Is the nikon d40 worth the money

K2boarder149

K2boarder149

Member
im thinking about getting the nikon d40 for beginner photography and if anyone has any reviews or anything on it thatd be a help
 
Sorry but you might as well go with the Xti from cannon its really worth the price and more!
 
depending on how serious you want to go with it, i think it would be better to bump up the money to get a d50. d40's are great cameras and deffinatly worth the money, but you cant really upgrade to that many lenses with the d40. get a d50 and you wont be disspaointed
 
I see what you are saying with the internal auto focus mechanism but arnt d50s pretty much phased out? I have a d80 but I wish I would have went with a d40 b/c its nice and small has the same features and is way cheaper.
 
i wish i had gotten a D50 instead...but the D40 takes great pics, the only problem is the lens situation
 
holy crap. use the searchbar! there are about 432 threads about the stupid D40. it's an extremely beginner level camera. the XT or XTi are both better cameras and you can find them for cheap. GO.
 
I'm a nikon shooter, I've got a D80 and a D200 for digital. Than again I have my own buisness. I can tell you that the D40 for beginners is a great camera. Depends on which one you want though, one is 6mb and the other is 10mb, big difference. As far as the lenses are concerned I have heard anything that tells me they are limited. All Nikon cameras are F mount lenses. The D40 is around 549.00 and that includes an 18-55 lens, the D40x (10mb) is about 629.00 body only. You can probably find better deals. Try BHphotovideo.com. I've had bad luck with cannons. The shutters are the biggest problem with them, they get gummed up.
 
Rebel XT is the shittiest DSLR you can get, the XTi however, is a good camera for its price. Both are more expensive than D40s. GO.
 
Megapixels are not a big deal. 8.2 is plenty. When you pack more megapixels onto a low end sensor (like the junk CCD sensor the d40x uses) you will get bad noise above 800 ISO. I'll take a quality CMOS sensor at 8.2mp anyday. I have blown up photos up 24x36 that I shot with my first digital rebal (300d) and they look fine.
 
Never said that Megapixels were a big deal. I know there isn't much difference between 8.2 and 10, especially to the commen eye. Not many beginners are shooting above 400 iso anyway unless they are using a disposable, so I think he's safe there. If he's shooting outside and or of skiing then he doesn't want to shoot at 800, those shots will be blown out. I myself don't use the D40x, I'm not a beginner. I think its a good camera for beginners, you've gotta start somewhere.
 
I know that its a better camera but not for the beginner. I would shoot the 20d over the 40x but then again I've been shooting for 15 years. FOr a beginner I would say get a camera that you can learn the basics on, then if you want to expand by all means.
 
Are you serious?

I love nikon and will always stay with them. It seems like nikon has more loyal customers than any other brand. Canon might be better for some things but nikon has always come through. I own a d50 and love it. It was my first camera and after a couple months I had taught myself almost everything the camera has to offer. I feel it is within my range of capability and it does exactly what I need it to do. Every single time. I have yet to use the d40 but in every thread I've posted in about the d40 I've said the same thing. Go with the d50. You'll learn quickly and the auto mode is always there if you need it.
 
1."Depends on which one you want though, one is 6mb and the other is 10mb, big difference."

2. What!?!? As a shooter of 15 years you would know that exposure is determined by shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.

Anyway, if you want something with a little more versatility, speed, and room to grow in to, a used 20 or 30D is the better alternative. All the cameras have a idiot mode(auto, P). The learning curve differential is minimal at best.
 
How can you say that about the xt....you didn't back that up...unless of course it just your personal opinion. Look at my photos in my sig and then tell me it sucks.
 
1. If he's printing out 4x6's to 9x12's he's not going to notice a difference between a 6mb and a 10mb. You don't notice a difference in the print until you get much larger and the image becomes pixelated.

2. I didn't say anything about aperture and speed. Only iso, and I know that it takes all 3 to determine the proper exposure. What I was getting at is that if shooting outside (if its sunny and def if there is snow) then you are going to want a lower iso. Makes the contrast and saturation of color that much better. Besides, if he is shooting outside, if its sunny and with snow, and shooting at a higher iso then he'll need a lens that can handle that kind of aperture. That camera might not be able to handle that type of lens.

Maybe a better bet for you would be the D60. Its a lil bit more than the D40 but cheaper than the 20 and 30d. The D60 will keep you runnin for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top