Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 20, 2010, 11:41 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Default Nikon D40 stolen :( what to get next?

After a day of taking some priceless family pictures, I am afraid my camera was stolen. It was a Nikon D40 with a 55-200mm AF VR zoom attached. I still have the 18-55mm AF lens sitting in the camera bag. We used that camera for hiking/vacations/and getting good pictures of the family, and occasional use for work (digital design).

I am having a hard time figuring out what to do from here. I could buy another D40, but because they are a bit older now, it has me nervous about longevity. The only complaints I have on that camera is that the exposure almost always needed compensated when I edit them (though without noticible quality loss) and it seems like changing settings on the fly isn't the easiest since some things are buried away in the menu. Other than this it has been perfect for our needs.

So do I try to find another D40 (used? refurbished? new on amazon?) or is there a newer model that is worth paying more for and can give us a longer camera life?

FWIW, I either need to replace the 55-200mm lens or get something else that covers that range.

Thanks in advance

Last edited by chelleb; Apr 21, 2010 at 12:07 AM.
chelleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 21, 2010, 4:01 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

You write nothing about any budget so it's difficult to give advise - but in your position, I would get a D90 with the 18-200mm VRII - That would give you what you had, in a much better (but of course, much more expensive) package.

Good luck!
__________________
...


Quote: "Buying a camera doesn't make you a photographer. - It makes you a camera owner".
.
Curious about my photography?
You may look up my small portfolio on the Norwegian photo-forum: http://walter_s.foto.no/ - click - "LATEST" on left bottom of page.
You may then click any thumbnail to view the picture and click again on the displayed picture for an unobstructed full screen view. Enjoy!
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 6:30 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The D90 would be a significant step up from the D40, but the body alone costs ~$900. If you've been comfortable with the limitations of the D40 (and it sounds like you have) then you might look at the D3000 or D5000. They are, more or less, the direct replacements for the D40/D40X/D60. The D5000 is a better camera than the D3000, plus it can record videos as well, though because it can't AF or AE as a video is being recorded, that's not as useful a feature as it might seem.

As for lenses, I will say that Nikon has added VR (Vibration Reduction) to the 18-55 and 55-200, as well as made other improvements, so you shouldn't hesitate to get the newer 18-55 as part of your replacement kit.

I disagree with Walter_S, however, about the 18-200. It's not as good as the two lenses, and it's a lot more expensive. All it buys you is the convenience of not having to change lenses.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Apr 21, 2010 at 2:21 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 10:33 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks both of you.

Budget is a tough one. We really weren't planning on replacing the camera any time soon (which is probably why I have not scrutinized my happiness with it terribly far), but we are willing to spend what makes the most sense to get us back taking good pictures. We have another baby coming in a couple months, so this is a must for us.

Thank you for the tip on the VR lens for the 18-55. That would be a handy feature. I almost always got clearer pics with the 55-200, probably because of the VR.

Video is nice, but not necessary...

Can you tell me what the biggest differences I would probably see between the 3000/5000 and 90? Megapixles weren't an issue for me with the 40--I was able to get good prints as long as the print was good.
chelleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 10:44 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

The D-3000/D-5000 cameras, like the D-40, are limited to using AF-2 and a few AF-I lenses. The D-90 can use any Nikon or third party Nikon adaptable lens. The D-90 camera is much more feature rich and the LCD has 920K pixels as opposed to 230K pixels in the LCD on the D-3000/D5000.

The D-5000 has an articulated LCD screen while the D-3000 and D-90 do not. The D-5000 and D-90 are high ISO capable cameras while the D-3000 is not.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 10:50 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Yeah. What she said.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 10:55 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

BTW: Frequently, if something gets stolen, you can file a claim with either your car insurance or your homeowner's insurance, depending on the circumstances of the crime. But I wouldn't persue the homeowner's insurance becuase the D40 may be less than your deductable, and your rates will go up.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 11:25 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

Don't get another D40. While they do still have them around new, they are still priced equal to or with in $50 of the D3000 which is two generations newer (D60 being the first generation). It just doesn't make sense for anyone to buy the D40 at those prices.

18-55 vs 18-55vr? Not a big issue - and probably has more to do with competitive marketing. VR is more beneficial at the longer focal lengths.

Personally, I just upgraded from a D40 to a D90, body only. I retained my 18-55 (non-vr) and 55-200 vr. The D3000 will not give you a choice as it is sold kit only, however the D5000 and D90 both have the option for body only. Given that the D5000 kit is ony $100 more with the 18-55vr lens, it is a tossup which way to go...then ebay the non vr version. With the D90, the kit 18-105vr adds $300 which is about what I could buy it individually for ($325), so body only made sense. I am perfectly happy with the 18-55, but I could at any time go out and replace it with the $$ saved.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 1:31 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

What's your budget?

You can buy a used Nikon D40 in EX+ condition for under $300 from keh.com, including a short term warranty (60 days from invoice date), and keh has very conservative ratings on used gear (for example, I've bought budget condition gear from them that was in outstanding condition except for minor cosmetic blemishes). See this listing for an example (they've got one in EX+ condition for $286 right this minute):

http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1...0/DN02/FE.aspx

If you've already got a kit lens and have been happy with a D40 so far, then going used (making sure to buy one from a reputable dealer that checks out gear carefully and grades it fairly) would be an option if you're trying to limit your expenditure and don't need anything more advanced for the type of shooting you do.

If for some reason you decide you need some more advanced later or if it fails on your for some reason (or gets stolen if you have bad luck yet again), then you're not spending as much that way (as technology tends to advance at a relatively rapid pace, and you'd probably find something with more features for the buck later down the road if a D40 suits your needs for now). I've got a relative that just got one a few days ago (given to her by a friend that was upgrading to a more advanced model), and she's thrilled with it as compared to the point and shoot camera she was using before. About the only major issue she had was figuring out how to use it initially, wondering why she couldn't use the LCD for composing the shot. So, I had to help her out, explaining that a dSLR model like the D40 doesn't have a Live View mode and she needs to use the Optical Viewfinder for framing instead. :-)
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2010, 5:02 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Default

How long do we see these cameras lasting these days? Is it possible to get another 2-3 years out of it if I bought a used d-40?
chelleb 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 1:17 AM.