Nikon D40 w/ lenses from Costco

[akack79]

Interested in getting an intro level DSLR camera and have decided on the Nikon D40.
From my research, the general consensus is that 6.1 mgpx is adequate and what matters most are the lenses.

What do you experts think about this from Costco, it seems like a good price to me:

1) D40 w/ 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S
DX Zoom-NIKKOR Lens

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...-Cat83&topnav=

2) D40 w/ 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S
DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR Lens with optical image stabilization

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...-Cat83&topnav=

[Amir87]

I got the Nikon D40x kit with the small lens and the 55-200mm W/O image stabilization, and I think the 55-200mm lens is a very good lens for a beginner, such as me.

Nikon FTW!

[TopDown]

Originally Posted by akack79

Interested in getting an intro level DSLR camera and have decided on the Nikon D40.
From my research, the general consensus is that 6.1 mgpx is adequate and what matters most are the lenses.

Yes, 6.1 mp is adequate.

No, what matters most is not the lenses. That may have been true years ago when there was a noticeable difference between lenses, but not today. The most critical item in a digital camera is the sensor/software - the difference between photographs rendered by different sensors can be easily be seen by most people.

The Nikon D40 is a fine choice.

(BTW, the absolute most critical item in photography doesn't even have anything to do with the camera. It's the photographer's skill)

[The_Blob]

The lense is the very important. I have the Nikon D40S and my Canon 20D outperforms the D40S in terms of image quality almost all of the time. Yes, it's also because the Canon 20D is 8.2 megapixel camera but Canon has better lenses.

Also, I have a Canon Powershot G6. It's a 7.1 megapixel camera. The Powershot G6 has superior image quality than the Powershot G9 which is a 12.1 megapixel camera because lense the G6 has a way better lense! Not to mention that the G6 has a fast f 2.0 lense too.

I'm also a big fan of fast processors.... Canon is faster than Nikon and that's why you see almost all sports photographers use Canon. Quality wise, Nikon SLR camera bodies are very high quality and tough and they're probably even better than Canons. But it's the photo you're after. All in all, in my opinion, Canon is just slightly better than Nikon.

[TurboFan]

As long as you are sticking to Canon or Nikon, whatever body you get is fine. The lens is then far more important then everything except your skill.

"It's a little bit the fiddle, much more who holds the bow."

The extra $50 would be money well spent in my book, but you need a tripod with either lens.

As far as Canon over Nikon, or Nikon over Canon, I've seen and heard it all. If one was really better than the other, wouldn't one be out of business?

You see Canon most noticeably because of those stupid white lenses. They stand out. That said, Canon did focus on a lighter, faster focusing tele for a while, and had a better / cheaper offering for a while with the light super-tele market. Nikon stuck to their roots of making the best lens no matter what, which means it will be HEAVY!!! Not good for sports, where you need to be able to move around. It also didn't focus as fast. Also not good for sports. That was more than a few years ago. The gap has been narrowed with the AF-s lenses from Nikon, and now I see a pretty even mix of both brands.

If you go on a nature shoot, look to see what most pros use - Nikon. What else do you see quite a bit of? Canon. They're both good. It comes down to what matters more than anything......

....how the camera fits you. You need to be comfortable with it. If anyone starts telling you that one is better for you than another, without meeting you, or being with you while you handle a camera, I would immediately disregard anything they have to say. It's obviously misinformed and biased to one product or another.

If you've done your research and you are happy with the D40x, go for it, and start taking pictures. Personally I'd spend the extra $50 for the VR lens, that 55-200VR is supposed to be a good lens.

[TopDown]

"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." - Dorothea Lange, American documentary photographer

[fmquadri]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

As long as you are sticking to Canon or Nikon, whatever body you get is fine. The lens is then far more important then everything except your skill.

"It's a little bit the fiddle, much more who holds the bow."

The extra $50 would be money well spent in my book, but you need a tripod with either lens.

As far as Canon over Nikon, or Nikon over Canon, I've seen and heard it all. If one was really better than the other, wouldn't one be out of business?

You see Canon most noticeably because of those stupid white lenses. They stand out. That said, Canon did focus on a lighter, faster focusing tele for a while, and had a better / cheaper offering for a while with the light super-tele market. Nikon stuck to their roots of making the best lens no matter what, which means it will be HEAVY!!! Not good for sports, where you need to be able to move around. It also didn't focus as fast. Also not good for sports. That was more than a few years ago. The gap has been narrowed with the AF-s lenses from Nikon, and now I see a pretty even mix of both brands.

If you go on a nature shoot, look to see what most pros use - Nikon. What else do you see quite a bit of? Canon. They're both good. It comes down to what matters more than anything......

....how the camera fits you. You need to be comfortable with it. If anyone starts telling you that one is better for you than another, without meeting you, or being with you while you handle a camera, I would immediately disregard anything they have to say. It's obviously misinformed and biased to one product or another.

If you've done your research and you are happy with the D40x, go for it, and start taking pictures. Personally I'd spend the extra $50 for the VR lens, that 55-200VR is supposed to be a good lens.

well put. Also agree that you should get the VR - when you're zoomed in at 200mm and f/5.6 later in the day- you'll wish you had that extra help.

[Jurisprudent]

I have a D60 with the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR. I probably don't need the VR so much on the 18-55, but I've already seen the benefits of VR on the 55-200 in taking night and low light pictures without a flash... I got away with things I shouldn't have been able to do without a tripod, albeit at a slightly higher ISO than I would prefer.

Incidentally, as someone who was coming from a Fuji s6500fd (known for its low light capabilities), I've been very impressed with the D60's higher iso performance. I expected it to be better, but I didn't appreciate how much better it would be - esp. at ISO 1600 which was really of limited use before.

[dpouldar90210]

would you suggest the nikon d40 over the sony a200? the sony has 10 megapixels while the nikon has only 6.2.. but ive heard good things about the nikon. WHICH CAMERA DO U SUGGEST?????

[BMWE90]

Originally Posted by dpouldar90210

would you suggest the nikon d40 over the sony a200? the sony has 10 megapixels while the nikon has only 6.2.. but ive heard good things about the nikon. WHICH CAMERA DO U SUGGEST?????

Canon and Nikon seem to be the biggest names in digital photography. I've read something about the Sony as well as the Nikon but can't find the link. Basically both are great cameras so you can't go wrong with either one. However, be willing to spend a little more money for perhaps the Nikon D60 which has 10.1 MP. MP doesn't matter that much but the difference between a 6.2 and a 10.1 is quite noticeable I suggest you read the reviews on sites such as www.dpreview.com and the customer reviews on amazon and circuitcity.