View Full Version : Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?
The DPNow take on the new Nikon D40 announced today (http://dpnow.com/3197.html)
http://dpnow.com/images/forum/forum/d40d.jpg
The new Nikon D40 stays at 6MP - on the face of it a good thing if protestations against the megapixel race are worthy. But will the public think the same way? And will there be confusion now the Nikon D40 is the first Nikon AF DSLR that can only autofocus with AF-S type lenses? We were told by Nikon UK yesterday that the D40 is expected to pioneer a big leap in DSLR market share for Nikon. Is their new baby going to see off the Pentax K100D, Canon EOS-400D, Sony Alpha A100 - even the more expensive but similarly diminutive Olympus E-400? Let's hear your say!
Ian
I'm really interested in evaluating different differences in image quality with Oly E-400 because it is the only other "compact" DSLR.
I think that 6MP could be an advantage in term of noise and DR and I hope it won't pay too much resolution to 10MP (30% in theory).
Marketing...
... it depends on Nikon.
If they are able to say "compact", "lightweight", "easy to use", "superior performance" and can present affordable lenses for "Your DSLR: all advantages of compact cameras and DSL in a unique Nikon body" it could be really a huge success.
I'm really interested in evaluating different differences in image quality with Oly E-400 because it is the only other "compact" DSLR.
I think that 6MP could be an advantage in term of noise and DR and I hope it won't pay too much resolution to 10MP (30% in theory).
Marketing...
... it depends on Nikon.
If they are able to say "compact", "lightweight", "easy to use", "superior performance" and can present affordable lenses for "Your DSLR: all advantages of compact cameras and DSL in a unique Nikon body" it could be really a huge success.
After a brief hands on, I can say that the Nikon D40 is slightly narrower than the Olympus E-400, but in all other dimensions the E-400 is quite a bit smaller and it's 25% lighter too. The E-400's lens is also a lot smaller and lighter. But the D40 has a more substantial, more solid, feel, so I think each camera will appeal to different buyers.
Ian
Looks to me that Nikon is hell bent on converting compact p&s users. The D40 is full of compromises for anyone already in the Nikon DSLR (and film SLR) camp - it;s not a camera aimed at these guys one bit. But there is minimal compromise to a p&s upgrader.
Unregistered
16-11-06, 02:31 PM
Looks to me that Nikon is hell bent on converting compact p&s users. The D40 is full of compromises for anyone already in the Nikon DSLR (and film SLR) camp - it;s not a camera aimed at these guys one bit. But there is minimal compromise to a p&s upgrader.
I have to agree. This new camera is almost an irrelevance to the core Nikon tribe. The one good thing it will do is bring more into the Nikonian fold, but the real entry level Nikon is really still the D80.
F-man
Looks to me that Nikon is hell bent on converting compact p&s users. The D40 is full of compromises for anyone already in the Nikon DSLR (and film SLR) camp - it;s not a camera aimed at these guys one bit. But there is minimal compromise to a p&s upgrader.
That's an interesting point of view. Nikon has a tradition of preserving as much backwards compatibility as it can but the D40 does look like it has broken that tradition.
I'm curious to discover if Nikon can successfully create a niche in the market for a lower specification DSLR at a price lower than the ten megapixel entry-level models from Canon, Sony, etc.
Ian
Hi Ian,
At Nikon's Japanese site I found around four or five news releases about D40.
Apart from the announcement of the new model, I found the "Digitutor" for D40 was interesting. It explains first how to install a lens on D40. This clearly explains the nature of this new model. Do not take me wrong. I'm talking about this favorably. Entry market is one of the important area where Nikon needs some effective counter measures and I understand it, though I'm not a Nikon user myself. It also emphasizes that D40 is a family's ideal dSLR that any family member can use easily. MY FIRST DSLR - that's D40. Your picture of D40 shows it's quite small/light, which is very importatn in the entry market and now remaining issue is the price - will it be really competitive?
The success of D50 was for me a fresh surprise in the past year or so and it looks to me D40 has a good potentiality of being a success at least in Japanese market. It is "dSLR" and "Nikon" - many compact digicam owners must be attracted to it when it is properly priced.
As you know Nikon is not at all competitive in the compact digicam market. The major players in this end are Canon, Casio, Sony, Panasonic and Fujifilm.
Nikon is just neglected so needs to grasp the dSLR entry market for future growth.
http://www.nikondigitutor.com/jpn/d40/index.shtml
P.S. You will find at the bottom of the image some menus like "Tour Movie" or "Photo Gallery" etc. By clicking you can enjoy the movie. The Gallery shows some sample pictures - a typical family pictures. :)
Patrick
17-11-06, 12:24 PM
That's an interesting point of view. Nikon has a tradition of preserving as much backwards compatibility as it can but the D40 does look like it has broken that tradition.
I'm curious to discover if Nikon can successfully create a niche in the market for a lower specification DSLR at a price lower than the ten megapixel entry-level models from Canon, Sony, etc.
Ian
The Jessops web sit is taking pre-orders for the camera, Silver or Black with a 18-55 lens: price 449.99
Patrick
The Jessops web sit is taking pre-orders for the camera, Silver or Black with a 18-55 lens: price 449.99
Patrick
Hi Patrick.
I'm sure you would recommend a Canon EOS-400D for just £50 more (Jessops price too) instead (Patrick is a Canon user! :)), but in any case do you think the Nikon D40 will prosper under this kind of competition?
Ian
Yoshi, I think what you say does underline the fact that Nikon is totally focussed on the first time DSLR buyer.
Is there much comment from the Japanese press on the specification?
Ian
Patrick
17-11-06, 01:06 PM
Hi Patrick.
I'm sure you would recommend a Canon EOS-400D for just £50 more (Jessops price too) instead (Patrick is a Canon user! :)), but in any case do you think the Nikon D40 will prosper under this kind of competition?
Ian
Possibly.
Nikon users do tend to be faithful but that doesn’t necessarily apply here as an entry level camera they are aiming at new users.
It’s a good looking camera and I get the impression it will fit the hand very well.
The question remains about its 6 million chip, we all know that’s more than adequate but Canon have had to give in to the market and go 10 million with its 400D and I’m sure it may go a step further with the 30D replacement, which must be surfacing soon. It’s a year since the 30D launch and it was trailing Nikon even then, can’t see Canon sitting on their hands for much longer, Any rumours Yoshi?
The Canon 400D has the advantages in that yes it’s a entry level camera but will also be bought as a second camera for someone with a higher end model but still use existing lenses. As a backup the D40 misses out in this respect due the changed Autofocus.
I don’t doubt the D40 will sell in big numbers but I think it will fall short of Nikons expectations.
Patrick
Yoshi, I think what you say does underline the fact that Nikon is totally focussed on the first time DSLR buyer.
Is there much comment from the Japanese press on the specification?
Ian
HI Ian, as the official news release was just yesterday the press simply reports about it without adding comments. At forums i see hot arguments from both sides. A critique I find nice is that D40 is a good camera but should have been introduced one year earlier.
An opinion that favors D40 says that when he was a junior high school student about two decades ago, he saved hard and could buy an entrly class film SLR, Nikon EM. Although prices of dSLR are declining now, they are still expensive and he hopes D40 gives a good momentum toward more affordable dSLR. A good point, I think. We should recall that an entry class film SLR was available at much less than currently prevailing dSLR prices. It should be a third of the rumored price of D40 --- and not 4/3rds in this case !? :D
yoshi
The question remains about its 6 million chip, we all know that’s more than adequate but Canon have had to give in to the market and go 10 million with its 400D and I’m sure it may go a step further with the 30D replacement, which must be surfacing soon. It’s a year since the 30D launch and it was trailing Nikon even then, can’t see Canon sitting on their hands for much longer, Any rumours Yoshi?
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Do you want me to create rumours? ;) At the opposite end of the Eurasian continent we import rumours much more than export. So hopefully you start first. Then i would add some and pass it to ... whom ...well, maybe to the States.:p ;)
Seriously, though, you already mentioned all the rumours . So nothing to add.:( ---
well, if I try to recall, it looks like many 1DMkII owners are starting to sell it before PMA. After selling some are complaining no good camera to use.
yoshi
Stephen
17-11-06, 02:36 PM
Hi Patrick,
Do you want me to create rumours? ;) At the opposite end of the Eurasian continent we import rumours much more than export. So hopefully you start first. Then i would add some and pass it to ... whom ...well, maybe to the States.:p ;)
Seriously, though, you already mentioned all the rumours . So nothing to add.:( ---
well, if I try to recall, it looks like many 1DMkII owners are starting to sell it before PMA. After selling some are complaining no good camera to use.
yoshi
Well I can identify with that, though suspect that maybe 1DsMkII users would be doing the same, I'm not sure Canon will persevere with another 1.3x crop camera
Hi Stephen,
A rumor says Sony is planning to introduce APS-H (crop x1.25 or 1.3) before FF. Why not Canon? x1.3 is nice in many aspects when you think about lenses performances.
yoshi
Well I can identify with that, though suspect that maybe 1DsMkII users would be doing the same, I'm not sure Canon will persevere with another 1.3x crop camera
But Stephen, you are just one of many fervent fans of the EOS-1D 1.3x crop DSLR community so why don't you think they will continue with such a successful formula?
I'm sure a lot of pros that rely on telephoto shooting will not be at all happy if the 1D Mark IIn successor is full frame. It will also add hundreds to the price.
But on the other side of the coin, three different sensor sizes from one DSLR manufacturer is very confusing.
Ian
Stephen
17-11-06, 03:09 PM
But Stephen, you are just one of many fervent fans of the EOS-1D 1.3x crop DSLR community so why don't you think they will continue with such a successful formula?
I'm sure a lot of pros that rely on telephoto shooting will not be at all happy if the 1D Mark IIn successor is full frame. It will also add hundreds to the price.
But on the other side of the coin, three different sensor sizes from one DSLR manufacturer is very confusing.
Ian
Indeed you are right about being a fan of the 1DMkII and the 1.3x crop factor. However I seem to remember reading in a Canon white paper that they had no plans to develop it further and produce another camera with that sensor in it. I'm sure also that I have read other comments to this effect in Canon forums.
Canon may of course have a change of plan, it would be a shame to lose it, maybe it its dropped in favour of something else and I can hardly believe it will be the merging of the 1D with the 1Ds, then the 1DMkIIN will surely be a collectors item and be like hens teeth to get hold of.
Archangel
17-11-06, 03:25 PM
I think that the most important factor of the D40 announcement is not the 6MP sensor but instead the size of the camera. While a straight competitor to the D40, the Canon 400D offers a 10MP sensor, Nikon decides to keep the resolution at 6MP. In other words, I think the D40 is not out to cut sales from the 400D, but possibly an intermediate step for Nikon in order to enter the superzoom category in the near future.
I think that in the DSLR category, Nikon is the leader, but personaly I would wait for the D45 with 7MP resolution (which I think is the barrier that should separate compacts from DSLRs) and with internal focus drive motor and manual focus.
Regards
George
I think that the most important factor of the D40 announcement is not the 6MP sensor but instead the size of the camera. While a straight competitor to the D40, the Canon 400D offers a 10MP sensor, Nikon decides to keep the resolution at 6MP. In other words, I think the D40 is not out to cut sales from the 400D, but possibly an intermediate step for Nikon in order to enter the superzoom category in the near future.
Indeed, the D40 is not a match on paper for the Canon EOS-400D (Rebel XTi), so it needs to be significantly cheaper in order to find its sales/value niche. It's early days, but the Jessops £50 difference (about $90) is not a wide enough gap to be sustainable in my mind. Of course there will be early adopters who just have to buy the D40 because... it's new and different, or because it's not a Canon, but in the long run I can only see the D40 price going down if Nikon are serious about building a big market share.
I think that in the DSLR category, Nikon is the leader, but personaly I would wait for the D45 with 7MP resolution (which I think is the barrier that should separate compacts from DSLRs) and with internal focus drive motor and manual focus.
Actually, Canon is the clear leader in all DSLR categories - the 350D has even been listed as the best-selling digital camera model of all (including compacts) at some points in time.
AF motors in the lens is the way to go and I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for non AF-S lenses. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next Nikon was AF-S only too.
Regards
George
Ian
Archangel
17-11-06, 04:53 PM
Actually, Canon is the clear leader in all DSLR categories - the 350D has even been listed as the best-selling digital camera model of all (including compacts) at some points in time.
AF motors in the lens is the way to go and I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for non AF-S lenses. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next Nikon was AF-S only too.
Ian
Hi Ian,
I disagree with you here a little. I think Nikon has the best image quality in the DSLR category with Canon just a half breath behind and of course I'm expressing personal opinion.
Sales and listings is a different thing and doesn't reflect quality at all times. The motives of buying a camera is not always image quality and especially in the compact p&s category where portability and design matter most.
As far as the Canon compacts are concerned, so far apart from the A710IS and the A700 (slightly noisier than the A710IS) that their photos have sharp concistency from edge to edge all the rest of them (after the A75/A85/A95 and IXUS500) haven't persuade me for their very good image quality in terms of image concistency regardless of reviews and conclusions read in different websites.
Anyway, this is a D40 discussion thread and hopefully a good camera too for those interested. As I said I will wait little more for some other features I want in the upcoming D4x or Dxx :)
Regards
George
Hi Ian,
I disagree with you here a little. I think Nikon has the best image quality in the DSLR category with Canon just a half breath behind and of course I'm expressing personal opinion.
Sales and listings is a different thing and doesn't reflect quality at all times. The motives of buying a camera is not always image quality and especially in the compact p&s category where portability and design matter most.
As far as the Canon compacts are concerned, so far apart from the A710IS and the A700 (slightly noisier than the A710IS) that their photos have sharp concistency from edge to edge all the rest of them (after the A75/A85/A95 and IXUS500) haven't persuade me for their very good image quality in terms of image concistency regardless of reviews and conclusions read in different websites.
Anyway, this is a D40 discussion thread and hopefully a good camera too for those interested. As I said I will wait little more for some other features I want in the upcoming D4x or Dxx :)
Regards
George
Ah - sorry! I thought you were referring to sales! :)
Image quality is very subjective and even variable. I think some Nikons are better than others and the same with some Canons compared to other Canons.
My friend Jamie Harrison did feature in a UK magazine (What Digital Camera) comparing the Nikon D200 to the Canon EOS-5D - he gave the win to the Canon. It was controversial :)
Ian
Archangel
17-11-06, 05:57 PM
Ah - sorry! I thought you were referring to sales! :)
Image quality is very subjective and even variable. I think some Nikons are better than others and the same with some Canons compared to other Canons.
My friend Jamie Harrison did feature in a UK magazine (What Digital Camera) comparing the Nikon D200 to the Canon EOS-5D - he gave the win to the Canon. It was controversial :)
Ian
In Sales, Nikon is much behind Canon.
I only see 2 reasons for that:
1. Nikon is a little more conservative in the camera look/design, while Canon shapes appeal beatter to the consumers.
2. Nikon sails their own way. It reminds me of a ship in the open sea. They get the weather forecast from the news, but they ignore the fishermen's opinion from experience and warnings. When the sea gets heavy and there is finaly a shipwreck, then they ask the fishermen around for help.
In other words, they are not so interested to know what features mostly the users want in a camera (while Canon does exactly the opposite), they just put there only the neccessary basics and sometimes other than the very necessary!
Different camera companies, different mentality, different tactics and of course different money :)
Regards
George
I find the comparisons interesting. Hope some of you, too.
Image quality comparisons for various ISO's among D40, D50 and Pentax K100D, eachi with 18-55mm (kit?) lens.
Look at the second half of the page.
Sorry the language is Japanese but anyway...
yoshi
http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/2006/11/d40_vs_d50_vs_k.html
I find the comparisons interesting. Hope some of you, too.
Image quality comparisons for various ISO's among D40, D50 and Pentax K100D, eachi with 18-55mm (kit?) lens.
Look at the second half of the page.
Sorry the language is Japanese but anyway...
yoshi
http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/2006/11/d40_vs_d50_vs_k.html
Hi Yoshi, it's a shame they did not compare the D40 with a D80 or an EOS-400D :)
Ian
Hi Yoshi, it's a shame they did not compare the D40 with a D80 or an EOS-400D :)
Ian
Hi Ian,
Do you want to compare the different sensors? It must be also interesting.
What is interesting for me about this comparison is that the sample pics are easier to compare with. I understand the three medels D40, D50 and K100D use the same 6MP sensor (please correct me if wrong) and we can observe the differences among the three. The software/concept differences, I suppose.
Although the toy car is dirty and rusted, the D40 seems to be quite good even at ISO 1600 and above.
Overall, less needs of post processing and again IMHO it is important for the target users. Of course D40 is a dSLR so you can also use it like other dSLR's at a later stage.
Forgot to mention that the sample pics were taken at default settings of each model and the exposure and the white balance were manually set using a grey card.
Hi Ian,
Do you want to compare the different sensors? It must be also interesting.
What is interesting for me about this comparison is that the sample pics are easier to compare with. I understand the three medels D40, D50 and K100D use the same 6MP sensor (please correct me if wrong) and we can observe the differences among the three. The software/concept differences, I suppose.
Although the toy car is dirty and rusted, the D40 seems to be quite good even at ISO 1600 and above.
Overall, less needs of post processing and again IMHO it is important for the target users. Of course D40 is a dSLR so you can also use it like other dSLR's at a later stage.
Forgot to mention that the sample pics were taken at default settings of each model and the exposure and the white balance were manually set using a grey card.
I'm surprised you said that the white balance was manually set as all three have different grey tones. I also think it's less relevant to do a manual white balance adjustment as few of the users of these cameras will bother to do this. But the Nikon seems to be the most neutral.
Yes I'd like to see if there is a significant difference between the 10MP and 6MP sensors at 800 and 1600 ISO.
I liked the fact that the toy car was old and a bit dirty as there was more detail to see and to preserve - a good idea by the tester! :)
Ian
Hi if you give me one I'll Test it for a couple of years.;) :rolleyes:
Hi Tinka,
A good idea.:)
it looks like production version of D40 is short supply at the moment.
A reviewer of the following site used a pre-production model. What do you think?
The review says noise reduction function of D40 works for ISO800 or above. IMHO IQ of ISO800 to 1600 looks like acceptable for me whether or not with noise reduction.
I suspect many potential users use the camera also indoors so high ISO perfomance must be very important. The auto ISO mode helps if IQ of high ISO is ok.
Our rumor sites are noisier now, talking about when Canon introduces a real entry model. 400D/Rebel XTi(?) is just too expensive for this purpose - at least 400D is not an entry model in the emerging "real" entry market.
yoshi
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/11/21/5095.html
(ISO comparisons at the last one third of the page)
Indeed you are right about being a fan of the 1DMkII and the 1.3x crop factor. However I seem to remember reading in a Canon white paper that they had no plans to develop it further and produce another camera with that sensor in it. I'm sure also that I have read other comments to this effect in Canon forums.
Canon may of course have a change of plan, it would be a shame to lose it, maybe it its dropped in favour of something else and I can hardly believe it will be the merging of the 1D with the 1Ds, then the 1DMkIIN will surely be a collectors item and be like hens teeth to get hold of.
The Canon white paper you speak of does explain very well why larger sensors are always going to be so much more expensive, but the 1.3x APS-H sensor is less than half the exorbitant price ofthe FF one and it's the mainstay of sports/action, wildlife and press photographers using the EOS-1D Mark II so I would expect Canon to support them with this sensor size in future models. In fact it would be outrageous of them not to unless the cost issue became really unmanageable.
Ian
My feeling is it does not matter for the big market: DSLR beginners, they don't know about most of those things.
And neither for advanced users like myself. I have just ordered a D40. I already have a D200 which I love, but I also long have wanted a very light and compact camera.
The bigger mistake is that neither Nikon nor Canon so far has embraced in-body image stabilization.
Bearface
05-12-06, 06:23 PM
The bigger mistake is that neither Nikon nor Canon so far has embraced in-body image stabilization.
They have both embraced lens image-stabilization though, Nikon with VR and Canon with IS. Canon in particular offers an excellent range of both affordable and high-end IS lenses, and even though Nikon's line-up is less comprehensive, it's still accessible in price terms.
Would an in-body system from both manufacturers really make a huge difference to the appeal of their products? Personally I'd be concerned about the additional moving parts and any potential reliability issues, whereas the lens technology is proven and apparently pretty consistent in respect of image-stabilization.
They have both embraced lens image-stabilization though, Nikon with VR and Canon with IS. Canon in particular offers an excellent range of both affordable and high-end IS lenses, and even though Nikon's line-up is less comprehensive, it's still accessible in price terms.
Would an in-body system from both manufacturers really make a huge difference to the appeal of their products? Personally I'd be concerned about the additional moving parts and any potential reliability issues, whereas the lens technology is proven and apparently pretty consistent in respect of image-stabilization.
My feeling is that there are pros and cons for both in-camera and in-lens IS.
In lens - pros: more stabilisation headroom, cons: more expensive, only some lenses feature IS and there is some evidence that non-IS versions of IS lenses are marginally better, optically. Plus the idea of a wiggling lens element seems to go against the concept of optical precision!
In-camera - pros: works with any lens attached to the camera, no optical compromise, cons: evidence is mounting that lens IS offers significantly more stabilisation headroom.
I'm not that concerned about reliability of either system. An early Konica Minolta Dynax 7D I tried had a sensor that was roated by a degree or two, so when I took a pictire perfectly aligned in the viewfinder, it was not straight in the image, but I believe this is rare.
Ian
joefoto
14-12-06, 08:13 PM
I just bought the D50 because of the lens limitations of the D40. While I have no accumulated Nikon gear, such is available in used channels, and would not be usable with the D40. So I see the D40 as ultimately more expensive for me. :\
Joe
I just bought the D50 because of the lens limitations of the D40. While I have no accumulated Nikon gear, such is available in used channels, and would not be usable with the D40. So I see the D40 as ultimately more expensive for me. :\
Joe
Fair comment, Joe, though Nikon will say that they aren't aiming the camera at you :)
The only issue with the D50 is that it has a relatively small screen, but it's perfectly adequate and has the relative luxury of the top-plate LCD.
Ian
I just bought the D50 because of the lens limitations of the D40. While I have no accumulated Nikon gear, such is available in used channels, and would not be usable with the D40. So I see the D40 as ultimately more expensive for me. :\
Joe
Hi Joe,
Congratulations!:)
I happened to handle a demo D40 yesterday. As was reported by Ian, it's a small and light camera which should attract many potential dSLR buyers. On the other hand, I also thought, D50 is more attractive at the moment. The D50 with a kit lens 15-55mm is by 5,000 yen (approx. USD 42 or Euro 34) less expensive than a D40 with a same kit lens. Coupled with the specification reason you pointed out, then, IMHO, D50 seems to me a rational choice.
In order for D40 to be a success model like D50, it really needs to be priced at more eye-catching price.
yoshi
Archangel
15-12-06, 12:44 AM
Though the D40, regardless of its lens limitations, takes very nice shots and it doesn't seem that it really needs image stabilizer.
There is a review posted at DCResource for those interested or for those missed it.
Regards
George
White Lotus
12-08-07, 09:39 AM
Though the D40, regardless of its lens limitations, takes very nice shots and it doesn't seem that it really needs image stabilizer.
There is a review posted at DCResource for those interested or for those missed it.George
I've been using my Sony digicam (point and shoot) for fast action and similar shooting and rarely have I found myself wishing for image stabilizer.
Reviews for the D40 have been very very positive, in fact overwhelmingly positive in some regards like Rockwell switching to using the D40 for his everyday multi-purpose, fun, recreational shooting (see his review on Google).
First off, thank you Nikon for staying level headed and not giving into the media frenzy about who has the biggest megapixels. And at the same time, focusing on refining on the advances that you've made in digital photography and building upon that.
As far as lack of compatibility for legacy lenses, it's obviously a risk since it has angered many reviewers thus far. I don't think of it much as a bad decision as a calculated one. There are so many benefits to Nikon's decision I think it's a no brainer.
First off, by not including the additional motor inside the camera they were able to lower the price of the camera as well as the size and weight. Those are big pluses in my mind.
I hope Nikon does this with all the future digital cameras because they will be forcing people to use their new digital lenses which if you read the reviews actually work faster and quieter because the motor is built into the lens...another big plus!
Another thing, this is new technology folks. This is the digital age: get with it. These aren't your grandpa's old cameras. These are advanced CCD driven, extremely advanced pieces of technology. There may only be a few AF-S or AF-I lenses available now, but eventually that will change. Yes it will! Nikon isn't stupid, they know where they want to go, and this looks to me like not a bad move.
With all new technology, there may be a bit of adjustment, you may have to wait for the new advanced lenses to come out, but they will. Newer is generally better and that's a win for consumers.
I've been using my Sony digicam (point and shoot) for fast action and similar shooting and rarely have I found myself wishing for image stabilizer.
Reviews for the D40 have been very very positive, in fact overwhelmingly positive in some regards like Rockwell switching to using the D40 for his everyday multi-purpose, fun, recreational shooting (see his review on Google).
First off, thank you Nikon for staying level headed and not giving into the media frenzy about who has the biggest megapixels. And at the same time, focusing on refining on the advances that you've made in digital photography and building upon that.
As far as lack of compatibility for legacy lenses, it's obviously a risk since it has angered many reviewers thus far. I don't think of it much as a bad decision as a calculated one. There are so many benefits to Nikon's decision I think it's a no brainer.
First off, by not including the additional motor inside the camera they were able to lower the price of the camera as well as the size and weight. Those are big pluses in my mind.
I hope Nikon does this with all the future digital cameras because they will be forcing people to use their new digital lenses which if you read the reviews actually work faster and quieter because the motor is built into the lens...another big plus!
Another thing, this is new technology folks. This is the digital age: get with it. These aren't your grandpa's old cameras. These are advanced CCD driven, extremely advanced pieces of technology. There may only be a few AF-S or AF-I lenses available now, but eventually that will change. Yes it will! Nikon isn't stupid, they know where they want to go, and this looks to me like not a bad move.
With all new technology, there may be a bit of adjustment, you may have to wait for the new advanced lenses to come out, but they will. Newer is generally better and that's a win for consumers.
I have recently been using a D40x (so Nikon did think 10MP was a must in the end!) and I quite like the camera, but I don't like the control responsiveness. When changing EV compensation there is a time lag between pressing the button and the command being executed. Finding things in the menu system is quite difficult too. I don't think these are really acceptable any more.
Ian
pewidane
12-08-07, 05:02 PM
http://dpnow.com/galleries/data//500/medium/nikon-3-copy.jpg
16 Nikon D 40 pictures in my gallery ,great camera,this from today.
paul.r.w
13-08-07, 10:16 AM
Does the new D40 have auto iso like the D80. As my limited knowledge goes Nikon is fairly unique in this?
Does the new D40 have auto iso like the D80. As my limited knowledge goes Nikon is fairly unique in this?
Lots of cameras have auto ISO; all the recent Olympus DSLRs, for example.
Ian
paul.r.w
13-08-07, 10:37 AM
See, I was right...my knowledge is limited...VERY! LOL
tarzieboy
15-08-07, 07:53 AM
i agree, good camera & good pictures, 6 MEG plenty for me