[bigman]

Just picked up a D40 (with the usual 18-55 lens)and am quite impressed. The GUI is much better than the Pentax one.

The pictures are also much better. I did play about with the settings on the Pentax but the pictures always looked a shade dark to me. Under similar lighting the Nikon gives much better pictures.

Also picked up a Lowepro case. Had to pay the equivalent of RS60 to swap the Pentax K100D Super for the Nikon D40.

[MC Mayank]

Originally Posted by bigman

Just picked up a D40 (with the usual 18-55 lens)and am quite impressed. The GUI is much better than the Pentax one.

The pictures are also much better. I did play about with the settings on the Pentax but the pictures always looked a shade dark to me. Under similar lighting the Nikon gives much better pictures.

Also picked up a Lowepro case. Had to pay the equivalent of RS60 to swap the Pentax K100D Super for the Nikon D40.

Bigman, could you educate me a little bit on what swung it in favour of the D40? I've almost decided on a D40 but wondering if I should spend a little more on the body. What were the other options for you?

[bigman]

Mayank,

It was either the D40 or the 1000D for me. In the end I read reviews on both and had a feel of both. The D40 seemed a bit better to hold for me, body wise it has a similar finish to the Pentax I took back.

Also as I am a very causal user I felt paying the extra for the 1000D was not worth my while. Might as well put the extra £100 or so in my back pocket than have it sat in a cupboard in the form of a DSLR.

I liked liveview on the 1000D but thinking about it logically I thought it was a bit too much for myself as I take so few photos.

So I guess it all depends how you plan on using the camera. If you are serious about photography then it is probably worth investing in a decent camera. If you are a lazy photographer like me (uses the camera for a few birthday parties) then might as well go for the cheaper option.

Overall I am happy some of the guys on here suggested the D40. I feel a lot more comfortable with it than the Pentax.

[MC Mayank]

is the 18-55mm non VR kit lens ok? I can't find any packages that sell the 18-55mm with VR. I am a little concerned about the non VR. What's the general opinion?

[bharanidharang]

for all UK based guys... the nikon d40 with kit lens is now only 246 pounds. thats around Rs. 18K.

yes mayank.. the kit is non VR

[pulsar56]

Just acquired a D60 18-55mm VR Kit for 26k.
I think I got a good deal as some of the shops here were selling D40 for 35k.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by pulsar56

Just acquired a D60 18-55mm VR Kit for 26k.
I think I got a good deal as some of the shops here were selling D40 for 35k.

Holy Cow! Why is the D60 with 18-55mmVR cheaper than D40? That's a fantastic price you got. Congrats!

[bharanidharang]

Dont know abt hyd. In chennai D60 + kit (not sure with vr or without) without bill goes for around 28K while D40 is around 23K.

[MC Mayank]

Originally Posted by bharanidharang

for all UK based guys... the nikon d40 with kit lens is now only 246 pounds. thats around Rs. 18K.

yes mayank.. the kit is non VR

That's quite an incredible price. The D40 kit is still selling at USD 450 here in the US and with a 55-200 mm VR it goes for around USD 650.

The D60 with both lenses VR is selling at USD 700.

I am still considering whether I should go for a lens other than the 55-200mm VR. I do want to take up photography as a serious hobby. Want a good lens for low light photography too.Any suggestions?

[bharanidharang]

Its only available on amazon UK and argos. my guess is that they have discontinued the d40 in UK and the remaining stocks are getting cleared.

Now i have to find somebody to buy it and bring it to india

i am no photographer.

Just my 2 cents. Would you be often changing lenses ? the only bore with 18-55 + 55-200 is to keep on changing them on the camera. think of 18-200.

Rest of the lenses i am sure the cam guru's can suggest.

[jaibir]

Originally Posted by MC Mayank

I am still considering whether I should go for a lens other than the 55-200mm VR. I do want to take up photography as a serious hobby. Want a good lens for low light photography too.Any suggestions?

For low light, the 35mm f1.8 (~$200) and 50mm f1.4 (~$450ish - not sure) are good options on the D40/60 cameras. If you are willing to focus manually, the 50mm f1.8 is around $120 (its not AFS so wont autofocus on d40/60).

You should keep the low light lens distinct from the telephoto. Large aperture telephoto zooms are quite expensive. For the telephoto, the other option is the 70-300 VR, which is more than double the price of the 55-200 VR. I think the extra money is better invested in the 35mm 1.8 rather than a more expensive telephoto.

[MC Mayank]

I had pretty much decided on the D40 but a thought has been nagging me for the last couple of days though. That of 'outgrowing' the system as people refer to it as. There are some forums that say that the D40 might limit a serious enthusiast. I am hoping and praying this is not true. The D90 is almost twice the price with just the one kit lens. I don't know if it is justified to spend that much on the body. Can the experts help me clear my head here?

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by jaibir

For low light, the 35mm f1.8 (~$200) and 50mm f1.4 (~$450ish - not sure) are good options on the D40/60 cameras. If you are willing to focus manually, the 50mm f1.8 is around $120 (its not AFS so wont autofocus on d40/60).

You should keep the low light lens distinct from the telephoto. Large aperture telephoto zooms are quite expensive. For the telephoto, the other option is the 70-300 VR, which is more than double the price of the 55-200 VR. I think the extra money is better invested in the 35mm 1.8 rather than a more expensive telephoto.

I agree. That's sage advice from Jaibir.

One other thing Mayank, don't sweat too much about 18-55 kit lens with or without VR. You really need VR for longer focal lenghts so the 55-200 should have it. With the 18-55 it doesn't matter as much. The money you save by buying the D40 with the 18-55 non-VR can go toward the 35/1.8 DX - that lens will help you learn more and give you much more flexibility.

Originally Posted by MC Mayank

I had pretty much decided on the D40 but a thought has been nagging me for the last couple of days though. That of 'outgrowing' the system as people refer to it as. There are some forums that say that the D40 might limit a serious enthusiast. I am hoping and praying this is not true. The D90 is almost twice the price with just the one kit lens. I don't know if it is justified to spend that much on the body. Can the experts help me clear my head here?

There is no doubt that the D90 is a much more capable body and opens up the world of new and used regular Nikon AF lenses. But if you are just starting out, the D40 is fine. Learn photography and when you are ready and certain about what you need, go ahead and upgrade. By that time the D9000 will be here. At the end of the day the camera just takes pictures. It's you who has to learn how to use it well. For that, a D40 will do just as well as a D90.

What you need to guard against is overkill. Like any other electronic gadget, DSLRs now come with more and more features - most people use just a handful.

[MC Mayank]

Originally Posted by StarScream

I agree. That's sage advice from Jaibir.

One other thing Mayank, don't sweat too much about 18-55 kit lens with or without VR. You really need VR for longer focal lenghts so the 55-200 should have it. With the 18-55 it doesn't matter as much. The money you save by buying the D40 with the 18-55 non-VR can go toward the 35/1.8 DX - that lens will help you learn more and give you much more flexibility.

......It's you who has to learn how to use it well. For that, a D40 will do just as well as a D90.

Alrighty, from the views on this forum and a few others, I am freezing on the D40. I also have realised that rushing into buying lenses without knowing what they can actually do for me might not be such a good idea. I was interested in getting the 55-200 mm VR because the packages being sold here include it for about $200 more. I am returning to India in a couple of months and thought that it might be cheaper for me to get equipment from here that would have me set for another year at least.

What is the general difference in price for lenses between India and the US? Would one seriously advice getting the prime lens because it's much cheaper here? Or should I buy just the D40 kit with 18-55mm for now and then as I get well versed with the basics of photography and really know what tools I need, I could go for the upgrades at that point. Buying from India would be more expensive, but I wonder by how much.
I was thinking of the 55-200 mm VR to have more zoom than the 18-55mm but I am not sure now what to do. Man this starting-out-selection business is all so confusing. I just want to get my hands on my camera and start the learning process

The folks here have been a great help thus far. Do help me guys, in making the final call..

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by MC Mayank

I had pretty much decided on the D40 but a thought has been nagging me for the last couple of days though. That of 'outgrowing' the system as people refer to it as. There are some forums that say that the D40 might limit a serious enthusiast. I am hoping and praying this is not true. The D90 is almost twice the price with just the one kit lens. I don't know if it is justified to spend that much on the body. Can the experts help me clear my head here?

Dont know if my 2 cents come in time, but I am a happy D40 user. Extra battery grip and a Sb600 flash.
I use roughly andtravel through different weathers.

Picture quality? You'll find many pics in my various blogs - I think they're pretty good. I'm just happy with my D40.