[stevesurf]

Credit to MrSlacker for breaking this; we didn't even know about this at the PhotoExpo. FYI the D50 will still stay in the Nikon Line Up for about 9 months:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

http://www2.photim.com/info/Sommaire.php

http://www.allengeorge.com/

From Nikonians:
Relevant Specs:

* 6.1 Megapixels
* Compressed 12-bit NEF, JPEG
* 3 AF points
* 2.5″ 230K pixel LCD
* Up to 19x magnification? (Thanks Erik37!)
* TTL (ISO 200 - 1600, HI1)
* 3 metering modes (420px meter):
o 3D Color Matrix Metering II
o Center-weighted metering (75% of center field)
o 8mm spot
* Program modes including flash… (Portrait, Landscape, Night, Spot, Child, Night Portrait)
* i-TTL compatible
* 1/500 Flash Sync
* USB 2.0
* SD, SD-HC
* Lithium-Ion EN-EL9
* 94×126x64 mm
* 475 grams without battery, memory card, LCD cover or body cap

 

[jdimitri]

Holy crap, it.. exists

 

[Dimitris]

This is excellent news for everyone who wants to start in photography. A camera so cheap would have never been on anyones dreams a few years ago.

 

[Arainach]

Hasn't been officially announced yet.

Thoughts:

(1) The lack of a top LCD is crap. Hello massive battery drain.
(2) The lack of a screwdriver motor to use standard AF lenses destroys compatibility with a wide array of great Nikon and 3rd Party glass, and will doubtless lead to piles of questions on camera forums about "Why won't my camera work with my lens"
(3) The body's too small. Looks like a Canon for goodness sake. The main REASON I went Nikon is because the Canon bodies felt too small in my hands.

 

[JahJahBinks]

I might consider getting it if it is less than $350.

 

[Arainach]

Dream On. Between increasing manufacturing costs and inflation, I have doubts to whether we'll ever see a respectable DSLR body for that price new.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

Dream On. Between increasing manufacturing costs and inflation, I have doubts to whether we'll ever see a respectable DSLR body for that price new.

I am sure people said the same thing when someone asked for a DSLR under $1000.

The more people that buy DSLRs, the lower the manufacturing costs get. Look at the price of HDTVs. I am not seeing inflation and higher manufacturing costs. Electronics just keep getting cheaper and cheaper.

 

[Arainach]

When you remove so many features from a body (like with the D40), most of the advantages of an SLR disappear. The people willing to shell out the bucks for good lenses won't be going with such poor bodies, and buying a body like that and a kit lens will still be considerably more expensive (and bulky) than the high-end point and shoots and won't deliver pictures of any better quality. At the end of the day, picture quality is about 65% user, 30% glass, and only 5% sensor.

 

[jbloudg20]

I'm pretty darn happy with my Rebel XT

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach Dream On. Between increasing manufacturing costs and inflation, I have doubts to whether we'll ever see a respectable DSLR body for that price new.

The Rebel XT (body only) MSRP is $900. Street price is $600. D50 (body only) MSRP is $700. Street price is $500.

With a $500 MSRP, it wouldn't surprise me if the D40 hits a street price of < $400.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach Hasn't been officially announced yet. Thoughts: (1) The lack of a top LCD is crap. Hello massive battery drain. (2) The lack of a screwdriver motor to use standard AF lenses destroys compatibility with a wide array of great Nikon and 3rd Party glass, and will doubtless lead to piles of questions on camera forums about "Why won't my camera work with my lens" (3) The body's too small. Looks like a Canon for goodness sake. The main REASON I went Nikon is because the Canon bodies felt too small in my hands.

I agree, Nikon is trying too hard to reach the consumer masses. At this point where so much of the things and advantages I like about DSLRs have been removed, you may as well just buy a high quality point and shoot. Ken Rockwell did an early summation of it and even though he is a bit pompous, I mostly agreed with him. The D50 is a great camera but the D40 is a waste of money.

 

[MrSlacker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 I agree, Nikon is trying too hard to reach the consumer masses. At this point where so much of the things and advantages I like about DSLRs have been removed, you may as well just buy a high quality point and shoot. Ken Rockwell did an early summation of it and even though he is a bit pompous, I mostly agreed with him. The D50 is a great camera but the D40 is a waste of money.

How can you tell that something is a waste of money when you didnt even see official specs? The specs that are out right now are just rumors and assumptions... and we all know what happens when you assume...

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSlacker How can you tell that something is a waste of money when you didnt even see official specs? The specs that are out right now are just rumors and assumptions... and we all know what happens when you assume...

So were the early specs on the D100, and the D70, and the D70S, and the D50, and the D200, and the...

Yes, they could be false, and I may very well be wrong. In fact I hope I am, I'm a huge Nikon fan and have been since I was small, as is my father. I hope to god that Nikon is doing this for the sake of reaching the photographers that can't afford their other DSLRs, and that they aren't selling out like another certain manufacturer however, history has thus far proven that theory false. On a side note, this was of course just imho and ime, there was no need to be an ******* about it.

 

[Sparky191]

The problem with P&S is that they are simply too slow. For taking pics of kids and babes or any action shots a P&S digital doesn't cut it. The super zoom in general use cramp too many pixels into a small sensor, and for me personally I think that the IQ of the super zooms (Sony R1 being the exception) is not worth the money you pay for them. For many people they simply want better IQ and a faster camera. Something like the D40 might be perfect for that.

Having just bought a D70s myself, I was originally going for a D50, but the D40 wouldn't really be of interest to me its too limited. But then I'm coming from a film SLR and have an interest in photography. So I don't think I'm the intended market.

 

[Xakepa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach When you remove so many features from a body (like with the D40), most of the advantages of an SLR disappear. The people willing to shell out the bucks for good lenses won't be going with such poor bodies, and buying a body like that and a kit lens will still be considerably more expensive (and bulky) than the high-end point and shoots and won't deliver pictures of any better quality. At the end of the day, picture quality is about 65% user, 30% glass, and only 5% sensor.

Couldn't be more true. If it doesn't have AF lens compatibility, or the same c***y viewpoint as D50/D70 I'll pass and keep shooting film and Canon A510 for backup. It's time for me to get a DSLR, but a grand for D80 alone (first Nikon "consumer" DSLR I consider decent) is prohibitive.