Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 13, 2007, 2:30 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Default

I have had the D40 for about 2 months now. I moved up from a P&S camera to this one. I liked many things about it. I liked how it felt in my hands, especially compared to the D50. My main objective for purchasing this camera was to have a DSLR. I wanted sharp pictures and no shutter lag. I really thought that I would not get any extra lenses, which is why this was supposed to be perfect. However, once I got it and saw how fantstic the pictures were, I wanted more! I did go with the 50 mm f1.8 (not the more expensive one). The pictures I got the first night I had the lens were FANTASTIC! I took pictures at my son's basketball game. Yeah, it was hard for me to manually focus it, but it was doable. Here are two pictures from that night --



I love it for indoor use. I am still thinking about the sigma lens, but only because my baby moves around too fast for me to focus it. Here is one I took last night of my son. You can play connect the freckles it is so sharp. (This is the smaller size. I can put the bigger one up if you want to see it instead of the medium sized one.)



You will be very happy with that lens.

Leah
mugsisme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 12:06 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 62
Default

I think I would as soon have a P&S as to be limited to a kit lens and a few others. What Nikon sees is $ and the heck with the poor dummies that get stuck with a camera with so many limitations. I looked at the D40 when I was shoping for a camera and almost bought one. Sometimes you just get lucky and make the right decision. C. W.
dwtbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 10:01 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

dwtbone wrote:
Quote:
I think I would as soon have a P&S as to be limited to a kit lens and a few others. What Nikon sees is $ and the heck with the poor dummies that get stuck with a camera with so many limitations. I looked at the D40 when I was shoping for a camera and almost bought one. Sometimes you just get lucky and make the right decision. C. W.
Aside from a bright prime, what ther lens would you need that isn't currently available in the Nikon AF-S lineup?? Alot of people are beating Nikon up over this camera because of the "lack" of lenses available for it. There are nearly 40 lenses available (maybe more) from Nikon and Sigma that will function with AF on the D40(X), from all levels from consumer to pro. And don't get upset with Nikon about lack of third party lens support. It's not Nikon's responsibility to make camera bodies for Tamron, Tokina and Sigma to hang lenses on (Sigma to their credit has many lenses that will AF). The lack of a bright prime is a disadvantage, but the average beginner probably isn't all that interested in using primes because of the lack of flexibility.

As to the other features missing, all entry level cameras have limitiations. The D40 is a solid camera, capable of taking great images in a simple, easy to use package that is quite affordable. Sure it's not for everyone, but that doesn't make it a bad camera, or those who bought one "dummies".
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2007, 4:26 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 107
Default

I agree with rjseenay. Too many people have the attitude, "this camera (car, wristwatch, TV, etc.) is crap because it doesn't meet MY NEEDS." Such arrogance and vanity! Manufacturers generally try to create products for a range of customers.
rodmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 12:20 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Redsquare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 228
Default

Speaking with experience the D40 is an amazing camera and as mentioned above takes awesome pics, The A4 prints they produce are spot on and there is easily enough of a small but wide range of lenses. Whether your a landscaper or a macro photographger, Portrait or sport theres a lens out there for each subject, expensive but Good lenses, think of it this way, You'll never make the mistake of buying a poor lens for the D40
Redsquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 4:03 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
JDar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 956
Default

dwtbone wrote:
Quote:
I think I would as soon have a P&S as to be limited to a kit lens and a few others. What Nikon sees is $ and the heck with the poor dummies that get stuck with a camera with so many limitations. I looked at the D40 when I was shoping for a camera and almost bought one. Sometimes you just get lucky and make the right decision. C. W.
So what kind of P&S did you wind up with?:-)

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcf...m=DCForumID201

The Nikonians forum has a list of current lenses for the D40 if anyone is interested in some facts rather than opinions.
JDar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 8:47 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

rjseeney wrote
Quote:
Aside from a bright prime, what ther lens would you need that isn't currently available in the Nikon AF-S lineup?? Alot of people are beating Nikon up over this camera because of the "lack" of lenses available for it. There are nearly 40 lenses available (maybe more) from Nikon and Sigma that will function with AF on the D40(X), from all levels from consumer to pro. A
As one of the people that has been raising this issue, I'll give you an example which coincides with what JimC was saying. Let's say you want to buy a 24-70 2.8 lens and you want it to autofocus.
If you have the D40, your choices are the Nikon 28-70 2.8 $1430 or if you want to sacrifice some reach the 17-55 - a bargain at the $1200 price point.

Buy your own reasoning the people buying this camera are often interested in buying consumer lenses.

If they owned any other Nikon DSLR they would have the option of buying the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for $340 or the Sigma 24-70 2.8 for $370. That's $800 cheaper than any option they have if they were using the D40.

So yes, Nikon covers the 24-70 2.8 range but you have to spend $1430 to get it. The d50, d80, d200 users can use those great Nikon $1200 and $1430 lenses but they can also buy the consumer $340-370 versions.

You are correct - it's not Nikon's responsibility to make sure those lenses work on their cameras. But it is the type of thing people should be aware of beforehand. As Jim mentioned, if they still decide to buy the D40 - great! But it's an important part of the picture to at least CONSIDER. If a buyer falls into the category of wanting a lens solution like the above (or in using primes) then saving a $100 or $200 now could end up costing them a lot of cash a year from now.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2007, 10:22 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
rjseeney wrote
Quote:
Aside from a bright prime, what ther lens would you need that isn't currently available in the Nikon AF-S lineup?? Alot of people are beating Nikon up over this camera because of the "lack" of lenses available for it. There are nearly 40 lenses available (maybe more) from Nikon and Sigma that will function with AF on the D40(X), from all levels from consumer to pro. A
As one of the people that has been raising this issue, I'll give you an example which coincides with what JimC was saying. Let's say you want to buy a 24-70 2.8 lens and you want it to autofocus.
If you have the D40, your choices are the Nikon 28-70 2.8 $1430 or if you want to sacrifice some reach the 17-55 - a bargain at the $1200 price point.

Buy your own reasoning the people buying this camera are often interested in buying consumer lenses.

If they owned any other Nikon DSLR they would have the option of buying the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for $340 or the Sigma 24-70 2.8 for $370. That's $800 cheaper than any option they have if they were using the D40.

So yes, Nikon covers the 24-70 2.8 range but you have to spend $1430 to get it. The d50, d80, d200 users can use those great Nikon $1200 and $1430 lenses but they can also buy the consumer $340-370 versions.

You are correct - it's not Nikon's responsibility to make sure those lenses work on their cameras. But it is the type of thing people should be aware of beforehand. As Jim mentioned, if they still decide to buy the D40 - great! But it's an important part of the picture to at least CONSIDER. If a buyer falls into the category of wanting a lens solution like the above (or in using primes) then saving a $100 or $200 now could end up costing them a lot of cash a year from now.
You are 100% correct. That is why it's important to do your research and be aware of what your needs are. I still contend that the vast majority of folks interested in the D40 will go with just one or two lenses, likely consumer grade which covers most shooting ranges. I would like to see a few bright primes released and would not be suprised to see a few more of these lenses available in the near future (assuming there won't be any availability issues, which isn't likely). What Nikon has done (in changing lens compatibility) isn't unprecedented, as they've done it in the past, as has Canon. Doesn't make it right, or ideal, but as things continue to evolve it's likely to happen again.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.