D40 vs 400D dilemma

Sauron

I'm looking to buy my first dslr and I have a choice. Any wisdom shared would be much appreciated

-Both cameras are being bought in Hong Kong.
-Apologies for the lengthy post.

option no.1: A Nikon D40 with:

-2GB Sd card
-Full-sized tripod
-Camera Case
-USB Card Reader

all for the delicious price of €385

but... I have another option:

option 2: A Canon 400D for roughly €500 with the stock lens.

-I'm not 100% sure on the full content of the canon package (have yet to have it confirmed by my contact) , but let's just say for argument's sake that there's nothing much else to it.


---

This isn't so much a "which camera?" thread as a query about AF lens compatability, as I hear that's the big issue with the D40.

While the package (in fact, both of them) is ridiculously good value, I'm wary of the lack of motor in the Nikon's body, as, it seems, just about everyone is.

-My question is: if I was to buy the D40, exactly how screwed would I be for a choice of AF lenses?

Keep in mind I'll probably be using the kit lens (apparently decent compared with the Canon's?) for a considerable amount of time; learning, figuring stuff out and generally getting the gist of things.

Is it likely that newer, cheaper AF lenses would become available for the Nikon?

Or am I faced with the inevitable prospect of really expensive AF lenses once I buy it?

Again, I'm a newbie in the magical world of Digital SLRs, so I'd be quite satisfied with the D40 as long as I knew Lenses would be a massive problem in the future.

And last question (sorry ) regarding the 400D: would the stock lens suffice for the time being for a newbie like myself, if I were to buy it?

Feel free to share any knowledge and/or make any suggestions; it'd be much appreciated.

440Hz

Both great cameras... Personally Id go for the 400D and live with the kit lens for a bit. But thats just cos im a Canon person. And only because thats what I started off on. I reckon id spend the extra and go Canon though. Best of luck with your choice and happy shooting

rymus

400D every time. the D40 is going to be limited lens wise and from reviews I've read, is already quite limited feature wise. no competition.

The 18-55 Canon kit lens isn't bad for the money and when you feel like treating yourself to something inexpensive, the 50mm f1.8 is a great investment at under 100 quid

mathias

another vote for the 400D , although they are both great cameras this would be the deciding factor for me , From dpreview....

Perhaps the biggest negative on the D40 is that it doesn't have an internal focus drive motor and hence no mechanical focus drive pin, instead it only has CPU contacts which means it can only Auto Focus with AF-S and AF-I lenses (those with built-in focus motors). Indeed our 'standard' lens the Nikkor 50 mm F1.8D (and the F1.4D) are manual focus only on the D40. The images below show the difference between the mount on the D40 and D80, the D80 has a mechanical focus drive pin at about the 7 o'clock position.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

So no autofocus on some lenses , that would be a big inconvenience for me , if it is for you , then its the 400D all the way.
As youve already mentioned yourself , why buy a camera thats limited in the choice of usable lens features available from the manufacturer , thats just wrong , the 400D will take any EF or EF-S range canon lens , giving you much more scope for the future.

You can manually focus them all , but that is going to limit any kind of high speed or spur of the moment shots your going to get.

Spyral

condisering the new nikkon lenses all have built in motors anyway its a moot point.

I have a 40d and yes it may have "only" 3 AF points but its cheap and that allows me to buy the important things : lens'. Cannon kit lens are supposed to be rubbish. Do youself a favor, buy the d40 and a 55-200 lens. (should still work out cheaper if you buy both at once) and then you will not look back.

Additionally older lens WILL work just wont AF - you would have to MF. Unless you have lens already its not a problem. If you have any questions feel free to PM me

eas

taken from the same dpreview review :

n everyday use the D40 is just what it set out to be, a very capable, compact, lightweight and easy to use camera which makes a perfect first step for anyone wanting to get into digital SLR photography. It provides enough control and a large enough range of manual settings to enable you to experiment and learn but also helps you to take great pictures in the process. It's one of those cameras you can just pick up and start shooting without fuss, that you can hand to a friend who's never used an SLR and know they'll be able to do the same. All of this and a pretty decent kit lens for $600, I'd say it's a bit of a bargain.

The fact that the d40 doesn't have a focus drive tells us that every consumer lens nikon make from here on in will be AFS. That probably means even retiring the likes of the 50 1.8 d and releasing a new, better model with AFS. Of course, I have no idea when that would be, but I would assume soonish considering the amount of D40's they're shifting.

For a camera at the d40 price point, I really don't see how the "no motor drive" would or should be a big issue.

just my 2 "nikon biased" cents worth

Sauron

A very good point eas, and Spyral.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I really just wasn't sure about the extent of the lens problem.

hmm... it's a toughy... I figure I won't be buying lenses either way for quite some time... Kit lens quality is significant enough.

The Canon is the better camera (there was never much doubt), but that's not to say the Nikon wouldn't suit me fine... Might even be a more logical stepping stone.

Then again, the price difference isn't that massive... the plot thickens... I shall have to think about it :P

Spyral

consider your needs, do you like portrait, nature ? do you need more megapixels?
do you need the versitility of another lens? do you need more fps ? things like that. check your flash synch aswell.

rymus

Spyral wrote:

condisering the new nikkon lenses all have built in motors anyway its a moot point.

I wouldn't think so. What about the huge back catalog of nikon lenses available? I couldn't imagine buying an slr, finding a lens that suited my needs only to find that it wasn't available with a focus motor. But wait, a version with a focus motor is being developed and should be released within a year. Whoop de doo, I want the lens now.

Anyway, what are the prices like on these re-tooled AF-S lenses? Buying a dslr for the price of a good point & shoot and then having to buy lenses that are more expensive than their non AF-S counterparts would leave a bad taste in anyones mouth.

City-Exile

If you buy Nikon you'll be an outcast & very unpopular, on this forum. It's likely that you'll remain single & probably be shunned by your family. Some communites will post a sign outside your door, "Warning! Nikon User Lives Here!"
I've heard there are some support groups, but they meet in secret, under the cover of darkness.
Do the right thing. Join the Brotherhood of Canon!

elven

*snigger*

Have you actually held either camera in your hands?

Ignore all this stuff, until you have, because heaven forbid you should decide on one based on all this technical stuff, order the damn thing, then get it home to discover that you use a particular feature that is buried three menus deep, but has a dedicated button on the other. Or the 400D is too small and finnicky for your hands. Or there's a button you keep pressing with your nose.

amcinroy

Let me throw this little spanner in.

Pentax K100D

(running)

Andy
www.skyandstone.com

City-Exile

elven wrote:

Ignore all this stuff, until you have, because heaven forbid you should decide on one based on all this technical stuff, order the damn thing, then get it home to discover that you use a particular feature that is buried three menus deep, but has a dedicated button on the other. Or the 400D is too small and finnicky for your hands. Or there's a button you keep pressing with your nose.

elven, I expected more of you!
This isn't about assessing both options & deciding the best product for the individual! It's a case of them, or us!

Now Sauron, are you with us, or against us!?

rymus

amcinroy wrote:

Let me throw this little spanner in.

Pentax K100D

There's always one...

eas

rymus wrote:

I wouldn't think so. What about the huge back catalog of nikon lenses available? I couldn't imagine buying an slr, finding a lens that suited my needs only to find that it wasn't available with a focus motor. But wait, a version with a focus motor is being developed and should be released within a year. Whoop de doo, I want the lens now.

That's a fair point rymus, but you're not the "market" for a D40. The D40 is made a specific range of customer. It's perfectly normal for companies to separate their products based on personas and user requirements. They assume that the AFS lenses available for this entry level consumer SLR will be sufficient for the type of people who buy one.

As far as Nikon lens capability - here's list of current Nikkor lenses that are AFS vs. a list of lenses that are not AFS. As you can see, there really is not a "huge back catalogue" at all. Of course there are also numerous 3rd party lenses are also available for the d40.


WITH AFS
12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-55 f/3.5-5.6GII AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6GII AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor
28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor (silver)
55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor
17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor
200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor
300mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor
400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
600mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
600mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor
105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor

WITHOUT AFS
10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX Fisheye-Nikkor
14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor
16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye-Nikkor
20mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
28mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
35mm f/2D AF Nikkor
50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
105mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor
135mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor

It is a shame nikon have not brought ANY wide-normal primes up to the AFS standard yet. It's been around the Nikon rumour mill for a long time that on the 26th of July (Nikons 90th birthday I guess) They will release around 15 lenses and a new pro body. Whether this materializes, who knows. But you're right, I wouldn't recommend anyone buy something with the "hopes" that something will be coming around the corner.

Anyway, what are the prices like on these re-tooled AF-S lenses? Buying a dslr for the price of a good point & shoot and then having to buy lenses that are more expensive than their non AF-S counterparts would leave a bad taste in anyones mouth.

The prices would be in-line with other lenses on the market. Again, nikon are not expecting people who buy a D40 to do out and start collecting pro glass. They expect them to be on a tight budget or not care for the bonuses of spending 1000-2000 on a lens. In any case, for most people good lenses have always been more expensive than camera bodies. Where you upset when your canon """"""" 2.8 USM L cost more than your 30D?

sineadw

For the sake of the difference why limit yourself - 400 all the way.

Fionn

haven't a clue what prices are like but Olympus is another option

or if you've got loads of money check out the General FS in Boards Adverts nudge nudge

rymus

fair enough.. I stand corrected.

Calina

The Olympus users (all two of them) complain about how much lenses cost for Olympuses. I'd avoid.

The good thing about a Canon is you can borrow other people's lenses when on boardsie photography junkets. Lots of other people's lenses. If you buy a Nikon, you'll have to negotiate with DarrenG who, off the top of my head, is one of only two Nikon DSLR users that I know and the other one doesn't come to boardsie trips.

eas

for the OP :

IF, you think the d40 is for you - this may interest you :

from the nikon.co.uk website

Nikon UK will introduce a summer cashback promotion for customers wishing to purchase the D40 and D40x kit (with AF-S DX 18-55mm II) and D40 and D40x twin kit (with AF-S DX 18-55mm II and AF-S DX 55-200mm).

The cashback has been announced to celebrate Nikon’s 90th anniversary and will allow customers to claim back £60 in the UK and €90 within Eire on the above combination of products. The offer is valid for purchases made between June 1st and August 31st 2007.

rymus

in a similar vein, there's 80 quid back on the purchase of a 400D at the moment.

City-Exile

If you sat on Grafton St., with a Nikon hanging around your neck, people would throw loose change in your lap.

m_stan

I'm not going to recommend the 400 over the 40 as I own a 400 and I'm biased towards that and have never used a 40.

My 400 was my first DSLR and I've had it almost a year and I've only recently upgraded the kit lens to a better quality 17-85 IS lens. In all honesty I was still getting great value out of the kit lens and got what I thought were some great shots with it.

So purely on the question of the kit lens on the 400d, if you are a beginner (with DSLR's) like I was, the kit lens will in no way hold you back in the first 12 to 18 to 24 months of use. That's been my personal experience anyway.

I do rate the 400d very highly though - I love mine. I'm just not in a position to objectively compare it to something else.

Good luck with your purchase. Either way you are going to be delighted I'm sure.

daedalus2097

You could garner quite a bit of information from the dpreview pages on both cameras regarding how they are to use. Personally I prefer Nikon's layout of buttons and menus to Canon's but as always it's a matter of taste. Go into some camera shop, give both of them a try and then tell them "Thanks, I'll go and think about it." If there's something about one that will annoy you like Elven said, it will take away from the whole experience.

I got the D80 a while ago and the kit lens, and it's far from bad at all, though I can't remember if it's the same as the D40's kit lens.

Hugh_C

City-Exile wrote:

If you sat on Grafton St., with a Nikon hanging around your neck, people would throw loose change in your lap.

You're a street musician?

Exile, I don't understand where your bigotry is coming from.



(I have both Canon & Nikon)

To the OP, you should go into a camera shop and hold each of the cameras. Some Canon bodies feel too small in my (large) hands.

shepthedog

I have been deciding on this very issue myself recently, I have more or less discounted the D40 & D40x due to various issues outlined above, it seems fine if you just want an advanced point and shoot but limited scope for further advancement, ie to grow with the camera.
I have moved to deciding between the 400d or moving up to the Nikon D80, also looking at a 2 secondhand D70s.. Anyone here have any opinions on the D70s?
To the OP, I would go for the 400d if it was a straight choice between the 2.

Oriel

I have a spare, excellent condition D70s.

digitally-yours

eas wrote:

for the OP :

IF, you think the d40 is for you - this may interest you :

from the nikon.co.uk website

Dont expect cash back of you buy a NON european serial number camera.

So providing that you are buying the camera from outside the EU you will not be able to apply for the Cashback offer !

bp_me

daedalus2097 wrote:

I got the D80 a while ago and the kit lens, and it's far from bad at all, though I can't remember if it's the same as the D40's kit lens.

I assume you got the 18-135 kit lense? The normal D40 lense is the 18-55, but it is also available with the 18-135. If you went for the 18-55 you could also get the 55-200VR to go with it for not a whole lot more than the non VR version.

There are some great examples of the quality of images people are getting from the d40 on the FM forums.

OP, consider the D40x also? Im not sure how much the EUR difference is though. I went for the D80 myself.

Personally I wouldn't buy either camera as the lack of a secondary LCD for settings would annoy me endlessly, especially after getting used to having one.

daedalus2097

bp_me wrote:

I assume you got the 18-135 kit lense? The normal D40 lense is the 18-55, but it is also available with the 18-135. If you went for the 18-55 you could also get the 55-200VR to go with it for not a whole lot more than the non VR version.

Yeah, got the 18-135 and have no problem with it at all once you accept the f3.5-5.6 aperture on it over its zoom length.

Personally I wouldn't buy either camera as the lack of a secondary LCD for settings would annoy me endlessly, especially after getting used to having one.

Ooh, that's a good one, and one of the things that I didn't like about the 400D when I tried one. I use it constantly with the viewfinder display and find having to use the menus on the 400D quite distracting.

Spyral

If you sat on Grafton St., with a Nikon hanging around your neck, people would throw loose change in your lap.

odd because at the media conference I was at the most experienced professional there was using a d70 and everyone esle a canon EO5 (except me with my humble d40)

Nikon have better lenes anyway.

I woudlnt go for the d40x as it has a lower flash synch speed. the advantage is more megapixels and if you really care about the whole mega pixels thing just shoot film.

rymus

Spyral wrote:

Nikon have better lenes anyway.

Can of worms successfully opened...

Spyral

Now I just need to get my 6 billion yen of Mr Nikoniwa ....:D

eas

Spyral wrote:

I woudlnt go for the d40x as it has a lower flash synch speed. the advantage is more megapixels and if you really care about the whole mega pixels thing just shoot film.

I believe the difference between 1/500 and 1/200 sync speed is under 1 1/2 fstop, hardly anything worth considering....certainly wouldnt be for me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt the d40x have a min iso100 setting over the d40 min iso setting of 200? If so, that would make the differnce up pretty much right there.

*Also,IMO if you're considering things like sync speeds, you'd be better of with the 400D / D80 if they where in budget

As far as the whole maga pixel thing, if you can get em, why not take them?

Spyral

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt the d40x have a min iso100 setting over the d40 min iso setting of 200? If so, that would make the differnce up pretty much right there.

If I want megapixels I'll use my 22 megapixel f70 loaded with velva :P

its just something to consider as the 40x doesnt have only advantages. In addition the bigger sensor means that it has to have the 100 as it is the same as the sensor in the d80. Regardless it is noiseless at ISO 200 anyway