The D40 has autofocus. It will autofocus with AF-S lenses, but the older AF-D and AF-G lenses will meter, but not autofocus. The D40 requires the lens to have the focusing motor built into the lens. Up until the D40, all Nikon bodies had a focus screw and motor built into the SLR/DSLR body.
You would have to manually focus with the non AF-S lenses.
Megapixels at this point is really marketing hype. The big thing that megapixels gives you is an ability to crop deeper into the picture. They really have not a whole lot to do with image quality. Exposure, JPEG compression and lens have more to do with image quality.
Which is a wiser choice? D40x or D50?
Depends. I already had a few AF-D lenses, and autofocus is important to me, so the D50 was the better choice(not to mention the features it offers over the D40 series - more focus points, focus in the body, less menu rummaging, top LCD).
If you have no existing lenses you'd want to use, then the D40 is a good camera. I just found the D50 or D80 for that matter to better suite my needs.
2007-08-15 02:42:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by gryphon1911 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I own a D40x an I can tell you that it does have an auto focus system. What it does not have is an auto focus motor on the body. This means that the lens itself must have an auto focus moto built into it. Sigma HSM's and Nikkor AF-I AF-S Lenes all have it. If you can go into a camera shop and try the lens you'd like to buy that's always the best way to tell. Be careful, my last purchase, a Sigma 10-20, did indeed have the motor on the lens despite the sales guy telling me otherwise. You can use older lenses by the way, just manual focus only.
The D50 is an older camera, it's just as good, if not better than the D40x. Age does make a difference in respect to digitals, battery technology has improved significantly, as well as the ability to read higher capacity cards, SDHC, among the other new tech in digitals.
More pixels do not make a camera better. The more pixels the camera has the more densely packed they are on the sensor. This means the images can be clearer when blown up, though it can be argued that no printer has the density (DPI) of a digital. Having 10+ MP does give me the flexibility to do a little cropping and post-processing without giving up image size.
2007-08-15 03:05:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To me, the Nikon D40x is not an upgrade from the D40. Nikon just bumps up the megapixels from 6 to 10. The genius with this is, is that people will believe its the same senor as the D80 or D200. In actuality, its not.
What happens with the D40x, is that Nikon only did a few things to the D40x to make it seem like a better buy. They made it 3 fps instead of 2.5. They also included ISO 100. And the 10 megapixels.
However, they also brought down the flash sync speed dramatically. (The faster the better.)
Now, there are probably people that swore by their D40x's saying, "People who argue about gear aren't real photographers." These people probably can take excellent photos with their D40x. What I'm say, is that for around $750 why not just save for a much better camera, like the D80? Or why not just spend less money on the D40?
2007-08-15 04:54:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by electrosmack1 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The D40x will support AF-S and AF-I, D and G type CPU lenses with AF, but since the D40x does not have an internal autofocusing motor you will be able to support all other AF D or G type CPU lenses, without autofocus. I hate to say, it's just the nature of the beast, so to speak. The D50 does have an internal autofocusing motor, so if you can live with 6.1 MP, and you have to have autofocus with all AF lenses, pehaps you should look into that. Both are good cameras, quality is moot when comparing the two, they both have the same level of quality, but with the D40x you'll lose AF capability with standard AF lenses. One of my best lenses is a 50mm f/1.8 AF lens [which will not have AF with a D40x], I shoot with a D80 and though it does have an internal autofocusing motor, I usually manually focus it anyway because it tends to hunt during AF and does not have a focus limiter. So, you should go with what you can afford and with what will suit your needs without basing your decision on the absence of AF with 'some' lenses.
2007-08-14 23:58:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joe Schmo Photo 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
The D40 (X) has an Auto Focus system but not a motor in the body to drive the lens. You need an AF-I or a AF-S lens ones with the AF motor in the lens. Most if not all of the new lens coming from Nikon will be an AF-S lens.
If some one comes on here and says that it will only work with DX lens don't believe it.
Here is a list of Compatible Lens.
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=16715&forum=DCForumID201
A wiser one to buy would be D40X
2007-08-14 21:02:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Brian Ramsey 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
To compare current Nikon cameras go to the nikonusa.com sight and read the comparison guide.
http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/pdfs/DSLRCompare.pdf
Page six to be exact.
D40x, D80 and D200 have the same sensor.
Buy a D40x, not the D40 if that is your budget. If you have the extra money, then buy the D80, and even more money the D200.
I like my D200 since it feels right to me. Go to a camera store and use them all. Pick the one that feels the best and has the controls that suit you.
2007-08-15 12:27:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by vbmica 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is a reason Carl Zeiss is not third-party (yes I am well aware you didn't mention it so here I am). It has superior glass quality over the original brand. When you begin to appreciate that level of glass quality, you don't care about autofocus any more. Your primary concern is to get the most out of the glass by submitting it under your absolute total control. If you want to play with "Zeiss approved" lenses, buy a Sony.
2016-04-01 12:55:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋