Nikon introduces the D40

[mswebb]

Nikon has announced the D40.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...roductNr=25420

[nburwell]

Doesn't look like much of a difference in comparison to the D50. Though I see it has the "in camera editing" feature which the D50 didn't have. I also see it has a lower MSRP at $599 than what the D50 started at.

[Adaptive]

Just means owing a DSLR will be cheaper than ever.


Now is a tough time for someone to survive on their photography skills with the pool of "professional photographers" getting bigger and bigger full of people with $600 DSLR's


I wonder what Canon is going to put out to compete with this madness!!!

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Let's hope for nothing. Gosh I hope Canon doesn't go so low. -_-

The D40 is basically a glorified point and shoot that takes interchangeable lenses.

[Adaptive]

Let's hope for nothing. Gosh I hope Canon doesn't go so low. -_-

The D40 is basically a glorified point and shoot that takes interchangeable lenses.

Yea I know, I thought the D80 and XTi release was bad enough, now we have people running around with glorified D70's and Rebels pushing around their 10 megapixels like they're the stuff..

"Oh you have a 20/30d? Only 8.2 megapixels?? lol I have 10 megapixels I'm better than you"

[Hikariphoto]

Well, Nikon can't compete with Canon in the full-frame or the high-ISO market. So we now know which way Nikon's headed with their target market. If only they would ditch those cropped Sony chips, they would retain a lot more market share. It looks like Nikon's thrown in the sponge and isn't going to even attempt to try to compete with Canon, but rather try to grab much more of the entry-level D-SLR market. It might work, although the D40, while a LOT cheaper than the XTi, still isn't even close to being in the same class. I could use an XT or XTi professionally in a pinch, but I wouldn't trust a D40 with a three-point AF system at all. Ugh.

It'll be really interesting to see how the Fuji S5 performs. The S2 was such a phenomenal camera for image quality, and the S3 was such a disaster.
If the S5 has anything like the images quality of the S2 with the speed and buffer size of the D200 (upon which it's based), Nikon's going to be in a world of hurt.

[Adaptive]

Well, Nikon can't compete with Canon in the full-frame or the high-ISO market. So we now know which way Nikon's headed with their target market. If only they would ditch those cropped Sony chips, they would retain a lot more market share. It looks like Nikon's thrown in the sponge and isn't going to even attempt to try to compete with Canon, but rather try to grab much more of the entry-level D-SLR market. It might work, although the D40, while a LOT cheaper than the XTi, still isn't even close to being in the same class. I could use an XT or XTi professionally in a pinch, but I wouldn't trust a D40 with a three-point AF system at all. Ugh.

It'll be really interesting to see how the Fuji S5 performs. The S2 was such a phenomenal camera for image quality, and the S3 was such a disaster.
If the S5 has anything like the images quality of the S2 with the speed and buffer size of the D200 (upon which it's based), Nikon's going to be in a world of hurt.

Yes it's easy to see nikon is targeting the entry level point and shoot consumers. Another interesting fact is Nikon is putting out more and more bodies that use SD cards. They say SD is the future.. but I think there is more to it than that. Nikon is smart, most point and shoots use SD or similar cards, if a consumer already has a point and shoot camera they probably already have SD cards. If they want to buy a new camera they will not want to go out and buy a bunch of new memory cards.

[Hikariphoto]

That's entirely possible. The funny thing is that so many pros are picking up D80s, and as they do, they find themselves having tobuy two different sets of memory cards, and then when they fill up their CF or SD cards they're stuck with the other body. SD cards scare me; they're so small it would be very, very easy to misplace one. <shudder>

Given Nikon's history of high-performance cameras, it's sad to see them so completely outclassed by Canon's image quality, but that's what they get for committing themselves so totally to Sony and their chips.

[LuisV]

The D40 is an entry level body. Nothing more. It's a great price to get the high end point and shoot market into a segment that produces more income. You see when you go to an interchangeable lens system you get more sales in lenses. It's a smart business move.

Well, Nikon can't compete with Canon in the full-frame or the high-ISO market. So we now know which way Nikon's headed with their target market. If only they would ditch those cropped Sony chips, they would retain a lot more market share. It looks like Nikon's thrown in the sponge and isn't going to even attempt to try to compete with Canon, but rather try to grab much more of the entry-level D-SLR market..

LOL.... my opinion is slightly different, funny enough. Nikon chooses not to design FF sensors. That does not mean they don't compete. I'll put the photos from my inferior DX sensor against any FF shot. What matters is the photo, not the sensor that was used. High ISO. Seems that my crappy ISO 1600 shots look pretty good when I use noise reduction in the body and/or in post. Funny, I read someplace my shots are supposed to look bad. Hmmmm go figure, thank god I'm lucky 'cause it can't be that what I read was more hype than fact.....

Guys the topic is about a D40. The thing is an entry level camera that's at an awesome price and will produce fantastic prints. Hell I shot a D100 for years and still sell 20x30 prints from a 6MP sensor to this day. You can use a wide range of lenses which will open up a world of possibilities for any photographer. Is there something wrong with that?

Will Canon compete in there? Who the heck cares? Do you have to buy it? No. Is the D40 better than a P&S? No question about it. That's the space it's in. The D40 simply puts more choices out there for the market to choose from this is a good thing for everybody.

[mswebb]

As a photo hobbyist trying to figure out what I want to do with photography I use a D50 which is, in some ways a step down from the D40. Mind you my D50 was free (Airmiles) so it wasn't exactly a researched choice. I'm all for a low cost SLR market so that people are turned on to true photography again.

While some may fear that cameras like the D40/50 pull more people into the "high-end" of photography, there is no real challenge to the market for photographers. Once a hobbyist moves into the SLR market he/she very quickly sees the value of a pro photographer and is actualy more likely to use a photog's services or go out and buy prints. In my case I am constantly striving to meet the standards set by professionals and in every shot I take I can see the things a pro would have thought about, corrected or just flat out done better. My friends are certainly encouraging but to myself I roll my eyes and dream of the day I can match a pro. Being a pro isn't about the camera you use.