[JahJahBinks]

ouch, its price is not even close to $350, I am out.

 

[john_jcb]

One of these days I am going to make the jump to digital but for now I will stick with my Nikon F4. Never any complaints although film is a pain compared to the ease of digital. I still enjoy a good slide show though and am not totally convinced that the color rendition can be beat.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin Why would anyone get a D40 when you can get the D50 CHEAPER is beyond me.

The D40 MSRP is more expensive than the D50 street price. The D40 street price will fall, and the D40 will be cheaper than the D50 is now. All digital camera's go for much less than MSRP after they've been on the market for a few months.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin Did you try the 10D, 20D or 30D ? The Rebel XT/XTi are small but the 30D are bigger and fit much better in the hand. Besides you can get a vertical grip for both as well.

I'm coming from a Canon A2 with grip, which can be used as a defensive weapon when threatened, so the size of the XTi was hard to swallow. The size sucks, but the grip really helps, and I consider it a must have.


Sadly, at the entry level of DSLR, we (people who move the dial away from auto) are always going to have to deal with the soccer mom factor. It's the only reason I can imagine why Canon and Nikon would make such wee little cameras.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin The D40 MSRP is more expensive than the D50 street price. The D40 street price will fall, and the D40 will be cheaper than the D50 is now. All digital camera's go for much less than MSRP after they've been on the market for a few months.

For the sake of a few $ difference when the price comes down, who still would get a D40 ? Yes it is an entry level, but there are a few fundenmentals that I could not live without in an SLR and the D40 just does not have it.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin For the sake of a few $ difference when the price comes down, who still would get a D40 ? Yes it is an entry level, but there are a few fundenmentals that I could not live without in an SLR and the D40 just does not have it.

It's likely going to be more than a few dollars off. DLSR street prices are generally 70-80% of MSRP after initial launch. ~ $450 for a DSLR w/ decent kit lens gets prices pretty close to the P&S crowd.

I've highlighted the operative word in your post. You can't live with the features missing in the D40? Good, buy the D70/80, that's what Nikon wanted you do do in the first place. The target audience for the D40/50 are people who are new to DSLR ownership. The D40's lack of features prevents it from cannibalizing D70/80 sales. Those people, like me, won't miss those features and will appreciate the significantly lower price.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin It's likely going to be more than a few dollars off. DLSR street prices are generally 70-80% of MSRP after initial launch. ~ $450 for a DSLR w/ decent kit lens gets prices pretty close to the P&S crowd. I've highlighted the operative word in your post. You can't live with the features missing in the D40? Good, buy the D70/80, that's what Nikon wanted you do do in the first place. The target audience for the D40/50 are people who are new to DSLR ownership. The D40's lack of features prevents it from cannibalizing D70/80 sales. Those people, like me, won't miss those features and will appreciate the significantly lower price.

My point was it took away from what was already in the previous generation entry level, not compare it to the higher end models.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin My point was it took away from what was already in the previous generation entry level, not compare it to the higher end models.

I know. The previous generation entry level was probably cannibalizing higher end model sales. Nikon took steps to prevent that, while making the price more attractive to the intended audience.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin I know. The previous generation entry level was probably cannibalizing higher end model sales. Nikon took steps to prevent that, while making the price more attractive to the intended audience.

I am no multi-national businessman/Director but how about rather than taking a step backwards, they take a step forward by impoving the D70 to make it more distinctive and more value for money?

 

[Xakepa]

There's a word to describe what D40 is on Nov 16, 2006 for a Nikon shooter - an abomination.

It really beats me who on earth will want this POS over D50...my only guess is it'll hit holiday frying pan at $349 or even $299...

 

[JahJahBinks]

Yeah, I will take it when it's $199

 

[mbriant]

If the 1/500 sec. flash sync is true, that's a very good thing for those who use fill flash properly. Nikon's camera development has been like this for as long as I can remember ... newer, lesser models often wind up with certain advanced features not found on even the existing pro models costing many times more.

 

[blip]

I would actually be happy about this if they were keeping the D50 in the line. More people using SLRs means that Nikon will devote more R & D to the cameras, lenses etc. that are useful to me. Besides that, if they get it cheap enough it might be a handy back-up body or knock around camera. I mean think about it, a cheap camera that is compatible with i-TTL and most of your lenses. (Depending on your kit of course)

But eliminating the D50 is a real shame. From my limited experience with one (I shoot a D70 but I have used a friend's D50 on a few occasions) it was almost a perfect intro-SLR. The fundamentals were all good and it had enough amenities (relatively good ergonomics, plentiful displays etc.) to really show people why it is easier to take pictures with a half decent camera.

In comparison the D40 is basically a P&S and not even a particularly good one. Rockwell is right, anyone half-way serious about photography would find this thing annoying and counter-productive. Sure it will be fine for people who leave it on program and never even touch the compensation... but it represents the destruction of what I thought was a good trend of cheap but useful cameras.

And there is a market there. Take my father... he was a photography teacher for 25 years or so and has been pondering making the digital jump. But he is a retired teacher so he isn't exactly overflowing with funds. The D50 would have been a perfect compromise between price and features for him... but I couldn't see him ever accepting the D40 as his primary camera.