Nikon D40

[Furgus]

Looks like it is offical.


Nikon D40

Discuss.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You can review a preview at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111603nikond40handsonpreview.asp

It's not the camera for me, but I'm very happy they are making it. Driving the cost of entry level DSLRs downward is a real boon to the photography industry.

In the old days of film, students could afford to get started quite cheaply. With digital, the bar was set much higher for people wanting the control of an SLR. This will help.

I remember how DSLR sales exploded when Canon introduced the Digital Rebel. I wonder if this will set off another explosion. My guess is not, but it will continue to make DSLRs a viable alternative to P&Ss for those on a budget.

I wonder what Canon's response will be?

In the interest of full disclosure, I own a token amount of Canon stock.

 

[Groucho]

I skimmed an article this morning about it.

From the admittedly not-very-indepth bit I read - it sounds like the only advantage it has over the D50 is the larger LCD, but is equal or inferior in every other way (outside of price, obviously)? OK, it has 3200ISO, but that's going to be very rarely used. (Although it's not THAT bad, in the right environment - I got a few quite nice 3200ISO night pictures from my parent's boat with my DL, which uses the same sensor.)

I'm sure it will do well just from the market penetration and name that Nikon has, but I don't see it competing well functionality-wise with the low-buck Pentax DSLRs. Canon and Sony have nothing comparable, so for an average person who's not aware of the Pentax or can't get it locally (or is prejudiced in some way) and wants a very inexpensive DSLR, the D40 is going to be the obvious choice.

I would think that if I were buying a Nikon, I'd want to spend the extra bucks and get a D50, even though that means the smaller LCD. The 2.5" screen really is a nice feature... but not enough to sway me based on the cut-down features.

I doubt that Sony or Canon will be able to easily compete (or want to) - they're too tied into the megapixel race at this point, and I'm sure sure that they'd be interested in cutting features and possibly going to fewer mp to compete on price. It's certainly not like Canon is hurting for DSLR sales, and Sony is probably more interested in concentrating on their current segment rather than spreading their new DSLRs too wide and thin.

 

[mabas9395]

Just because people CAN afford a dSLR, that doesn't mean that all of them SHOULD have a dSLR.

The reason a P&S is called a Point and Shoot is because that is all you have to do to operate it: point it and shoot it. A dSLR requires a commitment of time and brain power to understand some photography basics in order to get good results (obviously not much of the latter because I use one).

I am glad for the people who really want one (and want to use it properly) and can now afford them as they get cheaper and cheaper. But there is going to be a wave of people with money to burn that heard the dSLR was the best so they have to have one. Next thing you know they are on various photo boards saying that they don't understand why their pictures turned out all blurry, and it's usually becuase they set it on Program Mode and got a shutter speed of 1/8 of a second because they left their ISO at 100.

Its like getting a stick shift because you heard they are the best but then not taking the time to learn how to drive one. Then you wonder why smoke is coming out from under your car.

 

[ukcatfan]

I think the auto mode should be completely removed from the DSLR. It is just wasting dial space in my opinion. I was in line behind someone at WDW last year and he had a complete top of the line Canon setup. I am talking in the $5,000+ range. He had it on auto! I thought that it might just be turned there on accident, but he proceeded to use it. Then he and his wife were looking at it together trying to turn off the flash. What a waste. But kudos to the Canon marketing department that got this guy to shell out that much for something that he has no idea how to use.

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

I have mixed feelings about this camera. This is a real "entry level" dSLR. This is certainly a camera that anyone with a dSLR would not even bother looking at and those that are looking to get a dSLR, have been a hobbiest with an SLR in the past and maybe has a higher end P&S wont want either. IMO, this camera compares more with the bridge camera's (Sony Hx, Canon S2/S3, etc...) so even the people with those type of camera's might not want to get the D40.

The D40 wont work with the older Nikkor AF lenses, only the AF-S. So lenses like the 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 80-200 f/2.8, and the only 70-300mm lens it will work with is the soon to be release version with VR which is $550, the 2 other 70-300mm lenses Nikon have are AF, also there isn't a wide selection of Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses that will be available. Sigma lenses with HSM (which aren't very many) will work.

There is no LCD screen on the top like the other Nikon dSLR's so you can only rely on the 2 1/2" LCD on the back. It only has a 3 area Auto Focus sensor (D50 has 5 and the D80 has even more, I want to say 11, but I'm not 100% sure).

It does seem to have EXCELLENT high ISO performance on par with the D50 (which is probably the best of the Nikon dSLR's), the 2 1/2" LCD is great, price is small (compared to other dSLR's) and the size is small.

I'm guessing that this is more for those who have never had an SLR, don't really want all the bells and whistles that come with the higher priced dSLR's, but want much better high ISO performance and a bigger/better sensor than a P&S offers. You will really only need 1 or 2 lenses for this camera. If you have the 18-135mm Nikon lens, that maybe all you'll need. Especially because the only other options for longer reach lenses are priced starting at over $500.

You probably have more options with the Pentax line that is priced about the same.

At $499, I'd rather spend the exta $100-150 for the D50.

 

[donaldduck1967]

Is it $499 body only? If so spend another $50.00 and get the Rebel XT

 

[ukcatfan]

Is it $499 body only? If so spend another $50.00 and get the Rebel XT

I read that it will only be offered as a kit.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

It can't be had body only, only as a kit.

I was astonished to see the restriction on lenses (only using ones with built-in focusing motors) - did it really save THAT much money/weight to make a move like that?

Looking at the DPReview review - it really is designed for the complete novice.

ukcatfan... I see where you're coming from but I don't know if I agree. Should we all be forced to only use things just nice enough for us to appreciate them? If the guy has the money, so what if he uses auto mode? Maybe he just got the camera and didn't want to take any chances, and knew that auto would at least get him pretty good pictures the majority of the time, if not ideal. I certainly don't think the auto mode should be removed - after all, sometimes we need to hand the camera to someone else for them to take a picture with us in it. It just can be a little elitist to demand that DSLRs only be for people who can use it full manual (and this is coming from a guy whose 35mm SLR had no auto ANYthing) because the camera is too good for the photographer. It looks like Nikon is trying to get some combination of PnS ease with the DSLR quality inherent with a bigger sensor. Although I fear they're hobbling some of the real advantages of a DSLR in the battle to get the price low. And there is certainly a feeling among some PnS users that DSLR users are a bunch of snobs.

Don't get me wrong - I still get disgusted when I see performance cars with automatic transmissions, though, so I definitely understand how you feel. But everyone starts out as a beginner.

 

[ukcatfan]

I was just joking around. If people that do not know much about photography didn't go out and buy those expensive models, then we would be paying three times as much to get our cameras.

I wasn't picking on this guy. He just gave me a laugh. He was one of those guys that obviously had to have the best of everything because he wanted to show you how much money he has. His wife was wearing stiletto high heels with shorts and a polo shirt at the MK. Believe me, they enjoyed attention. They even had their kid in a sports card brand stroller. I think it was Ferrari. I laughed more at the fact that even with all his arrogance, he did not know how to turn the flash off on his $5,000 camera. As with most cameras, he probably needed to be in Program mode to do that.

Kevin

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think the auto mode should be completely removed from the DSLR. It is just wasting dial space in my opinion. I was in line behind someone at WDW last year and he had a complete top of the line Canon setup. I am talking in the $5,000+ range. He had it on auto!

The top of the line Canons (1D and 1Ds) do not have full-auto mode. The only modes are manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, and program. They also don't come with a flash. The full auto mode on the lower and mid-range canons automates not just the shutter speed/aperture selection but also things like file format, autofocus mode, flash, etc.

I actually wouldn't mind a full auto mode on the 1D, particularly if I could get it to use RAW instead of JPG. It would make for a much better spouse mode.

If people that do not know much about photography didn't go out and buy those expensive models, then we would be paying three times as much to get our cameras.

I'm not really sure this is true. Many companies make little or no money on their highest end equipment and use those models as flagship brands to attract sales to their cheaper models. Even if the margins on the 1D(s) lines are quite high, the profits are probably insignificant when the volume of sales in considered.

 

[handicap18]

In the Nikon line starting with the D200 and going up the only options are Manual, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority and Program.

I wouldn't mind having a dSLR like that. I have never used any of the preprogramed Icons, although anytime DW uses the camera I told her to turn the dial to AUTO. This way she doesn't have to worry about anything including the auto focus area. In Auto on the D50 it goes to multi area AF instead of having to choose one of the 5 areas for AF. This mode is much easier on those with little or no experience.

 

[ukcatfan]

I don't think it was a 1D, but between the lenses, flash, grip, etc. he had a pretty penny invested. I think it was a 5D, but I am sure that it was not a Rebel.

By saying that I credit lower prices to inexperienced people buying high end equipment, I meant them buying any DSLR.

Kevin

 

[Greg K.]

Get the Pentax K100, which comes with a nice kit lens and shake reducation, to boot. Takes GREAT pictures, too. AND it's simple, intuitive and easy to use, right out of the box. A true entry level dSLR, and an excellent value. IMHO, of course.

 

[spoon2003]

I think the auto mode should be completely removed from the DSLR. It is just wasting dial space in my opinion. I was in line behind someone at WDW last year and he had a complete top of the line Canon setup. I am talking in the $5,000+ range. He had it on auto! I thought that it might just be turned there on accident, but he proceeded to use it. Then he and his wife were looking at it together trying to turn off the flash. What a waste. But kudos to the Canon marketing department that got this guy to shell out that much for something that he has no idea how to use.

Kevin

At my grandma's 100th birthday banquet, my cousin pulled out a 5d, 24-135? L lens and a 580ex flash and used it on auto all night. The next day, she emailed to tell us most of her pictures didn't came out!!! But she did upload about 5 shots, she and I have an exact same shot of the group, and clearly her equipment beats my xt and kit lens serious camera envy but with 2 kids, I won't be buying that kind of equipment for a while

Sue

 

[MarkBarbieri]

By saying that I credit lower prices to inexperienced people buying high end equipment, I meant them buying any DSLR.

I have to agree that as a general rule people with little interest in learning their equipment should not be buying DSLRs. Some of the high end P&S cameras will probably do a better job for them.

What I love about the new Nikon is that for people of limited means that are interested in serious photography, it provides a much lower barrier to entry. They can get started with a cheap body and slowly upgrade their equipment as their budget grows.

When I first wanted to switch from film to digital, the cheapest DSLR was the Canon D30 at just over $3,000. I didn't want to spend the money and I couldn't give up the flexibility of an SLR, so I was shut out of the market. I had to wait until prices got lower so that I could jump in. Ever since then, I've watched as more and more people interested in photography have made the switch as the entry price has gone down. When the price dropped below $1,000 for a DSLR and kit, almost everyone I know made the switch. Now that the price is getting below $500, I expect that even high schoolers and college students that are photography buffs will be able to switch.

As for yo-yo's with more equipment than skill, I have to confess that I fall into that category. I've got some great kit - 1DM2, 10D, 17-40 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 50 f1.8, 28-135 f5.6 IS, 580EX & 420EX flashes, Gitzo carbon fiber tripod, and an assortment of other goodies. I do know how to operate it all. My problem is that I just don't have much talent. I routinely see people with more skill and less kit outperform me. The better equipment has improved my photography, but it's no panacea. Still, I'm having fun and constantly improving and that's what matters to me.

 

[Groucho]

What I love about the new Nikon is that for people of limited means that are interested in serious photography, it provides a much lower barrier to entry. They can get started with a cheap body and slowly upgrade their equipment as their budget grows.

The problem is that you're stuck with a cheap, cut-down body that cannot use the cheaper lenses. If you get serious, you'll have to buy a higher-model camera and the D40 will become useless as you begin to acquire some lenses that it cannot use.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Nikon made a mistake on this one. I think something like a "D55", with the D55's complete feature set, a couple improvements, and a bigger LCD, for a lower price point, would have been a better decision. Price such a camera at $650 instead of $600 (or maybe $600 body-only) and retire the D50 and they'd have a more compelling product.

Perhaps Nikon felt the need to move downmarket as their PnS cameras aren't nearly as successful as the competition, and they have nothing in the "SLR-like" field like Canon does. It seems to me that the D40 is positioned to complete more with something like Canon's SLR-like cameras rather than other SLRs, including the cheaper and more full-featured Pentaxes (who are also in a position of not having any "SLR-like" cameras.)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The problem is that you're stuck with a cheap, cut-down body that cannot use the cheaper lenses.

I'm not familiar enough with the Nikon lens line to understand how this will impact the users lens selection.

If you get serious, you'll have to buy a higher-model camera and the D40 will become useless as you begin to acquire some lenses that it cannot use.

I would imagine that if they upgraded their camera body, they would probably sell off their D40 or limit its use to the lenses they had at that time. I don't think this would be a serious problem.

It's not like the Canon problem where people buying EF-S lenses will lose the use of those lenses if they upgrade to a 5D, 1D, or 1Ds. In the Nikon case, all lenses bought for the D40 will still be usable as they move up the model line, correct? That assumes that Nikon won't come out with a full frame digital camera.

 

[Groucho]

It's not like the Canon problem where people buying EF-S lenses will lose the use of those lenses if they upgrade to a 5D, 1D, or 1Ds. In the Nikon case, all lenses bought for the D40 will still be usable as they move up the model line, correct? That assumes that Nikon won't come out with a full frame digital camera.

I believe you're correct. I would assume that cheaper lenses are less likely to have built-in focusing motors, and would hence be unusable on the D40... which would mean a D40 user wouldn't have those available, and apparently also wouldn't have access to some more advanced lenses like primes, etc?

This is just my guess based on the comments I've been reading. It's really a shame that they couldn't achieve a greater level of computability (Nikon or Canon).

 

[handicap18]

I'm leading towards being in Groucho's camp with this one. Something should have been done a bit different. Whether it be making a camera more like the D50 or maybe making the D40, but making a longer lens. The 18-55 is only a 3x zoom lens. Granted a lot of P&S cameras are 3x, but as you get up in price like the D40 is priced then your talking 10x & 12x zoom. Maybe remaking the 18-70mm would have been better.

As for other lenses with AF-S, there are a total of 21 in the Nikon line, though most of them are on the more expensive side. all of the new lenses Nikon has released recently (maybe the last few years) have all been AF-S. I guess its only a matter of time that they'll start remaking some primes with AF-S.

Either way I would have liked to have seen something done differently.