Railfan Technology > D40 vs. D80/Ken Rockwell's Opines/What do you think?

Quandry: Mrs.3 has openly expressed that this years Christmas gift list "should" include a Nikon DSLR. Those among us who have been married for over 10 years understand the ramifications of such requests, so it was off to the net to research which model would be best suited to fill the bill. DPreview was, of course, very helpful with supplying the needed spec data for the various offerings from Nikon, and made the D80 seem like a good to obvious candidate. But after having consulted Ken Rockwells site in the past for research, I thought it would be remiss not to glance at what his latest commentary would be in this era of frequent upgraded offerings from a variety of manufacturers. I was more than a little taken aback by his updated D80 commentary, he was literally insisting "Don't buy a D80", as the D90 virtually obsoletes the D80. An additional caveat was his strong recommendation of the D40, that for the money, was far better suited to the needs of the not so serious photogs(Mrs.3)needs and results. Okay, clearly there are some strategy points that could come into play. I could go for the D40 w/kit lens, then upgrade to better Nikon glass at some point and time, since it won't be inconcievable that TM3 may borrow the camera upon occasion for his own needs;.), though the irony of saving several hundred dollars in the initial purchase of the D40 body somewhat contradicts acquiring pricier glass, and the upgraded lens may itself expose the limitations of the D40's available technology to the degree that such a pairing may be not so smart. I can afford the D80's price point, that said I can appreciate the D40's $400 to $500 initial cost savings as well. What do you guys think???

Also: After scanning down a few threads, I've seen mention of the D50 and D70 models and have to admit that I've researched neither to this point, so feel free to include any kind of "sway me" info on those as well. TIA.

Ken's tortured logic sort of works. IF you can actually find a new-in-box D40, it's completely adequate for the point and shoot vacation & grandkids user and should be pretty cheap. Kind of depends what your wife intends to do with the camera.
Digital bodies turn over every couple years, so for the serious shooter, buying good lenses might be more important than having the latest body. The D40X would give you the same size body, a little better image quality, and also cost a little more money. The newest is almost always better.
The question is how good you need it to be.
Thom Hogan also has thoughtful reviews of Nikons but they're aimed more at the serious hobbyist.

grahamline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF you can
> actually find a new-in-box D40,

Best Buy, Office Max and Depot, and a couple others, are all offering the D40 kit for $449. Are these not new?, or are they refurbished. If they're refurbs, I didn't see anything in ads or at the stores informing me as much???

I recently purchased the D40 and I would have to agree. Looking at all the reviews and rankings and all that stuff, the D90 is a clearly superior camera to the D80. Might even be the best non-full frame sensor camera on the market right now Canon or Nikon or Sony or what have you, and definitely the best one for the price. That said, the D40 is probably the lightest of the DSLRs available, and definitely the lightest of Nikon's offerings. It doesn't feel like I have an anchor around my neck! I'll give you a full crop from a picture I've gotten out of it (only 8 pictures in on the D40 shutter so far). This is a crop from the original image with no downsizing. It isn't an artistic shot by any means, more of a grab because I wanted to test the camera. Statistics are Nikon D40, 18-55mm kit lens at 55mm, 1/400 sec at F/10, no flash, ISO 200 with a -0.7 exposure compensation since all I've read says the D40 tends to overexpose. I also shot it in program mode since I knew I had more than enough light and wanted to make sure my composition was good. Program mode will come up with what the camera feels is a suitable aperture and shutter speed, but will allow you to change them in steps with the dial on the camera. I went with the D40 mostly because of my budget limitations, figuring I would be best buying a camera now to get something to shoot with, then plow the extra money into lenses rather than overspending my limits for a better camera (have my eye on the 18-200 next), and maybe buy a new SLR body in 3 or so years, likely whatever has replaced the D90 by then. I figured that getting any DSLR would be a major jump in quality from the P&S I had, and more of a jump than whatever difference a better SLR than the D40 would be.

---

trainmaster3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grahamline Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > IF you can
> > actually find a new-in-box D40,
>
> Best Buy, Office Max and Depot, and a couple
> others, are all offering the D40 kit for $449. Are
> these not new?, or are they refurbished. If
> they're refurbs, I didn't see anything in ads or
> at the stores informing me as much???

Would be new, I bought mine from Adorama Camera for $409.95 new. Still that price. http://www.adorama.com/INKD40K.html

The D40 kit is an excellent buy this Christmas season. The only reason I'd go with the D80 is because it has mechanical autofocus, which is important to me but probably not most people. Also, the D80 may have a faster shooting rate and better viewfinder, but without comparing the cameras side-by-side I don't know. I also like the D40's smaller 6 megapixel sensor more than the 10-12mp sensors on the other cameras. Its files won't fill up your storage devices as quickly and will be easier to edit on older computers.

I've had my D40 for over a year now. I bought a remanufactured one at a good price and have gotten some good photos with it.

Now I just need to take the time and learn to make use of it beyond the point and shoot phase.

Sounds like there are a lot of new D40 kits available. At that price, it's cheaper than the higher-end P&S's and a definite bargain. Here's the Thom Hogan piece: http://www.bythom.com/D40REVIEW.htm

The current Nikon line includes the D40, the D60 (replaces the D40x), the D90 (replaces the D90) and the D300 and D3.

What you will find is the D90 or closeout D80 is a far heavier body than the D40 with 6 mpix or D60 with 10 mpix. If your wife has smallish hands or thin wrists whe will probably like the smaller D40 or D60. If she is prone to using larger Nikon glass such as teles of 200 mm and longer she may like the balance of the D90 on the heavier glass. The difference in image quality up to about 11x14 between the three cameras is pretty neglible. The best thing would be to take her shopping and let her hold up a few of the bodies. There is a warning about the D40 or D60. If you already own Nikon autofocus lenses which require a screw drive focus from the body motor these will be manual focus on these bodies. They require AF-S lenses with the focus motor in the lens. The D80 or D90 will autofocus with either type of lens.

Reply to the TM3 edit.

The Nikon D50, D70, D40x and D80 cameras have been discontinued. You may still find a nice new D50 somewhere, the D40x bodies are also hard to find, the D80 will be at close out pricing. It is a well though of body but nearly all reviewers are giving the D90 better marks but not for the video function.

Do not sell the D40 short against the higher quality lenses you may upgrade to. The camera companies reduce the cost of production of the sensors by applying them to a large number of camera models. The same 12 mpix sensor is now in the Nikon D90, D300 and D3. The D40 has the same sensor as the D70. The upgraded glass will work just fine on the D40 and will produce excellent results so long as they have the built in focusing motor. I freely mount my $1800 Nikon 70mm-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR lens on the $400 D40x body and get just as good results from that as when it is mounted on the S3. I am sure any of the 5 digit lenses Nikon has available would perform well on the D40x sensor. In many ways the digital sensors out resolve the lenses. A cheap knock off piece of glass will not hold up well in the digital era. The difference in price between the D90 and the D40 is partly sensor but largely in features and construction robustness. One of the reasons I purchased the D40x as a second body was because it was light and compact so I could reduce a travel package to a very small camera bag rather than a medium size backpack. I really think that body will be around a long time even after the main battle camera is replaced.

If you are buying one lens for the D40 I would recommend the Nikkor 16mm-85mm f3.5-5.6 AF-s VR zoom. It is sharp and crisp. There is nothing wrong with the D40 kit lenses but the build quality and image sharpness of this lens from the D90 kit is markedly better than many others. Yes, VR (image stabilization) works. Sigma also makes a nice 50mm-150mm f2.8 HSM lens which is a replacement for a FX 70mm-200mm which is light and compact but I miss the VR on that one already.

I've had my D40 over a year now don't regret buying it. Its taken very good photos which I have posted many on here taken with the D40. My decision on buying it was I didn't have any Nikon lenses laying around if I did I would have bought the D80. Your not going to go wrong if you buy the D40 or the D80 both take very good photos.

I bought a D70 outfit right after they came out several years ago and have never been disappointed with it. Does a heck of a job for me, and while it's not the latest greatest, it won't bankrupt me trying to keep up with the new models.

Thanks much guys, and Thanks fbe for the additional insight. I was made aware on my visit to the local camera shop of the autofocus limitations between the two bodies, and that could end up being a factor. The needs of the wife should be pretty well covered by the kit lens(which is likely the 18-55 zoom)as she hasn't used any SLR's prior, so there will be extensive training involved, but thats not a big deal. Still undecided, but everyone's commentary leads me to believe we won't be disappointed either way.

trainmaster3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks much guys, and Thanks fbe for the
> additional insight. I was made aware on my visit
> to the local camera shop of the autofocus
> limitations between the two bodies, and that could
> end up being a factor. The needs of the wife
> should be pretty well covered by the kit
> lens(which is likely the 18-55 zoom)as she hasn't
> used any SLR's prior, so there will be extensive
> training involved, but thats not a big deal. Still
> undecided, but everyone's commentary leads me to
> believe we won't be disappointed either way.

My opinion for wife, no and no. My wife was dissappointed with
a small zoom the first time she wanted to shoot a deer or a bird or
a landscape that wasn't in front of her nose(like a lighthouse across the bay) and the zoom she had was bigger than that 55. If it is strictly photos of kids and dogs it will work, otherwise ---------.

SLR, just take the mystery out of it. You pay extra for one, it should do
your run of the mill stuff fine on auto for your wife. Just try to
get her started so all the extra features don't get in her way.
I had a friend who got an DSLR with live preview. It was really crap with
the flash. We shut off the live preview and she shoots on P or A auto
with great results. My advice, keep it basic to start.

bob Jordan

Bob

If you're open to buying used, check out the Nikonians forum, lots of activity over there and some good deals on bodies, lenses, and kits. For a starter lens, the 18-135 would make a very good start. The point-and-shooter will be very well covered by that lens, and its performance is quite respectable for it's size, zoom range, and price IMO.