Talk:Nikon D40

Sensor resolution

Actual pixelcount is bit higher than the article states. Instead of 3008x2006 pixels the resolution of the NEFs is 3031x2006. Most software only display the embedded JPEG of NEFs which has 3008-resolution or crop the edge pixels off. --91.154.251.216 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

D40x

I added information for the new D40x here, though I'm wondering if it shouldn't be moved to its own article (I redirected Nikon D40x here). There are very few differences between the two models, so maybe it's worthwhile just leaving it here. Thoughts? –Comics (Talk) 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you did the right thing; a separate article would either be a stub or pointlessly duplicate material. From what you write, it's essentially just a variant, so it's not really contrived to keep the two together. Fourohfour 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the inclusion of the Nikon D40x here. Same reason as same page for the Nikon D70 and Nikon D70s, or Nikon D2H and Nikon D2Hs. There is no reason to have a page for every revision, even if that revision brings a new sensor. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree, however the D40/D40x are really two different cameras, with different sensors that are being sold simultaneously at different price points. The D70/D70s, D2H/D2Hs and D2X/D2Xs, are minor upgrades that are replacements for the predecessors at the same respective price points. --rogerd 07:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, though I think we can all agree with what Fourohfour said. A separate D40x article would be identical minus the fact that there are 3 minor specifications differences. –Comics (Talk) 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think D40x should be split off to its own article. The Infobox is a mess when it includes both cameras' specs. And apart from the spec changes, the references + external links are different (and currently a big mix of the two), as are the release dates, and flash-synch is aparently different too. But mainly it's just generally confusing when you follow a link for the D40x to be given D40 info (or a mix of the two). —Pengo 11:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you or someone else wants to see what the split articles would look like, we can put them in the user space and then see if everyone likes it before we move it to the article space. Put them here: user:rogerd/Nikon D40 and here: user:rogerd/Nikon D40x and then we can see if we like it better. --rogerd 12:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki; we can revert if people don't like it. I've left this article relatively intact, still referring to both D40 and D40x, while creating a separate D40x article which doesn't have the clutter of D40 specs, reviews, links, etc. —Pengo 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone apparently merged the articles again. Then somone else has created a new Nikon D40x page. It seems like it is a mess when they are not split. I would vote for 2 seperate pages. I don't have the time to clean everything up but it is a definite mess now.

Reconditioned D40x

There has been many reconditioned D40x with warranty from reputable stores on some auction site lately (3/15/2009), some went for less than $230, mine came brand new, in a "reconditioned" Nikon box with items in separate compartments and wrappings, shutter actuations less than 400. What is the catch? Front focus. Was elated for several days until I pulled out the old focus chart.

Instead of the standard ratio of 1:2 (1 part in focus in front of the focus point and 2 parts in focus behind), it was more like 5:2. I am guessing that mine was probably returned by the customer who bought it new for that reason. People don't mind if there was a scratch here or there, but focus out-of-calibration takes away from every images you shoot. I guess this is why the price was so good, when even used D40x price starts around $350 and some even go over $400.

Luckily for me I know how to calibrate the focus, took all but 10 minutes. Now the ratio drafts from 1:2, to 1:1:, to 2:3, depending on which lens I was using and what the shot condition was (was the previous focus far or near by, etc). I guess the focus mechanism is not very "firm", but the "AFTER" is definitely much better.

Now I have a brand new D40x which is perfect as it can be in every way, for less than $230.

BTW, some people are bidding as high as $395 for the same camera from the same place, when they can go to another major online portal and buy (instead of auction) from the same store for about $260. Ignorance or insanity? Beside, the next auction is only a few hours away. What's the deal?

UPDATE: Since the publication of the statement here, the insanity on the auction site has stopped, none of the reconditioned D40x has gone for $260, at least the last few. Good going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.243.164 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)