Have the opportunity to buy a D40, is the D40 worth getting now?

Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
I've been considering jumping into the DSLR market. I have the opportunity to buy a lightly used ( <2000 actuations) D40 + stock 18-55 + 55-200 lens for 330 USD on Craigslist. Seems like a great deal, is it worth jumping in on this? Or is the D40 too outdated at this point?
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
I've been considering jumping into the DSLR market. I have the opportunity to buy a lightly used ( <2000 actuations) D40 + stock 18-55 + 55-200 lens for 330 USD on Craigslist. Seems like a great deal, is it worth jumping in on this? Or is the D40 too outdated at this point?
That is a great price. There is practically no different between the D40 or any newer and more expensive cameras when it come down to IQ.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Overpriced unless those are VR lenses.
 

jhansman

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2004
2,768
29
91
Even with VR lenses, that seems a bit much for a dSLR of that vintage. It's a good camera, but I would put that $$ toward a refurbed newer model. I say this just having sold my D60 and putting the cash toward a D5100, which I really like. One day I'll go whole hog for a full frame.
 

JohnnyRebel

Senior member
Feb 7, 2011
762
0
0

The D40 has held value. I miss mine at times, it was a great camera. After shooting the D7000 I wonder if I would like the D40 as much now, and think that they are probably over-priced. That being said, I will probably pick up a D40 after they devalue another 50%.

$330 is cheaper than what the D40 sells for used on Adorama with both lenses.

For $300 you can get a used D70s w/ 18-70 lens (excellent lens).

For $400 you can get a Refurbished D3100 w/18-55 VR lens.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
D40 holds it's value because many only think of it when thinking of compact 'true' dSLRs...in the last couple years many compact dSLRs have come out.

Not to mention Ken Rockwell's excellent review of the camera.

You really can't go wrong with it though...it's still an excellent camera in any arena.
 
Oct 9, 1999
15,218
3
81
Good camera for someone starting into photography and or for a backup body for an semi-pro. I like the D40, the color gamut on it is much nicer as the 6.1 mp sensor has plenty of space on that sensor, so the noise and IQ is great!
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
I would say its too outdated, mainly for any ISO 400+ shots. Save up for D5100 or better.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
That is a great price. There is practically no different between the D40 or any newer and more expensive cameras when it come down to IQ.

Actually there is. The newer low-end cameras have better sensors are are a little smarter with auto-focus, auto-WB and auto-exposure. They do take better pics on average, even in full manual.

I have a D40 and its nice but feels lacking compared to newer, better models today. If I were buying right now, I'd go for a D3200. The resolution is not overdone for that size sensor and even if photos look a little fuzzy, you could shrink down and have them be almost perfect.
 

MrToilet

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
635
0
0
I got a D40 and 18-55 lens for $220 just recently, thought it was a pretty good deal :) Camera had <2000 shutter actuations and was in pristine shape.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The D40 is cute, but the D3200 has a sensor that is orders of magnitude more capable (assuming the limiting factor isn't the photographer behind the camera).

I love www.imaging-resource.com for comparing image quality between cameras, because they've used the same indoor test scene for many years now.

Here is the D40 at its base ISO of 200: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/ND40/FULLRES/ND40hSLI0200.JPG

And the D3200 at its base ISO of 100: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/nikon-d3200/FULLRES/D3200hSLI00100NR1D.JPG

View full size, especially the detail in the fabric wheel (or the address on the proportional scale on the bottom right corner).

At ISO 3200, the D40 is unusable (tons of chroma noise, especially in the shadows): http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/ND40/FULLRES/ND40hSLI3200.JPG

But the D3200 keeps chroma noise in check, and has enough detail to be print-worthy: http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/nikon-d3200/FULLRES/D3200hSLI03200NR1D.JPG

At least a 1.5 stop advantage, if not higher.

To answer the OP's question, $330 is overpriced for that combo. You can get a D3100 for that much. I wouldn't pay more than $150 for a D40/18-55 kit, maybe $225 for the two-lens kit (but beware, both D40 kit lenses were non-VR). The D60 and up came with VR kit lenses standard; well worth the money.
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
Umm, you did not pick good pics. Cuz the D40 looks a lot nicer and brighter. Should have done an ISO 200 for both, that would be comparable.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Cuz the D40 looks a lot nicer and brighter.
It's probably a change in lighting used for the test scene over the years. That said, the D40's reproduction of red is far too saturated.
 

JohnnyRebel

Senior member
Feb 7, 2011
762
0
0
I have very fond memories of my D40. I liked it much better than the D200 (despite the D200s better WB) and much better than the D2H. That being said, 2006 was a thousand years ago in DSLR years. I traded mine in when I bought the D7000. It would be very hard to go back, and the D3200 looks to be a truly AUsome camera. I cannot imagine a D40 in E condition being worth more than $150, even if they continue to sell for the same as a used D3100.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
The D40 should only be used up to ISO1600, the max native ISO of the sensor. At ISO 3200 it just boosts the exposure in software, something you can do much better using more powerful software on a computer.

I recently had to print out some ISO 1600 shots from my D40 taken at night, and the basic JPEG looked good enough at 8x10 for non-exhibition work that I didn't bother with post processing. Kinda makes me question the reasons for non-professional photogs to obsess over the latest gear and obsessive software processing.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Kinda makes me question the reasons for non-professional photogs to obsess over the latest gear and obsessive software processing.

TVs, audio systems, guns, cars, CPUs, GPUs, cameras, videocameras, wines, etc... most things in life are like that. Pay double the price for a very modest gain in performance--a gain you probably don't even really need. Double the doubling and gain even less performance. But the economy would collapse if everybody stopped upgrading. :D
 

Silenus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2008
358
1
81
I've had a D40 since 2008 and shot a LOT with it. I recently had the experience of using a modern compact camera. It was a Panasonic DMC-ZS10. Only a year old model and pretty representative of an average compact camera. It was STUNNING how obviously worse it was than an almost 5 year old entry level DSLR.

The D40 is completely usable up to it's max native ISO1600. Yes the sensor tech is now outdated in comparison to other DSLR's but it is still capable of fine images. And it will blow the doors off any compact camera and phones out now (with the exception the new larger sensor mirrorless compacts running m4/3 sensors or bigger....but those are as expensive as entry level DSLR's too).

Here is a recent shot with the D40 at ISO 1600 (and very slight noise reduction):
Looks terribly outdated right?


June 16, 2012_Dad's House Dinner-184.jpg by Kvothe, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

Silenus

Senior member
Mar 11, 2008
358
1
81
I should clarify...my point above is that the D40 is still quite a capable camera...but it's only worth getting for a real good deal. Otherwise you really should get something newer like D3100, or better a D3200.
 

radhak

Senior member
Aug 10, 2011
843
14
81
Silenus, Great photo, and good post too. The D40 has an amazing capacity for great pictures that did not get diluted because of newer versions.

OP, it would still make sense to buy the D40 as a kit with the lens, even for around $300; that is lower than the purchase price of many a PnS that function sub-par to it; and while newer DSLRs might have more power, you will end up paying at least $500 for the D3100 at the lowest end. Save yourself that $200, use the D40 till you are ready to upgrade to a much more powerful camera. If that takes a year or two, I can assure you the D40 will be fun to use all that while.