Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

[Bearface]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

The bigger mistake is that neither Nikon nor Canon so far has embraced in-body image stabilization.

They have both embraced lens image-stabilization though, Nikon with VR and Canon with IS. Canon in particular offers an excellent range of both affordable and high-end IS lenses, and even though Nikon's line-up is less comprehensive, it's still accessible in price terms.

Would an in-body system from both manufacturers really make a huge difference to the appeal of their products? Personally I'd be concerned about the additional moving parts and any potential reliability issues, whereas the lens technology is proven and apparently pretty consistent in respect of image-stabilization.

[Ian]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

They have both embraced lens image-stabilization though, Nikon with VR and Canon with IS. Canon in particular offers an excellent range of both affordable and high-end IS lenses, and even though Nikon's line-up is less comprehensive, it's still accessible in price terms.

Would an in-body system from both manufacturers really make a huge difference to the appeal of their products? Personally I'd be concerned about the additional moving parts and any potential reliability issues, whereas the lens technology is proven and apparently pretty consistent in respect of image-stabilization.

My feeling is that there are pros and cons for both in-camera and in-lens IS.

In lens - pros: more stabilisation headroom, cons: more expensive, only some lenses feature IS and there is some evidence that non-IS versions of IS lenses are marginally better, optically. Plus the idea of a wiggling lens element seems to go against the concept of optical precision!

In-camera - pros: works with any lens attached to the camera, no optical compromise, cons: evidence is mounting that lens IS offers significantly more stabilisation headroom.

I'm not that concerned about reliability of either system. An early Konica Minolta Dynax 7D I tried had a sensor that was roated by a degree or two, so when I took a pictire perfectly aligned in the viewfinder, it was not straight in the image, but I believe this is rare.

Ian

[joefoto]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

I just bought the D50 because of the lens limitations of the D40. While I have no accumulated Nikon gear, such is available in used channels, and would not be usable with the D40. So I see the D40 as ultimately more expensive for me.

Joe

[Ian]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

I just bought the D50 because of the lens limitations of the D40. While I have no accumulated Nikon gear, such is available in used channels, and would not be usable with the D40. So I see the D40 as ultimately more expensive for me.

Joe

Fair comment, Joe, though Nikon will say that they aren't aiming the camera at you

The only issue with the D50 is that it has a relatively small screen, but it's perfectly adequate and has the relative luxury of the top-plate LCD.

Ian

[yoshi]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

I just bought the D50 because of the lens limitations of the D40. While I have no accumulated Nikon gear, such is available in used channels, and would not be usable with the D40. So I see the D40 as ultimately more expensive for me.

Joe

Hi Joe,
Congratulations!
I happened to handle a demo D40 yesterday. As was reported by Ian, it's a small and light camera which should attract many potential dSLR buyers. On the other hand, I also thought, D50 is more attractive at the moment. The D50 with a kit lens 15-55mm is by 5,000 yen (approx. USD 42 or Euro 34) less expensive than a D40 with a same kit lens. Coupled with the specification reason you pointed out, then, IMHO, D50 seems to me a rational choice.
In order for D40 to be a success model like D50, it really needs to be priced at more eye-catching price.
yoshi

[Archangel]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

Though the D40, regardless of its lens limitations, takes very nice shots and it doesn't seem that it really needs image stabilizer.
There is a review posted at DCResource for those interested or for those missed it.


Regards


George

[White Lotus]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

Though the D40, regardless of its lens limitations, takes very nice shots and it doesn't seem that it really needs image stabilizer.
There is a review posted at DCResource for those interested or for those missed it.George

I've been using my Sony digicam (point and shoot) for fast action and similar shooting and rarely have I found myself wishing for image stabilizer.

Reviews for the D40 have been very very positive, in fact overwhelmingly positive in some regards like Rockwell switching to using the D40 for his everyday multi-purpose, fun, recreational shooting (see his review on Google).

First off, thank you Nikon for staying level headed and not giving into the media frenzy about who has the biggest megapixels. And at the same time, focusing on refining on the advances that you've made in digital photography and building upon that.

As far as lack of compatibility for legacy lenses, it's obviously a risk since it has angered many reviewers thus far. I don't think of it much as a bad decision as a calculated one. There are so many benefits to Nikon's decision I think it's a no brainer.

First off, by not including the additional motor inside the camera they were able to lower the price of the camera as well as the size and weight. Those are big pluses in my mind.

I hope Nikon does this with all the future digital cameras because they will be forcing people to use their new digital lenses which if you read the reviews actually work faster and quieter because the motor is built into the lens...another big plus!

Another thing, this is new technology folks. This is the digital age: get with it. These aren't your grandpa's old cameras. These are advanced CCD driven, extremely advanced pieces of technology. There may only be a few AF-S or AF-I lenses available now, but eventually that will change. Yes it will! Nikon isn't stupid, they know where they want to go, and this looks to me like not a bad move.

With all new technology, there may be a bit of adjustment, you may have to wait for the new advanced lenses to come out, but they will. Newer is generally better and that's a win for consumers.

[Ian]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

I've been using my Sony digicam (point and shoot) for fast action and similar shooting and rarely have I found myself wishing for image stabilizer.

Reviews for the D40 have been very very positive, in fact overwhelmingly positive in some regards like Rockwell switching to using the D40 for his everyday multi-purpose, fun, recreational shooting (see his review on Google).

First off, thank you Nikon for staying level headed and not giving into the media frenzy about who has the biggest megapixels. And at the same time, focusing on refining on the advances that you've made in digital photography and building upon that.

As far as lack of compatibility for legacy lenses, it's obviously a risk since it has angered many reviewers thus far. I don't think of it much as a bad decision as a calculated one. There are so many benefits to Nikon's decision I think it's a no brainer.

First off, by not including the additional motor inside the camera they were able to lower the price of the camera as well as the size and weight. Those are big pluses in my mind.

I hope Nikon does this with all the future digital cameras because they will be forcing people to use their new digital lenses which if you read the reviews actually work faster and quieter because the motor is built into the lens...another big plus!

Another thing, this is new technology folks. This is the digital age: get with it. These aren't your grandpa's old cameras. These are advanced CCD driven, extremely advanced pieces of technology. There may only be a few AF-S or AF-I lenses available now, but eventually that will change. Yes it will! Nikon isn't stupid, they know where they want to go, and this looks to me like not a bad move.

With all new technology, there may be a bit of adjustment, you may have to wait for the new advanced lenses to come out, but they will. Newer is generally better and that's a win for consumers.

I have recently been using a D40x (so Nikon did think 10MP was a must in the end!) and I quite like the camera, but I don't like the control responsiveness. When changing EV compensation there is a time lag between pressing the button and the command being executed. Finding things in the menu system is quite difficult too. I don't think these are really acceptable any more.

Ian

[pewidane]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?



16 Nikon D 40 pictures in my gallery ,great camera,this from today.

[paul.r.w]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

Does the new D40 have auto iso like the D80. As my limited knowledge goes Nikon is fairly unique in this?

[Ian]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

Does the new D40 have auto iso like the D80. As my limited knowledge goes Nikon is fairly unique in this?

Lots of cameras have auto ISO; all the recent Olympus DSLRs, for example.

Ian

[paul.r.w]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

See, I was right...my knowledge is limited...VERY! LOL

[tarzieboy]

Re: Nikon's new D40 - what do you think?

i agree, good camera & good pictures, 6 MEG plenty for me