Is the Nikon D40 right for me?

[jbuckent]

I currently have a Canon S5 IS. While it has almost everything I want, I would like more DOF and better quality indoors as that is where I take most of my photos. I pretty much only take photos of my kids. While on a vacation I might take a picture of a landmark here or there but mostly its just snapshots of my kids. I've read that most of the lenses that fit the D40 won't autofocus. Would that be something that I should actually be thinking about? What I mean by that is, would I actually want to upgrade the lens it comes with knowing what I will be using the camera for? Are there any other cons to this camera for me?

 

[wenrob]

I currently have a Canon S5 IS. While it has almost everything I want, I would like more DOF and better quality indoors as that is where I take most of my photos. I pretty much only take photos of my kids. While on a vacation I might take a picture of a landmark here or there but mostly its just snapshots of my kids.I've read that most of the lenses that fit the D40 won't autofocus. Would that be something that I should actually be thinking about? What I mean by that is, would I actually want to upgrade the lens it comes with knowing what I will be using the camera for? Are there any other cons to this camera for me?

The bold is inaccurate. I know the 50 1.8 won't auto focus but most lenses will. It was never an issue for me and it doesn't sound the 50 1.8 will be something you'll "need."
My last camera before I bought the D40 was a Canon S2 IS. I was in love w/the D40 from the first shot. Great camera.

 

[spinetnglr]

I currently have a Canon S5 IS. While it has almost everything I want, I would like more DOF and better quality indoors as that is where I take most of my photos. I pretty much only take photos of my kids. While on a vacation I might take a picture of a landmark here or there but mostly its just snapshots of my kids. I've read that most of the lenses that fit the D40 won't autofocus. Would that be something that I should actually be thinking about? What I mean by that is, would I actually want to upgrade the lens it comes with knowing what I will be using the camera for? Are there any other cons to this camera for me?

Only lenses with the focus motor in the lens will autofocus. The D40 and D60 I think are the only 2 Nikons made without the focus motor in the body. Right now the choice of lenses that do autofocus is pretty limited. Just about any Nikon lens will fit the D40 but you would have to manual focus. I have a D40 and with a nice kit lens it would do what you are looking to get out of it. But if you are not really wanting to learn the ins and outs of a DSLR why spend the money for one? The D40 is a 6mp camera and is not a really a good choice for low light situations as for alot of indoor shots you need either flash or to push the ISO higher to get the decent shutter speed for taking pictures of fast moving kids. It does have an onboard flash which is adequate for snapshots but lots of times the pictures you get harsh shadows and/or overexposed features. You might be better off to put your money into a higher end point and shoot with good zoom and other options. I know many of the people here also own pns cameras as well as DSLRs and might have some suggestions which would be a good choice for what you want to do. They are more compact, easier to carry around with you and take excellent pictures for those occasional landscape or landmark pictures you want.

 

[fitzperry]

Only lenses with the focus motor in the lens will autofocus. The D40 and D60 I think are the only 2 Nikons made without the focus motor in the body. Right now the choice of lenses that do autofocus is pretty limited. Just about any Nikon lens will fit the D40 but you would have to manual focus. I have a D40 and with a nice kit lens it would do what you are looking to get out of it. But if you are not really wanting to learn the ins and outs of a DSLR why spend the money for one? The D40 is a 6mp camera and is not a really a good choice for low light situations as for alot of indoor shots you need either flash or to push the ISO higher to get the decent shutter speed for taking pictures of fast moving kids. It does have an onboard flash which is adequate for snapshots but lots of times the pictures you get harsh shadows and/or overexposed features. You might be better off to put your money into a higher end point and shoot with good zoom and other options. I know many of the people here also own pns cameras as well as DSLRs and might have some suggestions which would be a good choice for what you want to do. They are more compact, easier to carry around with you and take excellent pictures for those occasional landscape or landmark pictures you want.

I have to disagree with much of this. As wenrob noted, most newer Nikkor lenses contain the focus motor and will, therefore, AF on the D40. For the casual shooter, the lens most likely to be an issue (and likely the only one that would be an issue) is the 50mm f/1.8. For the op, this lens is very popular due to its low-light capabilities and bargain price (around $115, IIRC). There are other "fast" options that will AF on the D40, but they are more expensive. You could probably find a list of lenses that AF on the D40 with a quick google search.

Also, the op specifically mentioned DOF, which is difficult if not impossible to control with a p&s, and low light performance, which again is always going to suffer in a p&s because of the smaller sensor. Even if the op never takes it out of auto mode, the D40 will perform better than a p&s in those two regards.

Finally, I'm not sure what the fact that the D40 is a 6 megapixel camera has to do with it. AFAIK, that does not affect its performance in low light, unless you're referring to the fact that it is not the latest generation sensor, which would require the op to move up to a D90 at more than twice the price.

In short, I see no advantage to the op of a p&s, other than the size and convenience.

 

[kaffinito]

I have to disagree with much of this. As wenrob noted, most newer Nikkor lenses contain the focus motor and will, therefore, AF on the D40. For the casual shooter, the lens most likely to be an issue (and likely the only one that would be an issue) is the 50mm f/1.8. For the op, this lens is very popular due to its low-light capabilities and bargain price (around $115, IIRC).

Also, the op specifically mentioned DOF, which is difficult if not impossible to control with a p&s, and low light performance, which again is always going to suffer in a p&s because of the smaller sensor. Even if the op never takes it out of auto mode, the D40 will perform better than a p&s in those two regards.

In short, I see no advantage to the op of a p&s, other than the size and convenience.

I agree with you on this one.

To the OP, I went from a pns to a D60 for many of the same reasons you mentioned, and am enormously pleased with the camera. You have better control over DOF with the D60 and the kit lens (18-55mm) that comes with the camera is more than adequate for most shots. It also works like a dream for low light shots, especially if you are coming from a pns (even an advanced one) into a DSLR.

For indoor shots and for portraits, the kit lens works just fine, and with auto focus you can just point and shoot with far better results. If you want to learn all that the camera can do, and want to start taking control of your shots, the D40 or D60 will also be a good practice camera.

Why not go to a store and try out different higher end pns and DSLR cameras to see which one will suit you best?

 

[annnewjerz]

I have the D60 and when I first purchased it, Kyle (Handicap18) was nice enough to give me the link on the Nikonians website of all fully compatible lenses for the D40, D40x and D60. Here is the link..

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...&forum=152&topic_id=13319&mesg_id=13319&page=

As far as the lenses, only AF-S and AF-I lenses will focus on the these camera bodies, any others like the AF-D, etc. will have to be manually focused. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and have to use manual focus and I actually really enjoy it to the point that I am considering buying a bunch more lenses that won't autofocus with my camera because I feel like I have better control when I'm manually focusing. Don't get me wrong...I still love to have the option of the autofocus, but the manual focus is no big deal. It sounds scarier than it is.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Only lenses with the focus motor in the lens will autofocus. The D40 and D60 I think are the only 2 Nikons made without the focus motor in the body. Right now the choice of lenses that do autofocus is pretty limited. Just about any Nikon lens will fit the D40 but you would have to manual focus. I have a D40 and with a nice kit lens it would do what you are looking to get out of it. But if you are not really wanting to learn the ins and outs of a DSLR why spend the money for one? The D40 is a 6mp camera and is not a really a good choice for low light situations as for alot of indoor shots you need either flash or to push the ISO higher to get the decent shutter speed for taking pictures of fast moving kids. It does have an onboard flash which is adequate for snapshots but lots of times the pictures you get harsh shadows and/or overexposed features. You might be better off to put your money into a higher end point and shoot with good zoom and other options. I know many of the people here also own pns cameras as well as DSLRs and might have some suggestions which would be a good choice for what you want to do. They are more compact, easier to carry around with you and take excellent pictures for those occasional landscape or landmark pictures you want.

I'll take issue with this post too. In regards to the flash, the D40 onboard flash is going to be much better than the flash on any P & S. Sure, you can do better by purchasing one of Nikons flash units. But, the onboard will definitely be a step up from a P & S flash. Also, the D40 will produce much better results at a higher ISO than any P & S. 1600 is usable on the D40. On most P & S, ISO 400 gets pretty grainy. So, in regards to low-light or indoor shooting, the D40 is better all the way around.

 

[annnewjerz]

Only lenses with the focus motor in the lens will autofocus. The D40 and D60 I think are the only 2 Nikons made without the focus motor in the body. Right now the choice of lenses that do autofocus is pretty limited. Just about any Nikon lens will fit the D40 but you would have to manual focus. I have a D40 and with a nice kit lens it would do what you are looking to get out of it. But if you are not really wanting to learn the ins and outs of a DSLR why spend the money for one? The D40 is a 6mp camera and is not a really a good choice for low light situations as for alot of indoor shots you need either flash or to push the ISO higher to get the decent shutter speed for taking pictures of fast moving kids. It does have an onboard flash which is adequate for snapshots but lots of times the pictures you get harsh shadows and/or overexposed features. You might be better off to put your money into a higher end point and shoot with good zoom and other options. I know many of the people here also own pns cameras as well as DSLRs and might have some suggestions which would be a good choice for what you want to do. They are more compact, easier to carry around with you and take excellent pictures for those occasional landscape or landmark pictures you want.

I just wanted to say that I have the D60 (so yes, it isn't the D40 but there are so few extra features it may as well be) and you can get great indoor photos (even at night with artificial lighting) with this camera without boosting the ISO at all, as I think it has more to do with the lens you are using. At night, I may end up with slightly blurry shots if I am using my 18-200 lens because the aperture doesn't open wide enough, but if I slap on my 50mm and manually focus it, I can get great indoor shots (of moving subjects such as crying/moving babies, my crazy dogs) with no flash (great especially compared to my P&S).

Here are a few examples.

These were all taken indoors at low ISOs 100/200 (in various lighting conditions from sunset, to artificial to mid-day).

 

[jbuckent]

I just wanted to say that I have the D60 (so yes, it isn't the D40 but there are so few extra features it may as well be) and you can get great indoor photos (even at night with artificial lighting) with this camera without boosting the ISO at all, as I think it has more to do with the lens you are using. At night, I may end up with slightly blurry shots if I am using my 18-200 lens because the aperture doesn't open wide enough, but if I slap on my 50mm and manually focus it, I can get great indoor shots (of moving subjects such as crying/moving babies, my crazy dogs) with no flash (great especially compared to my P&S).

Here are a few examples.

These were all taken indoors at low ISOs 100/200 (in various lighting conditions from sunset, to artificial to mid-day).

So these two were taken with the 50mm, manually focused, and no flash right? Do you happen to have the settings used for these? These photos are what I'm looking for and can't get with my my camera.

 

[wenrob]

Going to agree with the majority here. I've taken over 7,000 pictures of fast moving kids (can anyone say twin toddlers?), more then 1/2 indoors and the D40 did just great. I have sold it to a friend w/little ones and she couldn't be happier. For the what the OP is looking for it's more then enough camera.

 

[annnewjerz]

So these two were taken with the 50mm, manually focused, and no flash right? Do you happen to have the settings used for these? These photos are what I'm looking for and can't get with my my camera.

What...you mean to tell me you won't be taking a lot of pictures of member of the reptilian family??? Both of these were taken manually focused with the 50mm f/1.8 with an aperture of 1.8.

Here are the settings.

The first:

Date Taken 2008-12-06 21:30:12
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D60
Exposure Time 0.004s (1/250)
Aperture f/1.8
ISO 100
Focal Length 50mm (75mm 35mm)
Photo Dimensions 1828 x 1270
File Name Jack 22.jpg
File Size 1.73 MB
Flash flash did not fire
Exposure Program aperture priority
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Exposure Mode auto
Light Source unknown
White Balance auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 1/1
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Sharpness 0
Subject Distance Range 0
Sensing Method one-chip color sensor
Color Space sRGB

And the second:

Date Taken 2008-12-07 18:04:50
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D60
Exposure Time 0.0333s (1/30)
Aperture f/1.8
ISO 200
Focal Length 50mm (75mm 35mm)
Photo Dimensions 2523 x 3633
File Name CD52.jpg
File Size 3.85 MB
Flash flash did not fire
Exposure Program aperture priority
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Exposure Mode auto
Light Source unknown
White Balance auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 1/1
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Sharpness 0
Subject Distance Range 0
Sensing Method one-chip color sensor
Color Space sRGB

 

[bob100]

I'm in a similar situation as the OP (want better indoor pics - low light - moving subject) but it seems a better upgrade path would be the Canon XSi package with two lens for around $700. You get the wide angle and the longer zoom (300mm) which would approximate the S5's range.
just thought I would throw in something else to complicate decisions!

 

[Steve's Girl]

I'm in a similar situation as the OP (want better indoor pics - low light - moving subject) but it seems a better upgrade path would be the Canon XSi package with two lens for around $700. You get the wide angle and the longer zoom (300mm) which would approximate the S5's range.
just thought I would throw in something else to complicate decisions!

Most kit lenses are not going to be very good for low light. Low light photography is more about the lens than the camera. The XSi is a very capable camera, but the kit lenses packaged in this type of offer are less than stellar.

 

[annnewjerz]

Most kit lenses are not going to be very good for low light. Low light photography is more about the lens than the camera. The XSi is a very capable camera, but the kit lenses packaged in this type of offer are less than stellar.

I think most people would agree that the kit lenses are not great...better than you may get with a P&S, but if you are looking for low-light or fast moving shots you will probably have to get a faster lens. I think the majority would suggest buying a body only if possible and if funds allow, upgrade to a nicer kit lens that you can use as a "walkaround" such as the 18-105mm VR, and then also getting a nice fast lens for the lower light situations such as the Sigma 30 f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.8 (even though as stated, you will have eto manually focus).

I didn't realize what I was missing until I got my first "fast" lens (even though it was the cheap nifty 50) and now, everytime I look at a lens that I considering purchasing...if I see one with 2.8 or lower it will always have a slight edge over the competition, even if it's a little (or sometimes a lot) pricier.

 

[jbuckent]

Most kit lenses are not going to be very good for low light. Low light photography is more about the lens than the camera. The XSi is a very capable camera, but the kit lenses packaged in this type of offer are less than stellar.

Is this specific to the Canon or to the kit lens in all cameras (or at least the ones this thread would be looking at)?

 

[annnewjerz]

Is this specific to the Canon or to the kit lens in all cameras (or at least the ones this thread would be looking at)?

Most kit lenses in general aren't that great. I have a Nikon (but I would assume Canon lenses are the same). The 18-55 is a good lens (the standard kit) but the 18-55 VR is better (the sort of upgraded kit). There is nothing wrong with them, they just tend to have a maximum aperture of 3.5 or 5 which keeps you from being able to shoot handheld in low-light or have a fast enough shutter to freeze action in things like sports shots. They are nice little lenses, but most people will probably find that they will want others that provide so much more.

I would recommend a body with the 18-105mm VR lens only because it covers a much broader spectrum than the 18-55, meaning it is (possibly) one less lens you will feel like you have to buy right away. I think it's a safe bet to say that anyone who has the kit lens is either just doing basic snapshots or is probably waiting to save enough money to buy something "better."

 

[ukcatfan]

Is this specific to the Canon or to the kit lens in all cameras (or at least the ones this thread would be looking at)?

You will have very similar optics on all brands, but some have a little better build quality. For example, the Pentax and Olympus versions do not have rotating front elements which makes using rotating filters much easier. With the exception of the newest "light" version of the Pentax kit, they also have a metal mount instead of plastic making it more durable.