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

[blastingcap]

I can't agree. A used D3200 or even D3100 would be better in many ways, including the ability to take videos. I would set my limit to $150 as the absolute most I'd pay for a D40 (body only). The high speed flash sync keeps D40's popular though.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

you will end up paying at least $500 for the D3100 at the lowest end.

Actually....

$390 w/18-55 VR lens & Free Shipping. Refurbished by Nikon (Better Than New).

http://www.adorama.com/INKD3100KR.html

 

[twistedlogic]

The D40 has an amazing capacity for great pictures that did not get diluted because of newer versions.

+1, I've seen some images on Flickr shot with the "lowly" D40 that blow me away. Megapixels and noise are over rated.

 

[jpeyton]

The photographer behind the camera is almost always the limiting factor. That's never up for debate. A NYT photographer took war photos with an iPhone. If I put a D40 in Annie Leibovitz's hands, she can shoot a spread for Vogue. You could put a D800/E in my hands and I wouldn't be able to do that.

Taking the photographer OUT of the equation, the D40 is dated. It's worth about $150 with a lens. There isn't a lot of upward room in the budget SLR market; brand new 2012 models sell for $599, so paying $300+ for a camera that debuted 6 years ago is absurd. If you don't need an OVF, there are m4/3rds cameras like the Panasonic GF5 that have kits for under $500, with gorgeous VGA touch-screens, 1080p video and exceptional picture quality for their size.

If you want to overpay for an old Nikon, at least get something that's worth it, like a D50. That camera could AF with inexpensive AF-D lenses like the nifty fifty (we're on a budget, right?).

 

[twistedlogic]

Taking the photographer OUT of the equation, the D40 is dated.

No debate there. But does it suddenly just stop taking good photos because it's dated?

It's worth about $150 with a lens.

According to you it is worth $150. Care to share a link where I can get one for only $150 that is not flee-bay. No joking, I would genuinely like to know where I could find any DSLR + lens for only $150.

The D40 is no longer in production, so a low shutter count mint D40 is worth way more than $150 to a photographer that would need a 1/500 flash sync. Even faster if you use non-TTL flashes, upwards to 1/4000. That is huge when trying to shoot outdoors @ large apertures and fill flash.

brand new 2012 models sell for $599, so paying $300+ for a camera that debuted 6 years ago is absurd.

So the OP should just pony up $600 because newer = better? For someone learning to use a DSLR and finds interest in the hobby, you know they will eventually upgrade anyway. And if they find no interest, its just a $330 learning experience. And for $300 the OP would get a DSLR + 2 lenses, giving them 18-200mm instantly. They aren't the best lenses in the world, but Nikon's kit lenses are pretty tack sharp.

I'm so glad I've gotten over my NAS. Now I actually use my equipment instead of worrying about what a better lens/body might do for me. Feels good to just shoot. I even quit pixel peeping, :O.

"Beginners worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light."

Ninja edit: Not trying to start a debate, just bored at work, . I'm always trying to play devil's advocate.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

"Beginners worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light."

I thought it was ""Amateurs worry about equipment, Professionals worry about time, Masters worry about light"

JR

 

[alkemyst]

According to you it is worth $150. Care to share a link where I can get one for only $150 that is not flee-bay. No joking, I would genuinely like to know where I could find any DSLR + lens for only $150.

The D40 is no longer in production, so a low shutter count mint D40 is worth way more than $150 to a photographer that would need a 1/500 flash sync. Even faster if you use non-TTL flashes, upwards to 1/4000. That is huge when trying to shoot outdoors @ large apertures and fill flash.

what is wrong with ebay and you can indeed find them at times with dual lens for under $200 shipped and low use. This will be really easy after the holidays.

You can try consignment stores but that's harder as you have two sets of profits in there.

 

[radhak]

No debate there. But does it suddenly just stop taking good photos because it's dated?

According to you it is worth $150. Care to share a link where I can get one for only $150 that is not flee-bay.

...

Nicely put - and that's my point - there's enough market for the D40 for it to be selling pretty briskly at around $300 in local markets, CL, etc. I'd rather haggle with that CL seller than hunt on ebay. Of course, $390 for the refurbished D3100 JR posted is really good, but you don't get many of those, and a $100 shave off that for an older (but not much less capable) D40 is still savings.

Obviously the OP might as well find the $390 well worth the spend for the newer camera (with video!), but please, nobody diss my beloved D40...!

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Radhak,
I kept my D40 for a long time and I regret trading it in on the D7000 because it was such a jewel of a camera. I keep looking at used D40s simply because... I feel very similarly about my old TRS-80 Model I and my Amiga 1000 microcomputers.

But, the D3100 is also a very nice camera and I can't imagine there being anything that I would do with the D40 that I could not do better with the D3100. Considering the D3100's bigger screen, better low light performance, VR kit lens, 1080p/24 video, 11 focus points vs 3 on D40; all while being lighter and basically the same size makes the choice a no-brainer (in direct comparison).

There is a $120ish savings on the D40, right now Adorama has a D40 w/ 18-55 lens in E condition for $249+shipping. For the price difference you could add the SB-400 flash or put it toward the 35mm f/1.8 prime.

The D40 s/b just as good as it always was. However, unknowns (e.g. corrosion of electrical contacts, tin-whiskers, etc...) can affect reliability. This is especially true when comparing a 6 year old used camera to a Refurbished-by-Nikon gen-2 camera.

I promise to never diss the beloved D40.

JR

 

[Munky]

Last I checked, the D3100 is incompatible with the IR remote. Otherwise a good camera, but the decision to subtract a feature that even older cameras had was a mistake, IMO.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Last I checked, the D3100 is incompatible with the IR remote. Otherwise a good camera, but the decision to subtract a feature that even older cameras had was a mistake, IMO.

Truly wierd. I know the D3000 did. Wow. ID10T decision from Nikon. I use my IR ($1.25 shipped on Ebay) all the time.

So, the D40 wins on flash sync and IR remote.

 

[alkemyst]

I think we all agree the D40 is/was an excellent camera still...however there are plenty better competitors at the $300+ price point used.

The D40 is like the old Celeron 300A's that did 450+ of the past. People were still paying a premium for them, when faster cheaper chips were out.

 

[shortylickens]

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.

I would have to say all the colors in that one pic look a little oversaturated, not just red. I suppose I could use the color analysis utility in Photo Paint to check it out though.

 

[kbp]

Check out my D90 for sale in the "for sale" forum

 

[DaWhim]

still keeping my d40. just love it and i have moved over to m43.

my d40 got 35mm f/1.8 + sb-400 flash. it still take awesome pictures. 35mm is really all you need with this camera