18 out of 21 people found this review helpful.
How to Upgrade a Disaster
Date of Review: Mar 21, 2007
The Bottom Line: Do not buy the D40 or D40x. What was Nikon thinking?
An Upgraded Disaster
Well, Nikon must believe in the D40 because now they've upgraded the sensor to 10 MP. Beyond that the new version also offers a lower ISO setting of 100 and a slightly faster frame rate of 3 FPS compared tro 2.5 FPS. Physically they look and feel identical.
My beef with the D40 and D40x
Quite simply, the D40x will NOT auto focus with MOST of the lenses available from Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina. It will not auto focus with any non AF-S lenses from Nikon. While there are some fine AF-S lenses out there, take a moment to consider what you can't get: The wonderful 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, the spectacular 85mm 1.4, the slick little 28-200G, the best in class Tamron 90 Macro, the "portrait machine" 35-70mm 2.8 and many many many more. Without it's own focus motor the D40 series can only focus lenses with their own motors. AF-S lenses from NIkon are FAR from a complete solution if you want to expand your lens kit. They are also not always the best for your money, but you'll have no choice. Nor will Nikon covert the entire lineup of Nikkor glass to AF-S anytime soon.
Handling
It's too small. There's a reason why more professional cameras are larger and it's silly to suggest that the D40 is vastly smaller than a D50 or D80. It IS smaller, but not it's still going into the same bag anyway. In your hand it may feel small and compact, but it's weight, especially with a larger lens, is not well distributed. In spite of very well thought out ergonomics, the D40x is the worst handling Nikon DSLR.
Features
It has a fairly complete feature set, with less refined white balance control. All in all it's quite a lot like a D50. The viewfinder appeared to be darker than the D80, but still bright and quite usable.
Build Quality
Nikon DSLRs remain the best around for build and the D40x feels better than even more expensive units from Canon.
Photo Quality
With a 18-200 AF-S zoom, this camera (a test model) appeared to have fully professional image quality, just like any other Nikon DSLR. Some folks may even use a D40 as a backup for their more professional bodies, but I think the lens issue will still keep most serious shooters away. A D50, D70s or D80 is a much better choice for a second body.
D40 vs. D40x
You really won't see much of a difference between the two. Megapixels is all marketing. My 4 MP Nikon D2H has the same image quality or better than a D200 or D80 and I've owned all three. You get a bit more cropping, but you'll need the best glass to see any real improvement in resolution. Even worse, the D40x sensor will be less forgiving with less pricey lenses.
Who's it for?
Honestly, no one with any experience will buy a DSLR that can't use 95% of the lenses available. It's just a dumb camera and priced quite close to the FAR superior Nikon D80, which I actually prefer to the D200 I owned. The D80 is quite compact, takes a full grip for pro work and works with ALL lenses from Nikon and 3rd party designers. So the folks who buy a D40 series DSLR will either be ignorant of it's limitations or certain they will use it with a specific AF-S lens. Does that sound like an entry level camera? I'm not sure what the point of the D40 is since it has zero compatibility with some of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses around.
Final thoughts:
Save for a D80 or D200. You won't regret it. If you're on a budget a D50 or D70s are also better choices for around the same money. Frankly, the D40x is a crippled camera right out of the box.
Capt. RB
