Buying Nikon D40

[oprea_calin_paul]

Hello everybody ! I intend to buy a system based on Nikon D40. So I have some

questions: 1. Is a higher default ISO 200 , a weak point in comparison of ISO

100 at Nikon D40X ? 2. Is it usefull multiple AF points and when ? (Just 3 AF

points at D40 in comparison with 11 points at D80 ? 3. How do you feel D40

with 70-300 VR ? (mass of D40=475g, mass of 70-300 VR=745g). Is this system

well balanced ? 4. How is the grip ? Thank you very much.

[warrenlewis]

I have the D40x with the 70-300VR. I've never missed a shot because of it. I find ti very comfortable and light. I'll put my 18-200 on the camera for everyday carry.

[frankie_frank1]

OCP, I used D40 for 8 months. Since D40's images are so clean at ISO-200 that Nikon set the minimum ISO 200. It gives up better low-light performance. But you miss the chance to wide-open your lens to make the DOF shallow. Multiple AF points is quite useful in some cases. That makes Nikon to sell you D80. If your only purpose is to have a tiny portable DSLR, 70-300 VR defeats your purpose. Otherwise, it is OK. The grip comfort level depends on your hands only. Why don't you try it out in a retail store?

[eric_arnold]

hi, i'm a happy d80 user.

IMO the d40 works best as what it is, an entry level DSLR. it's great for P&S upgraders who will never need anything more than the kit lenses. the d40 balances best with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that were designed for it. 18-200, 70-300, 17-55, 70-200, etc. will dwarf it. look at the math; you can see that any camera that much lighter than its lens isnt going to be well-balanced; the tradeoff is that the overall package is lighter.

 

for building a system, you'd probably be better off with a d80, d200, or d300. lens compatibility (not just with non af-s nikon glass, but also with 3rd party lenses) is a major issue with the d40 but not with d80/200/300. 3-pt AF is ok but 11-pt is better. second command dial means less menu hunting and better, more intuitive ergonomics. the d40 does have slightly better high ISO performance.

 

the d40 and d80 are attractive from a feature-set perspective at their respective price points, while the d40x is like putting a rear spoiler on a Geo. nikon had to do something to make the d40x stand out from the much more sensible d40, hence ISO 100. whoop. te. dee. image quality isnt any better; sure there's more MPs for cropping, but also larger file sizes. anyone thinking about a d40x should just go get a d80 instead. that is really what i think. oh, and by the way, which one's pink?

[elliot1]

I find from my own hands-on experience and testing that the Nikon D40, D40x, D80 and D200 all give the about the same image quality at low ISOs. (I do not own a D40x but have used it). At higher ISOs, IQ of the D40 exceeds that of the D80 and D200.

 

I find the exposure more accurate on the D40 compared to that of the D80. As well, I find the colors more vibrant and natural looking with the D40. I have used my 17-55 f2.8 on it as well as the 70-200 f2.8. with exceptional results, equally as good as when I used them on my D200s.

 

I generally use only 1 focus point, the center one, regardless of which camera I use. Three is plenty. The D40 does have extra 'hidden' center focus points which are used for dynamic focusing should you choose to use it. Focus is fast and precise.

 

As far as camera balance, for about $40, you can buy a third party battery grip that makes the D40/D40x feel more substantial and help you balance larger lenses a little better, especially if you have larger hands.

 

Personally, I find the D40 a little small for my larger hands.

 

You need to go and hold both cameras to see shich feels best in your hands. If you have larger hands, both cameras benefit from the battery grip.

[frankie_frank1]

If you don't care about the AF-S, dial, ... D40 gives better images than D50, D70. D40X gives better images than D80, D200. In-camera processing and high ISO processing really improves a lot lately. D40X costs you $150 more but gives you extra 4MP, 0.5 frame/second, full-frame transfer (mechanical shutter) instead of interlink transfer (electronic shutter). Otherwise, D40 and D40X are the same.

 

Look at the new Nikon offers, Nikon DSLRs is moving towards war on high ISO performance instead of pixel counts. I assume Canon etc. are going to the same direction.

[heartyfisher]

One more thing no one has mentioned. D40x has better DR over D40. About 0.5EV at low ISO and almost 1EV at High ISO. also the DR is the same at low ISO and at High ISO. This results in better tonal range in pictures and more detail in in highlights. For that alone I would go D40x. In fact I was considering getting a D40x as an upgrade for my D70. (but I went s5pro instead as I was offered an excellent deal on an S5pro.)

[frankie_frank1]

What is DR?

[frankie_frank1]

And what do you mean: DR is the same at low ISO and at High ISO?

[albertdarmali]

Dynamic Range. Although not really my favourite subject - it sounds painful.

[frankie_frank1]

The D40/D40x series are real GEMS. D40X even beat Fuji's S3-Pro in dynamic range, as someone told me some time ago. I am sure Nikon has some advanced technology applies to its new products: D3 and D300.

[oprea_calin_paul]

Thank you very much for your usefull information.

[elyone]

I am really getting tired of hearing that the D40 is no more than a P&S upgrade.

 

If you are not a pro and don't need a hammer or a camera that will take physical abuse, you can put any AFS lens on it, any AF lens and do MF, any AI lens and guesstimate exposure (this I DON'T recommend, but its possible), all current flashes and even old (like my old SB26) ones in auto mode.

 

There are many people who focus and reframe anyway, all the time, so even one AF point is sufficient. If you do sports, you will own monster lenses and the camera cost is negligible anyway...

 

Dials don't change the photo, DoF you can check and waste a few more exposures and all tests have shown this to be a very capable camera.

 

I am beginning to think D80 and D200 users are jealous and feel the need to disparage it...

[albertdarmali]

I own D80 and never think that I am "jealous" with D40. I know it can take equally nice pictures in the right hand and with the right lens, but it's still too small, lesser OVF, lack of AF motor and no front dial, and no top LCD, those 5 are the main things that worth your money upgrading to something better IMO. (although if you ask me, 3 focus points just won't cut it for me personally, especially if you're shooting wide open @1.4)

 

Taking pictures is not always about the end result, but to me part of the joy is when you're creating it too (eg. focus feel, camera feel, convenience, etc..)

 

Even for little thing like shutter sound (or 'feel'), it's very different between D80 and D200. When you take picture with D200, it gives a solid 'click', and if you're used to it already, and then you take picture using D80 and hear the tiny click, it feels a bit awkward - more cheapish sound I reckon.

 

I think D40x is sort of bridge between a prosumer digital camera and a full DSLR; for people who prefers a bit of control, better quality images than a prosumer camera but don't really wanna invest a lot in a DSLR with a complete system (and don't wanna carry that much weight).

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"I am really getting tired of hearing that the D40 is no more than a P&S upgrade."

 

Don't bother arguing with the clueless.

[mark_sirota1]

One thing about the D40/D40x that I haven't seen mentioned is the lack of a front control dial. I've never tried to use a camera with only one control dial, but that seems like it would really get in my way.

 

If you're always in an auto mode, this may not matter for you.

[kaiyen]

As someone who owned an N65 and a D50 (no front command dial), the need to hold a button down while rotating te rear dial to change aperture in M mode isn't so bad. In fact, even at weddings, I could seamlessly switch to that method when I went for the D50 as my backup (D80 was primary).

 

Now, the fact that I can acces so many more menus with 2 dials is a significant feature, IMO.

 

The only thing that I liked about my D50 that I didn't like when they came out with the D40 was the body design, really. AFS, yes, but that's because of intended purchasing audience. But no top LCD and the body is really small. Too small for my hands. And it does feel _too_ light with a lot of lenses.

 

But the D40 is a solid camera. As Nikon has done all along, each time it uses the same sensor in a later camera, they improve noise and other IQ performance. So the D80 was better at noise than the D200, and the D40x is better than the D80. D40 is the best between the D50, D70s, D70, and D100, in that order, all using that same 6MP sensor.

 

allan

[cherubinphotography]

I come from the 35MM world of SLRs and my first foray into digital SLRs is the D40. I don't have the digital experience to offer a comparison but I can say that I am very happy with my D40. I purchased it in April of this year and have put about 20,000 exposures through it thus far.

The D40 is a great lightweight camera with enough features to offer a pleasant experience for the pro and amateur alike.