Nikon D40x ........ should I pull the trigger

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by SteveB, Jan 12, 2008.

  1. SteveB

    SteveB Guest

    Been looking at this camera for a while. The two lens deal for $900 to
    $1,000.

    Should I get it or is there a better camera/package deal for the money?

    Steve
     
    SteveB, Jan 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    Me? I am not Nikon user, but if I have to spend $900-1000 for a digital
    camera I would spend extra to go for a much better digital camera. Also, I
    don't pay much attention to Nikon digital camera, but several times I saw
    local stores sell Nikon D40 and lens for under $600, and some online stores
    sell under $500.
     
    Joel, Jan 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. SteveB

    Peter Guest


    Hope this doesn't become a religious war. You should decide what you are
    going to use the camera for. Then test drive it, in the brick and mortar
    store. See how it feels in your hands. Unless you are familiar with the box,
    you can't really buy one over the net. (Well, you shouldn't anyway.)
    The D40 is a good entry level camera. I have friends who are quite happy
    with it. Your quoted price seems high for a kit lens deal. But, we can't
    tell because you don't state which lenses are included. The price depends on
    the lens deal. B&HE has the box for a lot less than you state.

    HTH
     
    Peter, Jan 12, 2008
    #3
  4. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    Or with that kind of $$$$ I would go with Canon EOS 30D which many people
    often compare and like it more than higher generation of Nikon D200.

    The Canon 30D was selling for around $1300 (body only?) to $1500 when it
    was first released around less than 2 years ago (?), now I have seen some
    onlines stores sell $650-700's range (onsale) $700-800's range street price.
     
    Joel, Jan 12, 2008
    #4
  5. SteveB

    tony cooper Guest

    The OP is looking at a two lens deal, and that deal includes
    additional items in the package. The one lens Nikon D40 package is
    available for about $500.
     
    tony cooper, Jan 12, 2008
    #5
  6. SteveB

    T Guest

    I gather new manufacturer model launches come around end of January and
    theres a few rumours of new Nikon DSLRs (D60 ?). So a chance that with new
    models released (though maybe difficult to get hold of) prices of the D40,
    D40x and D80 might fall further.

    I've got a D50 and my brother a D40, both excellent cameras and great value.

    This guy rates the Nikon D40 :
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

    Cheers

    T
     
    T, Jan 12, 2008
    #6
  7. SteveB

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If you buy a "package" almost always it will be the "package" that
    most benefits the seller.
    You may find out that you could have bought far superior lenses for a
    few bucks more.
    Decide which lenses you really want and become educated first!
     
    Frank Arthur, Jan 12, 2008
    #7
  8. SteveB

    ray Guest

    "Better" for what?
     
    ray, Jan 12, 2008
    #8
  9. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    I know! but if you remember I never recommend cheapie lens, so more lenses
    for lesser $$$ is even a bigger no no (for me and would pass the advice to
    my friend).
     
    Joel, Jan 12, 2008
    #9
  10. Sure, get it if you like it and can afford it.

    Keep in mind though, that a good photographer can pick up a $20 camera at a
    yard sale and make good photographs with it. The better the photographer the
    less the camera matters.
     
    Etta Ray Newberry, Jan 12, 2008
    #10
  11. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    Well, I woudn't dare to ask cuz it sounds more like a dreamed deal cuz I
    would go for "better camera deal for the money"

    *but* I ain't go banana with package, cuz it ain't my style. Or I go for
    top-of-the-line-lens and shoot for Body Only deal.
     
    Joel, Jan 12, 2008
    #11
  12. Truer words have never been spoken.

    -- Theo
     
    Ursus Californicus, Jan 12, 2008
    #12
  13. SteveB

    Peter Guest

    I have an old cheap lens that is sharp & crisp, at least at f8=flu. The
    Nikon 75-15- I lens. OK the mounting is junk, but the glass is decent and I
    can sell it used for more than I bought it for new.
     
    Peter, Jan 12, 2008
    #13
  14. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    Many if not most average cheap lens should be able to capture clean sharp
    image at F8 or smaller, because most (not all especially not the top-notch
    lens) usually start with either f3.5 or f4 etc.. Or it may be poor at f3.5
    to f5.6 etc. but f8 or smaller should be fine.

    Also, I am talking about regular lens not some type of special lens
    (especially super wide angle and long zoom lens).
     
    Joel, Jan 12, 2008
    #14
  15. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    Hmmm I think you are either prefering some book or dream? Yes, it's
    possible but it may require lot of luck and tries. Yes, I have read and
    heard that type of great photographers, but I haven't seen any great
    photographer do yard sale shopping for $20 camera. Me? the first thing a
    good photographer or good photographer trying to be may want to do is
    learning to be more real with fewer excuse <bg>

    BTW, what camera you use?
     
    Joel, Jan 12, 2008
    #15

  16. Google "Holga Camera" and have a look at what some photographers can do with
    a plastic $17 camera made in China with no quality control whatsoever. It
    doesn't get "more real with fewer excuse" than this.

    Here's a link to one of my favorite Holga photographers:

    http://www.rebeccatolkphotography.com/rt_intro.html
    I use quite a few cameras. My $20 camera is a "better camera" than the
    Holga. It is an Agfa Isolette - a pocket medium format camera from the
    50's. Google it if you want to learn more.

    My other cameras, collected over the years, are a couple of Nikon F SLRs
    (now for B&W), a Rollie 35, a Yashica T10, a Canon 300D digital, and a Nikon
    D70 digital. I use all of these cameras. I believe I can make good
    photographs with any one of them.
     
    Etta Ray Newberry, Jan 12, 2008
    #16
  17. SteveB

    Peter Guest


    Of course there is no substitute for a quality lens, but only when it is
    being used for the work for which it was designed. If an individual is just
    going to take "I've been there" and family snapshots, that will not be any
    larger than 4 x 5, a top quality lens is not really needed. (But it may make
    the photographer feel better about himself.) I must point out that 75-150 is
    hardly a specialty lens. Just a medium tele zoom lens that works and is free
    from the chromatic aberration or internal flare that is common in sine if
    the real cheapies.
    My point is that sometimes we get so equipment obsessed that we forget the
    purpose. I am one of those who firmly believes that in many cases amateur
    photo equipment is designed to take photographers, not pictures.
     
    Peter, Jan 13, 2008
    #17
  18. SteveB

    flambe Guest

    If you are moving up from a P&S and want to improve your skills: without a
    doubt. Buy it.
    I do not think you will see what a dSLR can do unless you are willing to
    also learn about image processing and printing. The D40x package (18-55 and
    55-200) does not include great lenses but they are certainly adequate for
    most users purposes. I say this as someone who admits I would never purchase
    either lens for my personal kit.
    I suggest you also budget for Elements and learn how to use it.
    Start with jpegs but move to raw ASAP.
    After 40 years of I like to think high end amateur photography and mostly
    digital since the Nikon 990 (my working 990, noisy beast that it is sits on
    my desk in front of me) I see no reason for anyone to use a heavy and
    expensive dSLR if they are only going to shoot jpegs. Many high end P&S
    cameras match image quality with the D40x camera and lens package with less
    weight and cost.
    If you do not want to go for the weight and expense of a dSLR consider the
    Panasonic FX18 and its Olympus equivalent. They both record in raw, an
    absolute prerequisite for quality images.
     
    flambe, Jan 13, 2008
    #18
  19. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    I guess Holga have to wait for all photographers to die before he can
    dream that I will worship Holga.
    Then I guess I would give the title "Best Photographer" to you instead of
    Holga then <bg>

    Few years ago, I got a *free* camera (News Years Eve special) from a local
    store, and later I saw they had $8 price tag, but I don't dare to beat Holga
    so never tried it. I tossed away the best chance to be "The Best
    Photographer" with $8 camera .
    I don't wanna be negative but I looked at 2-3 of them and don't see any
    special about it. And if I am not mistaken, I read something Rebecca *not*
    Holga
    So, how do those more expensive cameras compare to the "$20 better
    camera"? Me, even Holga puts a gun on my head I still won't buy his story
    <bg>

    Cuz sometime some of my grand-kids with P&S can capture a much better
    image than I sometime tried with my more expensive DSLR camera. The only
    simple reason because the kids are much more comfortable, more fun among
    themselves then with adult. And they just happen to press the shuttler at
    the right moment at right angle, with good lighting situation etc..

    Same with Holga, he just have some experience with how to look at the
    whole picture, then with post processing skill he can get few stunning
    photos from dozens or hundred of shots etc..
     
    Joel, Jan 13, 2008
    #19
  20. SteveB

    Joel Guest

    Well, if you just talk about ok to use then I may have to agree with you.
    But if we want to talk about general then I may not agree, and this is what
    I am looking at.

    - It doesn't have to be expensive lens to capture some good image, but with
    cheapie lens it will have its limitation.

    - If we just take still or slow moving subject with good lighting situation
    then we should be able to get by with cheapie lens.

    - Expensive and especially fast lens usually made by good GLASS and good
    glass usually can capture cleaner image than cheap glass. I usually shoot
    at least f5.6 if I can for the sharpness (I prefer f8, and for outdoor
    landscape I can go f1x)

    Even all my lenses are f2.8 and faster (only Bigma 50-500mm is f4-5.6) and
    sometime I have to shoot f3.5 (rarely shoot f2.8 or f1.4) because of
    low-light situation and I don't want to increase the ISA.

    That's all I meant to say, else I agree that some cheapie lens (lens-kit)
    is capable of capturing sharp image, but not as flexible as more expensive
    lens. Also, with cheapie lens we often see softness, noise, blurry etc. and
    to me it just won't worth the trouble.
     
    Joel, Jan 13, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.