Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the nikon d40 still a good buy?
- Thread starter kmarketing
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/
There is a downgrade in maximum shutter speed and FLASH SYNC.
There is a downgrade in maximum shutter speed and FLASH SYNC.
I recommend the D40. It may not seem like "a lot" but it is the cheapest dSLR ever, and that's a lot to say about any kind of product in that type of position.
The D80 is a very worthy upgrade to the D50 and D70s (which I do NOT recommend at this time, because they're bigger, older, slower, and several years old, and other than the thing about not having an AF motor, a D40 will handily outperform the 50/70/70s, in terms of both speed and image quality.)
Plus, you mentioned the D40 being cheaper than the 50 and the 70 in most instances you were able to find it.
The other thing I recommend is sticking with Nikon glass. Tamron and Sigma et al are fine, but I don't recommend them as your first lenses. I've got a Quantaray lens around which is a re-badged version of either Tamron or Sigma, and the first one I had broke, and the current one I have just isn't as sharp as I'd like it to be. I replaced it with a similar Nikon lens, and couldn't be happier with the Nikon lens.
You can walk around with your Nikon SLR/dSLR around your neck and accidentally hit things or run into things. (I've had this happen.) With Nikon glass, you won't have to worry about it (especially if you put a filter out on the front, and leave the lens cap on while you're not shooting.)
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about details about which camera has the fastest flash sync speed or the highest shutter speed -- because the D3/D300/D700 will beat that anyway.
The point of owning a digital SLR is having the right tool to allow you to make the best pictures you can. The D40 does just that by being simple, inexpensive, and yet, having all of the capabilities of its older, more expensive, and less-easy brethren (the 70/50). And the D40 is expandable just as the 50/70 are, in case you want to add a flash with a rotating head like the SB600, or if you want to add lenses.
The D80 is a very worthy upgrade to the D50 and D70s (which I do NOT recommend at this time, because they're bigger, older, slower, and several years old, and other than the thing about not having an AF motor, a D40 will handily outperform the 50/70/70s, in terms of both speed and image quality.)
Plus, you mentioned the D40 being cheaper than the 50 and the 70 in most instances you were able to find it.
The other thing I recommend is sticking with Nikon glass. Tamron and Sigma et al are fine, but I don't recommend them as your first lenses. I've got a Quantaray lens around which is a re-badged version of either Tamron or Sigma, and the first one I had broke, and the current one I have just isn't as sharp as I'd like it to be. I replaced it with a similar Nikon lens, and couldn't be happier with the Nikon lens.
You can walk around with your Nikon SLR/dSLR around your neck and accidentally hit things or run into things. (I've had this happen.) With Nikon glass, you won't have to worry about it (especially if you put a filter out on the front, and leave the lens cap on while you're not shooting.)
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about details about which camera has the fastest flash sync speed or the highest shutter speed -- because the D3/D300/D700 will beat that anyway.
The point of owning a digital SLR is having the right tool to allow you to make the best pictures you can. The D40 does just that by being simple, inexpensive, and yet, having all of the capabilities of its older, more expensive, and less-easy brethren (the 70/50). And the D40 is expandable just as the 50/70 are, in case you want to add a flash with a rotating head like the SB600, or if you want to add lenses.
What the heck? This conversation had 2 people in it for an entire page. That's pretty crazy.
I wouldn't recommend either the D50 or D70s. They both had poor focusing, poor viewfinder, etc. I don't know why you'd consider them. The D70s is ancient in DSLR terms. I know people will come and say they own cameras from 1965 or something, but it doesn't matter. These things are like any other electronic device today. The technology and market for these cameras have evolved greatly over the past 2 years, and the competition between companies to offer you something great has intensified. The D50 and D70s really are ancient now, and I see no reason to purchase either of them if you can afford to spend an extra few hundred dolars and buy a D80.
Photography is about capturing light, timing, luck, skill, know-how, framing, and a good eye. However, I was the owner of a D50, and going from that camera to a camera from THIS generation was startling. It's simply better camera and imaging technology, and even if I'm not a great photographer, I don't want to be further hampered by lower image quality (note: I didn't say "low"), or a piss poor viewfinder.
Don't get me wrong. The D50 was a good camera that could produce great image quality, but not compared to what is out there today.
The image quality from the original D40 was incredible.......some of the best image quality out of a Nikon DSLR ever. If on a very very tight budget, I'd recommend it over a D50 or D70s. Unless you can pick one up for $150, there's no reason to buy them when the D40 is so cheap.
The D80 is better overall, I think.
The AF is much better, and while the image quality isn't as good as the very newest cameras today, the colour is probably better than what I get out of my D300 (which isn't so hot in that respect).
Oh, and if you're considering the D50 because it has an in-built focus motor for regular AF lenses (which the D40 can't autofocus with.....they only autofocus with AF-S lenses), then get the D80. Problem solved.
I wouldn't recommend either the D50 or D70s. They both had poor focusing, poor viewfinder, etc. I don't know why you'd consider them. The D70s is ancient in DSLR terms. I know people will come and say they own cameras from 1965 or something, but it doesn't matter. These things are like any other electronic device today. The technology and market for these cameras have evolved greatly over the past 2 years, and the competition between companies to offer you something great has intensified. The D50 and D70s really are ancient now, and I see no reason to purchase either of them if you can afford to spend an extra few hundred dolars and buy a D80.
Photography is about capturing light, timing, luck, skill, know-how, framing, and a good eye. However, I was the owner of a D50, and going from that camera to a camera from THIS generation was startling. It's simply better camera and imaging technology, and even if I'm not a great photographer, I don't want to be further hampered by lower image quality (note: I didn't say "low"), or a piss poor viewfinder.
Don't get me wrong. The D50 was a good camera that could produce great image quality, but not compared to what is out there today.
The image quality from the original D40 was incredible.......some of the best image quality out of a Nikon DSLR ever. If on a very very tight budget, I'd recommend it over a D50 or D70s. Unless you can pick one up for $150, there's no reason to buy them when the D40 is so cheap.
The D80 is better overall, I think.
The AF is much better, and while the image quality isn't as good as the very newest cameras today, the colour is probably better than what I get out of my D300 (which isn't so hot in that respect).Oh, and if you're considering the D50 because it has an in-built focus motor for regular AF lenses (which the D40 can't autofocus with.....they only autofocus with AF-S lenses), then get the D80. Problem solved.
$150 is too optimistic for these cameras. The going rates from a local store giving you at least 4 weeks warranty for these bodies is a bit less than $300 for D50, $350 for D70 and "too expensive" for D70s. Used D80 body with all the accessories (around $600) is also not enticing given the D80 kit clearance deals ($1000). I expect the D80 used bodies to go down at most to $500 in the near term.
These items maintain their prices because of the lack of competition from new low-end Nikon bodies with motor.
You can't compare the prices to the D40. It's a cuestion of "can you live without the focus motor or not?".
These items maintain their prices because of the lack of competition from new low-end Nikon bodies with motor.
You can't compare the prices to the D40. It's a cuestion of "can you live without the focus motor or not?".
I'd try for the D80, if possible. I have a D40, and I've become frustrated with not being able to autofocus with certain lenses. One thing the D40 has over other Nikon DSLRs is the ability to mount pre-AI lenses. I have two, and if I had any other DSLR, they'd be useless to me (and thus I would never have bought them). Another thing is that the flash sync is 1/500, which is high for any camera. The pixel size is also larger than most Nikon DSLRs (certainly anything below the D300/700/3) thanks to putting fewer pixels on a sensor that's the size other cameras use to cram several more megapixels into.
I also strongly recommend sticking with Nikkor lenses. The F5, a film camera, was and still is said to be so strong in its autofocus that it can destroy discount glass.
Also, I suggest just getting the body only and getting your own lenses. The kit lens isn't all that great, and you'd be better off putting your money into a better one.
I also strongly recommend sticking with Nikkor lenses. The F5, a film camera, was and still is said to be so strong in its autofocus that it can destroy discount glass.
Also, I suggest just getting the body only and getting your own lenses. The kit lens isn't all that great, and you'd be better off putting your money into a better one.
Glad some other people piped in about the D50 v. D40. I'm not a photographer, nor do I really know what I am talking about. BUT, I'm also looking at buying a D40 and having tried out both the 40 and 50 I can say that just in terms of picking up and using the two the 40 wins HANDS DOWN.
The 40 is smaller and lighter and feels great in your hands. Maybe the "old guys" are used to big heavy equipment, but if you are like me and coming from the point and shoot world the diminutive size makes a HUGE difference.
The 40 has a better screen by about 10 fold. There's no comparison. Sure, you don't use it for framing, but for reviewing your shots it's light years better.
The 40's ergonomics are better. The selector dial is right by your right thumb on the 40, it's in an odd place on to 50, imo. The screen acting as your informational display while shoot is better, too, imo, than the LCD ont he top of the camera. Think about where your head and eyes are when taking a picture. Do you think it's easy/faster to get info off the back of a camera or the top?
Performance wise, they're pretty similar, but from my few samples and all the reviews I've seen. Same resolution, more or less the same glass, very similar image processing.
The AF-S vs. built in motor never gave me a pause when looking at the two. I don't have any lenses that I want to "bring with me" to a new camera so it's just a matter of only buying AF-S (or the super expensive AF-I) lenses. Not a big deal, there's lots of them and they aren't too much more expensive. If you upgrade to a D90 or something someday, all those AF-S lenses will still work on it, so nothing lost there. Besides, what if Nikon goes to an all AF-S lens system some day? Any new camera could require the AF-S lenses and if you were building up a collection of glass that wasn't AF-S you might regret it. (That's not likely, I suppose, but it is likely that they will keep making at least SOME cameras that require the AF-S lenses and if you end up wanting one of those in 5-10 years and got a D50 now you might have some lenses that won't work on the new body).
Anyways, those are some of the reasons I chose to focus my buying search on the 40 and to pass on the semi-good deals on the D50.
The 40 is smaller and lighter and feels great in your hands. Maybe the "old guys" are used to big heavy equipment, but if you are like me and coming from the point and shoot world the diminutive size makes a HUGE difference.
The 40 has a better screen by about 10 fold. There's no comparison. Sure, you don't use it for framing, but for reviewing your shots it's light years better.
The 40's ergonomics are better. The selector dial is right by your right thumb on the 40, it's in an odd place on to 50, imo. The screen acting as your informational display while shoot is better, too, imo, than the LCD ont he top of the camera. Think about where your head and eyes are when taking a picture. Do you think it's easy/faster to get info off the back of a camera or the top?
Performance wise, they're pretty similar, but from my few samples and all the reviews I've seen. Same resolution, more or less the same glass, very similar image processing.
The AF-S vs. built in motor never gave me a pause when looking at the two. I don't have any lenses that I want to "bring with me" to a new camera so it's just a matter of only buying AF-S (or the super expensive AF-I) lenses. Not a big deal, there's lots of them and they aren't too much more expensive. If you upgrade to a D90 or something someday, all those AF-S lenses will still work on it, so nothing lost there. Besides, what if Nikon goes to an all AF-S lens system some day? Any new camera could require the AF-S lenses and if you were building up a collection of glass that wasn't AF-S you might regret it. (That's not likely, I suppose, but it is likely that they will keep making at least SOME cameras that require the AF-S lenses and if you end up wanting one of those in 5-10 years and got a D50 now you might have some lenses that won't work on the new body).
Anyways, those are some of the reasons I chose to focus my buying search on the 40 and to pass on the semi-good deals on the D50.
Besides, what if Nikon goes to an all AF-S lens system some day?
Hiiiiiiiiiighly unlikely. The F system has sustained Nikon for many decades now, and seems likely to continue doing so.
Hiiiiiiiiiighly unlikely. The F system has sustained Nikon for many decades now, and seems likely to continue doing so.
The primes, I agree, are a problem. I was surprised to learn that they didn't make an AF-S 50mm prime at least. The price difference of siilar used AF and AF-S lenses isn't too bad. Looks like a 20-40% difference. Yes, you can save some money there, but I still maintain that the D40 is a better camera than the D50, just from a usability standpoint and not debating technical merit at all.
I know, that's why I qualified that statement with
I think that we'll see a D40 upgrade that has some of the D90 features and a lower price soonish. A D40x upgrade, I suppose that would be. Adding a video mode, compatibility with the GPS unit, DOF preview, and some of the other "high end" features into the smaller body and lower MP D40x camera, basically. That might be a really compelling camera for a lot of people, and if you had sunk a lot of cash into non-AF-S lenses you might end up pretty upset.
Just my $0.02.
I think it is all the way around. The D50 is better at usability, it had a separate screen to see shutter speed, etc. and has built-in motor. Instead, in technical merit, the D40 is better. Because it is newer and it employs the new technology that Nikon offered at that time.
You know, Nikon released the D60 recently, which was the upgrade for the D40/D40x.
I think it is all the way around. The D50 is better at usability, it had a separate screen to see shutter speed, etc. and has built-in motor. Instead, in technical merit, the D40 is better. Because it is newer and it employs the new technology that Nikon offered at that time.
You know, Nikon released the D60 recently, which was the upgrade for the D40/D40x.
I'm not a photographer, so I'm not going to debate the technical advantage of these two cameras. What I am going to say is that having held them both and trying them out, the D40 was easier to use. The separate screen on the top for shutter/aperture speed/etc was NOT an advantage, imo. You have to lift your head up to see it, rather than just pull back a little and look down. The top screen is a throwback to the film days because that was the only place to put it - the film loaded in the back so there was a door there.
The built in motor is a technical feature, not a usability one, in my opinion. Once you mount a compatible lens on either camera it operates the same, so doesn't really affect usability.
The D40 lighter weight, smaller size, even for a biggish guy like me, was preferable. There was no contest on the placement of the controls. I don't know what else, usability wise, you could compare. The D40 won in every category when I tried them out.
And the D90 was released more recently, introducing new features some of which will eventually make their way down to the cheaper models. Maybe it'll be called the D60x. Since the D40/x is still available, I wouldn't call the D60 and upgrade to it, just a new model in between the 40 and the 80.
As to the original posters question, honestly the price difference between the 40 and 60 is pretty small, so just go try them both out and see which one you like better. Unless you have some really good reason to need non-AF-S lenses it seems to be that how they feel in your hand is the most important thing. Both will take good - GREAT - pictures, so even though there's some differences technically it should be personal preference for usability that decides it. (Also, on a technical note, I think there's some reviews indicating that the D50 has a better meter than the D40, but it's nothing super-serious).
Frankly at this point I wouldn't buy a D40 it's getting old and beginning to show it's age. I would certainly not get the D50. If you must get Nikon then I would get the D80, as it can be had for pretty cheap these days especially because the D90 has now been officially announced.
If you could I would even consider a different brand Canon or Sony.
If you could I would even consider a different brand Canon or Sony.
He's not talking about changing the F-mount. He's talking about changing to an all AF-S system, and I don't know why mrgreen4242 even gave you an inch with regards to this, as every Nikon lens released in the past few years has been AF-S. Since even their cheapest kit lens on their cheapest camera has AF-S, I doubt they'd release another lens without it. When Nikon eventually updates the AF lenses they still have in their line-up, they'll have an all AF-S lens line-up. It may take them 10 years to update them all (2 a year?), but this is an inevitability.
Oh, and the overwhelming majority of current Nikon lenses compatible with the Nikon D40/D40x/D60, so it only gets better from here. Sigma is also slowly switching their lenses so that they AF on the D40.
Here are some of the prominent Nikon lenses in the current lineup that aren't AF-S:
80-400 mm with VR
50 mm f/1.4
50 mm f/1.8
35 mm f/2 (Nikon really do need to work on their AF-S primes...)
85 mm f/1.4
85 mm f/1.8
105 mm f/2 DC
135 mm f/2 DC
10.5 mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens.
Plus you need to add all the ancient Nikon lenses.
Still, there are alternatives to some of these lenses that will work on your D40, and may even be better than Nikon's version.
If you know you won't be buying any ancient lenses anytime soon, you'll also be OK. You're just out of luck with regards to the primes, particularly the 85 mm primes.
Thank you for the info. My apologies for miscommunicating, and for my own ignorance. I do note that virtually every Nikkor lens ever made (with the exception of the F3AF ones) is compatible with the D40 , even if it's just manual focus.
I've read an opinion elsewhere that calls the D60 a "sucker's camera," and I have to agree. It doesn't offer much more of substance apart from the D40, but does reach further into your wallet.
I've read an opinion elsewhere that calls the D60 a "sucker's camera," and I have to agree. It doesn't offer much more of substance apart from the D40, but does reach further into your wallet.
Except for autoficus. You can autofocus with a 50mm in the D50, not so in a D40.
And the D90 was released more recently, introducing new features some of which will eventually make their way down to the cheaper models. Maybe it'll be called the D60x. Since the D40/x is still available, I wouldn't call the D60 and upgrade to it, just a new model in between the 40 and the 80.
The D200 is still available, same for the D80. Go see www.nikonusa.com and both those cameras are still there. Tho, this not means the D300 and D90 are just new categories altogether.
It could be Nikon announces a D60x, but I doubt they'll include any major features.
As for the OP. I agree, don't buy a D50, get a D40 instead. Or you might be fortunate to get a good deal on a D80 now that the D90 is out.
The pricing of the D40 has been kept "up to date", even though it's a bit older camera.
The D60 is about $250-300 more than the D40 (with comparable kit lenses). That's about a 50-60% jump in price. Sure, it's a nice camera for the money BUT if your budget is, say, $400-500 the D40 is it. You have to go to at least $700 to look at a D60.
At the $700 range you could afford a D40 w/ the standard kit lens and a 55-200mm VR lens as well, so it's tough to argue for the D60 as a low priced option, in my opinion.
Especially when you consider that the D60 is, more or less, the D40x with some really minor changes in the electronics (it still only uses the AF-S lenses, it has the same sensor as the D40x, it just adds some image adjustment modes and stuff like that) and a pretty big bump in price. You could get the D40x with the same lenses as a D60 and save $100+...
I dunno, like I said, I'm not a photog. I'm looking at buying a dSLR so I've been researching and trying the various cams out in stores and borrowed from friends/coworkers. Right now the D40 seems to be the best bang for the buck, under $1000 with lenses. I counted out the cheaper Sony's, Olympus's, etc because of the limited lens options (there's plenty of lenses made for it, but the massive popularity of Canon and Nikon mean lots of well priced used lenses, or just plain on sale stuff). I like the interface of the Nikons more than I do the Canon's, and the D40 represents, as I said, a great value.
Ya, I really don't understand why there are no AF-S primes. It's baffling. Maybe people don't buy many primes any more? Still, a sub-$100 50mm AF-S lens that was fast, small, and light would be a instant buy for any D40 (or D60 or D40x) owner. As I've said several times, I'm not a photog, so when I was trying out the various cameras with various lenses I immediately noticed that the 55mm point on both the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses was just about perfect for "normal range" indoor shooting. It would be great to have that on a camera while for every day usage taking pics of my son at home.
He suggested to the OP that he look at the D80, not the D60. Your entire post compares the D40 to the D60.
Oh, and while I was writing up my last post an hour ago, I noticed on Nikon Australia's website that the 85 mm f/1.4 was removed from their lens lineup, and moved to the Products Archive page (where old lenses go to die when they're replaced with newer versions, or discontinued altogether). This probably means that a new 85 mm f/1.4 (with AF-S) is expected very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if this slip-up was isolated, and 1 or 2 other primes were also updated by Nikon, hopefully the 50 mm f/1.8 and f/1.4.
I have a D40 and would highly recommend it! Unless you are a pro who is making money off your equipment, this is all you need!!
I would suggest you decide what lenses you need/plan to buy and then decide on the body. If your lens shopping list includes non AF-S lenses then hold off and buy a used D80 in a couple of months when the prices will drop down! Else get a D40.
You should also be considering the improvements made by nikon to their image processing s/w during the time frame between the D50, D70 and D40!
I would suggest you decide what lenses you need/plan to buy and then decide on the body. If your lens shopping list includes non AF-S lenses then hold off and buy a used D80 in a couple of months when the prices will drop down! Else get a D40.
You should also be considering the improvements made by nikon to their image processing s/w during the time frame between the D50, D70 and D40!
He suggested to the OP that he look at the D80, not the D60. Your entire post compares the D40 to the D60.
Oh, and while I was writing up my last post an hour ago, I noticed on Nikon Australia's website that the 85 mm f/1.4 was removed from their lens lineup, and moved to the Products Archive page (where old lenses go to die when they're replaced with newer versions, or discontinued altogether). This probably means that a new 85 mm f/1.4 (with AF-S) is expected very soon. I wouldn't be surprised if this slip-up was isolated, and 1 or 2 other primes were also updated by Nikon, hopefully the 50 mm f/1.8 and f/1.4.
Oops. It's late. I've been coding all day. I've written about 1000 lines of PHP in the last 48 hours. I makes my eye go crossed and drops my reading comprehension a few grade levels.
Hopefully they release some fixed length AF-S lenses this year, yet...
Hi,
Thank you to everyone for the opinions and insight (especially to cube, who spent tons of time with the page full of posts). I'm learning so much!
I had a chance to play with the different models. They all felt fine to me. Any of the models would be nice!
It looks like I can get (with standard lenses):
d40: $400
d60: $550
d80: $650
Canon xsi: $600
I'm hoping to get something that will last me a good time, and not feel too obsolete and ripped off as the new models roll out.
The video features of the d90 are definitely interesting though, but I'm not sure how much of that I would use. I have, however, used that feature with our sony point and shoot.
What do you think would be best here?
Thanks!
Thank you to everyone for the opinions and insight (especially to cube, who spent tons of time with the page full of posts). I'm learning so much!
I had a chance to play with the different models. They all felt fine to me. Any of the models would be nice!
It looks like I can get (with standard lenses):
d40: $400
d60: $550
d80: $650
Canon xsi: $600
I'm hoping to get something that will last me a good time, and not feel too obsolete and ripped off as the new models roll out.
The video features of the d90 are definitely interesting though, but I'm not sure how much of that I would use. I have, however, used that feature with our sony point and shoot.
What do you think would be best here?
Thanks!
With those prices, how much of a loss should I expect as the new models come out?
That would stink if I was to plop down a nice chunk of change only to see it depreciate so quickly.
That would stink if I was to plop down a nice chunk of change only to see it depreciate so quickly.
Hi,
Would this be a good deal or do you think there is better out there:
Nikon D40 DSLR Kit, 18-55 & 55-200mm Lenses, 2 DVDs + Free Sandisk 4GB Memory Card - $599
I see many recommendations for getting lenses, so should I get them in a set or separately?
Thanks!
Would this be a good deal or do you think there is better out there:
Nikon D40 DSLR Kit, 18-55 & 55-200mm Lenses, 2 DVDs + Free Sandisk 4GB Memory Card - $599
I see many recommendations for getting lenses, so should I get them in a set or separately?
Thanks!
You won't see the D40 drop in price. The D40 has probably dropped as far as it'll go for awhile, while the D60 price may decrease as interest in the camera decreases. I can't even make a guess as to when this could happen. I think the D80 has the best chance of a further price drop right now, but you won't be saving much.....maybe $20 to $40. You won't see any $200 price drops.
Out of those cameras, I'd get the Nikon D80, and not because I like Nikon better.
The D80 has the fastest camera body, allowing me to quickly change a few additional settings on the camera body without needing to dive into the menu system. Nikon menus are easy to use, but still more tedious than a button press. You may never care to change these particular settings, or don't plan on changing them often, so a menu system may not make a difference to its usability from your perspective. The additional settings you can change quickly on the Nikon D80's body are ones that I personally change somewhat often, so this is important to me. To change the metering on my old D50, I had to go into the main menu, down to a 2nd menu, and then scroll down to around the 10th setting option (in a menu with around 20 setting options). Pain in the ass. However, spot metering may never be important to you, as most people never use it. The D40, D60, and XSi would be similar in terms of what settings you can change on the body, but I hear that the D40 is really popular because its ergonomics and menu are so easy for a novice user to understand!
Also, the D80 tends to come with the 18-135 mm lens, no? For general photography (i.e. 90% of your shots), the 18-135 mm is going to be more useful. Plus, you'll have to switch lenses less often, which is not only aggravating, but you'll get more dust in your camera.
You're getting a better package with the D80.
As a current D50 owner, I say go for either the D40 or the D80. There are some primes out there with focus motors for the D40, the Sigma 30 1.4 which I have heard wonderful things about and the Sigma 50 1.4. I know they are not Nikons but I have heard great things about them. I am overdue for a new camera, still trying to decide what I want at this time, leaning at getting the D300 at the moment though, but that D90 is rather tempting.