Nikon d40, dirt cheap, should i get one?

Werner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,106
Location
The Netherlands
Car(s)
'11 Toyota Aygo; '07 Honda CB600F Hornet
Hi guys,

I was just browsing and i noticed that the nikon d40's are rather cheap at the moment, costing about 285 euro's including a 18-55MM kit lens. during holidays i really like to take photos, and maybe it isn't a bad idea to get another camera for some more 'pro-look' photos, and maybe turn photography into a real hobby. :)

i know nothing about these kind of cameras to be brutally honest, i am used to simple point-and-click cameras. i read that the d40 therefore is a good choice.

my question is, does someone here have the cam, and can you tell me if it good to really start from scratch with? what kind of quality can i expect with the kit lens?

Greetings, werner
 

vikiradTG2007

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
11,084
Location
The country UKIP is scared of
Car(s)
Working on it
I'm quite a noob in photography, but I've got the D40 and I love it to bits. Photo quality is good with the 18-55 lens, but only on normal-scale shots. I would recommend something like the 55-200 lens if you're also looking for details in your photos. So far, however, the D40 has done its job on whatever I wanted brilliantly. It's only got 6 megapixels in resolution, but it's really quite enough.


So my advice is BUY IT. It's a fantastic starter for semi-professional photography.
 
Last edited:

Werner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,106
Location
The Netherlands
Car(s)
'11 Toyota Aygo; '07 Honda CB600F Hornet
I'm quite a noob in photography, but I've got the D40 and I love it to bits. Photo quality is good with the 18-55 lens, but only on normal-scale shots. I would recommend something like the 55-200 lens if you're also looking for details in your photos. So far, however, the D40 has done its job on whatever I wanted brilliantly. It's only got 6 megapixels in resolution, but it's really quite enough.

what do you mean by details? macro shots or something? i have seen sample pictures taken by the d40, but they look quite detailed to me? :blink:

edit: just read that nikon's habit is to do winter/christmas rebates, is there any news on that? otherwise i'll think over it and get it a month or so later...
 
Last edited:

Werner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,106
Location
The Netherlands
Car(s)
'11 Toyota Aygo; '07 Honda CB600F Hornet
Large landscape detail or detailed shots of far away objects. That's where the 18-55 lens is out of its depth.

ok thanks, i'm not really worried about that as they are still multiple times better then the landscape shots of my current camera :)
 

vikiradTG2007

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
11,084
Location
The country UKIP is scared of
Car(s)
Working on it
epp_b has the D40 as well AFAIK, and I guess he's more qualified than me to speak about it. So wait until he replies here for more data than I was able to give you. ;)
 

Werner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,106
Location
The Netherlands
Car(s)
'11 Toyota Aygo; '07 Honda CB600F Hornet
epp_b has the D40 as well AFAIK, and I guess he's more qualified than me to speak about it. So wait until he replies here for more data than I was able to give you. ;)

i will, thanks for the info you gave :)

woop, 500th post
 

Shawn

Lexus? Oh shi-
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
13,988
Car(s)
MkVI GTI w/DSG
I have a D40x, and although it's a great camera and likely plenty enough for the beginner and intermediate hobby photographer, that price isn't really so special.

The D40 has been doubly superseded, first by the D40x and now the D60. The D40x really only offers some extra pixels (10MP), but at 6MP the D40 is looking rather dated, even if megapixels aren't nearly the most important aspect of a camera. Then there's the D60 which is the newest Nikon entry-level DSLR... it adds some interesting but useless features like videos and an accelerometer to detect how you're holding the camera.

My point is, don't go for it just on the price, I think that's just what the D40 goes for these days. But it is a great camera, great for people who are new to the world of DSLR cameras especially.

Oh, and I would say prepare to buy a second lens soon after... you don't need one per se, but the kit lens isn't that amazing, aside from being light and cheap. After a while, you'll start lusting after better lenses since there's only so many subjects you can do well with a 18-55 lens.

Edit: These are some of the first good shots I took with my D40 on auto settings, knowing nothing about photography (I still don't :p). Even auto settings making you look half decent.
 
Last edited:

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
epp_b has the D40 as well AFAIK, and I guess he's more qualified than me to speak about it. So wait until he replies here for more data than I was able to give you.
Thanks! :)

I really have no idea whether 285 Euros is good or not, but if it's equivalent to buying one here for $285, is brand new with a warranty and includes a kit lens, that is a very good price. It's still $450 in the US for that setup.

I'd stay away from the kit lens though.
Optically, the kit lens is perfectly acceptable, but it is very cheaply built.
 

the Interceptor

I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
6,041
Location
ze Vaterland
Car(s)
VW Diesel of Death
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the 18-55 kit lens, it makes great photos. I did exactly what you did, get the D40 kit to get into photography. I haven't regretted it for a single second ever since, the perfect entry camera to get into serious business. I also got myself the 55-200, which is a nice addition and the lens to go for if you have the kit.

Also, 285 Euros is by no means expensive, I'm as bold to say you won't get a better new DSLR with a good lens for that money. And having more pixels has no advantage whatsoever, unless you want to print your pictures in huge sizes. 6 MP is known to be a very good relation between resolution and noise, 10 MP on a sensor with the same format will only generate more noise on higher ISOs, therefore I see no advantage in the D40x or the D60.
 
Last edited:

Werner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,106
Location
The Netherlands
Car(s)
'11 Toyota Aygo; '07 Honda CB600F Hornet
Thanks! :)

I really have no idea whether 285 Euros is good or not, but if it's equivalent to buying one here for $285, is brand new with a warranty and includes a kit lens, that is a very good price. It's still $450 in the US for that setup.


Optically, the kit lens is perfectly acceptable, but it is very cheaply built.

285 euros are about 360 dollars at the moment.

thanks for all the information guys, really appreciate it. i'm going to think it over and i'll decide next week :)
 

Shawn

Lexus? Oh shi-
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
13,988
Car(s)
MkVI GTI w/DSG
I agree with the Interceptor for the record, the 18-55 kit lens is good for what it is. The shots I linked above are from that lens, so it doesn't take bad pics or anything - the quality is really good actually. It's just that you will probably just itch to get another lens for more varied shots.
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
If you can afford it, skip the kit lens and buy the 18-200 VR. But, then, if you could afford that, you wouldn't be looking for a DSLR on the cheap ;)

I have the same focal range using the 18-55 and 55-200 VR, but I find that I have to change lenses quite often.
 

Werner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
1,106
Location
The Netherlands
Car(s)
'11 Toyota Aygo; '07 Honda CB600F Hornet
If you can afford it, skip the kit lens and buy the 18-200 VR. But, then, if you could afford that, you wouldn't be looking for a DSLR on the cheap ;)

I have the same focal range using the 18-55 and 55-200 VR, but I find that I have to change lenses quite often.

well, i can afford it. but first i want to have some experience with something regular before i spend extra money. Maybe after i have tried it for some time, and like it as a hobby, i'll think of spendings some on a other lens :)
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
I'm as bold to say you won't get a better new DSLR with a good lens for that money.
Truth be told, you won't get any worse camera either. ;)

The D40 is a nifty little dSLR, and is surely one of the cameras I'd shortlist for an amateur. It has its small niggles that does irritate me every time I use one, but that's compared to other, more advanced cameras, and therefore they are rather moot.

For the price, it seems like a really good buy. Of course, the most important aspect of any camera is ergonomics, and if you have the option, I'd recommend getting into a good, well stocked camera shop, and trying out all cameras within your price reach.

The one that's best to hold in your hands, and is affordable for you, is the best camera for you.

If that's the D40, that's quite fine. As its a very good camera. :)
 

the Interceptor

I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
6,041
Location
ze Vaterland
Car(s)
VW Diesel of Death
Truth be told, you won't get any worse camera either. ;)
You sure would: any point and shoot. :mrgreen:

About the 18-200: the better choice as a carry-around lens for sure, sometimes the lens changing is a pain in the arse. However, the 18-200 is not superior in picture quality, is much heavier than the 55-200, suffers from lens creep when held vertically and costs significantly more than the 18-55 and the 55-200 together. One advantage is the VR (vibration reduction). The 55-200 has that as well, and the 18-55 is available with it. The 18-55 kit lens doesn't have it though.
 
Last edited:

Matt2000

An Unfortunate Discovery
DONOR
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
15,707
Location
Left a bit, no right a bit, just there. England.
Car(s)
2020 Tesla Model 3, 1990 Discovery 1 Bobtail
I love my D40 and my 55-200 VR lens, they are both superb for any amateur. For an example of the quality of the 55-200, take a look at my latest photo in the Lens Flair thread. :D
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
To ammend what nomix said, the general consesus (and I agree) is that Nikon has the upper hand in ergonomics.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
You sure would: any point and shoot. :mrgreen:
Not with dSLRs. :p

To ammend what nomix said, the general consesus (and I agree) is that Nikon has the upper hand in ergonomics.
Well, I won't agree to that in any way, as ergonomics is so individual that each person MUST make up their own opinion. Even if 90 % perfer the D40 to the xxxD series (and I do), there's 10 % who'd prefer a 1000D or 450D, and they can be anyone.

I actually prefer the E-4x0-series to both the D40 and the xxxD-series. Not because I've got small hands, I do love my E-3, not to mention bodies like the 1Dmk3, not to happy with the D3, in fact, but that just shows how different people are when it comes to ergonomics.

:)
 
Top