What to buy after a D40?

D

danelectro

Suspended / Banned
Messages
132
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

Ok, I've got my Nikon D40 (which is a brilliant camera) but am thinking of stepping up....but to what????

I've got a couple of lenses, and other bits, its just sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out on features with my D40.

I'm never going to be a pro, and I don't want to break the bank!!

So, what would you recommend?? Would I really benefit from a new camera???

Cheers

Neill
 
danbroad said:
No. Buy a 35mm f/1.8 prime and a 300mm f/4. for the same price as a D300.
Click to expand...

I would say this. I plan to learn as much as possible from my D40, to the point that I can take the photo exactly how I want it. Then when I can justify the expense of a higher model, only then will I buy it...
 
Thanks for the comments guys,

I have a Siggy 10-20 and also a nikon 70-300 vr.

So what would I get out of the lenses you mentioned??
 
Probably not much unless they're AF-S lenses. It depends what you want really, do you fancy venturing into short films and HD video or would you rather stick with the stills?

If you don't plan on doing video then a D200 may be a good step up. No doubt someone will jump in soon with something else though as I'm more a Canon guy now. I moved onto the 500d after my D40 and never looked back (I do lots of videos though).
 
danelectro said:
Hi guys,

Ok, I've got my Nikon D40 (which is a brilliant camera) but am thinking of stepping up....but to what????

I've got a couple of lenses, and other bits, its just sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out on features with my D40.

I'm never going to be a pro, and I don't want to break the bank!!

So, what would you recommend?? Would I really benefit from a new camera???

Cheers

Neill
Click to expand...

:shrug: What is the actual problem with the D40, Neil? Are there any of its functions which you feel should be improved upon? Anything you really don't like about it? Anything that you would like from a camera, which the doesn't currently do?

Without knowing the answers to at least some of these questions, it's impossible to offer any meaningful advice, IMO.

I could refer to my own experiences and tell you that I found the 3 AF points of the D40 to be very limiting, especially when working with very shallow DOF and that I found it too small and fiddly to manage when using long, heavy lenses. I also wanted better high ISO performance and the ability to use my non-motorised lenses with my second camera. Above all though, I was trying to do some wildlife stuff and I wanted more MPs on the sensor, so that I could get away with making slightly more drastic crops.

These were my reasons for choosing a D90 to replace the D40, but YMMV :shrug:.
 
May i suggest the Nikon D5000 (slightly biased i know). It has 11 AF points instead of the three, a 12.3mp sensor straight out of the D90/D300, it does auto bracketing which the D40/x does not do. Also the two lenses you already have are well thought of and if you have no intention of becoming a pro then you are not really in need of and new 'pro' glass or body. The lenses also have the inbuilt motor so its not necessary to get a D90 if you are only going to use these lenses. There are some very good deals to be had right now on this camera if you look around.

Neil
 
Thanks for all the comments guys, and Naboo, you've raised very valid questions, which if I'm honest, I can't answer! I guess mainly it was more megapixels, and little things like live view.
As for the D40, to be honest, if it wasn't for my trusty D40, I probably wouldn't have got this far with photography, i think it's a fab camera.

I guess also I was putting the question across as a general thing, what does everyone else do sort of thing!!!!

It's good to hear what you all have to say, it is much appreciated
 
danelectro said:
Thanks for all the comments guys, and Naboo, you've raised very valid questions, which if I'm honest, I can't answer! I guess mainly it was more megapixels, and little things like live view.
As for the D40, to be honest, if it wasn't for my trusty D40, I probably wouldn't have got this far with photography, i think it's a fab camera.

I guess also I was putting the question across as a general thing, what does everyone else do sort of thing!!!!

It's good to hear what you all have to say, it is much appreciated
Click to expand...

I went from a yr with a D40 to the D90 and i love it, well worth th extra £'s. The extra focus points, faster AF, the addition of the top windows which makes control/setup so much easier and quicker. I also prefer the size and weight which i think helps more with stability., biggest most noticable thing is sensor dust, there is none ever on the D90 with its built in cleaning :thumbs:

Oh and now i can produce large prints without any issues, d40 struggled at A3 on occasions
 
Nothing wrong with the D40 but I totally understand that you want a step up. I can't thank my old D40 enough but it really lacks in some features that although there are work arounds (like the auto-bracketing) it's still nice to have. My strong suggestion is don't get another camera that needs AF-S lenses, you're really limiting yourself in the long run. As everyone says, "glass before ass" but you need a capable ass to keep up with the glass.
 
danelectro said:
Thanks for the comments guys,

I have a Siggy 10-20 and also a nikon 70-300 vr...
Click to expand...


if they both auto-focus on the D40 - get a D5000

and maybe a 35mm AF-S for indoors
 
i had a D60 and was very happy with it , however it didn't stop me upgrading to the D90 when funds permitted , even though i was happy with the D60 i soon found that the D90 was worth the extra £££££££'s .

Features such as more focus points and bracketing soon proved this , another big plus was the extra buttons on the camera body helped (being able to change ISO settings etc ) without having to access the menus is a big bonus, the LCD screen on the top is a big help also. low light performance is also far superior and to be honest it feels better in my hands , probably because its a little bigger than the D60
 
Depends what sort of photos your taking. I agree with the people who say lenses fr the most part. They date a lot slower then camera bodies and in so you can take it and use it on your new bodies. One of my best investments to date is my 70-200mm f2.8. But for some that may not be the way to go.
 
I would consider selling the D40 and picking up a D80 which might cost you an extra £120-150. With the D80 you can then use cheaper lenses like the AF 50mm f1.8 due to the motor in the body.
 
I think the D90 is the only real upgrade, you can use all Nikon's lenses on it due to the inbuilt motor, excellent ISO handling (better than the D300) just feels nicer in your hand than a D40, and plenty more features, and you can pick one up for about £550 used, oh and did i say i may be selling mine soon :D
 
I have a D40x and a D80. The advantage of the D40 over the D80 is that it's a lot lighter and more compact. I dont find the lack of autofocus to be a problem with my 50mm and 24mm prime lens as it's very easy to do. Auto bracketing on the D80 is useful if you plan to do HDR but you can get the same effect by using a tripod and taking 3 shots at different exposures.
I do find it easier to adjust the ISO on the D80 and also the use of Flash with commander mode (no need for lead when using an off camera flash) to be useful.
The little window at the top of the D80 is also useful, but the small icons are not very easy to see if you need reading glasses.
 
The body is rarely the best upgrade you can make for the price. I can only think of a couple of specific examples where a body lets you get better shots: firstly, if you shoot such quick action that you need 10fps, and secondly, if you puch the low light boundaries so much that full frame is your only option.

Other than that, lenses all the way.
 
danbroad said:
The body is rarely the best upgrade you can make for the price. I can only think of a couple of specific examples where a body lets you get better shots: firstly, if you shoot such quick action that you need 10fps, and secondly, if you puch the low light boundaries so much that full frame is your only option.
Click to expand...

Point taken on some picture quality Dan, but many would disagree regarding other things, particularly if your using your camera as a pro you need uber reliability, and there's also the better menu's with dedicated buttons without having to go into the main camera menu, better ISO capabilities, Nikon's CLS system, all things the D40 doesn't have over say the D90/D300/D700 :)
 
Well you've given me lots to think about gents, I will mull it over!! I'm in no panic, just want to get it right when the time comes!

Thank you all!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top