most slr buyers (film or digital) only buy one lens, maybe two lenses, total. they get the kit lens and possibly a second kit lens and that's it.

the d40/d60 are targeted at such a user. they are not targeted at the more advanced user who already has or expects to buy various lenses, particularly used ones. plus, the d40/d60 lack a number of features that an advanced user would probably want. they're entry level cameras.

once the scanner has enough resolution to resolve individual film grains (which high end scanners can easily do), there is no degradation from scanning. and even with not so high end scanners, the difference is negligible.

grain is noise. whether it is 'good' or not is subjective and it can be added back if desired. it's much better to start with an accurate and noise-free representation of the subject and later add whatever effect one wants, whether it is grain or something else entirely. and unlike film, the level can be adjusted afterwards; with film, one can't redo the development to change the grain.

people are simply accustomed to the characteristics of film. it's a lot like people preferring vinyl records or tube amps because of the 'warm sound,' which is just another word for 'distortion.'

there are plenty of crappy film images cluttering up people's closets in the proverbial shoebox. just because it's easy to post lousy photos on flickr does not mean digital itself is a lousy medium.

and as you said above, quality is not what really matters; it's the subject and composition.

i'm curious how you determined that, since digital can have a wider and more accurate colour gamut than film. and what about the rest of the spectrum, other than the one shade of red?

and while kodachrome was a great film, there's only one remaining lab in the world that processes it. even kodak no longer handles it. there will come a time when they decide it is no longer cost effective, probably when kodak ceases to manufacture the film itself.

film requires more effort to preserve than digital, plus it is impossible to make a backup of film that is identical to the original.

instead, you have to worry about fire, floods, mold, fungus, fading, tearing, scratches, etc. you have only one original copy of film images and if they're destroyed or damaged in any way, you lose everything.

8x10 format film is certainly nice but that's hardly a fair comparison with a 35mm format slr, film or digital. and in 50 years, there will be noticeable degradation of the film images, whereas there will be none with digital.

the fact remains that any modern dslr made in the last five or so years produces images that are better than from any 35mm film camera (significantly so in some cases), in addition to having more features, such as more sophisticated autofocus, live view, etc.

Other than the focusing motor, which feature is lacking in the D40/D60?

Actually, I prefer SD, but at the cost of flash cards nowadays, it's a trivial issue (a class 6 8GB costs under $20). The D80 is better than the D70, and the D50 is as well. The D50's sensor is 2 years newer than the D70 sensor, and the D80 sensor is 3 years newer. And I own both.

And the lenses I bought are made in Japan high quality Nikkors, not cheap kit lenses, but having bought them 2nd hand, I paid the same type of prices I'd have paid for less well built kit lenses. And the prime lenses I bought are simply MUCH better than all but the most expensive (well over $1000) pro zoom lenses. But those primes do not autofocus on a D40 or D60. The lenses I bought are quite a bit better than the basic kit lenses - especially in terms of freedom from distortion at the wide end, and in terms of maximum apertures. As well as build quality.

And incidentally, VR doesn't work for stopping motion blur for sports work. Most users of the 80-200mm f2.8 are buying the lens for shooting sports or other action. VR is worthless for that - but it is useful for many other hand held applications - such as shooting fashion or events like weddings. And the difference is not $900 vs $1300, it's $600 vs $1700.

The lack of a focusing motor is a HUGE issue - it basically precludes using reasonably priced primes, with exactly one exception, the 35mm f1.8 that Nikon just introduced.

Another major issue is the Autofocus performance of an 11 point system on the D80/D90/D200, vs the much simpler AF system of the D40/D60.

Also, the sophistication of the ability to use external flash is much greater on a D80.

Most other differences are rather minor. But, frankly, I'll never consider a body without it's own focus motor, because it precludes most of the best value prime lenses, as well as most of the better value Nikkor zooms on the 2nd hand market. I bought a used D50 as a backup body, rather than a D40 or D60 because of the focus motor.

the ones that immediately come to mind are it won't meter with manual focus lenses, its autofocus only has 3 points (versus 11-51 on other bodies), mirror lock-up, no wireless flash commander mode, no gps input and more reliance on menus to configure it.

it also lacks more esoteric features such as 14 bit a/d converter, an intervalometer, individual lens calibration and an artificial horizon.

on the other hand, the d40/d60 can mount old non-ai lenses without risk of damage, whereas no other recent nikon body can do that. because of that risk, many people avoid non-ai lenses (or have them modified so they can be used), and they can be found for very little money.

What I meant was that most people don't care about the quality, as long as it's easy. How else could 110 and Kodak disk have had commercial success?


I mainly do railroad photography, and nothing else makes Canadian Pacific red look right. Since its outdoors, other films or digital can get everything else pretty close, but that's not critical. As long as the trees are green, the eye is happy. However, the red seems to be tricky to render so that you can look at an image and say its right. With Fuji, it tends to go to orange, same with digital. If I correct it, the other colours go off. The now discontinued Ektachrome EPN was a close second because it doesn't have the hyper saturation that most films have. Velvia is terrible, it makes everything look like Disneyland. I probably could get everything right if I spent a lot of time in Photoshop with masking and layers, but why bother when I can do it the easy way?

Kodachrome has one other unique advantage, and that's the rem-jet backing that no other film has had. It absorbs stray light and makes for a cleaner image. In railfan circles, there is a well known phenomon called "FHB" or Fuji headlight blob, which is a secondary ghosting or halo image of the headlights caused by light scatter within the emulsion. The coating on Kodachrome absorbs this, and its never a problem.


How so? I file the negs in archival sleeves, index it and forget about it. It really couldn't be much easier. I never have to worry about upgrading to "shoebox 2.0". Perhaps try Googling "digital dark age" to see why I'm concerned about all electronic data.


Never lost anything yet in 25 years. I live in a dry climate so mould isn't an issue, and I usually shoot several in camera "dupes". One to file, another to make prints from. I have had hard drive crashes and lost data though.


That's certainly not true. I've made Cibachromes from 5"x7" Kodachrome originals shot between 1945 and 1953 and the colours are as bright as when they were shot. Ektachromes faded badly, but not Kodachrome. Modern E6 films are estimated to be good for at least 100 years, and of course colour fading isn't an issue with B&W. I wish I could still buy Kodachrome sheet film...

I don't want all the so called "features"! I'd be very happy if there was a digital version of a Canon F1 or Nikon F3/F4: Tough, reliable, simple and totally controllable by me without drilling through layers of menus. Most of the time I don't even need a light meter, I can estimate within 1/3 of a stop in daylight.

I bought the F6 as a backup for the F4, and its autofocus and metering is the same as the D2x. AF is better than the F4, no question, but the F4's meter is more accurate. Since I shoot trains I really don't need AF, since I know where they are going to be! I don't like being battery dependant either, espcialy in winter when the batteries and LCD screens freeze. When its cold is when the large format comes out, as they are totally mechanical and have never stopped in cold weather.

Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree. Film works for me, and it works well. It gives images that are pleasing and my clients are satisfied. What more could I ask for?

which is not something many users care about. most people buy one or two zooms and that's the end of their lens collection.

you're not in its target market. neither am i. but for a lot of people, it's a fantastic camera.

I had the first generation 80-200 /2.8 AF. Nice lens, very sharp, but really slow AF. It generally worked better as a manual focus lens.

I agree, but so is the D80, and nowadays at a pretty small cost adder. And it provides a HUGE growth upside that the D40 and D60 don't. I believe that the D50 is actually quite similar to a D40, except that it's bigger/sturdier/heavier and has an internal focus motor. They both have 6MP sensors that are surprisingly good in low light at higher ISOs.

Of course, if you shoot in RAW and do the legwork once to develop the camera calibration that makes CP Red look "right", then every photo you take after that is good to go. You get hue/saturation adjustments for the primaries, plus a shadow level adjustment.

Plus, a well-built calibration will take the color temperature into account, so your CP red will render accurately whether you're taking a picture at sunrise/sunset, in a railyard lit by floodlights, on a normal sunny day, or in open shade. Show me a film that does that well.

Bird

If a D40 can focus on a Hummingbird amongst stalks, it is good enough for me. We frequently focus on the capability of the equipment but in the end capturing the moment is what counts.

I have a SB-800, Flash Command mode works fine on a D40. I am one of those that has 10 plus Speedlights, for multi-flash.

I wanted to make a GPS for my D200. So far all the parts is still sitting in a box. I would like to know how many of us are using GPS attachments for EXIF data. I am actually one of those that always carry a GPS. I bought the D200 over the D80 due to the 10 pin connector. But in the end, GPS will be hard to use simply because it take 2-3 minutes to lock on to the satellites at a new location or a power on. By the time that Hummingbird flew away the GPS is still looking for the satellites.

D40 is good for more situations than people portray it to be.

I never said it wasn't. I actually think that the ONLY feature differential that most users would miss, relative to the more costly Nikon bodies is the Focus motor. Because unlike every other feature that's missing, this one substantially limits the access to the vast secondary market for Nikon lenses.

If you were to count ALL of the Nikon AF-S lenses that can be bought for under $500, you are left with around 8 possible choices. One single 35mm prime, and the various kit zooms for the various Nikon body, and the 70-300mm VR. That's it, and several of those choices are redundant, and other than the soon to be available 35mm lens, not one has a large maximum aperture. Plus, not having a focus motor greatly complicates the issue of 3rd party lenses as well, pretty much all Tokinas are out, and only a handful of Tamrons have it. Sigma has mostly updated their lineup, but the others have not.,

If you were to look at the reasonably priced widely available AF-D lens choices, which WON'T autofocus on a D40 or D60, but will on all other Autofocus Nikon bodies, you have over a couple dozen Nikon choices, including a range of fine fast primes from 20mm to 200mm, plus pretty much every autofocus 3rd Party lens ever made - including several lenses that are far better at the wide end than any of the AF-S kit lenses, such as Nikon's quite excellent 18-35mm lens.

I don't think that any of the other limitations of the D40 and D60 are too serious for anyone new to SLRs, but the lack of focus motor is, only because it so drastically limits the owner to Nikon's mediocre or slow kit zooms. At least they are coming out with the 35mm f1.8 prime. Before that, there was not a single available light lens within the cost parameters that most owners of these two Nikons would ever consider, that would autofocus on these two bodies. It was a glaring hole.

To my fellow photo nerds: Are you still helping the OP?

C'mon!

I don't accept the notion that any new SLR photographer would be happy if confined to inexpensive slow kit zooms, and right now, that's what the D40/D60 do.