hi.

i plan to buy dslr but not sure if to choose d40 or d40x ?

beside 10MP and 6MP is there any obvious difference ?

for example, i am assuming all the nikon lense can be used as long as the body is nikon ?


secondly i did consider of choosing D80 even the price is very expensive.
but for a beginner like me, do i require such expensive model ?

in short, as long as i buy dslr,,i will produce good quality picture ?

thanks

anyone using D40/d40x or d80 would like to share your photo or comment ?

thanks

Happy new year

Have a look at the comprehensive review of the D40x over at dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/

No camera can ever guarantee good quality images, I have seen rubbish produced by people with the best quality kit, and superb images produced by photographers with mediocre equipment.

Photography is a skill.

I'd say it all depends on where you want to go with your photography - if you're just interested in recording memories then a D40 is more than enough - all the D40X really gives you is bigger prints (and even then with decent software you can produce perfectly good 30"x20" prints from a 6MP image - I have). However, if you want to actually put some serious effort into it and understand the technical side of photography too then I'd suggest saving your pennies and going with the D80 as you may find the D40 somewhat limiting. On the plus side though the D40 (and D40X) are quite 'dinky' to hold :)

If it helps I bought a D50 (the precursor to the D40 but had more features) and found it limiting. I sold it and bought a D200 after about 7 months.

To paraphrase GrinderBloke - if you can't take a decent photo to save your life then buying an expensive camera won't help.

I'd say it all depends on where you want to go with your photography - if you're just interested in recording memories then a D40 is more than enough - all the D40X really gives you is bigger prints (and even then with decent software you can produce perfectly good 30"x20" prints from a 6MP image - I have). However, if you want to actually put some serious effort into it and understand the technical side of photography too then I'd suggest saving your pennies and going with the D80 as you may find the D40 somewhat limiting. On the plus side though the D40 (and D40X) are quite 'dinky' to hold :)

If it helps I bought a D50 (the precursor to the D40 but had more features) and found it limiting. I sold it and bought a D200 after about 7 months.

To paraphrase GrinderBloke - if you can't take a decent photo to save your life then buying an expensive camera won't help.

I have been using SLR cameras for thirty years starting off with a manual focus Zenit with no metering and a manual stop down lens. Since then I've gone through a raft of minolta and canon SLRs. I took up digital when that came out and have had a dozen or so digitals since then. I finally sold my canon EOS film camera and all my darkroom equipment last year when I bought a D40. I am curious as to why you found you needed a D200 rather than a D50? What extra features does it have that you actually use? I ask this because I have found over the years that added features don't actually make any difference to the quality of the final photograph. Unless you have a specific need for the technology, fast lenses and high speed motordrives for sports for example. What features are so important that you need a pro camera rather than a consumer product? With the D40 I can set focus and exposure in a variety of different ways with varying levels of automation. I can use out of the box JPGs for general photography or RAW for creative work, the camera will do lots of other things too but I don't actually need or use them, in fact it could be argued that all the extra complexity is distracting from the actual photograph taking. Perhaps this is why people drool over Leicas? I used to be a memeber of a photographic society and it was strange to see how some of the club members would spend all the time available in practical sessions tinkering with and comparing equipment and others who just got on with the picture taking. So perhaps my question should be where have you gone with your photography that led you to your camera purchasing decision?

On the question of D40 vs D40x, I *think* that one of them allows use of all Nikon lenses and the other (D40x) can only use the newer lenses so the 2nd hand lens market would be much reduced.

I think the 40 can use screw drive and in-lens focus motors.
The D40x can only use lens with the focus motors built in.

I could be wrong about this - don't take it as gospel!

On the question of D40 vs D40x, I *think* that one of them allows use of all Nikon lenses and the other (D40x) can only use the newer lenses so the 2nd hand lens market would be much reduced.

I think the 40 can use screw drive and in-lens focus motors.
The D40x can only use lens with the focus motors built in.

I could be wrong about this - don't take it as gospel!

The D40 and D40X are without the in body focus motor so will only focus with newer Nikon lenses with built in motors. Access to the second hand market is therefore limited. Nikons of the future will gradually move away from in-body focus motors as the lens stable moves over to in-lens motors, the in body motor is a legacy from the first autofocus systems and will soon be ditched in favour of the quicker, quieter and more accurate in-lens motors as just about all the other manufacturers have done. Pentax have the same mount they have used for a long time but you lose metering, autofocus etc depending on the lens age and specification. Canon can't use any of the pre EOS lenses at all. Same with Minolta/Sony etc etc. Its just that Nikon have always held on to their legacy technology compatability as the cameras have developed.

Minolta/Sony still primarily use in body focus. Including new lenses.

Though Sony look to be producing more lenses with focusing motors in them :)