Is this camera any good?

sarahc44

I am looking at buying the Nikon D40 this weekend - is it any good for a cheaper digital slr?

Thanks Sarah x

Marty_J

Yes, it's an excellent camera.

Here's a comprehensive review and user guide:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

moonrakerz

Had one for 18 months - absolutely brilliant camera for the money.

PS: The battery lasts for ever, don't bother with a spare unless you take about 500 shots a day !

PPS: Don't let a slick salesman persuade you that "more pixels are better" !

Traveller1981

As above, dont get conned into "more pixels is a better camera".

The camera you have chosen is very good. There are also various alternatives, Canon Eos 400D, 450D etc

I have the Canon 300D and it's a cracking camera.

althas

From what I hear it is a cracking camera

I personally have a Canon EOS 400d so I can only give hands on recommendation on that

If this is your 1st DSLR then you just need to decide what you are going to use it for the most. The advice I was given from a man in Jessops when I bought mine was this. "A Nikon pips a Canon for pure quality of a shot, but the Canon beats the Nikon on the speed of taking the shot. The Canon would get a shot where the Nikon may just miss it". This is why you will find a lot of pro sport photographers have Canons, and studio pro's have Nikon

The best piece of advice would be go to somewhere like Jessops and have a go of them, see which feels nice in your hand, take a few sample shots and see whaich looks best to you

But most important, Have FUN and enjoy it. It is a VERY adictive hobby :beer:

Lets us know what you get and your thoughts on it

Marty_J

althas wrote: »

The advice I was given from a man in Jessops when I bought mine was this. "A Nikon pips a Canon for pure quality of a shot, but the Canon beats the Nikon on the speed of taking the shot. The Canon would get a shot where the Nikon may just miss it". This is why you will find a lot of pro sport photographers have Canons, and studio pro's have Nikon

No disrespect althas, but I think that's pretty simplistic advice from the man in Jessops. Some Nikons are faster than some Canons, and vice versa. A lot of sports photographers do use Canons, but a lot of them also use Nikons. Unless you're photographing test cards, what makes a difference in the quality of the shot is the person using the camera. A pro shooting with a cheap compact will take better shots that an amateur with a super-expensive Canon or Nikon.

energy80s

I have had a D40 since last May. Not overly impressed with it. I can get some cracking shots, but this is "in spite of the camera". I have been a cameraman for over 23 years, so know how to frame and take a good shot, but the D40 makes it very difficult to do this. I actually think a lot of the problems stem from the crap lens - !!!!! autofocus, unusable manual focus, no aperature ring and slow as sin (f3.5 at best) - although it is very good at close-ups. To be honest, I was going to sell mine, but as they can be had new for around 200 quid, I would loose a lot of cash in the second hand market. I agree that the battery lasts forever, I've taken thousands of shots with it and only recharged it 5 times! Have a look at the Sony 200 or an Olympus.

Marty_J

energy80s wrote: »

I have had a D40 since last May. Not overly impressed with it. I can get some cracking shots, but this is "in spite of the camera". I have been a cameraman for over 23 years, so know how to frame and take a good shot, but the D40 makes it very difficult to do this. I actually think a lot of the problems stem from the crap lens - !!!!! autofocus, unusable manual focus, no aperature ring and slow as sin (f3.5 at best) - although it is very good at close-ups. To be honest, I was going to sell mine, but as they can be had new for around 200 quid, I would loose a lot of cash in the second hand market. I agree that the battery lasts forever, I've taken thousands of shots with it and only recharged it 5 times! Have a look at the Sony 200 or an Olympus.

And I've had the opposite experience; it takes great shots, the auto-focus never misses, but it sucks at closeups.

energy80s

Funny about the close-ups as it's the only lens I know that will focus on close objects even at full zoom. Most cameras need more distance between subject and lens as you zoom in. I have a Nikon film SLR and the kit lens exhibits similar characteristics. Someone once worked out that the lens was worth about £13. I wouldn't disagree with them! I don't know whether to sell my camera for f**k all or spend a couple of hundred on a decent lens and HOPE that it gets the D40 up to a decent standard.

Marty_J

I think if you're dis-satisfied with it, a better lens might be the way to go. Though, I have to say the lens seems pretty good to me for a kit lens.

This was just a quick grab shot of the dog taken with the kit lens. I think it was on Program auto, so the camera was handling the exposure, and it was on auto-focus. Doesn't look too bad to me.

If you're not shooting RAW, there are quite a lot of options for optimising the image in-camera.

energy80s

Indeed, it looks as if the autofocus has actually managed to focus on the subject! I rarely get that to happen!! Even with landscape shots the focus won't be exact. In fact the manual states that the AF ALWAYS focuses on the closest object in with the landscape program - how mad is that!!! Oh for the days of split screen manual focusing! Being used with professional video cameras also means I miss an electronic viewfinder so I know what the shot will look like before I actually press the shutter.

Rodney.