Or maybe a D70?

Plus, anyone know if I decide to move on to a different body, what I can do with my D40? It's in amazing quality, the lens has only been off twice, and I haven't dropped it, spilled stuff on it, etc.

--
_{"This is the issue It's harder than getting a Jehovah's witness to give you a blowjob on the first date... Yes. THAT difficult.} ~*astrsk

I would say just save up for better AF-S lenses. I'm sure the 50mm is probably a good lens. The 70-300 probably isn't the best. Use the money you would have used for the D50, plus a little extra, and get the 50mm plus a better-quality zoom.

--
To feel compassion for the weak is a betrayal of nature.

I say keep the D40 and buy the 70-300mm VR AF-S. I understand Sigma are bringing out a 50mm f1.4 with HSM, so that might be worth considering too.
You will probably want to upgrade to a D80 eventually, but I would make do with the D40 for now, you said yourself it's an amazing camera.

advertise your d40 and if you can get a decent price move to a d50 or as high as you can stretch. Then save more and get decent lenses

--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Get 500 pageviews a day [link]

Don't get the non-AF-S 70-300. It sucks.

--
373785642 (9:46:47 PM): I mean...mum has liek 6 slaves
373785642 (9:46:54 PM): FLASH SLAVES >.>

^--- =Gazoogleheimer

I would say you should look at the D70. It's a workhorse and can usually be had on the cheap.

Also, what's the problem with manual focusing? It takes a little practice to get used to it and a lot of practice to get your focusing spot-on, but it's not the end of the world and is a helpful skill to have mastered.

Manual focusing is a bit pointless without a split prism viewfinder.

It's a tough call. I think you should consider what you want to do. Say, for example, you wanted to go into portraiture, you would want fast primes, most of which are non AF-S. So it would make sense to upgrade to a body with a AF motor.

Also, if you are going to upgrade, I think it would probably be best to make sure what you do buy will be suitable for you for a decent amount of time. It shouldn't be something you grow out of, otherwise you will of lost alot of money stepping up twice.

In Nikon's defense, the D40 and D60 are designed for the person who needs to be told "it is too dark out, use a slower shutter speed" on the back of the LCD when taking a picture. They are designed more for the soccer mom who wants to have one zoom lens on the camera for evermore to take pictures of kids. Something better than the camera that Jane Smith from down the road has (some point and shoot) but not costing too much more.

My father has a D40x that he went to from a D70 and he is quite happy with it. He's after the quick photo. He has two lenses, an 18-135 and the 70-200 (the 70-200 is oly for when he needs the extra reach and speed). No, price of the D40 wasn't the major concern for him, but rather ease of use.

Its not so much designed for the person who wants to have a camera as a hobby and grow beyond the snapshots into more serious and/or artistic photography.

An AF motor would have been nice, but when it increases the size of the body and makes it slightly more expensive making it more difficult to compete with the advanced point and shoot cameras.

My suggestion would be to keep saving for the D80. You will want it some day and given that you are feeling the boundaries of the D40, probably sooner than later.

--
Michael (shagie)

So it's not worth trying to sell my D40 somewhere and switch over to a D50?

--
_{"This is the issue It's harder than getting a Jehovah's witness to give you a blowjob on the first date... Yes. THAT difficult.} ~*astrsk