Romanticizing my D40 memories...

[JohnnyRebel]

I noticed this Nikon D40 kit on Adorama. Refurbished by Nikon which means it's better than new.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html

I'm so tempted to buy it, just because I miss my old D40. I traded it in, along with the old D2H, toward a D7000 and a couple of lenses.

The D40 just always seemed to make great shots. It's probably more to do with the fact that the 6 mp D40 images @ 100% looks so good for lack of detail.

I know that my memory exceed reality, but still.....it's ONLY $419 (shouldn't that be more like $219?)

JR

 

[Munky]

I still have my D40. Never found the need for more than 6MP.

 

[Ricky Spanish]

My first DSLR was a D40X and would probably still have it if my then wife did not drop it in the ocean....

 

[fralexandr]

Yep, the 6mp era was great.
I still like the pictures taken with the 6mp pentax k100d more than the 12mp k-r.

Maybe it partly has something to do with the mp vs sensor size or the in camera processing done, or maybe because it was my first camera, or maybe it's the complete inability of the camera to auto white balance inflourescent lights properly , but I think there's a bit of magic in that old 6mp package.

My first DSLR was a D40X and would probably still have it if my then wife did not drop it in the ocean....

I'm sure you also thanked your wife for giving you a reason to upgrade right?

 

[Sid59]

ex D40 owner, checking in. I think i've posted this before but i loved my D40. I first purchased a D80, didn't really fall love it, so returned for a D40. Ended up selling the D40 to get a D90. D90 .. love even more than the D40.

D40+35mm dx was fun. I also have a 18-200 but that wasn't as fun to carry .. too front heavy.

 

[shortylickens]

I still have my D40. Never found the need for more than 6MP.

Ditto.

Just got an 18-135 and new flash.

 

[jpeyton]

Nonsense. I love my D3200. Give me more megapixels, better low-light performance, and better dynamic range.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Nonsense. I love my D3200. Give me more megapixels, better low-light performance, and better dynamic range.

I know, I know. If I picked up a D40 it would never be what I remember. But, it was almost magical just how good all my old D40 shots looked. I do think that all the really good ones were taken with the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens.

You can get the D5100 or D3200 kits for $50 more than the D40 kit, or the D3100 kit for $70 less. (all refurbished by Nikon) Makes no sense to buy the D40. That's a Tokina 100mm micro lens...

JR

 

[randomrogue]

I generally export images at somewhere between 3MP and 6MP if they're just going to be viewed on a computer screen. I'm also not a big fan of cropping. Even with 10MP I almost never ran into a problem with cropping but at 24MP you have a lot more creative room to work with. You can do some crazy cropping and still print at A4.

At the end of the day though I imagine most people keep their D40's unless they want better low light capabilities. That's where those older cameras have been blown away.

 

[shortylickens]

I specifically need better auto-focus in low light.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

I love the old camera nostalgia. Of course, my first SLR was a Pentax ZX-8. After that, I had a Nikon FM-2, which wasn't an "upgrade" but was more of a "real" camera.

My first DSLR was a Fuji S2Pro, and nobody will ever be nostalgic about THAT particular bit of work... It made decent photos, but was just a brick to use. And carrying lithium CR-2 batteries around... for a DSLR... really?

As for your D40, the nostalgia isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

 

[Paladin3]

I have fond memories of all the old film cameras and manual focus gear that I got started with in journalism.

I worked with the Canon FD line for a while: T-90, F1n, 20-35/3.5L, 24/2.8, 35/2, 135/2, 300/4. The two teles had the focus worked on so the ring was easy to turn and slick as butter, which helped a lot for sports.

After a few years I started working at a paper that supplied pool Nikon gear, so I switched over: Nikon F3, FM2, F5, 28/2.8, 35/2, 105/2.5, 180/2.8. I liked the fact that the old Nikon gear worked with the newer lenses that were coming out. When the paper got a 400/2.8 I had a lot of fun.

I think the nostalgia is more about the learning and exploring I did as a young photographer learning my craft. The modern DLSR is a more powerful tool, but there is something to be said for the simplicity of an old Nikon FM2 with a 28/2.8 prime on it. No motor drive, no complicated decisions to make beyond shutter speed and aperture. Just available light, no flash, no motor drive, no zoom lenses.

When I would get burned out lugging all my gear and lighting equipment around, I would force myself to cover an assignment with just the FM2 with 28/2.8 and a 105/2.5 in my back pocket. It made it harder, but added a bit of Zen to the day.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

As for your D40, the nostalgia isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Well, I still have the old AE-1P, the F4 and have recently had my old 35mm half-frame Pen refurbished. The D40 is the one I traded in, thinking I would never miss it. Still, there was something special about the D40...

My first digital was the excellent (for the time) Nikon 995. I have all the accessory lenses, the macro cool-light as well as a "Roll Bar" grip and flash holder.

 

[randomrogue]

If you want to un-romanticize your D40 take a high ISO image.

 

[finbarqs]

as long as the camera does what you need to do, there's no need to romanticize a camera. I can romanticize the women I've photographed the camera in!

 

[shortylickens]

as long as the camera does what you need to do, there's no need to romanticize a camera. I can romanticize the women I've photographed the camera in!

1.


1 fucking broad let me use the D40 on her hot little body. Then I stopped having sex (as yet for reasons unknown).

 

[Silenus]

If you want to un-romanticize your D40 take a high ISO image.

Compared to the newer DSLR's maybe...but only a little. High ISO, and image quality in general, on a D40 is still vastly to superior than even the newest compact cameras. D40 normal ISO range went up to 1600...and I always found it surprisingly usable at 1600. 3200 was a push ISO (Hi 1) and not usable.

 

[LR6]

I still have my D40 and I have zero plans to replace it. I don't know if I have ever had a electronic device this long and have not wanted to upgrade it.

 

[randomrogue]

Compared to the newer DSLR's maybe...but only a little. High ISO, and image quality in general, on a D40 is still vastly to superior than even the newest compact cameras. D40 normal ISO range went up to 1600...and I always found it surprisingly usable at 1600. 3200 was a push ISO (Hi 1) and not usable.

I know. But I can take pictures at 6400 without any problem. I haven't tried 12,800 but I bet I could make small prints at that ISO and definitely if I do it in B/W. That's a massive difference. Not to mention that the noise is a lot cleaner when you do get it.

I romanticize some of the pictures I've taken but never the camera. This great camera I have today will be replaced in less than 5 years. Thus why people stress the importance of good lenses since they last much longer.

 

[shortylickens]

I still have my D40 and I have zero plans to replace it. I don't know if I have ever had a electronic device this long and have not wanted to upgrade it.

Ditto.
My pocket PC didnt last this long, none of my computer components except cases, I'm usually bored with my TV around the 5 year mark but I havent found the perfect replacement.
I still have my DSC-P50 but have wanted a new compact for a long time.


I think maybe speakers are the only other thing I can settle on for long periods of time

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Ditto.
My pocket PC didnt last this long, none of my computer components except cases, I'm usually bored with my TV around the 5 year mark but I havent found the perfect replacement.
I still have my DSC-P50 but have wanted a new compact for a long time.


I think maybe speakers are the only other thing I can settle on for long periods of time

They're not strictly electronic, per se, but talking about long-lived camera technology, I've had a number of lenses for upwards of 15 years.

I'm often an advocate of focusing on lenses instead of camera bodies. If recommending how to get into things to a new user, I often suggest picking up a cheap used camera to start (even something like a D70), and sinking extra cash into a set of good prime lenses (24mm, 50mm, 85mm).

 

[Silenus]

I know. But I can take pictures at 6400 without any problem. I haven't tried 12,800 but I bet I could make small prints at that ISO and definitely if I do it in B/W. That's a massive difference. Not to mention that the noise is a lot cleaner when you do get it.

I romanticize some of the pictures I've taken but never the camera. This great camera I have today will be replaced in less than 5 years. Thus why people stress the importance of good lenses since they last much longer.

Certainly the newer DX cameras are better, I have a D7000 now. I'd say compared to the D40 at 1600, it's about equal at 3200 but worse at 6400. That's subjective though and you can't fairly compare them at 100%. Downsize the D7000 images to 6MP and they look fantastic in comparison. Combined with the newer higher res sensor and better dynamic range it's just better overall certainly.

I guess that "high ISO" on the D40 simply meant 1600...and even now I still find myself impressed by the quality of shots I look back on that were at 1600 on that camera.

The importance of good lenses I most definitely agree with! In fact one of my favorite photos to use as an example of BOTH the above poits is this one below.

This is one of my favorites. This is the D40 at ISO 1600....but also shows what a good lens can do. This was shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR.