Something surprised me about Nikon....

pieq314 wrote in post #2357422
I have read reviews on the Nikon D40. They contains phrases like "It let take great photos without the burden of messing around confusing parameters" or "This parameter is hidden deep in the menu so it is hard to get to, but it does not matter because those people who buy this camera would not know what it is any way". The point is, this camera is aimed at the point & shoot market (well, Nikon cannot compete with Canon at the high end, so it is trying the low end).

Actually, the low end market is the most important. That is why all the newer companies jumping in target that area. The XT was Canon's bigger seller. Why? Because it brought in a new generation from the point and shoot.

coreypolis wrote in post #2357488
the d40 is not a direct competitor to the rebel, it is for people that want inter changeable lenses on a budget. the d50/d70s and d80 are all competitors to the rebel, and offer many things that are better, and some thigns that aren't

by price

D80
400D
D40

coreypolis wrote in post #2357508
30d and the rebel are very different bodies, this was what he is refering to.

well still..I dont like the way they feel. just dont sit comfortably in my hands.

The D50 shooting RAW has very good out of the camera processing - i have only just started shooting RAW today and was pleasently surprised how little PP it needed - i could probably get away with no editing at all . Dont drag it down unless you have 1st hand knowledge ...

Going by some of the test results on slrgear.com, it seems that some of the Nikon lenses are capable of some VERY good MTF figures, even the kit lens that comes with the D80 knocks spots off of the Canon lemon!! sorry I mean kit lens, lol..

I do hear that Nikon isnt as good in the noise area though, being a tad on the high side, this would be a put off for me.

Nick

my buddy had a D50 before the D80 and the viewfinder on that was like a pin hole. Its not a bad starter camera. The images where to processed lookin sometimes I think. they had alot of blue tinit to them..seems the D80 has a much cooler color then teh canon as well.

grego wrote in post #2357515
Actually, the low end market is the most important. That is why all the newer companies jumping in target that area. The XT was Canon's bigger seller. Why? Because it brought in a new generation from the point and shoot.

by price

D80
400D
D40

Apparently, that seems to be what Nikon marketing people are thinking. So Nikon came out with this D40, which is packaged simply so that it will shoot nice photos right out of the box, without the shock of first DSLR users that "my photos with my new DSLR look worse than the ones from my p&s camera".

A buddy of mie who is also a swim dad and I were at a swim meet this weekend. He has the Nikkon Dsomething, 20, 30 I dont know. He took a break to stretch his legs and I played with his camera and Nikkons 70-200 2.8 equivalent.

It was "ok", but I was not impressed. the focus was slower then my Xt and I didnt like his pictures as much. But I wouldnt say it was "bad". I think its one of those things that you either like it when you hold it or you dont...

IMO since its a nikon product... people will still buy it due to their reputations, as most ya'll know that nikon market their system very well... for an instance like showing their product at CSI, people doesnt know whats good/ very reliable/ cheap etc.etc. since its showing at that show people will think that any nikon camera is a good one not knowing any difference from other manufacturer, people will think oh! its showing on that movie or series on tv then its going to mark in there head that nikon product... so in there next purchase they will buy that product or any manufacturer that the've seen on any adds or tv comercial or even in movies.
we all know that already but for some people doesnt, and who ever chooses a d40 over on the xti well... its up to them to take that lost... with out researching for on what they need.

superdiver wrote in post #2357652
It was "ok", but I was not impressed. the focus was slower then my Xt and I didnt like his pictures as much. But I wouldnt say it was "bad". I think its one of those things that you either like it when you hold it or you dont...

Not a very good way to judge a camera. Maybe the guy doesn't know how toi take a good photo or he has some horrible setting for the in-camera-processing. I don't know if you just looked at the pictures on the display, because that is about the worst way to judge picture quality from a camera. Somebody else also commented about the way the picture comes out of the camera. Maybe the owner uses some default setting that messes with the picture too much, or a wrong WB setting.

Point is, a Nikon (any Nikon dSLR) is a very capable camera and I'm sure nobody would be able to pick the Canon pics from 25 pictures taken with a mix of Canons and Nikons. As far as picture quality goes, there is no better or lesser cam. Both brands have very similar cameras (except the top end; no 1D/s MkII competitor from Nikon) which are equally capable. The only difference is a feature here and there and the handling of the camera. The latter one is very subjective and personal. I liked the feel of a D70 over the of the Canon models (only the pinhole viewfinder is not very good, better on the D200). But then I came across my 1D...and fell in love.

So in the end it's just a matter of taste and what system, lenses you prefer/like. Nikon has a very broad range of available lenses (a bit more expensive than Canon) and the D200 is able to use about any lens Nikon ever produced.

I love how some people simply discredit a camera just because it's a Nikon, eventghough they've NEVER picked up NOR used one before. The "it's not a Canon so it's crap" mentality is quite amusing to me, a recent Canon-convert coming from Nikon. There are people like this over at the Nikon camp but it seems to me the MAJORITY of Canon users on this board have no idea what Nikon cameras can do, and simply base their judgement on internet comments and "reviews".

Sad.

If you've never used it before, don't bash it. If you've used it for 5 minutes in a shop, don't bash it. If you've OWNED one and used it for an extended period of time and hated it, then ok, go ahead and bash it.

I don't know about prices in the UK and elsewhere but here in Canada, the XTi kit is selling for $1,000 CDN and the D40 kit is selling at $735 CDN, and to me that's a big enough difference to warrant the purchase of the D40 if you're very new to dSLRs and don't ever intend on buying any pro lenses. I would rather buy the D50, though - lower price but with more features and STILL easy to use. Nikon should drop the price on this D40 to about $650 CDN to make it even more attractive. And at that price point I thin it would be fairly easy for someone to make a decision on what to buy as their 1st dSLR.

Like someone mentioned before, the majority of entry-level dSLR users will seldom use non-Auto modes on their cameras so the D40 is aimed at THAT particular crowd, and a big crowd it is. So yes, I think Nikon's onto something, and only time will tell if the gamble will pay off or not. This camera may not be good for some people, but for A LOT of people it could be exactly what they're looking for.

The D40 kit can be had for £399 easily enough but I'd have to say the 400D is well worth the £100 extra.

Canon need a cheap body to continue to bring people into the fold. Its been stated by a Canon bigwig that 10% of film cameras were SLR and at the moment, only 4% of digital cameras are SLR. Clearly the market has room to expand and they're not going to do that with a 5D mk2.

A trimmed 350D with the 8mp sensor would be a good £349.00 buy with the 18-55 lens and bring in new buyers. Five hundred quid is NOT an impulse buy figure.

With nikon's production ability, they probably can't afford to have the d80 be the same prices as the XTi. So they did what they could to get a cheap price and quality unit out to compete with Canon, who seemingly can do whatever they want with pricing and volume.

I used to own a Nikon D50 and my god I loved it! Such great pictures it made, and a fairly good ISO performer too.
The menu-system was very nice and a pleasure to use.

The DX 18-70-lens was a bang for the buck for sure, and I think thats why some people choose Nikon. There's more quality over it, compared to the EF-S 18-55 for instance.

But I agree about the D40. I thought the D50 was a "point-and-shoot"! At least that was what Nikon said.
S

pieq314 wrote in post #2357422
(well, Nikon cannot compete with Canon at the high end, so it is trying the low end).

not sure if i agree with such a statement. the Nikon D2Xs can compete with the 1DmkIIn and even kick its butt in more than one area. just beacuse they don't have a FF body does not mean that they can't compete. i am sure that i am not the only one that doesn't put so much weight on FF. i know of plenty of pro's that only use Nikon for their work so i guess that Nikon is doing something right. don't get me wrong, i am a canon man all the way but i can clearly see some of the value that Nikon has and i wouldn't say no to the possibility of using a D2Xs for my wildlife shooting thats for sure.

Adam T wrote in post #2355776
Are they a little bit behind? I mean, you can pick up a 400d, Canon's latest camera, 10megapixels, good autofocus etc etc. For £499.

You can pick up Nikon's brand new on the market, D40, 6 mega pixels, 3 autofocus points....for £499.

I know which one I'd rather have, surely Nikon would know that before releasing that kind of camera out?

This is really not meant to raise the ire of nikonians, but there are many people (particularly in my age group - let's say retired) that recall Nikon as being the "king of the Japanese cameras". When I started 35mm in 1962, they certainly were the best Japanese camera - hands down. Canon was barely on the scene.

If these people are just getting into digital (as I did recently), they will still regard Nikon as being the top dog (as I did). Without researching thoroughly and asking a lot of questions (and frequenting forums), they will not realize that Canon has become the major player, and will just assume that Nikon still is (I came close).

This new D40 will be snapped up by these newcomers. How much do you think they know about high ISO noise?

Good marketing? I think so.