Nikon D40x


Author Reply
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
I'd be pissed if I'd only just bought a D40

D40x bumps the res from 6mp to 10.1, increases the per-second shooting speed and dropsthe lowest ISO to 100.

There's a new VR-enabled 55-200mm lens announced too. Retails for $249 O_O
#1 at 14:01:47 - 06/03/2007
blizeH
Flag
Posts:668
Comments:27
Thread Kills:30(4%)
AATG Pts:60
Star Rating
So if I want a camera that'll let me take good photos without having to mess around with settings, I should get this one?

Edit: No flash, nm
#2 at 14:07:05 - 06/03/2007
Carlo
Flag
Posts:931
Comments:67
Thread Kills:39(4%)
AATG Pts:80
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
I was reading about that yesterday!

However, the lack of lens choices for the D40(x) make it a pretty crappy choice.

Better to get a D80. And I say this as a D50 owner (which was one of the fastest cradle-to-grave bodies ever made by Nikon).
#3 at 14:08:07 - 06/03/2007
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
Carlo said:
However, the lack of lens choices for the D40(x) make it a pretty crappy choice.


Yeah, I know the choices for lenses are very narrow.

/also D50 owner
#4 at 14:13:56 - 06/03/2007
WOPR
Flag
Posts:1451
Comments:45
Thread Kills:42(3%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
Rhythm said:I'd be pissed if I'd only just bought a D40

D40x bumps the res from 6mp to 10.1, increases the per-second shooting speed and dropsthe lowest ISO to 100.

There's a new VR-enabled 55-200mm lens announced too. Retails for $249 O_O

You misread that, it's $729.95 body only. And yes, D40 owners would be pissed off.
#5 at 14:17:18 - 06/03/2007
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
WOPR said:
Rhythm said:I'd be pissed if I'd only just bought a D40

D40x bumps the res from 6mp to 10.1, increases the per-second shooting speed and dropsthe lowest ISO to 100.

There's a new VR-enabled 55-200mm lens announced too. Retails for $249 O_O

You misread that, it's $729.95 body only. And yes, D40 owners would be pissed off.


I misread nothing - the lens retails for $249
#6 at 14:20:40 - 06/03/2007
Carlo
Flag
Posts:931
Comments:67
Thread Kills:39(4%)
AATG Pts:80
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
Rhythm said:
#7 at 14:22:08 - 06/03/2007
WOPR
Flag
Posts:1451
Comments:45
Thread Kills:42(3%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
LOL, sorry I misread your post!

/goes to specsavers
#8 at 14:22:09 - 06/03/2007
Carlo
Flag
Posts:931
Comments:67
Thread Kills:39(4%)
AATG Pts:80
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
#9 at 14:22:22 - 06/03/2007
blizeH
Flag
Posts:668
Comments:27
Thread Kills:30(4%)
AATG Pts:60
Star Rating
I misread too lolz.

Why doesn't it have a flash?
#10 at 16:44:19 - 06/03/2007
Spin Dr Wolf
Flag
Posts:230
Comments:41
Thread Kills:14(6%)
AATG Pts:100
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
Does the D40 only take short or digital lenses or something then !?!
#11 at 17:01:24 - 06/03/2007
WOPR
Flag
Posts:1451
Comments:45
Thread Kills:42(3%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
Spin Dr Wolf said:Does the D40 only take short or digital lenses or something then !?!

Something like that. It's the camera equivalent of the 360 tard pack I think ;)
#12 at 17:14:20 - 06/03/2007
peej
Flag
Posts:14637
Comments:4691
Thread Kills:462(3%)
AATG Pts:400
Star Rating
Gold Medal
WOPR said:
Spin Dr Wolf said:Does the D40 only take short or digital lenses or something then !?!

Something like that. It's the camera equivalent of the 360 tard pack I think ;)


Sure ain't no tard pack price though is it. Oof.

Peej
#13 at 17:15:41 - 06/03/2007
WOPR
Flag
Posts:1451
Comments:45
Thread Kills:42(3%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
Reliable though :)
#14 at 17:30:33 - 06/03/2007
deem
Flag
Posts:189
Comments:6
Thread Kills:2(1%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Why on earth would anyone buy a 55-200 when there is a 28-200 of similar spec?

Or have I missed something?
#15 at 19:55:39 - 06/03/2007
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
How much is the 28-200?

The 55-200 stood out for me here because it's the first time I've seen a VR lens for under 150. I know for that price it'll be nothing special but it means VR is coming to cheaper consumer lenses
#16 at 20:02:01 - 06/03/2007
Spin Dr Wolf
Flag
Posts:230
Comments:41
Thread Kills:14(6%)
AATG Pts:100
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
deem said:Why on earth would anyone buy a 55-200 when there is a 28-200 of similar spec?

Or have I missed something?
Because as a general rule of thumb the longer the zoom range the more the distortion through the lense especially at each of of the range.
#17 at 23:32:00 - 06/03/2007
UncleLou
Flag
Posts:159
Comments:9
Thread Kills:8(5%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Do you mean the VR 18-200? It costs 3 times as much.
#18 at 00:36:53 - 07/03/2007
deem
Flag
Posts:189
Comments:6
Thread Kills:2(1%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
UncleLou said:Do you mean the VR 18-200? It costs 3 times as much.


Aha, there you have it. For some reason I failed to consider price in that at all.

#19 at 09:27:59 - 07/03/2007
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
deem said:
UncleLou said:Do you mean the VR 18-200? It costs 3 times as much.


Aha, there you have it. For some reason I failed to consider price in that at all.



Fair enough. Some of us have to watch the pennies :-D
#20 at 11:33:12 - 07/03/2007
blizeH
Flag
Posts:668
Comments:27
Thread Kills:30(4%)
AATG Pts:60
Star Rating
Seriously though guys, why are they selling a camera without a lense and a flash?
#21 at 13:13:07 - 07/03/2007
Carlo
Flag
Posts:931
Comments:67
Thread Kills:39(4%)
AATG Pts:80
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
blizeH said:Seriously though guys, why are they selling a camera without a lense and a flash?
Upgrade path for a person with lenses but an old body?

(Not that there are many lenes except modern 'rear focus' that work on this body).

And it has a flash built in!
#22 at 13:16:14 - 07/03/2007
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
blizeH said:Seriously though guys, why are they selling a camera without a lense and a flash?


They are selling it with a lens, but you get the choice of buying without (which is what SLR buying is all about). If it's like the D50 there's a (very basic) flash tucked in behind the Nikon logo
#23 at 13:49:55 - 07/03/2007
UncleLou
Flag
Posts:159
Comments:9
Thread Kills:8(5%)
AATG Pts:0
Star Rating
Yeah, what Rhythm said. Lenses will last you decades, a body usually won't. If you've already got decent lenses, or want to buy another one than the standard lens, forcing a bundle on you with (in most cases) an entry-level lens would be a waste of money which means pretty much all SLRs can be bought as an official bundle with a certain lens, with a different bundle from a shop, or as "body only".
#24 at 16:10:45 - 07/03/2007
Rhythm
Flag
Posts:3297
Comments:130
Thread Kills:87(3%)
AATG Pts:150
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
As an illustration of what Lou said, the D50 was sold body-only or as a standard kit with an 18-55mm lens. Said lens was generally accepted to be a bit ropey so I chose to buy the body-only option and got it bundled with a better lens from the retailer.
#25 at 16:50:07 - 07/03/2007
Carlo
Flag
Posts:931
Comments:67
Thread Kills:39(4%)
AATG Pts:80
Star Rating
Bronze Medal
What some others are saying about the D40x. Great backup body for the D200 owners?

Err...
#26 at 17:30:40 - 07/03/2007
blizeH
Flag
Posts:668
Comments:27
Thread Kills:30(4%)
AATG Pts:60
Star Rating
Ah I see, that's excellent cheers guys, I may actually look into getting something like this at one point!
#27 at 10:11:39 - 08/03/2007

home