[Dave]

With the announcement of the Nikon D40X ( Nikon release the D40X ) , how do members feel it will compare against the Canon 400D ?

Compare Prices for Nikon D40X in USA & in UK
Compare Prices for Canon 400D / Rebel XTi in USA & in UK

Some other threads that may help :-

Canon 350D vs 400D / Rebel XTi
URGANT - Nikon D70s or Canon 400D / Rebel XTi

[Soupdragon]

From what I have read, it will not match the 400D on feature set in fact, it looks for all the world like a P&S with slr styling.
3 focus areas, what's that all about?
The GUI looks good, I can see that going up to the higher levels models.
Did not see a vertical grip on the accessories page, that'll be a downer if the cam is as small as they say.
All that said, if the price point is below the 400D as a kit? it will certainly impact canon sales as most all of the Nikons are better finished (from a cosmetic viewpoint).
On a market strategy point, this is probably Nikons best move yet. It would be nice to see a D300 and D3X soon as Canon have also played the leapfrog game as well.

[stepheno]

But...as amateur photographers are becoming more learmed and discerning will they not think that the D40X is too low for an entry point DSLR?

[Soupdragon]

I am sad enough to frequent places like LCE and Jessops high street stores and tend to eavesdrop conversations between shoppers and sales assistants.
Many people think they know all about cameras after they have owned one for a short period of time and the sales assistants love these people.
The short end of it is, people looking at the D40, D40X and the 400D generally don't have a clue what they want or what they will do with it when they have got it.
The ad campaign is all bar over for the 400D and high street stores plus the interweb will be pushing the D40X to the front of the shelves.
The logic the shopper applies is "It's newer, so it must be better"
So yes, I expect to see a gazillion D40X toting Grandparents, Aunties & Parents this spring/summer sticking their kit lenses into the faces of hapless candy floss coated children, and I'll bet not one of them moves the dial off the green square setting.

[andy_elliott@hotmail.com]

We all have to start somewhere Mr (or Miss!) Soupdragon...good pics first....learn to use the fancy features second...thats gonna be my policy. Then I can upgrade one day when I'm as good as you obviously claim to be.
Happy days

ps: I'm free was a great, underestimated hit for you in the
early 90's...love it!!

[Dave]

Well some of the deals on the Canon 350D (cheap as £250 incl kit lens) at the moment make it the perfect 1st DSLR for anyone.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by andy_elliott@hotmail.com

We all have to start somewhere .....good pics first....learn to use the fancy features second...thats gonna be my policy.

Spot on. I'm happy for the camera to do all the "auto" stuff for me most of the time ....... no point having it , if you don't use it As I've gained more experience I have learnt when the Auto fuction might not be able to cope with a situation, or I might be trying to get an effect that the auto fiunction will try to over ride. Then I switch to manual , or other programe modes accordingly. One step at a time as they say

[peteer01]

My thoughts on the D40 and D40X in a nut shell: "This fits my wife's hands well."

The D40 is way too tiny for me, but as the owner of a D80 (which my wife thinks is pretty big and heavy to carry around) we were seriously contemplating picking up a D40 for her, since it would allow us to do photography together, using the same lenses, and she doesn't need any of the missing features, and it fits her hands very well.

Also, if they are getting people that would have gone with a bridge camera otherwise, they're that much more likely to stick with Nikons in the future once they have Nikon lens(es).

(My wife and I passed on the sale just before the D40X came out, because, as she said, if the time comes that she decides she really wants a SLR for her so we can go shoot together, there'll be something better or cheaper. With the 18-55 lens, I think it would have been about $420 US?)

[Dave]

Good points there Peter. Great idea to have a his & hers DSLR of same brand, so you can share the lenses....although you know you'll argue over the same one when out

I think your spot on re the lenses. Draw people in with the cheaper body , let them build up the lenses, then they are unlikely to jump ship from that brand. Sneaky devils

[Digigirl]

Hi there I own a canon 350D and at this moment using a Nikon D40X as I want to try out the other side of the fence.
The 350D images are less noisy than the new 400D I feel the one thing to make the
350D perfect would be a large view screen. As for the Nikon D40X it is a fantastic camera the noise levels for a 10 mpx are slightly better than the D80 it has lots of manual and custom settings for the experienced user and the novice alike I have used the 400D but I must admit I prefer the Nikon. I am sure I will get those who disagree.

[Dave]

Tx for the description of differences you have found Have you owned all these cameras ? Luckily most of our members aren't in to bashing brands, as we've come to realise most DSLR's are excellent these days

Did you find the D40x similar in size to the 350D then ?

[bellymungo]

I had tried the 400d in November last year and found it to be too small for me, then the D40 came out 6 meg sensor ok, but it is larger than the Canon. The handgrip was better on the Nikon. There are a few function that would be helpful ie;dof button at least, but being digital you can view your images to check this, all a bit ponderous but not a big problem the dust off system so far not been as beneficial as expected . Know the 40x has 10 meg with a larger sensor than 400d must mean less noise, quality on the D40 is very acceptable with the 6 meg sensor, so the extra has to be an improvement in the quality but must be the true limit of a sensor a the size.

Regards

David

[Dave]

Tx for that Bellymungo

[Tom Wylde]

I researched the difference between the 400D and the Nikon D40 extensively and went with 400D and never looked back. I think the image quality outshines the Nikon because of Canons image proceesor, (Digic II), thats something Canon developed in-house, as opposed to Nikon's processor which is supposedly an 'off the shelf' processor used by several other manufacturers. The Digic II also uses less power consumption.

If I were to have gone to a higher end camera, I would have gone with the Nikon D200 because of features. In my research, though, I discovered that above 8-10 MP, the photos become almost over saturated and even shooting RAW, you have to break the photo down to about 10 MP anyway. If I'm wrong about this, I appreciate any feedback and correction anyone can give...

There is a page here on Pixalo that has a link comparing the D40 and 400D. I'll try to find it for you and post it, Dave.

[Upaya]

hello,

like they always say: its the photographer, not the camera that matters.
these cameras are not intended for professional photographers, so it is hard (or irrelevant) to say which is better. it is really just a matter of preference.
many prefer the ergonomics and menu layout of the D40 (or D40x) to the xti. many argue over the type of auto focus. even though the xti is better in this sense it doesnt mean that you will get better pictures, although the xti is probably better for sports.

lenses are the most important to consider. canon offers some lenses nikon doesn't make, however, their lenses are more expensive (usually) and sometimes better. so, if someone is looking to buy a good and relatively cheap DSLR the xti and the D40x are great places to start. it is the lenses that you plan on buying that should really make the choice between these two great cameras.

the kit lens that comes with the xti is not worthy of the body. the kit lens that comes with the nikon is a very good lens (18-55mm). nikon builds bodies and lenses that work great together. nikon offers a 55-200mm VR (that is IS for canon users) for $250, and it is a very good lens. If you have the cash, you can get the D40x w/o body and buy the amazing all-in-one 18-200mm VR lens for ~$900, although it not readily available (but when it does become available, the price should drop). so these are great lenses for the Nikon, and in the future you can get a wide angle lens, 12-24mm, although it is pricey at about $900. the kit lens (18-55mm) and the 55-200mm should be great to start. the sb-400 flash is ~$100 and great as well.

getting the nikon body with lens and purchasing the 55-200mm VR (only $250) gives you a 18-200mm range (much of which with VR) for only $980

the canon xti has a few more controls, but has a lot more to offer in possible lenses. the kit lens is junk. the 17-40mm f/4 L is about $690 and the 70-200mm f/4 L is about $590. these two lenses cover most of what you will need. however getting the body and both lenses will end up costing about $1,900. it doesn't seem to make sense to make an economical buy like the xti to get canons great (and expensive lenses). the 11-22mm canon is a fantastic lens (~$690). good canon flashes are expensive. to get the body only and both lenses costs about $1,900 (17-200mm range), double the nikon price for this range. of course it is arguable the quality of the L lenses to Nikons lenses, but i dont see any better options to get the same range (do you?)

in short, both these cameras are fantastic. the xti has benefits that will win many over. to someone on a budget the nikon wins in the long-run. figure out what you need and what you will want, and go to a store and experience them firsthand.

hope this helps