DailyTech - Nikon Announces D40 Entry-level D-SLR

Submit News

Gadgets Nikon Announces D40 Entry-level D-SLR
Brandon Hill (Blog) - November 16, 2006 9:01 AM

20 comment(s) - last by dsumanik.. on Nov 17 at 2:52 AM

Nikon has a new entry-level D-SLR ready for consumers

Nikon is filling out its entry-level D-SLR lineup by slotting the new D40 below the existing D50. According to Nikon it's the company's smallest and lightest D-SLR to date.

The D40 incorporates a 6.1MP Nikon DX format CCD image sensor along with the Nikon Image Processing Engine. The camera is ready to take its first shot just 0.18 seconds after powering on and can capture shots at 2.5 FPS for up 100 shots (JPEG mode only). Images are captured onto a Secure Digital memory card (SDHC is supported) and images can be reviewed on the 2.5" color LCD screen. The viewfinder provides x0.8 magnification and 95% coverage. The D40 also comes bundled with a revised version of the AF-S DX 18-55mm lens found on the D50.

Being that this is an entry-level model, Nikon had to skimp in quite a few areas. The D40 features a 3-point auto-focus system and a body made completely of plastic. According to DPReview, however, the plastics used on the D40 are quite durable and are of high quality. DPReview also mentioned that while the Nikon D40 is smaller than the recently introduced Canon Digital Rebel XTi, it features a better hand grip and is much easier to handle.

Nikon's D40 will be available this December with an estimated MSRP of $599.95 with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How does it really stack up?

By psmak4 on 11/16/2006 9:44:49 AM , Rating: 2

I'm looking at getting into digital photography and want to get a good camera, but without paying thousands of dollars for a unit. How does this one really compare to others that are considered "entry level", such as the Canon Rebel XTi? That's the one I've been thinking about getting.

RE: How does it really stack up?

By DocDraken on 11/16/2006 10:54:55 AM , Rating: 2

The D40 is IMO not in any way competitive with the XTi. The D50 is closer, but still inferior in most aspects. The D40 is meant as an alternative to the higher end P&S cameras, for people who want the lower image noise, faster AF and exchangeable lenses associated with a DSLR.

The D80 and XTi are in the same league and there the XTi wins in image quality but has smaller viewfinder and some people like the grip on the D80 more. But both are nice cameras.

Parent

RE: How does it really stack up?

By dsumanik on 11/16/2006 3:04:46 PM , Rating: 2

Believe me, if i show you a print from the D80 or the XTI, you will not be able to tell which one took which.

Even zoomed to poster size, the image will still be identical, it is only when you blow something up to extreme, xtreme magnification, can you see any difference, and they are not so much as one is better than the other, but more personal preference as to which one looks better with regards to the noise...

I have shots on my d70 with the cheapy kit lens that are absolutely stunning.....and the d70 is considered "inferior" to my d80 and the XTI.

You cant compare cameras like computers, theres no MHZ race, or FPS to compare in a benchmark. Its an inherantly analog technology, converted to digital, based on not only visual and color processing, but optics, availible light, depth of field, and the ability of the person operating the camera...

if you have an XTI and fumble with the controls, or a d80 and find its settings to complicated to use...your gonna miss the shot, and well...thats that.

Dont judge these cameras through pure reviews, go get one, hold it in your hand and see if you like it.

Its like saying my ferrari goes 186 mph, and my porche only does 184...so its inferior.

Actually, both cars will be able to drive and handle better than you are able to make them, and only a very expert skilled professional can take either machine to its limit so the 3 mph is a moot point...you wont be able to use it anyhow.

And once you get into the realm of that discussion, you might as well compare the complete system, and well unfortunately for canon, they cant compete with nikon's lenses.

3% better image quality doesnt do jack, when you have an inferior lens and not enough availiable light, or a soft lens that cant capture the sharpness your sensor can.

A better lens, or a better photographer will negate any image quality advantage either camera may or may not have in any given situation.

SO...

Get the one that feels easiest for you to use, and is in your price range, any modern DSLR has better quality than any photographer has had access to in the last 20 years.

just go ask ansel adams.

Parent

RE: How does it really stack up?

By DocDraken on 11/16/2006 7:10:53 PM , Rating: 2

Prints are not really the best way to judge differences in image quality. Viewing them in 100% size on a monitor is. And the future of photo viewing is with your computer and with online photo albums. Who wants to look at photos on tiny prints when you can view them in super quality full screen??

Also, have you heard about cropping to get closer to a subject of interest? And once you try using ISO 800 and 1600 the difference is large enough to be visible at lesser magnifications.

As for lenses, well your statements are just completely and utter nonsense. Canon make by far the widest selection of lenses, both with regards to professional lenses and consumer lenses (no the kit lens is not that good, but who cares, it's practically free and you're not forced to get it). Sorry, but to say that Nikon's lenses are superior is to reveal yourself as a deluded fanboy. Try counting the number of white Canon lenses at news conferences and other events where crowds of professional photographers gather. Also try looking at www.photozone.de for some reviews. There are so many great Canon lenses that Nikon doesn't even have an answer to, and others where Nikon's choice is much more expensive without being better. So please, take your ludicrous claims somewhere else where you might be able to make some n00bs believe you.

Here are some samples of the difference in image quality:

Notice the almost complete lack of detail in the high iso D80 shots linked below:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page2...

In low iso it's better, but still more blurred than the XTi:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page2...

As for the 6MP D40/D50/D70 being as good as the 8MP (or 10MP) Canons, well it's not even close:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.as...

And all theses samples are shot with one of the sharpest Nikon lenses around, the 50mm f1.8, so your excuse about the lenses holds no water as these results are as good as it gets. So no matter how much money you spend on lenses for you Nikon it still won't be better.

Finally, I have several friends who shoot Nikon. One of which owns both a D70 and D200(very nice, but too noisy at high ISO) and I've shot with both. They're nice cameras, but in the end image quality is paramount, not a lot of dubious features and how the camera exterior looks (unless your goal is something other than taking pictures) and at the moment Nikon just don't have as good sensors as the Canon does. Probably because they don't have any in house sensor capability and have to get them from Sony. It's an established fact and all but the most die hard Nikon fanboys agree. So they try to spin the argument to better lenses (LOL), intangibles like "better grip" (the XT and XTi handles just fine) or bigger viewfinder (well with autofocus, whoopdidoo), GPS support (gee I didn't know I needed GPS to know where I took my pictures), etc etc.

Yes you can take awesome photos with any camera. But if you had taken that same awesome photo with a better camera, it would just have had that much better sharpness/resolution, low noise, color, contrast etc. One of my best photos was taken with a lowly 3MP point&shoot and I wish I could do it over with a DSLR because it would have been that much better. The "photographer being better than the camera" argument is nonsensical since a good photographer will also get a better picture with a better camera. No matter how good you are, your results will be better with better tools. Otherwise you'd see professional photographers running around with disposable cameras. No, the best photographers also want to use the best cameras and lenses.

Parent

RE: How does it really stack up?

By zsouthboy on 11/16/2006 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 2

The image quality is the same. Seriously. Just buy whichever one fits you ergonomically. Stop worrying with "Grass-is-greener" syndrome.

Parent

RE: How does it really stack up?

By DocDraken on 11/16/2006 7:45:42 PM , Rating: 2

The D40/D50 and XTi aren't even close in image quality.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page23.as...

Here you see the D50 being utterly pwned and that's just by the older 8MP XT.

Parent

RE: How does it really stack up?

By dsumanik on 11/17/2006 2:52:40 AM , Rating: 2

Give it a rest dude, he thinks it looks the same, as do I.

like i said the noise is now a matter of individual preference to the reduction algorithm...they are so close you have to be zoomed in 500% before you can even start to tell they were shot on different cameras.

And by the way folks, the lenses hes referring to which "wont work" with the D40, actually do work...they just dont auto focus.

They are non AF-S lenses, some of which are the best money can buy, and do support auto focus, just not on a lower end camera like a D40.

However in a few years when you upgrade your body to something a bit nicer, then they will work fine.

in the meantime

There is also a selection of 20 or AF-S lenses from NIKON that will work out of the box with a D40 and are very high quality.

Also,

if you change your mind regarding a nikon lens you purchased and want to sell it...slap it on ebay...they will be worth nearly as much as when you bought them new, maybe a 100-200 bucks less, and youll have bidders out the yin yang.

Go have a peek for yourself, you wont save much shopping for nikon gear on ebay. Their lenses dont depreciate very quickly, its a safe, solid investment.

forget dpreview guys, forget what doc or i said, go down to the store, hold the camera in your hand....if it feels good, and fits your budget buy the camera and get out there shooting!!!

You wont have alot of fun, or success as a photographer if you are at home zoomed into your pixels 500% wishing your camera had better resolution.

Parent

An honest opinion

By dsumanik on 11/16/2006 12:13:18 PM , Rating: 2

Hey guys, the rumours for this thing have been brewing for quite awhile now, and its pretty much turned out to be exactly what nikons viral marketing scheme plotted for it to be 8).

Anyways that said, I am a photographer and own a d80, d70, and an f80 film camera and numerous high end and consumer grade nikon lenses, and admittedly I am a nikon fanboy at heart.

It seems like a few of you here are wondering if this is a good "entry level" camera and would be something to start up with.

What i have to say to that, is the reason you buy a nikon SLR, of any quality, is to have the ability to purchase nikon lenses down the road. I would say canon, and sony have a slight edge in absolute digital image quality on their bodies...that said, nothing beats an expensive pro level nikon lens.

Thats why you go nikon, the glass, and believe me it is godly sweet if you can afford it.

As far as image quality goes, any digital SLR camera nowadays will provide more resolution and image quality from its sensor than you will likely ever need.

6.1 megapixels blows up to poster size with high DPI no problem...so unless you are going bigger than that, forget the mumbo jumbo they preach with any camera.

Good, consumer grade lenses can be a $1000, "pro" glass is $2000 and up and in many cases, far more.

In reality, the lens you use is going to have the biggest impact on your pictures, and give you that "pro look" more than the body will. You can look at the body as something that is more disposable, and something you buy every few years... whereas lenses are a long term investment, and hold thier value on ebay, and follow you...like a good monitor does for your computer down the road.

So if you are looking for an entry level camera, i dont know if id honestly recommend a Nikon SLR, there are easier to use point and shoot cameras that will provide similar image quality to this camera, perhaps better in some cases, and are far cheaper. And many that are waterproof, or have waterproof cases that dont cost $2000.

....however

As stated, the reason to go nikon is the eventual access to their high end lenses, and this camera works with the majority of lenses on the market.

An SLR will force you to grasp a better understanding on basic photography principles such as aperture, shutterspeed, and depth of field...and if you are willing to take some time with the learning curve, eventually get you in a position to take far better pictures, and maybe even a couple of really great shots!

My advice:

Buy this camera, and a nicer consumer grade lens like the 18-200mm VR. Or a combo of the 50mm 1.4 and 18-135mm, or the soon to be released 70-300VR.

Youll soon want a tripod for night photography as well, and a proper flash which you can pick up on ebayt if you plan on doing any serious portraits.

In roughly two years, once you learn...youll want to spend some more money on some pro level zoom, telephoto, and prime lenses....Thats is, once you learn the limitiations and the constant "compromise" that photography truly is.

..welcome to the addiction 8).

D40 is a "good" camera, but its still an SLR, and requires proper lenses to supplement the pictures im sure most of you are envision when purchasing this camera.

If you want point and shoot high quality images, there are better alternatives.

If you want to learn the basics of photography and get involved in the "bigger picture" ...this is a very good way to get started, and im sure this camera will be very successful from nikon.

RE: An honest opinion

By zsouthboy on 11/16/2006 12:33:01 PM , Rating: 2

Agree, except one thing: that 50 1.4 won't work on the D40. No built in motor.

Parent

RE: An honest opinion

By dsumanik on 11/16/2006 2:43:37 PM , Rating: 2

Nice one you caught me, heh.

It will "work" fine, just no auto focus.

However, he's right any non af-S or af-I lens (none of the DX (made for DSLR lenses) will have this problem) you will have to manual focus, but in all honesty this is not as big of a deal as you think on an SLR, with practice you can get just as fast as autofocus, and in many cases where the tracking can get confused, or on longer zoom lenses, say perhaps the 80-400mm VR, you can track and focus even faster.

People did without autofucus for 50 years and captured many amazing photographs, that you had to be quick on the draw for.

Enter the mantra "f7 and be there"

Parent

RE: An honest opinion

By zsouthboy on 11/16/2006 3:21:09 PM , Rating: 2

Again I agree, but do you expect buyers of this camera to deal with manually focusing? They don't understand why the lens doesn't zoom when they press the zoom (image) button on the camera!

I still might pick up one of these to leave in the Jeep. Can't quite fit a D2h in the glovebox, heh.

Parent

RE: An honest opinion

By Deathspawner on 11/16/2006 6:06:54 PM , Rating: 2

I agree. I for one, hate manual focus unless I absolutely need it. The D40 is meant to be a "budget" camera for the most part, assuringly for people who don't know much about the DSLR world.

Regardless, the D40 piques my interest quite a bit for some reason. I love the camera status on the LCD screen, it's keen. Same with the SB-400. Very portable setup.

Parent

RE: An honest opinion

By dsumanik on 11/16/2006 6:44:59 PM , Rating: 1

No i expect the buyers of this camera to buy new DX format lenses which will not have an autofocus compatibility problem.

what were you expecting them to buy?

I only mentioned the 50 1.4 because along with the 50 1.8 it is the best bang for buck lense that nikon sells, and i was trying to help some newcomers get into SLR photography for as cheap as possible.

the 50mm primes are two extremly fast, versatile lenses that you can use in adverse light conditions for anything from portraits to scenery...

both those lenses are much better than the kit lens that comes with this camera, and quite frankly if you want autofocus with every nikon lens made in the last 20 years, then buy a "real" nikon camera.

ill await your next pointless argument now...

Parent

RE: An honest opinion

By DocDraken on 11/16/2006 7:34:50 PM , Rating: 2

The difference between 6 and 8 or 10mp is substantial. Especially when you want to crop your shots and get closer to a subject (which happens a lot when you shoot wildlife for example). To say that it doesn't matter and that 6MP is enough is just a poor excuse from fanboys in denial.

Second of all, it's utter nonsense that Nikon lenses are better than Canon's. In fact it's mostly the other way, plus the selection of Canon lenses, both professional and consumer level, is much larger. Just take a look at any crowd of professional photographers. The vast majority have white Canon L lenses.

The biggest problem with your post though, is this statement:
"As stated, the reason to go nikon is the eventual access to their high end lenses, and this camera works with the majority of lenses on the market."

It's completely wrong. No ifs or buts. It's incorrect. Besides the obvious (that Nikon's highend lenses aren't better than Canon's, just more expensive), the D40 is handicapped because it doesn't have a built-in focus motor and thus can't be used with most of the Nikon lenses. In fact all the cheap and good lenses like the 50mm 1.8 etc can't be used with the D40. Unless you want to manual focus (yeah great, when you can get better performance plus autofocus ability for $100 extra with a different camera). Same goes for third party lenses like Sigma or Tamron. Both make some nice glass for cheap prices, but you won't be able to get autofocus with any of the Tamrons (the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 is actually as sharp as the insanely expensive Nikon 17-55 f2.8) and only part of the Sigmas (the ones with HSM).

In short the D40 is for those who don't know about DSLRs or who will never get anything other than the kit lens. But still, when you can get a fully functional DSLR for just a tiny bit more money, I don't see any reason for it's existence other than sucking in some extra customers who don't know better.

Parent

RE: An honest opinion

By dsumanik on 11/17/06, Rating: 0

By dsumanik on 11/17/2006 2:38:31 AM , Rating: 0

I hate to break it to you my friend, but i own both a d70 and a d80, and frequently blow my shots from both up to poster size with a reliable printing company, which i have their profile from.

I get confused sometimes, as to which shot was taken on which camera.

and anyone else would too.

The difference in resolution between 6 and 10 MP on an 18x11 high quality print is negligible. You cannot tell the IQ difference, ill send you a couple of blown up shots gladly if you dont believe me doc.

Hows that for a real world test?

So everyone out in internet land, remeber that doc here has a problem with me recomending you a D40, and he will likely have a problem with anything me or anyone else posts that is contrary to his opinion.

Im just trying to help and encourage anyone out there on the fringe contemplating a purchase of this sort. Get into photography its great, and the D40 or XTI or any other DSLR nowadays absolutely rocks.

including the D40.

doc,

As far as comparing cameras on computer screens, gimme a break bud. I have a dell 24 inch widescreen and neither a 6 MP or 10MP will fit onto the screen without being scaled down substantially to fit on it.

So bust out your calculator and do some quick math as to the number of people buying a d40 that are going to need more than this.

So yeah guys hes right..ONLY if you like to view your shots at larger than 3000x2000 resolution AND ZOOMED IN 500% .... you might notice a difference.

lol

If you print anything larger than 18x11 @ 200dpi.....you might notice a difference!

if you have no idea what we are talking about, buy a D40!!!

If the canon feels nicer in your hands...buy it!!!

I own the gear, i do this for a living, yeah im a nikon fanboy, but i have other lenses too, who really cares...in the DSLR world right now you cant go wrong...and doc knows this in his heart hes just crabby and wants prove his king nerd status...

But if you want some solid photo advice, ive offered my honest opinion here as a photographer who owns high end nikon gear...whihc is what this thread is about after all.

Now where is Doc? hell be along to quote some reviews any second now...

i can hear him now:

"dpreview said this!"

"look at that 3rd pixel from the left its slightly blurred!!!!"

"Manual focus on non afs lenses!"

doc, like go overclock something or hack some computer programs...your probably really good at that. You could post benchmarks and everything and do some analysis....

Parent

nice....

By rtrski on 11/16/2006 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 2

...I'd like to see if there's an underwater case for this puppy to take scuba diving. I'm not good enough a photog to pay more than triple digits for camera equipment, especially since its generally a question not of 'if' but 'when' you flood your enclosure, but the little snapshot type digitals just ain't doing it for me and I would like to step up to SLR at least...

RE: nice....

By AxemanFU on 11/16/2006 9:39:02 AM , Rating: 2

Would be nice. I have a D50 and love it. I wonder how they could encapsulate a SLR camera with different lenses using a single case, especially if you zoom it. An "accordion" segment by the lens?

Parent

RE: nice....

By DocDraken on 11/16/2006 10:49:31 AM , Rating: 2

SLR underwater cases have so-called ports that are different for various types of lenses and you then screw them on and off the case for the camera body.

Parent