Talk:Nikon D40

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photography Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

We probably need a wider discussion as to which "x" or "s" brands denote new articles, which do not. For instance, the D2Hs and the D2Xs do not have their own articles, but now the D3x, D300s, and [D3s]] do. My merger of the D40x article (as well as the 20Da was based on the D2 precedent, but the direction seems to have changed. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the wiki process is for people to create a ton of information and maybe separate articles when a topic is current, but gradually trim it down and possibly merge articles when the greater significance of it all can be seen in hindsight. In that light I don't see much reason to spin out the D40x into a separate article, as it's essentially the same product with a few changes in specs (evidenced by Nikon not thinking it deserved an entirely new model #). The changes in the D40x are small enough we should be able to handle them on one page.Fletcher (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry level?

What is meant by entry level? I went from an F601 to the D40. I have used Nikon SLRs since my first a Nikkormat FT2. I am not entry level! I have won competitions with my F601 and with the D40. The D40 is a great SLR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.8.211 (talk • contribs)

No-one is claiming otherwise. The "entry level" text is a reference to the price and market positioning (i.e. it was Nikon's cheapest DSLR at the time). Ubcule (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]