Note: this camera was first sold in
Mar 2007.
There may be newer versions available.
Nikon D40X
See rating based on
536
user reviews
Submit your own Nikon D40X review!
HQ Grade: B
| A | is outstanding and exceptional, rated in the top 10% of digital cameras. |
| B | means they are good, with some standout features. |
| C | means they are mediocre, and probably more trouble than they are worth. |
| D & F | mean they are absolutely awful or old. Avoid at all costs. |
- 4 out of 5
- 4 out of 5
Submit your own Nikon D40X review!
This camera is ranked
- 21st of 51 in SLR/Professional
- 39th of 102 in 9 and 10 Megapixels
- 16th of 74 in Nikon
- 20th of 88 in $350 - $600
| Compare 2 store ratings and prices... | ||
| Shop for Nikon D40X accessories. | ||
| 47digital | $849.95 |
|
| Electronics Club | $999.95 |
|
Ask
Have a question about the D40X?
Enter it here:
(You can enter more details in the next step)
Answered!
May 9, 2009 2:10 AM
Report Abuse
Did you find this question
helpful or
not helpful?
helpful or
not helpful?
This question has been answered!
May 13, 2009 1:06 AM
0
0
0
Well the first thing I would do is swing by Ken Rockwell's site to see what lenses will be compatible with it and in what capacity. The beauty of Nikon is that there's a 60 year plus legacy of glass that you can use on your camera with varying degrees of automation. From manual only to all features available. This will give you something to keep in mind should you find one of those classic wide angle film lenses for a bargain.
As for which lens specifically, here's what Rockwell has to say:
You're going to get the 18-55mm with the D40, which is great because it's a great lens. It ought to be all most people ever need. If you want a tele lens, try the new inexpensive and lightweight 55-200mm VR. It's perfectly matched to the D40.
I love my 18-200mm VR, but it costs three or four times as much as the 55-200mm VR. The biggest reason to get the 18-200mm VR instead of the 55-200mm VR is not to have to swap lenses to get from one end of the range to the other, or to have instant manual focus override. Optically they ought to be the same and the 18-200mm VR weighs more than either of the others. Any of these are great choices.
Rockwell goes on to say that the D40X isn't really worth the extra cost over the D40:
The D40x is fantastic, but it's not $200 better than the D40 to me.
I'd suggest the regular D40 to save money and work better with fill-flash in daylight due to the faster maximum shutter speed with flash. Megapixels have nothing to do with how a picture looks.
The chief thing is that you can save money by going with the D40.
As for which lens specifically, here's what Rockwell has to say:
You're going to get the 18-55mm with the D40, which is great because it's a great lens. It ought to be all most people ever need. If you want a tele lens, try the new inexpensive and lightweight 55-200mm VR. It's perfectly matched to the D40.
I love my 18-200mm VR, but it costs three or four times as much as the 55-200mm VR. The biggest reason to get the 18-200mm VR instead of the 55-200mm VR is not to have to swap lenses to get from one end of the range to the other, or to have instant manual focus override. Optically they ought to be the same and the 18-200mm VR weighs more than either of the others. Any of these are great choices.
Rockwell goes on to say that the D40X isn't really worth the extra cost over the D40:
The D40x is fantastic, but it's not $200 better than the D40 to me.
I'd suggest the regular D40 to save money and work better with fill-flash in daylight due to the faster maximum shutter speed with flash. Megapixels have nothing to do with how a picture looks.
The chief thing is that you can save money by going with the D40.
Report Abuse
Did you find this answer
helpful or
not helpful?
helpful or
not helpful?
May 13, 2009 4:39 AM
0
0
0
Report Abuse
Did you find this answer
helpful or
not helpful?
helpful or
not helpful?
