Canon 400D, Sony 100 or Nikon D40x, suggestions please.

[Westside guy]

Really? I could've sworn the D40x had an AF motor. I stand corrected.

Slightly off topic but that's incredibly stupid of Nikon seeing how every other SLR in the D40x's price bracket has full AF compatibility and some even feature body-based IS.

If you like autofocus, go for the 400D.

Not as stupid as you seem to think. People buying these low-end SLRs don't generally have old SLR lenses around, and Nikon's new lenses are all AF-S - so an in-body motor is rather superfluous. Additionally, Nikon has now put VR in even its low-end kit lens (the 18-55mm). Both Canon and Nikon have gone with in-lens stabilization because it just plain works better than in-body stabilization.

For better or for worse, when most consumers decide to get their first digital SLR their search starts and stops with Canon and Nikon. The market share of all the other dSLR makers combined doesn't add up to either Nikon's or Canon's share. Given that Nikon's rapidly growing dSLR market share has now equalled (or, some say, even exceeded) Canon's, it's hard to argue that they're being stupid; basically it's pretty obvious they understand the target demographic for their low-end camera.

 

[compuwar]

Slightly off topic but that's incredibly stupid of Nikon seeing how every other SLR in the D40x's price bracket has full AF compatibility and some even feature body-based IS.

Nikon has increased its market share significantly with the D40 and D40x bodies, so I doubt "stupid" is the way they look at it. It's meant to be an entry-level camera, so it's not meant for folks who have a bunch of lenses, it's supposed to lower the barrier to buying a DSLR, so the removal of the screwdriver focus motor puts it at a lower price point for entry buyers, and from all the numbers it seems to be working just fine as a strategy. Since Nikon isn't introducing any new AF-D lenses, and since selling lenses is important to them, and since they're putting out some of the best consumer lenses ever built at some incredible price points, I don't see how anyone can fault their business strategy with these two bodies.

It's not Nikon's fault that the camera is so good that at that price point people want to use it as an affordable backup or to move on from outdated cameras.

Most newcommers to the SLR world don't own more than two lenses anyway, and one of them is almost always bought with the body.

The D200 might have been a success, the D3 may become a success, but the D40/D40x is what's driving Nikon's market growth. Smartest move ever- by ripping out the motor and coming in at the price point the D40 did, they've forced Canon to play catch-up at the consumer end.

 

[macgruder]

I have a Nikon D40x and it's an outstanding camera. Light, fun, and extremely high quality shots. I'd argue that most photographers would get a higher number of better photos out of a D40/D40x than a top of the range Nikon costing thousands. This may seem like a contradiction, but in my case I grab the D40x all the time when before I'd leave a bigger camera at home.

Nikon also make great lenses and although the D40x doesn't autofocus with the AF lenses (only the AF-S lenses) it is clear that Nikon is committed to the DX format and AF-S.

And then there's the 18-200mm DX Zoom
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
"It's a miracle! I bought mine in November 2005 and love it. It's replaced an entire bag of lenses. All I bring anywhere is my 18-200mm, and maybe my 12-24mm for 99% of everything I shoot.

It's small, fun, flexible, sharp and fast. VR, instant auto/manual focus override and macro and zooming all work perfectly. This lens is too much fun! "

Grab that and a 10-20mm Sigma or the upcoming Tokina 11-16 F2.8 (!), and you have a whole camera kit that will take pictures almost indistinguishable in terms of basic quality to a pro's camera. (If you take a good picture, you won't find people with magnifying glasses poring over chromatic aberration etc).

The above may equally apply to Canon's although the Nikon 18-200 sold Nikon again for me. It's really in the glass Bodies come and go.

 

[Clix Pix]

It will be very interesting to see how many people have moved up (or are planning to do so) from a P&S to a D40/D40x to "something more:" D80, D200 and now the D300..... I've seen several instances of this, especially on the Nikon Cafe, where there is a lot of excitement about the new D300. There are people on that site who started out with a D40/x who are jumping right into the D300 from there. Of course, with the new camera they'll also be buying more lenses.....

Nikon was very clever in their marketing strategy. There are some people who have the top-of-the-line flagship cameras in the line who also have the lowly D40/X to use as a take-everywhere camera in lieu of a P&S.

The D40/X has a rather unique and versatile appeal to a wide spectrum of photographers, from the person who wants to buy his or her first DSLR and who will probably never use more than the kit lens or possibly the 18-200mm VR on it to the person who shoots professionally with the D2X/s who is waiting for the D3 and who uses the D40/X as a "fun" carry-everywhere camera or to use with some of the older AI lenses. The D40/X works quite nicely with those golden oldie lenses, no conversion needed for the AI ones!

 

[ziwi]

I am a canon guy, but I would be hard pressed to not really look at the great deals that the Olympus 510 is having right now. Great package deal over at B&H with 2 lenses. I would be hard pressed to tell what camera took a picture from the output and for the savings you can get some nice accessories.

 

[iSamurai]

I was told that I should get a 18-50 and +70-300 lens. Or is there a "do it all range" lens out there?

Ahh man, and I've heard that the Canon's 450D release is 'imminent' (Jan 08). The only reason that I want that model is because it is rumoured to have "live view" and "movie mode". This just totally 'destroyed' my Sony Cyber-shot LOL.

So I don't think it's wise for me to get a Canon now, what I'm thinking that IF other companies like Nikon/Sony in a few product-cycles' time they would also have brought out DSLRs with these features, so by then I could stick with that brand. Because now I think that I prefer the Sony.

 

[Clix Pix]

Nikon's D300 and D3 have "Live View," but not the movie thing. My feeling is that if someone wants to shoot a really good movie they'll use a camera which is specifically dedicated to that purpose. From what i understand, Live View in the D300 is a bit different from Live View in the D3; I'll know in a few days! I've used Live View just once so far and that was simply to see how it works, but i don't anticipate using it all that often except when I am doing macros.

 

[Shaduu]

Not as stupid as you seem to think. People buying these low-end SLRs don't generally have old SLR lenses around, and Nikon's new lenses are all AF-S - so an in-body motor is rather superfluous. Additionally, Nikon has now put VR in even its low-end kit lens (the 18-55mm). Both Canon and Nikon have gone with in-lens stabilization because it just plain works better than in-body stabilization.

For better or for worse, when most consumers decide to get their first digital SLR their search starts and stops with Canon and Nikon. The market share of all the other dSLR makers combined doesn't add up to either Nikon's or Canon's share. Given that Nikon's rapidly growing dSLR market share has now equalled (or, some say, even exceeded) Canon's, it's hard to argue that they're being stupid; basically it's pretty obvious they understand the target demographic for their low-end camera.

I see your point but not all of us have enough cash lying around to completely overhaul lens setups that won't autofocus with a newer body. I've collected a variety of Canon lenses, mostly EF, over the six years I've been into SLR photography and I'm pleased my 300D body can AF with all of them. If Canon suddenly dropped EF support on its entry-level or semi-pro crop sensor bodies I wouldn't want to spend around £3,000 upgrading to EF-S. There's another plus point for the OP, the 400D is fully compatible with older, and cheaper, EF lenses.

I do, however, agree with the whole in-camera IS thing. I feel that if you want image stabilisation you get IS lenses. Why settle for sub-par IS when you can spend that bit more and get an arguably better system for your money?

 

[Westside guy]

I see your point but not all of us have enough cash lying around to completely overhaul lens setups that won't autofocus with a newer body. I've collected a variety of Canon lenses, mostly EF, over the six years I've been into SLR photography and I'm pleased my 300D body can AF with all of them. If Canon suddenly dropped EF support on its entry-level or semi-pro crop sensor bodies I wouldn't want to spend around £3,000 upgrading to EF-S. There's another plus point for the OP, the 400D is fully compatible with older, and cheaper, EF lenses.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say - but my main point was that people like you aren't the target demographic for the lowest-end Nikon. The D40/x is targeted at first-time SLR buyers, who won't have a pre-existing set of lenses.