Nikon shooting itself in the foot?

[mxwphoto]

What is Nikon trying to accomplish by coming out with a D40 and pricing it at $600 for the kit??? Wouldn't that cause it to fail miserably considering the D50 is still around and costs only $550 for the kit? Granted that its initial price is lower than D50's initial offering, but what's the point of coming out with a stripped down camera that costs more than its bigger brother?

[CyberDyneSystems]

How many stripped down 6MP models has Nikon made? can anyone even keep count? I'm lost at this point, but I think it started with a model called D70?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

The D40 is truly pathetic for a DSLR. Point and shoot cameras have more features than that, sheesh. Even the good ol' 300D is more feature packed. More capable, too.

[Woolburr]

Somebody crank up ole Ken...I'm sure he has all the answers.

[rhys]

Pentax cranked out an amazing variety of 6mp dSLRs. Same camera. Same body. Same sensor. Slightly different features.

[condyk]

I believe I could take good pictures with that camera. I believe the D50 is being discontinued. I believe that I can still buy a 350D in some places for rather more than I can buy a 400D for. Funny old world.

[saravrose]

Somebody crank up ole Ken...I'm sure he has all the answers.

:lol: :lol: .. yes, but do we really want to listen to them?...

[lakiluno]

I believe I could take good pictures with that camera. I believe the D50 is being discontinued. I believe that I can still buy a 350D in some places for rather more than I can buy a 400D for. Funny old world.

yes, but the D40 is a cut down of features from the D50 even more than the 400D on the 350D, and while the 400D added new features as well, the D40 simply takes them away

D50vsD40
Resolution: Same
Screen: Bigger with the loss of smaller status screen
AF: Now only AF's some newer lenses
Body size: Even smaller than the 350/400D - the one thing people don't buy the camera for, and Nikon actually produces a new camera that size.
The rest of the specs are about the same.

The 400D dumps the status screen and gets a larger screen like the D40, but it doesn't make the body size any smaller (albeit it is already pretty small), and it adds 2 megapixels in resolution. The only advantage of the D40 over the D50 is the larger buffer.

Its a silly camera, and I'd certainly choose the D50 over it any day.

[NAisBEST]

The 3 AF points are laughable at best.

[mxwphoto]

Pentax cranked out an amazing variety of 6mp dSLRs. Same camera. Same body. Same sensor. Slightly different features.

Yes, Pentax did come out with a handful, but at least their current offerings' prices are inline with the feature sets. The less the features, the less the cost; unlike Nikon, charging more for a semi-crippled D50. And also, each new wave of cameras by Pentax at least provide new enhancements/features.

[steved110]

I'd agree with Leo - what on earth are they doing? The main purpose of nikon in this world is to act as a kind of cattle prod to keep canon R&D bods on their toes. This offering is odd to say the least and I think it is a backward step, I think the only people who would buy one would be those unable to afford a 'proper' DSLR and too snobby to get a bridge camera instead.

[rhys]

The 3 AF points are laughable at best.

I have quite a few AF points on my XT. How many do I use? ONE. I use the centre-point for AF, compose and lock focus. The rest IMHO are a pain in the rear. I'd like to see cameras with one AF point so I don't have to waste time switching the others off.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'd like to see cameras with one AF point so I don't have to waste time switching the others off.

Easy. Get an old film body.

[rhys]

Easy. Get an old film body.

I have a film body. Even better than one-point AF, it has a focussing screen so that I can MF!

[JaGWiRE]

I have quite a few AF points on my XT. How many do I use? ONE. I use the centre-point for AF, compose and lock focus. The rest IMHO are a pain in the rear. I'd like to see cameras with one AF point so I don't have to waste time switching the others off.

I also seem to only use the middle one, and then recompose. Might use the other ones for sports, don't know.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I actually use each and every focus point on my 5D fairly often. I also don't use the center one, or any one, more than the others. Lately, I think I MF more than I AF, but if I had to say which point I use the most, it would be the 4 "in between" points. The "corners".

[cdifoto]

Center for general lowlight since it's strongest, and the MOST APPROPRIATE one for anything else. Accurate focus where you want it sure beats focus-recompose with fast glass wide open or nearly so.


I would like to have more focus points but alas I cannot afford a 1 series right now.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Here's something I really didn't like about having 45 focus points when I had my 1DMkII- It was relatively difficult to choose the focus point you wanted, simply because there were so many of them. Easy enough to hit the assist button to get back to the center point, but I'll be damned if it didn't take a good few seconds to get to the upper left one that would be a simple, single touch of the joystick on my 5D. I switch focus points a lot, and it's gotta be easy. A few seconds can mean missing the shot. I could have MF'd, sure, but who knows how close I'd get.

Agreed for center on low light, if subject allows. I also only use manual exposure in very low light. It's just not worth risking otherwise.

[cdifoto]

Yeah no doubt about that Ron. Too many could take awhile but on the other hand for something like portraits I'd rather get the best one. Usually enough time is allowed. I'll take any opportunity to flash and stop down a bit though to minimize focus errors, so then it really doesn't matter which point is used - the beam can assist the weaker ones but the center one can be used too since DOF will cover it.

Always compromising...

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Also, and I don't know why I expected different, when I first peeked through the 1DMkII's viewfinder, I was sorely disappointed. Yep, it was big and bright and I loved the extra info it showed around the edge. However, for some odd reason, I expected the focus points to be more spread out. Just a little cluster of them right in the middle where you wouldn't think 45 would fit. That, I didn't like.

[JaGWiRE]

Here's something I really didn't like about having 45 focus points when I had my 1DMkII- It was relatively difficult to choose the focus point you wanted, simply because there were so many of them. Easy enough to hit the assist button to get back to the center point, but I'll be damned if it didn't take a good few seconds to get to the upper left one that would be a simple, single touch of the joystick on my 5D. I switch focus points a lot, and it's gotta be easy. A few seconds can mean missing the shot. I could have MF'd, sure, but who knows how close I'd get.

Agreed for center on low light, if subject allows. I also only use manual exposure in very low light. It's just not worth risking otherwise.

Is a combo of flashlight and manual focus for low light not a bad idea? I've found with the lights off, you can't auto focus, but manual works fine if you can see what you are shooting.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

If there's the least bit of light, and the lens is 2.8 or faster, the 1DMkII can lock focus. Yeah, a flashlight and manual focus is a fine combo when it's too dark to MF, and too far for a speedlite to assist.