Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Nikon dSLR (
-   -   Why not the D40? (

jphess Jan 6, 2009 3:26 PM

I will admit that I'm new to the SLR level of digital photography, and I only have a Nikon D40. I realize it is Nikon's bottom of the line digital SLR. On other forums they speak of the D40 in almost a snobbish fashion, suggesting that it just isn't capable of producing high-quality images. I came from a Fuji bridge camera to the D40, so I guess I just don't realize what can REALLY be accomplished with a "real" digital SLR. But from where I came from, I cannot see anything wrong with the quality of this image. It was taken with the 18-55 mm kit lens. It's good enough for me.

Hawgwild Jan 7, 2009 3:41 AM

You have brought up a valid issue. My short answer is that any digital slr made, regardless of megapixel count, is capable of shooting a magazine cover, in the right hands. Snobs, you bet. They're everywhere, on every forum on the internet. Does their opinion count? Not to me.The D40 may be Nikon's lowest entry-level dslr, but it is still a great camera capable of amazing photos, again, in the right hands. Your photo is beautiful. Do you think a Nikon D300, with that same lens, could have made that picture better? Not so you'd notice. The real advantage of a dslr is its adaptability. Entry level cameras are less adaptable than pro-level cameras, with good reason. Most of us amateur hobbyists don't need a zillion focus points, I only use one normally, the center one. I don't need 5 fps, three will do me just fine. I don't need weather sealing, because I am a fair-weather photographer. Etc., ad nauseum... Don't worry about what a bunch of camera snobs are saying and enjoy your camera. It's a good one, and judging from your picture, you have the hang of it..


Nagasaki Jan 7, 2009 5:51 AM

Nice shot. No reason not to have a D40. There are some advantages to the higher end cameras as mentioned by Hawgwild but they don't mean better pictures. More mega pixels generally means more noise although this is improving with each generation of camera. The other advantage of more megapixles is the ability to crop while retaining detail and bigger prints but 6 Mp will easily print to A4. The lens used is as important as the sensor and with the D40 you have access to a large range of excellent lenses, more if you don't mind focussing manually.

Enjoy your camera and ignore the pixel peeing crowd.


jphess Jan 7, 2009 11:32 AM

Thanks for the responses. I worked with a Fuji S9000 bridge camera for a couple of years. 9 MP, super zoom, lots of nice features, etc.. And I got quite a few pictures that I thought were really quite nice. But they were never sharp and crisp, and there was always that yes, but something is missing feeling. I haven't had that problem with this D40. I know my pictures are not the greatest, but I sure like what I get better than I was getting from the Fuji. I'm a low-budget man, so I just ordered a 55-200 mm lens to supplement my kit lens, and I suspect this will do for quite a while.

One question. When I used to post pictures on these forums they would appear as part of the message. Now, using the same procedure as I did before, all I get is a link. What am I doing wrong? The picture I posted would have had more impact with the black background.

scooptdoo Jan 7, 2009 1:30 PM

any dslr is a high performance machine.yes the pro models are built more solid and weatherproffed to a high order.and yes they have more pixels and bigger pixels but the d40 is a fine can learn much with it.commit to keeping it for 2-3 years and see where it takes you.

gerreilly Jan 7, 2009 1:51 PM

Hi jphess
Like myself I came from a Fuji 9500 (9000 in USA) to a D40X which is really the same as the D40 only higher MP. I will probably get a slap on the wrist for this but Ken Rockwell recommends the D40 and gives it a fab review.
I now own a D90 and it was a major step up (pressy from the Missus) maybe too soon but The images I feel are no better than what I got from the D40X but I've got a lot to learn.


NotDadsW41 Jan 8, 2009 7:03 AM

I read that review from Rockwell when I was searching for a dSLR. I decided on the D40 myself and love it. I bought the 55-200mm VR lens and love that one too. It rarely comes off the camera for the things I do.

ruchai May 30, 2009 3:03 AM

I do not think D40 is the lowest level of Nikon DSLR. It is the lightest and most compact among DSLR. That alone make it the most handy. I do not own D40 because I had too many Nikon when Nikon launched D40. It's the brain behind the camera that count. Lenses are more important for high quality pictures than cameras. Stick to your D40 and enjoy taking pictures. Let other say what they want to. The best camera is the one that suit our purposes.
I am using D200 and micro Nikkor for insects. I have to lay down to take low level objects some times. My dream camera now is D5000 with it flip LCD screen. I think D5000 is Nikon best DSLR. It took Nikon engineers seven years after D100 to make the great DSLR with flip LCD. Thanks Nikon. Keep up the good work.

dnas May 31, 2009 6:48 PM

The D40 is a great little DSLR. While it may not have all of the features of some others, it is obviously capable of some outstanding images in the right hands. And your's are the right hands, because that shot is very, very nice!!!!

By the way, the Nikon D40 is not the smallest and lightest DSLR.
The Olympus E-410 & E-420 are the smallest and lightest. These two are almost 20% lighter and 15% smaller than the D40. Even the new E-620 is a fraction smaller and lighter. Anyway, this is not so much different, and the D40 is still nice and small.

nattycan Jun 3, 2009 11:14 AM

I just bought a Nikon d60 and only chose it over the D40 because I got it for the same price as I could have gotten the D40 so I figured I might as well. People are funny and your picture is lovely.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.