Posted by Robert Fisher on November 16, 2006 at 5:51 PM
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25420. Nikon's announced their newest consumer DSLR. In keeping with their tradition of dumbing down their line as time goes on.
Nikon's real problem is that they are dependent on 3rd parties (mainly Sony) for their digital sensors. Until Sony delivers their next generation sensors, Nikon can't come up with much on the high end SLR line.
Guy
Posted by Richard Ennis on November 16, 2006 at 7:06 PM
At $599 with a 18-55mm AFS lens, Nikon is trying to capture first time DSLR users. I think it's a smart move.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 16, 2006 at 8:55 PM
Well, not everyone's in need of 16MP. What Richard and Pete said....
Posted by Ed Cordes on November 16, 2006 at 9:46 PM
Doesn't look like a toy to me. It looks like Nikon has put forth an entry level DSLR that has the capability of using the full line of Nikon lenses for those who are new to the whole DSLR thing. For the majority of family and vacation shooters this camera will fit their needs well. Would it fit mine? Not at all. However my needs are vastly different than those who are targeted by Nikon. I believe that many buyers will be happy with their purchase and some will find their interest in serious photography sparked so they will upgrade when desire and $$$ match.
After all I started my photography career with a 1960's Kodak Instamatic and grew from there.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 16, 2006 at 11:02 PM
I think that Nikon has created an intelligent product. There has been discussion of a Canon 3000D or something along those lines to head downmarket. Well Canon, you better hurry up cause Pentax and Nikon are going to be eating up your customers in this market.
One thing to note is that this lens only supports AFS lenses, not the entire Nikon line from what I've seen.
I do see some problems for marketing of this camera though.
1) you'll need an intelligent salesperson to explain why this 6mp camera is $200 better than a 10mp point and shoot. This camera might not sell itself on the shelf at Best Buy.
2) Without image stabilization of some flavor, the f3.5-5.6 kit type lenses don't provide much better image quality than alot of point and shoot cameras are capable of delivering. In fact lots of P&S cameras have faster lenses that this. People who buy these cameras might be disappointed with this specific performance, and not knowing otherwise, may revert to point and shoots without catching the photography bug.
It's not a matter of dumbing down or smart move, etc. Nikon and Canon both entice with a cheap camera capable of taking good pictures—if you buy very expensive lenses! They only package the cheap stuff at the getgo, which everyone sooner or later discovers.
The goal of life is not to arrive at the grave safely and well maintained; but rather to skid in full throttle coming to a screeching stop shouting "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up!"
Posted by Rob Theoret on November 17, 2006 at 2:19 AM
And just in time for X-MAS It should fit in to a lot of budgets !!!
I'm co-teaching a combined Photoshop/Digital Photo class right now, and pocket cams dominate among the students. This model has created more stir than its features seem to warrant. Price point for a "real" digital camera including lens is the dominant cause of the excitement. Some kind of magic barrier has been broken with this model, and I expect to see lots after Christmas.
Interesting side note: My approach to teaching has been to talk about the virtues and capabilities of any camera rather than its shortcomings. In a nutshell, I've never put down a pocket camera, and in fact enthuse over their advantages when you don't need to make art prints or get published in a magazine. Even so, all the students feel a little inferior for using them and are anxious to join the club or play with the big dogs using "real" cameras. This one will make huge inroads with anyone feeling apologetic about their digicam.
Posted by Basil Greber on November 17, 2006 at 5:12 PM
I think Mel Ladewig has summed it up nicely.
Basil
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 17, 2006 at 10:58 PM
I'll expand on my initial comment a little to give a little more insight into my impression of Nikon.
I agree that this camera is likely targeted toward the person who's currently using a compact digicam and may be enticed by the idea of a DSLR at a reasonable price. I also agree that it may be a good starter kit for the new photographer. This is where I begin to have a problem with Nikon's approach.
They did the same thing with their film cameras. They brought out cameras that were less expensive but also had fewer features and/or less fulsome features. The D40 is the same. It's not necessarily a camera that someone can grow with. The lens lineup is very limited. The feature set is limited. If someone were to buy this camera and then become more interested in photography and more advanced in their knowledge, they may (note I said may) have to buy a new camera to allow them to take advantage of some features they may want to use.
I like having a camera I can grow into. I like the idea of having a camera I can use for many years to come. I still shoot film (Canon). My 20 year old EOS 620 and my 5 year old Elan II both have very nearly the same features and I still don't use all of them. When I buy a digital camera it will be a 5D (a) because I want full frame and (b) because it's a camera I'm confident I will be able to use for many years.
So while I agree that Nikon will likely capture pretty decent sales figures with this camera I don't agree with what is, apparently, their philosophy as far as how they may attract new users to their SLR cameras and perhaps force them to spend more money if they want more advanced capabilities (or better lenses, since there's even concern that Nikon's VR lenses may not work on the D40).
Sounds it's not the camera for you. Obviously it's not aimed at you, and you need to buy a D80 or better.
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 18, 2006 at 9:10 AM
Well, that and the fact that I'm a Canon shooter, Hank.
And you're right, it's not aimed at me. That's not really the point though. The point is that it hits at what I feel is Nikon's overall approach to their customers. It's not a Canon vs. Nikon issue. It's a Nikon vs. customers issue and I don't feel that Nikon does a great job, overall, of serving its customers. It seems to me that Nikon's main interest is product turnover. I think you can do both and that other manufacturers seem to do a better job of it.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 18, 2006 at 11:34 AM
"The lens lineup is very limited...The feature set is very limited."
In what way, Robert? I can appreciate that a particular camera is not for you, but your argument against the D40 isn't sound - at least not based on what's written above.
With regards to Nikon's film cameras, I started with (and still own) an N6006 entry level film camera and the features on it are not significantly different from my F100, my D70 or my D2X. I've used the same lenses on all of those cameras. So, no significant limitations that I'm aware of. I bought the N6006 because, at the time, it was less expensive than the Canon equivalent. The quality of my photography hasn't changed based on the supposed increased capability of my higher end Nikon cameras; it's changed based on the increased capability of me.
Moving to the D40, it shares features similar to my D2X. Specifically what "advanced features' does the D40 lack that a higher end D-series offers, understanding that there will always be a differentiation between an entry-level and advanced-amateur or pro-series camera. The question is whether or note those missing features limit creative image-making, or are they just bells & whistles.
I'm really interested in knowing where you, as a user of the D40, would find yourself limited. Can you link to a picture that would be impossible/difficult to make with the D40? Not trying to be comabative; just trying to reconcile your conviction with your reasoning.
By the way, isn't it Canon who has changed its lens mounts over the years, limiting compatibility of older lenses with newer cameras? The old FD series? I might be wrong - I'm not a Canon guru - but that's my recollection.
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Well, in terms of the lens limitations, I have yet to find a definitive answer anywhere to whether or not VR lenses can be used with this camera. The fact that it apparently only compatible Nikon's AF-S or AF-I lenses might prevent some from buying it as an entry level DSLR if they've been using a Nikon film camera and have some AF lenses already.
I agree completely that better photos are largely a product of photographic skill. It's a matter that sometimes a feature in the camera may make getting a photo a bit easier. Just as an example, I haven't seen that this camera has AE Lock. Maybe it does and I just haven't seen it anywhere yet. And I don't think you're being combative at all. I admit that I'm not as knowledgeable as many on Nikon gear. Since I do a lot of multiple exposure shooting, Canon became the default for me because their cameras have this feature where many others (Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) did not except perhaps on their top end bodies or only for 2 exposures on some of their mid and lower end cameras. 200 as the slowest ISO speed is another example, making slow shutter speed shooting more difficult. Is the apparent target market for this camera going to need that capability? Perhaps not right out of the gate but if they become more interested and want to do more than take family vacation snaps (which is apparently who this camera is being marketed to) they may have limitations then. It's interesting that the camera has a 1/500 flash sync speed which is a feature that the target market for this camera may never need to take advantage of even if they become more advanced.
And yes, Canon did change the mount when they went from manual to automatic cameras. Pissed a lot of people off too. There are adapters; however, that will allow FD lenses to be used on EF bodies. There are some drawbacks of the adapters (no infinity focus using an adapter without glass and infinity focus but a small TC effect using an adapter with glass) but the possibility is there.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 18, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Looks like the D40 accepts AF-S, AF-I, AF-D, AF-DX, AF-G and AI/P; it autofocuses with the first two types - not a big limitation for an entry level DSLR, imo. It does have AE-L. It doesn't handle VR, but I think its unlikely that someone would have a VR lens, and then look to put it on a entry-level D40. VR capability would add cost to every camera, where only a small handful of people would ever benefit from that combo. I'd argue that they'd lose more sales due to an extra $100 on the pricetag than they'd lose due to no VR capability. Golden rule of marketing - only give the customer what they're willing to pay for when they're making the puchasing decision; give them more (i.e., charge them more) and they'll go elsewhere. The average D40 user probably isn't contemplating VR capability and won't want to pay for it.
I didn't like that my D70 only went to ISO 200, but to me that's a bell & whistle thing. When I wanted long exposures, I stopped down and/or used a ND. It would have been nice to have 50 or 100 though.
DP Review has a good review of the D40, including pros and cons. No doubt that some of the features missing or modified for an entry level DSLR would be appealing to a more advanced photographer, but I think it's difficult to argue that it's a toy or significantly limits the owner of older Nikon gear. As far as wanting/making customers to "spend more money if they want more advanced capabilities", that's the business model of just about every company I can think of, including Canon.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 18, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Does this camera allow you to
1) adjust the aperature manually
2) adjust the shutter speed manually
3) focus the lens manually if desired
4) adjust the ISO (being digital and all)
5) in this format of camera, a built in exposure meter is handy.
These are the factors that are needed to make a camera function and with them a creative mind can make great images. Granted there are functions that automate these tasks on higher end cameras, but these are the functions a camera needs to have in order to not hobble the customer. There are higher resolution cameras, but for a 4X6 snapshot at 240 dpi, you only need ~1.4 megapixels.
Did Canon not dumb down the 10D to create the 300D (digital Rebel)? They specifically disabled functions in the firmware that the camera was capable of delivering to create a pricepoint/function divider between to the two cameras. So which is the greater disservice to the customer?
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 19, 2006 at 9:25 AM
Rick, when I said "compatible", I meant in terms of auto focus capability and I think you probably knew that. WRT VR, I guess I figured since some DReb owners use their IS lenses (particularly the popular 28-135) I thought Nikon owners might like to do the same.
Obviously I'm wrong in my thinking on all of this. So be it. It's happened before.
Posted by Bruce Painter on November 20, 2006 at 5:12 PM
I don't see where the D40 is missing anything that will allow any digital beginner to grow in their photography skills. As matter of fact having some of the auto-exposure modes in my opinion can slow the learning of "some" new photographers. Will these modes help them take some better photos right out of the box? Yes. Will it allow them to get some bad photos? Yes. Will they know why they got either? No. I see two groups of buyers for this camera. A beginner who wants to get into digital photography and learn and grow, not only in their skills but eventually into a better camera. The other group are the ones who have no real interest in learning photography but view the SLR as being better than a point & shoot. They have the money to buy it but will end up using it in the "P" mode as an expensive P&S camera.
As to the use of VR or IS lens in general with beginners I think it gives some of them a false sense of security in how slow a shutter speed they can use handheld and without learning about the balance of focal length vs. shutter speed they will again not know why the photos are not good.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should all go back to full manual cameras. It's just without using these features as a crutch people who want to can learn faster (if learning is their goal) as they have nothing to fall back on.
Discussion
20 repliesGuy
Pete D.
After all I started my photography career with a 1960's Kodak Instamatic and grew from there.
One thing to note is that this lens only supports AFS lenses, not the entire Nikon line from what I've seen.
I do see some problems for marketing of this camera though.
1) you'll need an intelligent salesperson to explain why this 6mp camera is $200 better than a 10mp point and shoot. This camera might not sell itself on the shelf at Best Buy.
2) Without image stabilization of some flavor, the f3.5-5.6 kit type lenses don't provide much better image quality than alot of point and shoot cameras are capable of delivering. In fact lots of P&S cameras have faster lenses that this. People who buy these cameras might be disappointed with this specific performance, and not knowing otherwise, may revert to point and shoots without catching the photography bug.
The goal of life is not to arrive at the grave safely and well maintained; but rather to skid in full throttle coming to a screeching stop shouting "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up!"
Interesting side note: My approach to teaching has been to talk about the virtues and capabilities of any camera rather than its shortcomings. In a nutshell, I've never put down a pocket camera, and in fact enthuse over their advantages when you don't need to make art prints or get published in a magazine. Even so, all the students feel a little inferior for using them and are anxious to join the club or play with the big dogs using "real" cameras. This one will make huge inroads with anyone feeling apologetic about their digicam.
Basil
I agree that this camera is likely targeted toward the person who's currently using a compact digicam and may be enticed by the idea of a DSLR at a reasonable price. I also agree that it may be a good starter kit for the new photographer. This is where I begin to have a problem with Nikon's approach.
They did the same thing with their film cameras. They brought out cameras that were less expensive but also had fewer features and/or less fulsome features. The D40 is the same. It's not necessarily a camera that someone can grow with. The lens lineup is very limited. The feature set is limited. If someone were to buy this camera and then become more interested in photography and more advanced in their knowledge, they may (note I said may) have to buy a new camera to allow them to take advantage of some features they may want to use.
I like having a camera I can grow into. I like the idea of having a camera I can use for many years to come. I still shoot film (Canon). My 20 year old EOS 620 and my 5 year old Elan II both have very nearly the same features and I still don't use all of them. When I buy a digital camera it will be a 5D (a) because I want full frame and (b) because it's a camera I'm confident I will be able to use for many years.
So while I agree that Nikon will likely capture pretty decent sales figures with this camera I don't agree with what is, apparently, their philosophy as far as how they may attract new users to their SLR cameras and perhaps force them to spend more money if they want more advanced capabilities (or better lenses, since there's even concern that Nikon's VR lenses may not work on the D40).
And you're right, it's not aimed at me. That's not really the point though. The point is that it hits at what I feel is Nikon's overall approach to their customers. It's not a Canon vs. Nikon issue. It's a Nikon vs. customers issue and I don't feel that Nikon does a great job, overall, of serving its customers. It seems to me that Nikon's main interest is product turnover. I think you can do both and that other manufacturers seem to do a better job of it.
In what way, Robert? I can appreciate that a particular camera is not for you, but your argument against the D40 isn't sound - at least not based on what's written above.
With regards to Nikon's film cameras, I started with (and still own) an N6006 entry level film camera and the features on it are not significantly different from my F100, my D70 or my D2X. I've used the same lenses on all of those cameras. So, no significant limitations that I'm aware of. I bought the N6006 because, at the time, it was less expensive than the Canon equivalent. The quality of my photography hasn't changed based on the supposed increased capability of my higher end Nikon cameras; it's changed based on the increased capability of me.
Moving to the D40, it shares features similar to my D2X. Specifically what "advanced features' does the D40 lack that a higher end D-series offers, understanding that there will always be a differentiation between an entry-level and advanced-amateur or pro-series camera. The question is whether or note those missing features limit creative image-making, or are they just bells & whistles.
I'm really interested in knowing where you, as a user of the D40, would find yourself limited. Can you link to a picture that would be impossible/difficult to make with the D40? Not trying to be comabative; just trying to reconcile your conviction with your reasoning.
By the way, isn't it Canon who has changed its lens mounts over the years, limiting compatibility of older lenses with newer cameras? The old FD series? I might be wrong - I'm not a Canon guru - but that's my recollection.
I agree completely that better photos are largely a product of photographic skill. It's a matter that sometimes a feature in the camera may make getting a photo a bit easier. Just as an example, I haven't seen that this camera has AE Lock. Maybe it does and I just haven't seen it anywhere yet. And I don't think you're being combative at all. I admit that I'm not as knowledgeable as many on Nikon gear. Since I do a lot of multiple exposure shooting, Canon became the default for me because their cameras have this feature where many others (Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) did not except perhaps on their top end bodies or only for 2 exposures on some of their mid and lower end cameras. 200 as the slowest ISO speed is another example, making slow shutter speed shooting more difficult. Is the apparent target market for this camera going to need that capability? Perhaps not right out of the gate but if they become more interested and want to do more than take family vacation snaps (which is apparently who this camera is being marketed to) they may have limitations then. It's interesting that the camera has a 1/500 flash sync speed which is a feature that the target market for this camera may never need to take advantage of even if they become more advanced.
And yes, Canon did change the mount when they went from manual to automatic cameras. Pissed a lot of people off too. There are adapters; however, that will allow FD lenses to be used on EF bodies. There are some drawbacks of the adapters (no infinity focus using an adapter without glass and infinity focus but a small TC effect using an adapter with glass) but the possibility is there.
I didn't like that my D70 only went to ISO 200, but to me that's a bell & whistle thing. When I wanted long exposures, I stopped down and/or used a ND. It would have been nice to have 50 or 100 though.
DP Review has a good review of the D40, including pros and cons. No doubt that some of the features missing or modified for an entry level DSLR would be appealing to a more advanced photographer, but I think it's difficult to argue that it's a toy or significantly limits the owner of older Nikon gear. As far as wanting/making customers to "spend more money if they want more advanced capabilities", that's the business model of just about every company I can think of, including Canon.
1) adjust the aperature manually
2) adjust the shutter speed manually
3) focus the lens manually if desired
4) adjust the ISO (being digital and all)
5) in this format of camera, a built in exposure meter is handy.
These are the factors that are needed to make a camera function and with them a creative mind can make great images. Granted there are functions that automate these tasks on higher end cameras, but these are the functions a camera needs to have in order to not hobble the customer. There are higher resolution cameras, but for a 4X6 snapshot at 240 dpi, you only need ~1.4 megapixels.
Did Canon not dumb down the 10D to create the 300D (digital Rebel)? They specifically disabled functions in the firmware that the camera was capable of delivering to create a pricepoint/function divider between to the two cameras. So which is the greater disservice to the customer?
Obviously I'm wrong in my thinking on all of this. So be it. It's happened before.
As to the use of VR or IS lens in general with beginners I think it gives some of them a false sense of security in how slow a shutter speed they can use handheld and without learning about the balance of focal length vs. shutter speed they will again not know why the photos are not good.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should all go back to full manual cameras. It's just without using these features as a crutch people who want to can learn faster (if learning is their goal) as they have nothing to fall back on.
Bruce