After a busy 12 months of product launches Nikon adds a further DSL in the entry level category. While the D40 may not appeal to many of the more experienced users here it will certainly tempt people trading up from a point and shoot. With this in mind Nikon have added some useful features in the menu to help understand the basics of DOF etc.

http://robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page....cid=7-7900-8676 for more info.

On a more personal note, Now Nikon has a pretty complete DSLR lineup (I know there is no FF option yet!) it might be time to update some of the popular lenses with VR :-) They could also do with improving their lens production and supply chain timelines, which are very poor imo.

p.s. I forgot to add that an entry level speedlight, SB-400 has also been added to the lineup:

http://robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page....cid=7-7900-8677

Wow, just what we need: now all the dads can make snapshots of drooling babies and poorly-lit nudes of the wife with the increased quality of an SLR.

Well, seriously, D40 seems to be a surprisingly solid offering especially for its price. Modern SLRs aren't that difficult to shoot and now the main complaint people have (price) is moot since it costs the same as top-of-the-line compact. Hopefully the price point will mean even stiffer future competition in the prosumer market as people have easier entry into the world of dSLRs and will upgrade their cameras to a "full" dSLR.

A D50 'replacement' has been expected for a little while now. After the D80, the smart money was on a real entry level model. If it can produce the kind of results people got from the D50 and D70 Nikon will be on to a real winner.

Market wise it's quite interesting because Nikon have placed the D40 solidly in the high end P&S segment. The kit with an 18-55 lens has the same RRP as the G7 from Canon for example. Imo this is a good strategy for Nikon because generally they are quite weak in the P&S segments. Canon still maintains a USD 300 differential between it's most affordable DSLR and the G7.

Nikon may also see this is a great way of locking customers in to the brand because the upgrade path is very clear and easy to understand. On a personal note, when I wanted to upgrade my 350D* from Canon, the 20D at the time and now the 30D never seemed like enough of a step up in features and particually in my case environmental sealing to justify the cost. The 5D was just that bit too much of a leap. Add in the whole conundrum of EF or EF-S lenses and it became quite confusing from the customer perspective. Now with Nikon you can invest in the top quality 17-55 2.8 DX lens for a D40 and it will work on a D2Xs, D200 and a D80. More likely the 18-200 VR or 70-300 VR is going to appeal to the D40 buyer, but the logic is still the same.

Nikon may have a great strategy and great product but it really needs to address it's lens manufacturing capacity and distribution in order to capitalize on it. I'm not sure how much brand/system loyalty there is at USD 599.

*I ended up selling my mid range Canon lenses and buying a D200, confident that I could use the 12-24DX and 17-55 2.8 DX on a D2Xs or it's replacement in the future. I now use the 350D as a P&S with the kit lens, it lives in the boot of the car.

But you will have to forgot a lot of lens as the D40 doesn't have an AF pin, so you'll need the motorized lens.

I noticed that but I don't think that's going to be a problem for the majority of D40 customers. People with legacy lenses are likely to be more experienced photogs who might be more tempted by the D200.

The D40 is interesting for one very important reason. It does NOT have the mechanical focusing link that other Nikons have had. You must use an AF-S lens or manual focus. But, a lens like the old 80-200 F/2.8 won't autofocus on it.

Don't you just love it?

You might consider getting a D80 if you have an existing set of non AF-S AF lenses.

I feel that very few potential D40 buyers will be affected by this limitation.

Cheers,
Bernard

After using my brothers' Canon DSLR, I'm really glad I stayed in the Nikon camp. The ergonomics are dreadful, and the lens shipped with the Canon are garbage. The lens kit from Canon needs to be looked at. So, I got the D200, it's head and shoulders above the 5D and it's half the price.

The problems like CA and light falloff just don't exist, plus the image quality is second to none.

Canon has some serious work to do to catch up to this technology.

Although the Nikon D200 is a great camera that does indeed offer best in class build and ergonomics, I feel that many here will disagree about the qualities of its imager compared to those of the Canon 5D.

It is true that the D200 is superior in terms of image uniformity with wide angles and lack of CA, but the Canon is clearly ahead in terms of high ISO noise and (to a lesser extend) DR.

For my applications, high ISO noise is not relevant, but many find the Canon to be overall a superior camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

I've heard that before about noise, but you I've never used film faster than 400. So film grain or digital noise mean nothing to me. The D200 is much faster, has sharper images, better build quality and it's sealed, which eliminates the dust that creeps into the 5D.

All that being said, the DX allows me to get my lenses kit put together with legendary superior Nikkor glass.

The 5D is a nice camera, it has to be left in the studio with a single lense on it. For all practical use outside the studio it's not practical.

Hogwash.

I've dragged my 5D across three continents, in conditions ranging from well below freezing to equatorial heat and humidity. It's never missed a beat; not ever.

Arguing the superiority of one system over another is pointless. A great many incredibly talented artists produce unforgettable images with both systems.

You may as well argue the superiority of chocolate ice-cream over vanilla.

As has always been the case, it's what's six inches behind the camera that matters most.

Chocolate always wins, of course.