Nikon D40 - Suitable for beginner?

[macbilly]

It's my sons 16th birthday coming up soon and I was wondering if the Nikon D40 would be a suitable starter camera for digital photography.

He has shown an uncanny ability to catch scenes and frame them brilliantly on my old SLR's, and I have spotted the D40 on sale on Amazon at £275, which seems a decent price to me.

My knowledge of digital photography is limited to my compact, a Canon Ixus 860is (which I love by the way), so any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

 

[mij]

It is a great choice and a great camera.

A review here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

and here:http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

I have one

 

[macbilly]

Thanks mij - that review from kenrockwell was very encouraging.

 

[Yandros]

Yes, it would be a great choice.

Just out of interest, at about your son's age my parents bought me a manual film SLR..the only automatic thing was lightmeter needle! I got on just fine. Modern DLSRs are infinitely easier to use, and far more capable. The D40 has full auto and scene modes just like your Canon, but also has all the key features you find on higher end DSLRS, so he can get far more creative with his photography when he's ready. Basically imagine all the scene modes from your P&S, and ALSO the manual, program, aperture priority and shutter priority modes, as well as 'film speed' (ISO) control you're used to on your SLR.

 

[mij]

Nikon are still doing cashback on the D40:

http://www.nikon.co.uk/sites/cashback/spring2008_default.html

 

[macbilly]

Thanks again mij, I wasn't aware of the cashback scene, that just about seals the deal for me!

Yandros, you brought back some memories mentioning the light meter needle, I still have both my Olympus's - OM1 & OM2 which had next to no automatic features (as we know them now) but were wonderful cameras for their time.

They are what my son started with before I got him a Nikon F75.

I think he will be more than keen to get into digital SLR's with the D40.

Thank you both again for your input.

 

[Yandros]

You're welcome

The other thing I'd add is that the digital arena makes the learning process many times quicker. You get instant feedback the effects of your camera settings, and you can play so much more. I now shoot the equivalent of a roll of film instead of one or two shots...and the cost is nil

 

[senu]

I have to say , I was not much older when I go my first "manual " SLR, and by late teens , was using the AE-1 from Canon. I needed the A-1 for my University undergraduate thesis and that was almost 25 years ago!

Given how much more advanced todays DSLRs are to use, and how much less it costs to shoot and see your results ( there is no film , development and printing) . I can only imagine the sky is the limit for him
My 11 year old does not find the Canon 350D too challenging, Im pretty certain the youngster who display uncanny ability to exploit technology will get further than we did , much earlier. They use software like Photoshop in a way that many older folk can only imagine..
I would encourage him ...

 

[julian_fraser]

Macbilly - the answer is "Yes".

I got my first dSLR for Christmas - a Nikon D40. the fact that it is SO cheap (relatively) is absolutely NO reflection on the quality you receive from it and the supplied kit lens.

Be aware that any subsequent lens purchases will need to have an internal focus motor to work with the camera but that really isn't an issue...the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens that perfectly compliments the 18-55mm kit lens can be had for approx £140 online and that includes the excellent Vibration Reduction... Sigma also do a range of lenses with built-in auto-focus.

There are a number of relative newbies on this forum with the D40 and I don't think you'd get a complaint from any one of them!

My advice: Buy it, you won't regret it and your son will love it.

Good luck

 

[onefunkypenguin]

another for the d40 here, as a beginner its perfect camera to learn with and will be more than good enough for him.

just start saving for the inevitable d300 upgrade for christmas!

 

[springtide]

Thanks again mij, I wasn't aware of the cashback scene, that just about seals the deal for me!

Yandros, you brought back some memories mentioning the light meter needle, I still have both my Olympus's - OM1 & OM2 which had next to no automatic features (as we know them now) but were wonderful cameras for their time.

They are what my son started with before I got him a Nikon F75.

I think he will be more than keen to get into digital SLR's with the D40.

Thank you both again for your input.

The only thing to note is that the D40 doesn't have an AF motor in the body, meaning that any of your lenses from the Nikon F75 will be manual focus.
And because of this, you are much more limited in terms of cheap lens from Ebay etc, as well as no AF on the Nify Fifty! - The cheap 50mm f/1.8 portrait lens. This also limits cheaper 3rd party lenses, particularly macros.

If you don't need to buy new for your son, the D50's are a really good buy on Ebay and from what I've read are as good as the D40, but the D50 does have an AF motor in the body. And this is assuming that you want to stick with Nikon. If it's new, then the first in the Nikon range with the AF motor in the body is the D80, which is much more expensive.

 

[Boldonion]

Another happy D40 user here. Had mine since last November and it has opened a whole new world. Like has been said, the only downside is the nifty 50 doesn't auto focus but that is about it. Most new Nikkor lenses are AF-S ( therefore will autofocus fine on the D40 ) and the classic 3rd party lenses you'd buy ( ie Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 17-50 ) all work fine on the D40. Go for it!

Edited to add....when I was 16 I had a Zenit SLR which weighed a ton and had the old needle light meter. Still loved it and took some nice pics with it, the D40 is so much easier to use.

 

[Farno]

The only thing to note is that the D40 doesn't have an AF motor in the body, meaning that any of your lenses from the Nikon F75 will be manual focus.
And because of this, you are much more limited in terms of cheap lens from Ebay etc, as well as no AF on the Nify Fifty! - The cheap 50mm f/1.8 portrait lens. This also limits cheaper 3rd party lenses, particularly macros.

If you don't need to buy new for your son, the D50's are a really good buy on Ebay and from what I've read are as good as the D40, but the D50 does have an AF motor in the body. And this is assuming that you want to stick with Nikon. If it's new, then the first in the Nikon range with the AF motor in the body is the D80, which is much more expensive.

This really is not an issue the kit lens is very good and covers 18-55
A Nikkor 55-200 VR with built in AF can be had for under £120 or you can buy the 55-300 Sigma that has Macro for around £150
Sigma are producing quite alot of lenses that are compatible with the D40/x/D60 see here


People seem quite willing to dismiss this camera out of hand without actually looking at what has been developed for it

I would recommend it (I would, I have one) and then if he gets into it in a big way upgrade the body. Have a look at the D40 Flickr group to see what can be produced. D40 Flickr

 

[springtide]

This really is not an issue the kit lens is very good and covers 18-55
A Nikkor 55-200 VR with built in AF can be had for under £120 or you can buy the 55-300 Sigma that has Macro for around £150
Sigma are producing quite alot of lenses that are compatible with the D40/x/D60 see here

People seem quite willing to dismiss this camera out of hand without actually looking at what has been developed for it

I would recommend it (I would, I have one) and then if he gets into it in a big way upgrade the body. Have a look at the D40 Flickr group to see what can be produced. D40 Flickr

I'm sorry but you are limited in macros if you need AF-S mount with 3rd party lenses (think only the Sigmas in HSM are the 150 and 180mm). Not sure about Tamrons 90mm. The Sigma 55-300 is NOT a macro - it's a zoom with limited macro. A true macro should do 1:1 (lifesize)

As for a proper portrait prime you are stuffed until the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 comes out. Both versions of the Nikon 50mm (f/1.4 & f/1.8) and both versions of the 85mm (f/1.4 & f/1.8) portait lens are AF and NOT AF-S from what I can make out.

So I guess if the OP's son is looking to do portrait photography (or macro) then a D40 maybe isn't the best choice. And if he was, I would probably recommend a Canon.

 

[Boldonion]

I'm sorry but you are limited in macros if you need AF-S mount with 3rd party lenses (think only the Sigmas in HSM are the 150 and 180mm). Not sure about Tamrons 90mm. The Sigma 55-300 is NOT a macro - it's a zoom with limited macro. A true macro should do 1:1 (lifesize)

As for a proper portrait prime you are stuffed until the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 comes out. Both versions of the Nikon 50mm (f/1.4 & f/1.8) and both versions of the 85mm (f/1.4 & f/1.8) portait lens are AF and NOT AF-S from what I can make out.

So I guess if the OP's son is looking to do portrait photography (or macro) then a D40 maybe isn't the best choice. And if he was, I would probably recommend a Canon.

Paulie on here does some good Macro shots with his D40 , not sure about the lens he uses but stacks up well with other Macro pics I've seen on here. I have the 50mm 1.8 and it meters perfectly and after all, manual focus is not really a problem for portraits ( or macro for that matter ) . There is also the Sigma 30mm 1.4 of course.

 

[Paulie-W]

They can be used though, just manual focus thats all. And the little green light at the bottom left of the viewfinder still indicates focus on the 50mm i have read. onefunkypenguin uses a 50mm f1.8 and seems pretty happy with it. As for macro, there is also the nikon 105mm vr that will auto focus, albeit not cheap.

Yes i do have a D40 and am happy with it, but that`s all i have had, apart from a long long time ago, so i guess im biased in a way.

I would suggest the OP gets the son to get touchy feely on a short list though as for me it made a big difference.

 

[springtide]

I'm just trying to be unbiased.

I use Sony but will admit that if you are looking for a "cheap" 85mm portrait lens than it's not the camera to buy.
Same used to be true about wanting a 70-200 f/2.8 for Sony until a few weeks ago, but luckly you can now get Sigma and Tamron versions - prior to that, the only option was the £1800 Sony.

I know you can use the 50mm in manual focus, but if you have the aperture wide open at f/1.8 you'll really struggle getting eyes in focus without AF - unless you have a really static subject. It's hard enough working at f/1.8 with AF.

But if the OP's son isn't interested in portraits, it's a non issue. Similar for macro. Think the cheapest Nikon AF-S macro (60mm) is around £360.
The 60mm Sigma macro is more like £235, which obviously won't fit the D40.

Anyway, I don't want to start a battle and the comments above may have mistakes since I'm not a Nikon man

 

[TarMoo]

We are talking about a beginners Digital SLR camera here, not someone wanting a complete set of expensive lenses. The D40 is probably the best option for someone on a limited budget.

 

[senu]

I'm just trying to be unbiased.

I use Sony but will admit that if you are looking for a "cheap" 85mm portrait lens than it's not the camera to buy.
Same used to be true about wanting a 70-200 f/2.8 for Sony until a few weeks ago, but luckly you can now get Sigma and Tamron versions - prior to that, the only option was the £1800 Sony.

I know you can use the 50mm in manual focus, but if you have the aperture wide open at f/1.8 you'll really struggle getting eyes in focus without AF - unless you have a really static subject. It's hard enough working at f/1.8 with AF.

But if the OP's son isn't interested in portraits, it's a non issue. Similar for macro. Think the cheapest Nikon AF-S macro (60mm) is around £360.
The 60mm Sigma macro is more like £235, which obviously won't fit the D40.

Anyway, I don't want to start a battle and the comments above may have mistakes since I'm not a Nikon man

The point though is that the Sony is just as good for a beginner.. lens issue notwithstanding, and whose to say he wont become interested in Portraits anyhow?
However, for a 16 year old who may be changing it before he's turns 20 the issue of buying into a system and the associated costs, affordable lenses ( own and 3rd party ect ) are not to be ignored

The D40 is probably the best option for someone on a limited budget.

That would be his dad then?

 

[U'R'ss]

We are talking about a beginners Digital SLR camera here, not someone wanting a complete set of expensive lenses. The D40 is probably the best option for someone on a limited budget.

Could not agree more

 

[hilly10]

I love my D40 and will keep it when I upgrade to a D80 or similar it as certainly been a god send for my intro into DSLR terriorty