Note old lenses will mount, but this camera does not have an auto-focus drive gear. So no AF if the lens relies on the camera's gearing for focus (but you CAN manually focus). There are Nikon lenses that have their own internal focus motors and those will autofocus, and it was with these lenses this camera was envisioned.

Check out dpreview.com for full reviews & explanations. Still a great camera and you can step into this cheaper body & get pricier lenses, and later upgrade your body. I highly recommend the D200.

this is real cheap!!
this expires on Thursday, November 08, 2007

while other major shops selling this for over $600.

(ben, dell's normal price is $599.99 and ther is Save 10% off Select Cameras & Camcorders! that make -$60.00.)

how is this kit lense?

ben, your link brought me to D40, NOT D40x. or this is only a D40 deal!? pls fix it.

In general, kit lens are decent in full sunlight, but suck everywhere else.

something is wrong with the link

This is for the D40..D40X is for 720.

kit lenses are never really any good. if you really want to take photography seriously, get a prime (fixed) 50mm lens and shoot away

I've always been a fan of Nikon cameras. They are a fantastic value.

I have this camera, and it is FANtastic

Imagine that, people will start to post legitimate posts.
How is this compare the the Rebel xti?

How does this compare to the Digital Rebel XTi? I was looking through DPREVIEW and the reviewer claims that it's a draw. I was looking for some unbiased opinions from some experts here on BB

omg ben.. u're an rodeo cowboy.. the link is for D40.. not the D40x!!! HUGE DIFFERENCE!!

Repeated once again for those who haven't seen this post:

It's interesting to note that the XT, not the XTi, ranks in Pop Photo's top 25 buys for 2007. Here's what they said in last month's edition:

"Pop Photo Lab tests proved, the Rebel XT, with 8MP (rather than the 10MP of the $165-more Rebel XTi), provides 'Excellent' image quality -- as in 'Excellent' resolution and color accuracy, plus noise no higher than 'Moderately Low' up to ISO 400. Its very light body has a stainless-steel chassis, and it gobbles up about 65 highest-quality JPEGs at 3 fps -- faster than a number of newer and pricier DSLRs. It captures in RAW. Okay, the 1.8-inch LCD is dinky by today's standards, and it lacks the XTi's self-cleaning sensor, but not much else is missing."

For anyone weighing the dust-removal feature on a DSLR as an important part of your decision, the article at the URL below will be of interest:

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

#8 - if you're serious about photography, you should have different lenses for different situations. There is no One Lens To Rule Them All from any manufacturer.

I have this camera and for those of you who are curious about some reviews about the kit lens and the camera itself i suggest you check out
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm
for the lens
and
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm
for the camera

i also have a 50mm prime lens as other ppl have mentioned and even though it doesn't autofocus after a little practice i get great images out of it focusing on my own.

if you want TRUE 50mm you should look into the 30mm prime lens
because that will get you 50mm on this non 1:1 ccd

for those commenting on xti vs d40, here's what you really should be thinking about, If you do get into digital photography for real what lenses do you want to be buying for the rest of your life.

most of these lower end DSLRs will get you great pictures but what really matters is the lens. you will be purchasing more and more lenses if you really get into digital photography, so once you choose nikon or canon, you will most likely not want to switch manuf.

look into the camera you want now and in the future that will help your decision if you are choosing between a d40 and xti.

i heard this one's not so great..

If you're going to stick with the kit lens and not planning on spending some time in time on photoshop, you're better off with a pro-sumer camera. The lower end dSLR are good, but p010sp0rt8 is correct. It's all in the lens... and most good long lenses are very expensive (1x-4x) than the camera body itself. There isn't one magic do-it-all wonder, although Nikon has one that comes close for many situations.

I was thinking about this camera, but gave my money to canon's 40d. If you're serious about photography and spending an extra 400 isn't a real issue, give it a look. The canon 40d doesn't feel like a child's camera, shoots at 6.5 fps, holds 75 jpgs and canon's skin tone accuracy is superb.