera, for which high ISO and small files are definitely important, this is not a good tradeoff for me! The 40 is analogous to a Nikon FM, not a Nikon F5; anyone knowlegeable considers buying it because it's handy, not because it's mighty. Serious users who routinely make giant prints probably carry a big tripod and therefore didn't pick a d40 in the first place.

 

The 40x will almost certainly help sell cameras to the less-experienced to whom "more megapixels is better", and why not? I really don't see any reason to object if Nikon makes some extra money off this market! Doesn't affect me one bit - it's not as if the d40 has suddenly become any less lovely as a tool. I doubt the 40x required vast amounts of effort to develop, so it's probably not delaying the development of anything else a more serious user might want either. No-one really loses.

[niccoury]

Nikon really needs to forget about the entry-level, the D40 and D50 are great enough. the D80 for more advanced shooter.

 

The 55-200 VR is pointless with the 70-300 VR out there for just a bit more and a much better lens.

 

Nikon needs to match Canon on the long lens side. A 400 f/4, 500 f/5.6, and 600 f/5.6

 

~ nic

[RaymondC]

If D40 gets jacked up to a D40x $800 with the kit lens, does that mean they are exiting the (ultra) low end dSLR market?

 

It would give the P+S a bit of breathing room as well for their prices. Perhaps Nikon's own Coolpix.

[ShunCheung]

Nikon introduced the original D40 on 16th November, 2006; that was less than 4 months ago. I would imagine that the planning for the D40x was well underway at that time. Now that the D70s and D50 are gone, the gap between the D40 and D80 was too big so that they need something in between. There is a lot of competition in the consumer DSLR market.

 

However, Nikon's D2 series is definitly getting a bit old, especially the 4MP D2Hs. It is logical that people are hoping for some new D3, and that was probably why speculation was going like crazy in DPReview, but it looks like it will have to be at least this coming summer.

[Richard Williams]

'I would imagine that the planning for the D40x was well underway at that time.'

 

Must have been. I wonder if the D40 is already out of production? (maybe it was even before its release!). Is this an exceptionally quick response to the competition, or was the original just a stopgap until 10 Mpixel sensors were available in quantity at a competitive price, and that small warehouse full of surplus D70 sensors had been put to good use..?

[arthuryeo]

>but it looks like it will have to be at least this coming summer.

 

... let's hope ...

 

comparatively speaking what's the difference in size between Nikon & Canon? Is Canon significantly (30%) larger than Nikon?

[ShunCheung]

I don't think the D40x is a replacement for the D40. Instead, it is a planned addition into the lineup so that there will be a roughly $500 consumer DSLR (D40), $700 (D40x) and $900 (D80). Nikon certainly needs a low-cost option and that is why the D40 remains. All of those prices will, of course, gradually drop over time. The "oldest" of the three is the D80, which was introduced merely 7 months ago (mid August, 2006).

 

It sure looks like except for the sensor and some internal electronics plus firmware, the D40 and D40x share most of the same parts, helping to reduce cost.

[Richard Williams]

My guess is that the two cameras won't co-exist for long. The clue's perhaps in the name - if they'd meant the D40x to fill a different niche in the range, I suspect they'd have called it a D45 (or something). It's been suggested elsewhere that Nikon won't be able to source the 6 Mpixel sensors for much longer. If this is correct, the D40 will probably fade away quite soon and the D40x price drop accordingly (they could hardly launch the D40x at the D40 price without deeply discounting the existing D40 stocks and offending the early adopters).

[patricks]

i'm glad for all the entry-level photographers out there, now they have even more choice and competition.

 

for advanced amateurs and pros - nikon's strategy is really frustrating. the wait for a FF DSLR or a D200-or-up body with high noise capabilities similar to the competition is long overdue, not to say more AF-S primes.

 

I read a Swedish (photo) industry trade rag the other day where a (Nikon) PJ was doing a hands-on review of the Canon 1D MkIII. He just got back from covering the World Championships in downhill skiing, there was 160 photojournalist in attendance. 3 (three) were shooting Nikon...

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

Doesn't PMA start on the 8th? There is still hope for my d3h isn't there? please?

[ShunCheung]

Mark, realistically, I don't think there is any expectation that Nikon would make a 3rd round of announcements when the PMA is just one day away. From a moderator's point of view, I certainly don't want to read any more tall tales about some secret precentation from a Nikon rep on a Friday night (yeah, right) to reveal some D3 and 50mm/f1.2 AF-S.

 

Again, the good news is that Nikon has recycled their entire consumer DSLR line in merely 7 months. Whatever they release next pretty much has to be a high-end or prosumer DSLR. :-) Of course, I didn't expect the D40x so soon myself.

 

As far as Patrick's point about Nikon losing among sports photographers; sadly, that has been the case since the early 1990's when Canon introduced fast AF and is hardly news any more.

[titospna]

Throw a Dog a Bone Department: Photo Imaging Expo in Tokyo, March 22-25. Perhaps Nikon will have a few words to say there, no?