Should i buy the Nikon D40 ?

Question

i'm planning on taking a photography class this year in school and i guess i need a camera for it so i was thinking of buying the Nikon D40, but a friend told me that the fact that it has only 6.1 mega pixels isn't good.

so i was wondering if the 6.1 mega pixels matters or not.

and if it'd even be worth it to get the D40 or if i should go for another camera instead.

Answer 1

Its an OK camera....I would either get a D40x or a D60 though.....if not a d300...

Answer 2

A very common misconception about bigger is better. Maybe it is when it comes to getting professional prints the size of a wall. It has more to do with new generation sensors and the programs that handle the processing then it does with size alone though.

The D40 is highly recommended by Rockwell and others. But I don't buy what Rockwell sells because I have my own personal doubts in regards to his relationship with dealers and Nikon. I find him suspect personally speaking.

The D40 restricts you to DX lenses where if you had a D70 or a D80 you could actually expand to some pretty superior lenses at a fraction of the cost. Lenses and their quality level do contribute significantly.

So if you had a D300 and a inexpensive lens like a Tamron 35-70mm or a D70 with something like a 70-210mm straight f4 Nikkor AF - I'd guarantee that if you used proper settings and exposure settings that the older smaller pixel model would produce better results. And save you about $2000.

You need to build up with lenses, save for a body later. The D40 is pretty much outdated already anyway - try a D70 or D70s and invest in lenses first, then get a good body later. Start small and build... that's how many of us do it and have done it....  

Answer 3

One of the most common misconceptions about cameras is that megapixels are important. First of all, they don't really matter on a point-and-shoot, and on a DSLR, they hardly matter at all. Secondly, maybe you should do some reading on the megapixel myth. Two great links here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamer... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.h...

This camera is quite possibly the best entry-level DSLR around. It is available with a lens for under $500.00 on amazon. And I very much recommend that deal. In the sources, I have included links to reviews and sample images. Please check them out.

Nikon D40 vs. Nikon D60:

If someone tells you to get the Nikon D60 over the D40, I wouldn't recommend it. There is very little difference, and if you are going to spend extra money, go all the way for the D80. Anyway, the D40 is good enough. As you can read here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

Nikon D40 vs. Nikon D80:

It should be noted the the D40 (and the D60) have two major flaws. Or perhaps a more accurate thing to say would be, the Nikon D80 has 2 major things that the D40 and D60 do not have.

The Nikon D80 has a secondary lcd on top, on which it displays you shutter speed, aperture, and iso settings, as well as many other settings. It is very useful, but not necessary. You would only buy it if you absolutely need this feature, for example; if you are a professional and this feature speeds up your work flow by allot.

It also has an AF (auto-focus) motor build into the camera body. The D40 does not. This means that if you use a lens (with the D40) that doesn't have an AF motor inside the actual lens, it will not auto-focus, although it will still work. Nikon does, however, make thousands of lenses that have these motors built into the lens, so it should not be a problem. They are designated by the terms AF-S and, I believe, AF-I.

So, it may be nice to get the D80 over the D40, but unless you can easily afford it, I would recommend just getting the D40 and putting that money toward lenses. Particularly, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 or if you can afford the extra $200, a Nikon 50mm f/1.4. Also, invest in a wide-angle, and a mid-range tele.

Good luck, feel free to email me at [e-mail].

Also, if you go to the D40's flickr page, you can view some very, very nice pictures, and many are very professional looking. Look through all the photos, not just the "interesting photos". Look at the landscapes, and macros. And the portraits too, haha.

Answer 4

Your friend is bonkers.

As everyone else said, 6 MP is perfectly good unless you want to make poster-sized images. The D40 is a great little camera for the price. The image quality is quite good. The only thing I really don't like about the D40 is the light metering is set so it tends to blow out highlights. Easy fix is shoot in program mode and use EV compensation. I find an EV compensation of -0.7 works well for most situations. I have used 25 year old lenses (including a 500mm catadioptric) on my D40 with no problem (shooting totally manual mode, including focus).

If you get the D40, read Ken Rockwell's article on how to set up the D40. It's chock full of practical information.

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

Answer 5

One of the biggest misinterpretations people have been told is that megapixels make the camera. This is one-sided argument, and thus false. Megapixels really just deal with the size of your print, and how much you can crop while still retaining quality. Six megapixels is more than adequate to print 11"x14", and even 12"x18". More megapixels just means you can print even larger, and get very good results.

What really matters is what kind of lens you are using, and of course, your own skill. If you lack either of the two, you're going to come back with poor results no matter how expensive your camera is.

What I'm trying to say is that the D40 is a very capable camera. Don't let people say that it is not.

Just to clear some things up, you can use older Nikon lenses on the D40. But if they are non-AF-S-such as the 50mm f1.8, 135mm f2, and so on-you'll have to manually focus.