Nikon D40
Nikon seems to have finally gotten the message and has been releasing decent DSLRs for a while now, competing well with the DSLR champion, Canon. The D40, being the latest (and, literally, smallest) low-end DSLR by Nikon, is a weird camera. At $599, its small size and decent feature set, the D40 seems to be a good compromise for young photographers or those entering the DSLR world from the low and mid end of digital compacts. Yet its resolution is relatively low, even compared to mid-range compacts, even though it sports some features not even found on the larger D50. I’m curious to see how it fares on the market.
Nikon have gotten the message since D70!…not in D40…
And the post contradicts this where exactly? Try reading it again.
“And the post contradicts this where exactly? Try reading it again.”….
I don’t get it…
my message is definite!(at list for them who knows the Nikon D70 story!
You just misunderstood the post.
The D40 has the same price as the Canon 350D.
Which one do you think is better?
Tough call. I don’t know, it depends what you want. Mind you that the EOS 350D has been succeeded by the 400D. Now, the 400D is on a different league to the D40 (you’d compare it with the D80 not the 40), but it’s also much more expensive.
If I were to get an entry-level camera I’d probably get the EOS 400D, just because I like Canon’s lenses more and appreciate the sensor cleaning system. Between the 350D and the D40 however, there’s a lot to think about and depends on whether you want to invest in lens equipment, blow up images to poster size or not, learn and experiment with ‘advanced’ photo techniques etc. I cannot give you a definite answer. Both have pros and cons, but most probably *I* (with my criteria) would get the Canon.