nospam wrote:
In article , SMS
wrote:

It depends on which segment of the market you're interested in. Nikon is
pretty weak in the entry level right now, with the severely de-featured
D40x only slightly cheaper than the far more capable Canon 400D. But in
the mid-range "prosumer" segment, Nikon has some good choices right now.

knock it off. the d40x is not 'severely de-featured.' perhaps it
doesn't meet YOUR needs, but both it and the d40 meet the needs of
millions of other people.

If going the Nikon route, get the D80, not the D40x. Within a few
months, that extra $250 will be forgotten and you'll have a much more
capable camera that you'll be happier with. The D40x was severely
defeatured to meet a price point, and to avoid taking sales away from
the D80.

What you need to understand is that you don't want to be changing camera
bodies a year down the road when you discover that a key feature, whose
value you didn't understand at the time of purchase, is missing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse
and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's
lawful prey." [John Ruskin, 1819-1900]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

nikon is not lagging badly. the only issue right now is no full-frame
and that is expected to change.

The lack of full frame is hurting Nikon in a big way. Not because sales
of the full frame cameras are so great, but because they appear to have
no upgrade path for the prosumer who is in the process of building up a
collection of lenses, flashes, etc., in the expectation that FF prices
will fall to a level he or she can afford.