Is the D40(x) so 'castrated'?

[dug777]

It's a cracking camera, the reviews i've read have been nothing but complimentary, the people i know who own one love it, and the only real weakness i'm aware of is the lack of the internal AF drive motor...

Oh noes

Now from a thread at dpreview, you can use at least the:

AF-S 17-35mm 2.8D IF-ED
AF-S 24-85mm 3.5-4.5G IF-ED
AF-S 28-70mm 2.8D IF-ED
AF-S 300mm 2.8D IF-ED II
AF-S 300mm 4D IF-ED
AF-S 400mm 2.8D IF-ED II
AF-S 500mm 4D IF-ED II
AF-S 600mm 4D IF-ED II
AF-S DX 12-24mm 4G IF-ED
AF-S DX 17-55mm 2.8G IF-ED
AF-S DX 18-135mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S DX 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G ED
AF-S DX 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G IF-ED
AF-S DX 55-200mm 4.0-5.6G ED
AF-S DX VR 18-200mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S VR 24-120mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G IF-ED
AF-S VR 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S VR 105mm 2.8G IF-ED
AF-S VR 200-400mm 4G IF-ED
AF-S VR 200mm 2G IF-ED
AF-S VR 300mm 2.8G IF-ED

But, returning to the real world, i can't see the lack of otherwise lenses hindering most people...

Ken Rockwell has a few good things to say about the D40, if you can deal with his particularly irritating attitude:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2007-05-what-camera.htm

I'm not sure if i'm way out there, or if i'm just pointing out something that makes at least some sense...?

 

[foghorn67]

No, I'd rather get something else, or save a few more bucks to get the D80. And 3 AF points? Really.

 

[blurredvision]

The D40 and D40x are fantastic cameras, but it's just the fact that only a year ago you could the D50 with kit lens for cheaper than what you pay for only a D40x body right now, and the D50 was definitely more fully featured than the D40x. It just seems like they are heading in the wrong direction. Plus, with the price of the D40x body, you could save up another $250 and get the D80, a much superior DSLR. Of course, the cheaper D40 does help things a bit price-wise.

 

[ElFenix]

you can also get the AF-I lenses


edit: and yes i agree it seems like a step back from the D50

 

[ProfJohn]

It's a great camera if you are starting out new and don't have older lenses.
I have a great 170-500mm Sigma that would become manual focus on it and that is just to much of a pain, especially for sports photography.

 

[pennylane]

You can't use autofocus with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (which is only $100!). That might be a good enough reason alone to pass on the D40/D40x.

I myself ended up buying a D50.

 

[IeraseU]

Probably only if you want to use primes regularly, as most of those are not AF-S in the Nikon world.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
The D40 and D40x are fantastic cameras, but it's just the fact that only a year ago you could the D50 with kit lens for cheaper than what you pay for only a D40x body right now, and the D50 was definitely more fully featured than the D40x. It just seems like they are heading in the wrong direction. Plus, with the price of the D40x body, you could save up another $250 and get the D80, a much superior DSLR. Of course, the cheaper D40 does help things a bit price-wise.

Agreed on the D50 front, but i guess it's no use crying over spilt milk...

I suppose i do think the D40x is a bit of a waste of time, most of my comments are really directed at the D40.

 

[frank84]

for a beginner like me.. this digital SLR is great for me

took amazing pictures with it

 

[virtuamike]

I think the D40 is a great way for Nikon to sell new lenses, but I don't think it's a great way to get introduced to the Nikon line (especially with all the great primes that won't focus on the D40).

Besides, I don't see D40 owners dropping $1000+ per lens (or even $500+), which greatly cuts down on that list.