Nikon D40 or Sony A200?

Gordi

Gordi

Messages
73
Name
Jordan
Edit My Images
No
In the opinions of people who know what they are talking about which out of the Nikon D40 or Sony A200 would be the best camera for me to buy being new to Digital SLR cameras, would only be bought with the standard kit lens they come with also.


Some advice on which one would be the best buy and best option for me would be great as im definatly after ither of them as they both sit in the same sort of price bracket.

thank you;)
 
Go to a shop & handle them to see which you prefer - both are capable of excellent photos.
For me the A200 offers more for the money but I'm not you.
 
:agree:

I'm a Nikon shooter, but you can't fault the Sony for value for money.

Btw, heidfirst, Jessops had a couple of A300/18-70 kits at Sauchiehall St in the clearance, but they don't show up on the list online...
 
i will go and have a play with both to see which i prefer i just wondered if there was any major differences which makes one better over the other, apparantly the nikon is hard to get cheap new lenses for am i right with them not having a motor built into the camera body. but would rather buy the one with the best standard lens due to me probablies not being able to but new lenses for a good few months due to money shortage anyway :crying::)
 
It's the other way round, the Nikon is cheaper to get lenses for, but it doesn't have the motor built in. The Sony is a more modern design with more bells and whistles, but the Nikon still outsells it by a considerable margin
 
heidfirst said:
I would argue that - there is more available for the Sony (which supports both in-body screw drive & in-lens).
Click to expand...


Argue away - there are 50 years' worth of Nikon lenses that will fit the D40, not to mention all the third-party stuff ;)
 
A friend of mine has just bought the D40 and i am quite impressed by the pics he has taken from it. if the lenses are cheaper for these think i might be drawn more to getting one. but as somebodys already said i will go and have a look at both anyway so theres no doubt in my mind.. tbh i do prefer the style etc of the a200 but think its just because it looks newer.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Argue away - there are 50 years' worth of Nikon lenses that will fit the D40, not to mention all the third-party stuff ;)
Click to expand...
but they won't AF ...
if you are happy with that then with a cheap adapter Minolta MC & MD stuff will be similar so that's about 50 years of glass too.
heck so will M42 so that is 60 years.
 
Well I'm in favor of sony just because I have one but I can only say that the camera for its money is a fantastic bit of kit. This camera is 12mp and shoot at 3fps. It features both Jpeg and RAW offering the photographer greater post processing. Its dual anti dust system is great and 700+ shots from one battery charge. The AF motor is in-built so any Sony, Minolta, Tamron, Sigma or others with a A Mount will work. The D40 needs to have the motor built into the lens therefore more expensive unless you want to use MF. The sony also has SSS (Super Steady Shot) built into the camera whereby the D40 needs to have the stability built into the lens, again this can be expensive. The kit lens on the sony goes from 18 - 75mm F3.5 - 5.6 and has a focal length larger than the Nikon kit lens.

Having said all that, go and try them both. Check peoples Flickr accounts etc to see the quality and always remember, you are buying into a system rather than just a camera. I am very happy with my a200 and feel very satisfied that it will fulfil my needs as I grow in experience.
 
The D40 is a cracking little camera but lens choice is limited if you want autofocus. I intend to buy another D40 to use for holidays etc!
 
d40 is a great camera gets you use to manual focus aswell , always good to know how
 
why not buy the d50 that's on the forums at the moment (presuming it's still there) or a d70
 
I assume the reason you have picked the Sony A200 and Nikon D40 is budget as both these camera's have been superseded by (A300 and A350) and The (D40x and D60), have you thought about the canon 450D, Pentax or Olympus offerings. If I was you, go along and try them all out and see which one you feel comfortable using.

Canon and Nikon are fleet leaders and have a large range of lenses, not only own brand but a vast range of 3rd party lenses. The other makes do have expanding selections, but they can be limiting at times and on the expensive side.

What about the second hand market, as an alternative. Nikon D70, D70s, Canon 20D, 30D are affordable.

Personally the D40 is limited in the selection of lenses you can use (autofocus) with it because its not got an inbuilt focus motor in the body. Nikon has designed a separate range of lenses for their beginner range. Most of the main zooms and primes will only manual focus and there are other issues as well using the standard nikon lenses. If I was to chose a Nikon, I would go for a D80 or D90, but its the next step up in cost.

A budget would be a good starter, at least it will give us an idea of what you can afford.

Peter
 
i had a d40 and think the size and feel was awesome

i now have a sony a300, similar to the a200 apart from live view

nikon has better features and menu, if the a200 is similar to mine, it adds better system i.e. with lens options
 
alexkidd said:
why not buy the d50 that's on the forums at the moment (presuming it's still there) or a d70
Click to expand...

I agree, my bro has one and ive used it loads of times, i love it! It has the advantage of autofocus, and really, the d40 doesnt seem to be an upgrade from it!
 
Just to throw a bit more into the mix, you're missing one camera that beats both these cameras in terms of lens compatibility (ok arguably, but you can use any K-mount lens), has image stabilisation, in body and in lens focus, weather proofing etc etc - Pentax K200D

Duncan
 
pete.rush said:
I assume the reason you have picked the Sony A200 and Nikon D40 is budget as both these camera's have been superseded by (A300 and A350)
Click to expand...
the A300/350 don't supercede the A200 - they offer different things.
The A200 has better optical viewfinder & no Liveview, the A300 gains Liveview but at the cost of a poorer optical vf. The A350 is an A300 with a larger sensor.
 
think im just going to get the d40, picking one up at lunch time. i had a play with the A200 yesterday and the guy in the shop selling it even though they diddnt have a d40 still advised me to get one over the a200, does the 6mgp affect anything or does it not really matter with it being my first camera etc? as the sony is a 10mgp. i just want good quality shots and ease of use etc and a camera that i can buy new bits for cheaply if needed. heard the lenses are cheaper for the nikon so that would be good if i wanted to upgrade. if i got new lenses for the d40 then upgraded the camera to say a d80 would i still be able to use the lenses i bought on it?
 
crazygeordiegirl said:
Unless you are planning on printing the image out massive dont worry abt the MP.

And yes to the lens question.
Click to expand...

what did you think of the standard lens that comes with the d40 im tempted top get the twin kit but if the standard one is good enough i will just wait and buy new lenses when im used to the camera
 
Gordi said:
what did you think of the standard lens that comes with the d40 im tempted top get the twin kit but if the standard one is good enough i will just wait and buy new lenses when im used to the camera
Click to expand...

What does the twin kit come with? I bought a 55-200 straight after buying my D40 as I wanted something for distances.

The kit lens is decent enough and a good beginning point, I have only had the camera a month or so so still getting used to it :)

Some photos I have taken can be found here:

www.flickr.com/photos/crazygeordiegirl
 
will have a look through your pics :) ive just been out and bought the d40 at lunch. just with the standard lens. got the battery charging now and going straight after work tonight to but my tripod, bag and SD card as i have none of them yet!!!

will have a read yhrought the forum to see what the best way to take the pics im after are as im wanting to try and avoid automatic and try to get used to the manual options

cheers for your help everybody

Jord
 
Gordi said:
will have a look through your pics :) ive just been out and bought the d40 at lunch. just with the standard lens. got the battery charging now and going straight after work tonight to but my tripod, bag and SD card as i have none of them yet!!!

will have a read yhrought the forum to see what the best way to take the pics im after are as im wanting to try and avoid automatic and try to get used to the manual options

cheers for your help everybody

Jord
Click to expand...
:clap::clap: Congratulations on your purchase. Im sure you will have hours and hours of fun. Now it becomes expensive as you get hooked(y) Good luck and enjoy:woot:
 
thank youu :) i have been playing with it tonight, starting to work out how to change things and work my way around the menus etc but really dont have a clue when and where to use then haha going to take abit of getting used to.. is it best to use the 4 manualish settings and the full manual instead of the preset settings?
 
Gordi said:
thank youu :) i have been playing with it tonight, starting to work out how to change things and work my way around the menus etc but really dont have a clue when and where to use then haha going to take abit of getting used to.. is it best to use the 4 manualish settings and the full manual instead of the preset settings?
Click to expand...

Personally, I would say use the auto settings at first and get used to handling the camera, composition etc. You will then be able to notice how changes to aperture, ISO and shutter speed affect the final images. ;)

I guess you would run the risk of getting bored/frustrated if you dive straight into manual everything!!

HTH Alan
 
Firstly, hello, as this is my first post on the forum!

I wanted to pick up on something posted above, as I am looking at exactly the same choice for my first DSLR. The D40 doesn't have the motor built into the body so if you want a lens to AF, you have to buy specific lenses with the motor built-in, right?

However a friend told me to be careful with buying a Sony as there are no 3rd-party lenses available for it and so buying additional equipment is more expensive (and there's less choice).

So what's the cheapest (don't want to spend too much at the moment) Nikon that has a built-in motor in the body?

thanks
 
eckinspain said:
However a friend told me to be careful with buying a Sony as there are no 3rd-party lenses available for it and so buying additional equipment is more expensive (and there's less choice).
Click to expand...

Sigma and Tamron both make lenses in Sony fit so I don't know where your friend got that one from. :thinking:

Welcome to TP by the way. :wave:
 
Depends on the individual lenses, but on the whole they tend to be very good value for money. For example, the Sigma 24-70 retails at around £300, the Sony/Nikon/Canon equivalents go for over £1,000! I've no doubt that the latter ones are better in quality, but are they over 3 times the quality? I would say not even close. So it's pretty much about budget, if it's not an issue then the Sony/Nikon?Canons are for you. If, like a lot of people, you don't have an infinite amount of cash, then the Sigmas/Tamrons will do you fine.

One other thing to note is that Sony have image stabilisation built into the camera bodies, whereas you will pay a premium for it in the lenses for the other makes.
 
eckinspain said:
Thanks fabs,

Sigma and Tamron are decent quality, are they?
Click to expand...

I've never used Tamron but have sigma EX series lenses for my Sony and I am very happy with them, especially the two f2.8 zooms I have. Any minolta AF lens from 1985 onwards also works on the sony alphas, this was really cheap glass secondhand, but as sony release more models, is going up in price significantly.
 
I sometimes think the whole thing about no AF on the D40 is a bit too over-hyped. Yes, the D40, D40x and D60 don't have a body motor, so they won't AF on older lenses, but I also think that most of the lenses a D40 owner is likely to buy are AFS anyway.

most modern lenses you'd buy new at jessops are AFS. last time I looked at a decent lens selection in jessops, only 2 of the 18 lenses on display weren't AFS. the ones that aren't often tend to cost more than the D40 anyway. In the DX range, only the 10.5mm fisheye isn't AFS and that's nearly £600.

It does restrict the ability to buy older secondhand lenses, but they're rarely cheap anyway. The only proper hole was for a fast prime, but the new 35mm F1.8 helps fil that gap.

so yes, the lack of body motor can be an issue, but I think that for 95% of buyers, they're unlikely to run int the problem unless they almost look for it. and many are likely to upgrade the body to something in the midrange by the time they start serious looking at lenses that won't AF anyway.

am I wrong?

dave
 
I'd agree with the lack of motor not really being a huge problem - I have a D60, I'm currently perfectly happy with the 18-55 kit lens and all the ones I'm looking at investing in are AFS anyway. Especially now the 35mm 1.8 has come out, for what I need it's not a problem. Both cameras have their pros and cons, but when it comes down to it their both really good - in fact I don't think there's a really bad DSLR on the market at that price is there?

In summary: Your D40 is a great camera, don't worry about what you could have bought and concentrate on taking the great shots it (and you!) is capable of!
 
Not sure if anyone mentioned the DxO website to help with camera comparisons - It seems to be a sensible indicator of image quality, certainly better than just looking at MP, anyway...

http://tinyurl.com/crco3s

All best,
Duncan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top