Nikon D40 a good camera for a very low budget?

Jing

Jing

Active member
I really have nothing to spend. So I have to spend the least I possibly can. I very badly want to get a DSLR, for I have never had one before.

So is a Nikon D40 a decent camera to start with? Or would it just be a waste?
 
I started with a d40 (I bought it last year). It worked great for me, great images, I learned to controll all the manual settings. But this year, after spending one year with it I sold it and got a D80 (it has more rez, bracketing, lets you use non af-s lenses with full auto focus, dof preview.......).

For starting, and looking at the price you can get one (pretty cheap now), you could buy it expreiment and then if you like the photography world upgrade to a better camera.
 
d40 is a great camera, but dont overlook a used model that might give you a few more features. I picked up a d70 a year or so ago for about $500
 
I've seen used D40's sell for as little at $250. In my opinion will get you a better image from a D40 than a D70. You lose AF on non-AF-S lenses with the D40 but that is the only "con" that comes to mind.
 
I would have a d70s over a d40 any day, the AF lens ability plus CF cards, are you kidding me? D40 is great cam, I would save even more money and buy a used d70s off of KEH and have a good camera with any lens.


Jon
 
Jon Neely said:
are you kidding me?
Click to expand...

Nope. The image sensor and processing power is like 2 generations newer in the D40 than in the D70. If I was to shop for in the D70 family it would have to be a D70s as you suggested, but even still I would prefer a D40. SD media is cheap and fast so no concerns there. About half my lenses are AF-S anyway, and more will be soon....so I would not have much concern with the AF motor. Esp once the 50 1.4 af-s is shipping. Once that is out the only AF lens I will still use is my 20mm 2.8

So, for sure....I would pick the image quality over the feature set any day. I would be using it as a "bum around" cam, and if I need the features it didn't have I would use my pro body. Different people would have different expectations, but everyone I have suggested the D40 to as a beginner/entry DSLR has loved it. Most have never upgraded b/c it is all they need. And with the price of the 17-55 2.8 lenses coming down on the used market, I would tell someone to get that lens used and a used D40 and be set. I would expect at this point you could get that combo for $1,000-$1100.

That said, the OP said he had nothing to spend and wanted the cheapest deal possible. I still think the D40 refurbed with the kit lens is selling for about $400.....and that is an awesome deal in my book.
 
I still like the fact you can get great 2.8 zooms from Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron with screw AF and you dont have to go overboard in price with the AFS 2.8's.


Just my opinion, see I use all Screw AF lenses with some MF here and there, for me it is a must to have a screw Mount.


Jon
 
I hear Tokina makes some good 3rd party lenses. I have not tried them or Sigma. I know Sigma and Tamron both have updated their 17/18-50 with their "AF-S" equivalent drives for their 2.8 lenses w/out moving the price, so they should also work on the D40. And as the owner of the Tamron 17-50 2.8, I would tell someone to save their money till they can get the Nikon. I have a very sharp copy, but the AF sucks, CA is horrible, and it it the least smooth zoom ring I have ever used.

If you are into MF, I'd point out that the D40/D40x/D60 can mount the really old MF nonAI lenses. These can't be mounted on the other DSLR bodies w/out an AI conversion, specifically by cause of a part on the aperture ring will get in the way of the screw drive. Granted, I always sucked at manual focus on my D40. I much prefer that now on my D200 since it has a split prism focus screen. I would recommend one of those to anyone doing a lot of MF.

I agree Jon, it's just a matter of opinion. I just want to offer the OP a different opinion and maybe something to chew on in his decision making process. I did not discover a lot of this info until after I bought my D40, so I figure it would have been nice to know ahead of time.
 
I got my D40 kit refurbished for $400 from Adorama sometime earlier this year. I'm coming from an F3 an I love it. I can use all my lenses and I think the images are great! If I feel I need more resolution or better colors I just shoot film and scan... It's getting very cheap these days. But I recommend the D40 to anyone low on cash, cuz you save up later for nice lenses... that's where you really want to be spending your money anyway. Lenses will have a useful life way longer than Digital SLR bodies do.
 
I like my D40 a lot. I also own a Sony A200 and have used my girlfriend's Rebel XS, so I can make comparisons. For someone without a legacy collection of Nikon lenses like I do, I would recommend it over the other two. On features alone it doesn't stand up. But there's more to a camera than just specs. Nikon D40 advantages:

a) Better eye relief and slightly brighter viewfinder, dang these budget cameras have bad optical viewfinders! b) better fit and polish. Sony and Canon feel cheaper to me. The plastic doesn't feel good in the hand, they feel more like toys. b) Sony's Menu system sucks c) better low light performance d) knobs and dials have a better feel e) contrasty sharper kit lens f) cheaper.

Did I say it just feels better in my hands? OK. It's not my F5 or F100, but I see where Nikon's heritage of quality camera making trickles all the way down to the lowly D40.
What sucks about it is that it doesn't autofocus with my legacy Nikon AF prime lenses, nor does it meter with my manual lenses.

My next camera will be a high end Nikon I hope.
 
Jing said:
I really have nothing to spend. So I have to spend the least I possibly can. I very badly want to get a DSLR, for I have never had one before.

So is a Nikon D40 a decent camera to start with? Or would it just be a waste?
Click to expand...

look at it as a platform investment in glass, even if you are starting out as entry-level... you don't want to have to sell & buy the same 24mm prime in different platforms.

what kind of shooting do you want to do? if it's primes, and frames per second isn't important, a used pentax k10d would be xlnt, because it will take all pentax glass that's ever been made, and pretty much all m42 screw mount lenses as well... that's how i did it, top notch quality for a minimal investment.

but canikon works well for long glass autofocus high fps situations... nikon has good backwards lens compatibility, not as good as pentax, but better than canon, because canon changed their mounting system... with canon, tho, you can get an m42 adapter that works pretty well.

are you into shooting landscapes, people, macro, studio, events like weddings, ??... knowing what you want to shoot will help you make the decision, because you have to think about things like the flash systems on each of those platforms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top