Do you consider the D40 as a rare, great camera?

[dingdongbubble]

Sorry for the Title. Couldnt ally think up of what to write.

Do you think that the D40 is one such device which has been made very well and an upgrade would most probably be a practical downgrade? As is the practice of big companies.

An upgrade would include just a lil improvement like more AF points, or more pixels (LOL) etc. One such device that I can point to is the Panasonic Gs400 camcorder. Also some of the early P/S cameras with low pixels.

 

[cube]

I don't like it. It's a crippled camera that replaced the low-cost good camera.

 

[freebooter]

I've squeezed many satisfying photos from mine. I'd say it's pretty classic. For the price, great!

(I actually like my Sony DSC R1 better, though--color! lens! controls! lcd! ergonomics!)

 

[Abstract]

The original D40 takes beautiful photos. Sure, it's only 6 MP, but it does produce the least noise of any Nikon DSLR, and had good dynamic range (although the difference in dynamic range between DSLRs isn't a lot unless you're talking about the Fuji S5).

 

[raptor96]

I think that the D40 is a great camera and meets a very extant market need. However, owning a D50, I think that the D50 is the camera you were talking about. Rare in quality and build. Fine shooting, totally versatile (able to shoot w/ older lenses but still small and useful where a larger camera might not be) and friendly to noobs like me. That being said, from the noob point of view the D40 might be better and in some quality senses (i.e. noise as has been mentioned) it might be better but for your "rare, great camera" I think no, the D50 is a much better 'rare, great camera.'

 

[unknown87]

Are you the guy that posted a while back trying to think up reasons to convince your brother to let you get a DSLR and then in the end, you weren't exactly sure WHY you did want a DSLR? If so, I loved the other topic you posted on dcresource...

Anyhow....yes, I believe the D40 to be a 'classic'.

EDIT: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/322480/ (was your original thread...)

 

[dingdongbubble]

LOL I dont even have a brother.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

You get what you pay for. For $500, its a great camera. In the greater scheme of things, its a cheap camera that takes okay pictures. Good pictures come from behind the viewfinder and the best camera in the world can't make up for an awful photographer.

With that said, having a nicer camera doesn't hurt, either.

 

[pdxflint]

Just going on the title of this thread... I don't think the D40 qualifies as a "rare" camera - maybe someday when there are just a few of them left in original working condition. But then in that case, I'd have to actually favor the D50.

The only problem for me, is that now with camera bodies largely becoming electronic consumer products, as compared to the days when they were mechanical in nature, they become obsolete much earlier in their lives, and also not as likely to ever reach "rare" or "classic" status. At least that's my take, and I'm sticking with it...

 

[LeviG]

From my perspective the d40 isn't as good as the d50 it replaced. The d50 could use all the lens I have from my 35mm f80 kit. The d40 can only use them in manual mode which to me seems a poor decision.

I'm now waiting for the d80 to updated before buying a digital camera, the d300 etc is just a tad too expensive

 

[Digital Skunk]

From my perspective the d40 isn't as good as the d50 it replaced. The d50 could use all the lens I have from my 35mm f80 kit. The d40 can only use them in manual mode which to me seems a poor decision.

I'm now waiting for the d80 to updated before buying a digital camera, the d300 etc is just a tad too expensive

The only thing I hated about the D50 was the top LCD panel and its lack of a back light. You couldn't see it in the dark or in dimly lit places at all.

I think the D40 was a much needed improvement over the D50, felt much better in my hands. I don't mind the missing AF screw, I wish Nikon would make more AF-S primes and macros to fill the need. Other than that and the break away from the EN-EL3e I think the D40 is the best budget, beginner, consumer, soccer mom camera Nikon has ever made. (Yes including the film SLRs)

 

[Westside guy]

While it's a bit dated now, I think if any Nikon dSLR deserves the title it'd be my D70 w/ the 18-70mm kit lens - well, any D70, not just mine. The field wasn't as crowded, of course; but the features-to-price ratio at introduction was just so much better than what else was out there at the time. Not to mention that it was, in many ways, better than the (at the time) supposedly higher-end D100.

Nowadays the improvements in any of the manufacturers' lower-end camera lines are pretty incremental, and the field is pretty darn crowded with very good cameras.

 

[ChrisA]

Do you think that the D40 is one such device which has been made very well and an upgrade would most probably be a practical downgrade? As is the practice of big companies.

No. The D40 is really just a D50 with an important feature missing. The D50 was the "classic". The D40 does not fit well into the Nikon system and I think was made for beginners who would never in their lifetime buy a non-consumer grade lens. You can't even use a 50mm AF lens with the D40.

 

[ChrisA]

I don't think the D40 qualifies as a "rare" camera - maybe someday when there are just a few of them left in original working condition.

In 50 years there will still be camera colectors. I doubt the D40 will be a prized model. In 50 years I think people will value the F3 and the F5 over any of the consumer level digital cameras.

Of the current digital models the D200 is the one they will want because it "fits" in the Nikon line up so well Still having meter linkage to AI-S type lenses. In 10 years all the digitial bodies will sell on eBay for about $25.

I have a 50 year old SLR, made in 1957. I had a repair done a while back. I wonder if there will be anyone around who can repair a D40 in 2057. Somehow I doubt it. The old Exacta still works very well and it's capable of better image quality than my D50 if I'm careful. The Exacta was very expensive in it's day. It was the camera that Nikon "copied" and greatly improved and called the "F1". Back then a person could support a family and buy a house with a $9,000 per year salary. But a camera system would cost $1,000. Today you can buy a D40 for what many people make in about a day. My observation is that the cameras that the average person could not afford when new are the ones that become the "classics".

 

[Digital Skunk]

No. The D40 is really just a D50 with an important feature missing. The D50 was the "classic". The D40 does not fit well into the Nikon system and I think was made for beginners who would never in their lifetime buy a non-consumer grade lens. You can't even use a 50mm AF lens with the D40.

What feature would that be? If its the AF motor than what about the backlit LCD that was missing off of the D50? The one camera that I don't see fitting into the lineup is the D40x. Faster frame rate and 10MP... meh... okay but that model should have had the AF motor. I agree that no one with a D40 may upgrade to a D200 or higher but it is a great camera for the price and features. The real limitation in the D40 is Nikon's lack of AF-S Primes and Macros. If Nikon did like Canon has been doing, and put the AF motors in all their lenses, then they could leave the internal camera motor off of the consumer bodies with no problems.