Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Auto Focus-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens
Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Auto Focus-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens
- Make sure this fits by entering your model number.
- 6.1-megapixel CCD captures enough detail for photo-quality 14 x 19-inch prints
- Kit includes 3x 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens
- 2.5-inch LCD with three display options; built-in flash and hot shoe
- Fast startup with instant shutter response; shoot at up to 2.5 frames per second
- Powered by one rechargeable Li-ion battery EN-EL9 (included); stores images on SD memory cards (memory card not included)
Brand : Nikon
Category : Electronics,Camera & Photo,Digital Cameras,DSLR Cameras
Rating : 4.4
Review Count : 641
Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Auto Focus-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens
- This won\'t be a list of all the technical statistics as many reviewers have done this very well already. Instead, let\'s concentrate on how it actually works.First, I wanted a DSLR because they are easier for me to use than point and shoots and of course there are choices with lenses, flashes, etc. I chose Nikon because I have had good luck durability-wise with that brand and Nikon is obviously a premier company. I also have a couple of interesting old Nikon lenses that are usable. Amazon\'s price with free shipping and all was quite a bit less than I found locally. It arrived quickly and in good shape, as did the extra stuff I got for it.One of these items was the 55-200 VR zoom. If you go this route BEWARE: there are cheap zoom packages that ship the NON-VR version. You want VR.Surely the standard kit lens, which does get excellent reviews, will itself someday be offered in VR form. In fact, since I bought this, you can be sure this will be soon!Some reviewers have advised the use of those impressive bigger, heavier, wider aperture and more costly lenses. Or prime lenses. My take is that the standard DX lenses that were designed for this camera just make it so much more pleasurable to use, work just fine and are appropriate for the use this camera will get. If there are any differences in quality, they are really hard to see, if at all.VR makes low-light photos sharp and in many cases negates the need for wide aperture lenses, and this also means a better depth of field. However, nothing beats big expensive lenses, or big expensive most anything else, actually. It just isn\'t really necessary for most of the photography people will use this camera for.Cameras like the D40 are best for candid, quick shots and for capturing moments in time that are not repeatable. Bulky equipment just gets in the way and makes it more likely that the camera will be in the closet and not with you.Some people just like the photog life and live to carry around the biggest and heaviest stuff. My thinking is that the $5000 and more DSLRs with their bigger sensors and all would be more appropriate for that use, or spend $35000 and really go for it with a digital Hasselblad.Why not the D40x? I read a zillion reviews that said, in essence, that you can\'t tell the difference, so why spend the extra? There is a lot of debate about this, but I went with the D40.Some experts, including those that I admire, suggest using special settings, especially those that have to do with how vivid the colors will be. And there are plenty of these settings. I spent a lot of time trying the various manual modes and other shooting options. Just delete them when you are done experimenting. Go to the menu on that big bright and sharp screen and reset when you are done. I messed up some promising shots because I assumed I was in Auto mode and I wasn\'t. My bad; automatic or not, you still have to pay attention.This is all fun to play with, and, speaking of auto mode, it is pretty darn good. Just set the top dial to auto, leave it there, press half-way down on the shutter button to focus and then fire away. Make sure the lens buttons are set on VR and auto focus. All good.And there are other settings for landscapes, portraits, kids, etc. Again, it is easy to turn the dial to those settings and it is all automatic. The camera\'s little computer changes things in subtle ways to complement those shots.Nikon has vast technical resources and I figure they have this stuff figured out better than me. If you want special effects, you can do that, but the auto modes are really very good and hard to beat.Flash is fun. The pop-up flash works very well for most any normal use. I also bought the little 400 series add-on flash. This is a nice device that has a bounce feature. The D40 handles all this flash stuff perfectly. Very nice, and automatic.What about the plastic construction of the camera and the DX lenses? Sure, nothing better than those precise old metal beauties, but the DX cameras are all about size and weight. They are molded to be easy to hold and use and I really have no complaints. The camera and lenses are well-built and solid. I keep my old FM-2 around to fondle.What about the complaints that many of the old Nikon lenses will not work on the D40? This won\'t be a problem for new users because they will just buy DX lenses. If you do have a collection of fabulous old lenses, then it would be best to go up to D80s or the 300. Check on what actually works. The extra cost of the camera will be offset by the \"free\" lenses. This will be especially important if you have specialty lenses like perspective control, medical, etc.Again, the whole idea of the D40 is that it is light, small and affordable. Sticking a multi-pound lens on it sort of defeats the purpose.I do have two old lenses, a 55mm micro-nikkor macro and a 100-300 with a macro setting. I just set the aperture on a guess, check out the results on the screen and adjust again. These old lenses were made to be manually set, so it is easy to do. Not for fast shots, no VR, but fun to play with.And the results, the actual prints? First, let me say that I am a fan of big contact prints. Nothing else looks sharp to me. A Leica sales guy showed me a big print, around 24\" wide, printed to show how good a cost is no object Leica could be. Ahh, sharp for what it was, but just sort of ok for me.I have had a lot of 35mm printed and was always disappointed. Even paid extra at expensive camera stores. All in the 4X6 to 8X10 size. Not that good, to me. Slides were better, but what a pain to view.Frankly, despite 35mm supposedly being equivalent to 25 mp digital, my 6mp photos printed out on my Canon Pixma are just a lot nicer. Nicer colors, sharper, better. Maybe if I sent my 35mm shot out to be printed on ultra exotic media with processing to match... too much for me.If you can, I suggest getting your digital files out to a service that prints them out on actual photo paper on mega-expensive machines. This is very inexpensive and provides ultimate results (reasonably speaking).I download into iPhoto on my old iBook. When I connect the included usb cable, the program recognizes the camera and the download begins when I push \"import\". Then, if I want to play with the photo, I just drag it into Adobe Elements, do my best, then save it back to iPhoto for storage. I do not use Nikon\'s software because I don\'t need to.The D40 does do some processing in the camera, but I am just used to using the computer. It is easier to see on a big screen and of course the photo editing programs give you many more options. There are all sorts of very capable programs to sort and manipulate your photos if you want to go that way.Suggested options: I went with the kit lens and the 55-200 VR (see my review on that lens) and that is not a bad combination. A better one would be the wide zoom and the 18-200 VR. That, however, is $2K worth of lenses. I got the little remote. I am a fan of polarizing filters, but I already had one.Digital cameras are especially good at macro work and Nikon offers a new macro lens and a neat special flash system to go with it. Not cheap, but super capable and the results are great.I do not like the D40\'s limitations on remote triggering and remote flash. To fire off the camera you can use that nifty little remote, but the sensor for it is on the front of the camera. Fine for most uses where you are in front of the camera, but heck, a timer works for that. These cameras do not accept cable releases. I will try to make a reflector out of aluminum foil and see if that works.The old Nikon D70 had the capability of triggering remote flashes. That was a neat feature. With the D40 you have to buy one of Nikon\'s more expensive flashes, or a triggering device. I would like to try some creative flash photography, but the cost is pretty high. Too bad.Note that UPS will call you the day before because they want you to be there for delivery. Too small and expensive to just leave on the porch. You might want it delivered to your work.Also, be aware that it does not come with the little flash memory card, so order one at the same time. I got the Sandisk Ultra II 2.0 gb. It seems to work just fine. It is a brand that Nikon recommends, so...The D40 is easy to use, light and capable for any normal situation. It downloads easily and the photos are as good as current technology allows in this price range. Highly recommended.
- The sheer quantity of excellent reviews already posted here for the D40 would leave me nothing to add were it not for the possibility that my perspective might be useful to a certain subset of possible buyers. I purchased the D40 as a first DSLR, but not as a first SLR. As a former film SLR shooter getting back into SLR photography after a long absence, I was convinced by the many very positive reviews of the D40 that it would provide an excellent entry point. Ken Rockwell\'s rave reviews, in particular, had a strong influence on my decision, as did many of the favorable reviews posted here.In retrospect, for somebody in my position, I think that perhaps some of the D40\'s positives have been slightly overstated, and some of the negatives slightly understated. I would suggest that any prospective purchasers who feel they might aspire to any level of seriousness in their photography should give careful consideration to whether the D40 will be truly satisfactory to them beyond the short term. In my case I owned the D40 for about a month before deciding that the D90 would have been a better choice. I made the swap and find myself much better off for it.Things to consider:- Every review points out that the D40 can only autofocus using Nikon\'s latest (and most expensive) AF-S lenses. I optimistically underestimated the degree to which this would quickly become a handicap for me. Yes, these are Nikon\'s best lenses, but the reality is that in practice you will be able to do much more, much sooner, at much lower expense, if you are willing and able to use older \"D\" and \"G\" type AF lenses along with one or two of the newer AF-S lenses. As one example, perhaps the second or third lens most semi-serious shooters would want to buy for a DSLR is something along the lines of a 50mm f/1.8 prime. Cheap and excellent, Nikon\'s 50/1.8 will immediately give you creative options that don\'t exist in any AF-S lens, at any price. Other excellent lenses, like the 85mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 80-200mm f/2.8 zooms, 28-200mm \"G\" zoom, and various third-party and wide-angle options, either don\'t exist yet in AF-S form, or cost so much more to buy that a casual hobbyist like myself would have a very hard time justifying the expense.- High ISO (low light) performance. One of the great advantages of digital over film is the improvement in light capture that has come along with it. Low light, hand-held photography can be done now that was really completely impossible just a couple of decades ago. The D40 did not really allow me to experience this benefit as fully as I\'d expected. I found an ISO setting of 800 on the D40 to be the maximum \"good quality\" setting, and noticeably less clean than the \"base\" ISO of 200. My informal impression is that the D90 is between one and two stops better. Combine that with the D90\'s ability to use faster lenses at lower cost than the D40, and the practical reality is that I can shoot equivalent quality photos in one-quarter to one-eighth the light with the D90 than with the D40. That is a tremendous advantage and much more than I had anticipated prior to owning the two cameras.- Availability of D-Lighting on D90-and-up Nikons. In my admittedly short experience D-Lighting is a feature of such tremendous value that by itself it might be enough to justify the extra expense of the D90. D-Lighting is able to control the contrast between light and dark areas in a scene, which has always been one of the primary difficulties facing any photographer. This feature might be of even more use to a less serious photographer than to a serious one since it will invisibly improve almost any casual picture made under sunlit conditions. On the D90, under harsh sunlight, I set D-Lighting to \"Extra-High\" and get very useable photos that would be throw-aways with the D40. In most other conditions I leave it turned on but set to \"Auto.\"- The lack of a second (front) control dial. Another surprise for me. One dial, as the D40 has, allows you to quickly set one parameter at a time, such as shutter speed or white balance. Two dials allow you to set two separate, usually related, parameters at once. I didn\'t realize how great an impact this would have on the camera\'s overall usability. For example, in setting white balance the rear wheel chooses the white balance preset (auto, sunny, cloudy, etc) while the front trims it (tweaks the basic setting to slightly warmer or cooler, six steps each way). Or, during image review the front wheel changes to the previous or next image, while the front wheel changes the display (one click to the right for an rgb-histogram, for example, then one click back to the left to return to the full-sized image). In almost every setting, display and shooting mode the second wheel adds significant flexibility and speed to the camera\'s handling.- 6mp sensor. It is true, without a doubt, that excellent photos of almost any kind can be made with a 6mp sensor. I am happy with 6mp for 90% of my photograhy. However, I still found the jump to 12mp beneficial. One thing to keep in mind is that the flaws inherent in every part of the image capture and reproduction process add to one another, each only subtly, but the additive effect of cumulative imperfections makes all the difference in the quality of the eventual reproduced image. Although it\'s impossible to quantify, going from a 6mp to a 12mp sensor might be the equivalent of going from a good to an excellent lens, while at the same time raising the limits of what the excellent lens can produce. It is also much cheaper than the difference in cost between, say, a full complement of good, \"consumer\" lenses and first-rate \"pro\" lenses. The bottom line is that each step in the process is important and each step varies from perfection. Doubling the actual resolution with which the image is captured is worthwhile, and worth paying for.By contrast there are a couple of features the D40 has that I miss on the D90. The most important is the D40\'s fast 1/500 flash sync speed, which makes it possible to use fill flash with larger apertures under brighter conditions, and to extend maximum flash range under many conditions. The D90 makes me choose between depth-of-field-isolation and fill flash when conditions are bright as I can\'t get both. Less important but also helpful is the D40\'s ability to be set so that the rear screen automatically comes on between shots. Simply tap the shutter (to wake the camera or cancel the review of the previous image, if active) and the display shows you all the camera\'s vital settings at the same time in one place, and lets you change most of them with just a couple more button-pushes. It is very intuitive and quick to use, and I wish the D90 had it.In most regards I found the D40 to be a superb camera and every bit (more, really) as good as I had been led to expect. It feels wonderful to use and it makes excellent photos, or at least is capable of it (the rest being up to the user.) If it were not for the lack of a focus motor on the D40, I would still recommend it highly for even aspiring serious SLR users, as the other factors can all be worked around or are only of importance under certain conditions. However, the reality for any photographer serious enough to eventually acquire a variety of lenses is that, by the time they buy their third or fourth lens for the D40 they will have spent as much or more on their equipment than they would have had they started one rung up with a D90. Viewed from this perspective, the various functional advantages of the D90 come essentially without cost even though they do, at least for me, add significant value.For casual photographers who will be satisfied with one or two lenses, or for more serious photographers looking for a second, lighter camera for part-time use, the D40 represents an excellent value and would be in my view a five-star camera. For people on a strict budget who are willing to wait patiently for the functionality that will come from additional lenses, the D40 could also be an excellent (and perhaps only) choice. Only people looking at the D40 as an entry point to an eventual comprehensive collection of SLR gear need to consider whether the D40\'s disadvantages outweigh its lower cost. These people might find themselves, as I did, better off paying more from the start for something along the lines of a D90 - or, alternatively, considering an older used D80/200, etc. as their entry point instead. Yes, the D40 is an upgrade compared to those cameras in some ways, but with a used D80 you can start getting the lenses you want right from the beginning, then upgrade the camera later.
Post a Comment for "Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Auto Focus-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens"