Help me on keeping Nikon model number score, here, folks. We now have a D40, D50, D70s, D80, D200, and D2X -- with the D40 in the couple hundred Big Mac level, and the D2X in the couple thousand, right?

It seems to me that rather than offend the owners of D50 cameras (me, for example) that they will create a new camera called a D40 which is essentially the same thing. Maybe I am alone on this, but I think most people that purchase digital cameras know that within a couple of years that the same camera could be purchased for significantly less. So, is it really necessary to release a whole new model?

Then again, the marketing folks at Nikon probably know more about this subject than me.

Yay. My life is once again no longer pointless thanks to fabulous consumer goods. Watch me dance.

I wonder what exactly does "budget" mean?

If its available with a lens for ~$500, that would be sweet (but probably just wishful thinking).

Any guesses on street price?

oh, and dSLR's are the bomb.com

This camera will be a dumbed-down D50, with bare-bones features. I think it's been best called a "point and shoot" DSLR.

And it appears "budget" in this case will be around $500 by most people's estimates. Being that "advanced" point and shoot pocket digicams can run up to this price point, it is a budget cam for those who want SLR features.

I'm dumbed down myself. Should be a good choice for me. The "budget" aspect helps too.

Budget SLR usually means:

***"We've disabled (removed or not install) some of the useful features. We're also just prick teasing you with the product and taking your money, so you would go and spend even more money on the real thing, to get all the bells and whistles."***

What a total pointless exercise to release a new DSLR camera with only a 6.1mp sensor.

I'm not personally interested, but I can see what Nikon's marketing folks were thinking of when they told production to make this: A bridge camera for people wanting to get into dSLRs without making a huge investment, and all the lenses and accessories will work when the owner upgrades to a D80 in a few years.

Although I don't want one, I can't blame them for trying to get BEGINNING photographers to invest in their brand.

From what I can tell, its much worse than a D50. It doesn't look as though it has an IR for remote use. Apparently only 3 AF areas and it is not back-comp. with older lens. So it only works with AF-S lens. All in all, its basicly a point n' shoot camera that has a slightly high flexiblity of play, but you have to sacrifice the megapixals.

mentalhangover,

6.1 megapixels is more than adequate for 8x10 prints (hell, I have 16x20s from my D50 that look great). This camera's target demographic is people who want pictures of their kids and vacations but are sick of the limitations of LCD viewfinders, tiny lenses, and tinier CCDs. They are unlikely to need more than 6mp.

At the risk of sounding like an ass, megapixels mean nothing. Unless you work for a high-dollar, glossy-print mag. I'm interested to see what it offers, as I need a moderately flexible camera for product reviews......and, since all my pics get downscaled to 640x480, I'm more interested in the composition features. White balance, AF zones, etc. Interchangable lenses make it worth my while to look at.

Arguing megapixels is like arguing which is faster, a Ferarri F40 or a Porche 959.....who cares? You'll never drive it over 65mph anyay.

From all the reviews I've read, the higher the megapixel, the more prone to damage the sensor is, and the more noise you get in the images (moire and such.)

Personally, there are quite a few of us out there that could use some of the base functions of a DSLR, without all the fancy stuff we'd never touch. Interchangable lenses I could use. X-Ray vision with adjustable depth I don't need.

Yes, it most likely will lack quite a few features of higher models... but a competent photographer (i.e. NOT 90% of people, but still...) would be able to get the exact same results as with nikon's top of the line. It just won't be as convenient for said photographer (who would buy something better suited anyways)

Long live the D50!

lpranal, competent photographers get great results with Holgas and disposable Fujis...

Measurebaters are clueless.

middy,

I agree, but it's probably the same sensor that is in the D50. And they've just released a better version in the form of D80. So it doesn't make sense to bring out a camera at that mega pixel.

This would be perfect for student photographers and low-end hobbyists. It gets people on board with the Nikon platform where they are likely to stay for life. Also, it let's people justify the higher models -- "well, for an extra $200 I'm getting a better lens and a higher megapixel count." People like the idea that they are CHOOSING to spend $700 rather than being forced to spend it because that is the entry price point. Odd, but true.

Mentalhangover,

I imagine they're keeping this sensor in for two reasons. One, it's cheap and it's proven. Two, if they put in a bigger sensor, it would most likely have to be the 10MP out of the D200 and D80. People already say the D80 image quality will cannibilize the D200's sales. Put that same sensor in a D40 and it gets worse. Slapping a totally different sensor could raise some costs by having to write new firmware and whatnot.

The sensor really does make sense to me.

Middy- you're absolutely correct, hell you can get awesome images from a paper camera. Digital is a bit different though, at least from a technical standpoint when it comes to the image "sensor" - for 35mm, a $1000 leica and a plastic wal mart film camera can both record on the same film. In digital, sensors vary quite a bit. My point was that from a strictly technical standpoint (which is probably the LEAST important aspect in photography, as you well known) this thing is capable of producing an image equal to that of nikon's highest offering, at least until you start blowing the images up to colossal sizes where megapixels start mattering in the least.

I think a camera like this is great- I am a D50 owner, and I jsut upgraded to it from a faux-SLR that I used to own that was about $450 new. If the D40 comes with a lens for around $500, I think it'd be great for people who want the quality and versatility of an SLR but don't have $1K to drop on it.

You can already see it doesn't have the little screen on the top of the camera, which is a nice feature of the D50, but for $ savings was a good idea to take out. Maybe it won't shoot in RAW or something also. I think the features will probably be things that your average non-pro potographer won't really miss that much.

I thin kthis camera should def. outsell the larger, faux-SLR's that are currently in the $500 range.

And I second the MP argument. The D50 is only 6.1MP and I've never been upset.

hmmmm...I think I'm gonna have to still save up for my D80. 3 AF points vs 11? Although I'm sure the D40's still good with color...gonna need to see the way the pics turn out online i guess...ahhhh the waiting game

On the other hand, you can easily get a used Canon Digital Rebel 350D for $500 with a lens from an authorized dealer if you look around.

If I were buying a dSLR on a budget, I'd definitely go used, but I think there is a big market for a stripped-down dSLR at a $500 price point. Lots of people out there are buying point-and-shoot digital cameras for this much, and I'd think they'd love to have this sort of a product instead.

As far as mega pixels - the sensor size has way more to do with the image quality than the mega pixel rating. I'd much rather have a 6 MP dSLR than a 10 MP point-and-shoot.

I think Nikon got it right by introducing this affordable SLR. Nikon can recover by selling more lenses. Unlike the point and shoot the bigger sensor associated with SLRs will be a big plus enabling useable ISO 400 and above.

It looks pretty cheap to me. I own a Canon 350D, and my friend has a Nikon D50. Her camera already feels alot cheaper in quality compaired to the Canon. The back of the D40 looks really blank and featureless. It looks like it'll really be just a Point-and-shoot dSLR, a camera for people who just want to say they have a dSLR.

I like Nikon, but they seem to spend a lot of time changing things that don't matter that much. 11 AF sensores vs. 3, not a huge difference. How hard is it to shift the camera over a few mm to focus and then move back to shoot. Then there is the in camera editing... Neet, but not needed. We all know we can't edit on those small screens anyway, we would rather do it on a PC. The real win for most of us is speed of focus, Flash capability, and; dare I be the only one to say it... Frames per second. why do I have to go up to a D200 ($1,600) just do get a decent FPS rate. Give me a D80 with 5 fps and I'll gladly spend the dough. who cares about 10 megapixels. The reason I got a DSLR was for the focus speed and the ability to change lenses. I want to be able to take sports pics of my kids and have a decent rate of fire. Hell, my 1986 Nikon FE2 with an MD11 have more frames per second than my D50. Nikon... If you're listening, rather than adding D40 to the line up, how about a "sports" version and a "portrait" version of the same camera. Kind of like a D2x vs. D2H. Also, most people who are going to spend $500 on the D40, would probably be likely to throw an extra $100-$200 in for a D50. Canon's D30 has 5 fps and it costs $400 less than the Nikon D200.

About the megapixels discussion, I have a point to comment. I use macro photos in my work , and need, sometimes, the ampliation I can't get with a macro 100mm with a macro adapter (and loose a lot of depht-of-field). A ten MP camera (D80)offers the possibility of 29% more ampliation vertically and 30% horizontally, in comparison with a 6MP (D50), so I can crop a smaller part of the image and produce a nice 4X6 image. Haven't seen anybody commenting this. Am I wrong with these considerations?

All the posted views on D40 are incisive and well meaning. But why be emotional about such camera, if indeed there will be one. Who's sure that there will be a D40? Anyway, Nikon just wants to sell us more cameras and there's nothing wrong about that. We as consumers can give our negative reaction to Nikon by not buying the D40. Now, if there will indeed be a D40 that would sell at $399 or even $299, then that's something else!