Canon D40

Twinjibber77

Twinjibber77

Active member
so i'm crusin threw walmart an i started lookin ath there professional photo shit, there was a canon an tha logo on tha camera said D40, i've always thought it was a 40D. . . . . . . .well reguardless, is this a good camera?, i want a nice digital but am not sure what to invest in
 
i doubt walmart carries a 40d. I am shooting with one this week, and it's pretty nice. If you are asking NS if it's a good camera i suggest you look at buying something less expensive and easier to use, no offense.
 
and i have a d40 nikon as well. It is a good prosumer camera. Easy to use with good quality pictures with basic kit lenses. The only problem is it uses the AF lenses that are harder to come by. See my photos for a few examples in my profile.
 
alrighty, i have mass amounts of film cameras and gear, an i'm gonna start digi, i'm just wondering, i would by it off tha internet anyway, i wound/t trust walmart with professional cameras
 
i would trust walmart more then 95% of the websites that sell cameras online. The less you pay the more likely it is a scam, shop with B&H photo, they are by far the best site.
 
Check out www.bhphotovideo.com. Most of the reviews are well informed. The Canon 40D is your typical "prosumer" DSLR. If you're just starting out, and looking to go with a Canon camera, go with the Rebel. It's a great starter. Invest in lenses first because those will last. The body will depreciate in value and companies will always be introducing a newer version every 18 months of so that will have new bells and whistles.

I actually waited for the 1D MIII to come out so the prices on the 1D MIIN would come down. That might be your way to go, to buy an "older" new model and spend the money on new glass.
 
if you're already into photography the Nikon D40 might be limiting. You could try Canon's rebel series XTi or XSi, or Canons 40D.
 
lol are you seriously recommending a $3,000+ Mark camera for someone who is just starting into digital photograhpy? Come on. I'd rather he got a rebel xti or something sub $500 with a kit lense, and then upgraded the glass.
 
woops, i read through what u said toooo fast. i take that back. actually we said the same thing pretty much. my bad
 
it was definitley a nikon d40 because the canon 40d is way too expencive to be sitting out in a walmart, those sell for a little over a grand with a basic lense the d40 is like 4-500
 
Holy fucking christ. Don't listen to any of these kids. Who ever mentioned that the D40 would be limiting and instead offered an XTi instead should go play in the middle of the street. Those two cameras are equally limiting in the fact that they lack a motor for autofocus meaning you can only use lenses that have the motor built in, needless to say there are FAR less lenses with motors built in and they are obviously more expensive. Canon shot themselves in the foot when they decided that their new cameras can only use the EF series lens and none of the older lenses. Nikon on the other hand will allow you to use ANY of their AF lenses with their newest bodies, meaning you can get cheaper, higher quality lenses.

And yes, this IS biased because I shoot Nikon for digital, but I rarely shoot digital anyway.
 
I still disagree, different opinions are okay. I'd rather have IS in the lens. It's better, and new lenses I buy have the possibility of having a better IS motor, rather than being stuck with the one in the body. I have an XTi and I'm not really disappointed with it. I've been focusing more on lenses/ flashes.
 
And I don't fucking care. Be happy with your camera dude, I'm just making suggestions that aren't highly biased because I'm not like "OMG DOOD I HAVE AN XTI AND IT MERKS. ALL 3.5FPS OF IT!"
 
there are plenty of ef/efs lenses to buy, why does it matter whether or not he can use old ones?
 
Haha, I don't even like taking them, I just arguing about gear. But seriously, this thread got out of hand, my bad. Twas a bad week for me.
 
hahaha, my bad. or it might just be that I'm incredibly tired right now. cool stuff though, for me it's more of a hobby, as lame as that sounds.
 
Bitch Bitch Rable Rable. enough of all your guys mongering.

If you are an experienced photog with film, I would not bother with the Nikon D40. or the simmilar Canon Rebel ones, You will find them limiting as many of the features are designed for affluent soccer moms.

If you are looking to get into digital, which you should since 35mm will be dead in less then 5 years (is it not already?) I would strongly urge you to stick with which ever brand you have gone with in the past so you don't need to buy all new lenses. It is not like one is way better then the other, one year Canon has the best the next year it is Nikon. I would be more then happy shooting either right now.

When it comes to picking out your first body there is no reason to break the bank. Find something cheap, used and refurbished are good places to start. Check Craigslist and ebay. I got a refurbished 30D for less then half of retail. I and many others are getting fine photos without 10+ Megapixles. If you plan on shooting skiing alot though one thing I would want is at least 5frames a second for sequences.

If you are going Nikon I would look for a used 200D, or even a 300D if they are starting to pop up for sale. Both are great cameras. If you are a canon type of person I would look for Used 30D's or 20D's even a 10D (I know freezed takes killer shots with his).

When it comes to lenses remember that most DSLRs use a size 'C' sensor. This will give you a 1.6 crop on all your photos so all of your lens will be 1.6x what they were on your film backs. This also means that it is slightly harder to hold a steady shot with Digital then with Film; making I.S. lenses more worthwhile.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top