[MW Forums]

If you’re just looking for a weekend or vacation camera for snapshots, the D40 is probably all you need. The D40x is $100 less than the Digital Rebel XTi with a comparable lens, and the Nikon has a wonderful, easy to use feel about it. more

[shoaf]

Quote:

---

While I could live without exposure bracketingtaking a sequence of photos at slightly different exposure settingsit would have been nice to see Nikon put a depth of field preview into the D40x, since its such an essential concept and one worth knowing, even as a new user.

---

The lack of bracketing is a deal-killer for me. And since I'm hardly a photo expert, the bracketing that's on the D50 we have here at work has really helped me learn a lot about exposure settings.

[swartzfeger]

Quote:

---

The lack of bracketing is a deal-killer for me. And since I'm hardly a photo expert, the bracketing that's on the D50 we have here at work has really helped me learn a lot about exposure settings.

---

Have you considered the D80? It isn't that much more expensive than the D40x.

[Exponent]

I can't believe that this review doesn't mention one of the main drawbacks of the D40x: there is no focus screw coming out of the camera, so you are limited in lens choices to ones with a focus motor built into them! This means you are locked out of a lot of great legacy Nikon glass, not to mention 3rd party glass.
Things like this, and glossing over the lack of bracketing (one of the best photographic techniques available) are salient reminders why I don't trust computer magazines to do photographic equipment reviews. Just because it is "digital" doesn't mean MacWorld has competent domain over it....

[MacKayaker]

The deal breaker for me for DSLR is the expense of decent zoom lenses. None of them have decent zoom without really big bucks and until that bridge is crossed, it will be awhile before I will go with a DSLR. We've had decent optical 10x and 12x for awhile in very solid performing digital cameras. It seems a travesty that we can't get good lenses equal to that or better without a king's ransom, as seems to be the case at this point. They are giving the cameras away, but it will cost you nearly three times the cost of the camera to get a decent zoom lens. Would love to be wrong on this . . .

[swartzfeger]

Quote:

---

I can't believe that this review doesn't mention one of the main drawbacks of the D40x: there is no focus screw coming out of the camera, so you are limited in lens choices to ones with a focus motor built into them! This means you are locked out of a lot of great legacy Nikon glass, not to mention 3rd party glass.
Things like this, and glossing over the lack of bracketing (one of the best photographic techniques available) are salient reminders why I don't trust computer magazines to do photographic equipment reviews. Just because it is "digital" doesn't mean MacWorld has competent domain over it....

---

I doubt that people concerned with legacy glass are 1) going to Macworld for their DSLR reviews or 2) are in the market for a D40x.
I see your point about detailed reviews, but that's what dpreview, Ken Rockwell et al. are for.

[sdf]

Quote:

---

They are giving the cameras away, but it will cost you nearly three times the cost of the camera to get a decent zoom lens. Would love to be wrong on this . . .

---

Well, at $600+, they're hardly giving the cameras away either. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HeyMan]

Quote:

---

[I see your point about detailed reviews, but that's what dpreview, Ken Rockwell et al. are for.

---

Ken Rockwell? Hehe, I needed a good laugh today...

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

We've had decent optical 10x and 12x for awhile in very solid performing digital cameras.

---

I'd be curious to see which cameras you are referring to here. If you're referring to the compact ultra zoom cameras (like the Canon S3 IS, etc.), forget about it, they are not even in the same league in terms of image quality. What's the point of a good zoom if the image sensor is crap by comparison? When you're dealing with small sensors, the lens magnification factor is much higher, so it's much cheaper and easier to make a 12x zoom that way. But, you get what you pay for.

[swartzfeger]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

[I see your point about detailed reviews, but that's what dpreview, Ken Rockwell et al. are for.

---

Ken Rockwell? Hehe, I needed a good laugh today...

---

I was hoping someone would pick up on that :P But hey, he's a Mac guy, so I cut him a little slack.

[Philbert]

Quote:

---

We've had decent optical 10x and 12x for awhile in very solid performing digital cameras. It seems a travesty that we can't get good lenses equal to that or better without a king's ransom, as seems to be the case at this point.

---

Your comparing apples to oranges.
I agree that high-end SLR zoom lenses are expensive but if you think a 10-12x lens in an all-in-one digicam can provide the same level of quality, you've never used a high-quality lens.
About the review:
Image quality is "superior"? Superior to what? Certainly not to the comparable Canon. Canon DSLRs arguably lead the pack in high ISO performance, but the 400D appears to produce better image quality at all ISO levels in this particular test. (Am I missing something or do the D40x images look extremely mushy compared to the 400D?)
http://www.dpreview....d40x/page17.asp

[Philbert]

Ken Rockwell gets SOME things right. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Exponent]

Quote:

---

I doubt that people concerned with legacy glass are 1) going to Macworld for their DSLR reviews or 2) are in the market for a D40x.

---

It's not just legacy glass. I just went over to the Sigma webpage on D40 and D40x compatibility (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3324), and it excludes some of my favorite Sigma lenses from that list. (Most notably, their excellent wide primes - the 8mm fisheye, and the 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm f1.8 DG EX line.)
The idea of an SLR system is that you can grow it over time by adding new and better lenses. When that selection of lenses is limited to a subset - especially as pointed out above for shooting landscapes - it is deficient not to mention it in a review.

[imagewrangler]

Bah... Nikon is to cameras to what Quark is to layout programs... outdated, outmoded, stale, and only used by those people living in the past clinging to deluded ideals that antiquated crappy stuff should matter. Canon blows the doors of Nikon in almost every aspect, their camera take awesome pictures without any of the weird hard edged look the Nikon delivers craptacularly every time and as an added bonus the Canon camera's themselves aren't FUGLY relic-looking devices. Once a Nikon person goes Canon they'll rarely go back, why would you trade inferior for superior quality anyways unless you're scared of change or stuck with some crappy Nikon lenses. Canon is like Apple in the camera world too, they innovate and Nikon is like Microsoft... a poor imitation, stuck following half-arsedly and failing miserably at it.
D40x... meh, no thanks, I've gone pro.