Is the Nikon D40 still worth buying in 2010?

I'm going to be taking an introductory photography class in the spring and am looking to purchase a DSLR camera, preferably in the five to six hundred dollar range. I'm interested in street, portrait, and landscape photography and would like a camera that I can grow with for a few years as I consider photography as a career. I have done research on many DSLRs and have read good reviews on the Nikon D5000 and stellar reviews on the Nikon D40. My question is this: Is the Nikon D40 still worth buying today, especially since I can get a brand new camera for a little more than a used D40? I realize that newer is not always better, but for those of you who own the D40 and love it, what do you love about it, is it a camera that will last me at least a few years, and what are your reasons for not upgrading?

I always recommend what I own and know.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...S_SLR.html
But if you're stuck on Nikon for some reason then that's alright also, what ever trips your trigger.

I recommend this camera because I've had mine for over a year and I'm getting results like this.

And this,

And this,

See what I mean?

Understand the D40 is a good camera from what I read and hear but it is older technology and is now discontinued - has been for quite a while. I'd consider that before buying.

Never base a purchase of camera gear on price, a bad idea… Because you do get what you pay for.

Good luck. Jim Further discussion: jimmya43@cox.net

I don't own a D40, I have shot it like I have shot just about anything Nikon made the last years. I'm also a keen Nikon follower.

The D40 was really the first in the baby nikon line and it was the right camera at the right time and the right price. It was a big hit because of that. After that Nikon came with the D40x, which was largely unnecessary and the D60. The D3000 tried to continue that line but failed somewhat because it retained the D40X/D60 sensor and added better software and for the first time a decent AF system.

Then the D3100 came along and showed that Nikon could put together a truly brilliant entry level camera and still sell it for a very competitive price.

To get back to your original question.no, but a very hesitant no. Yes it can do all you want to do but no, in my opinion it is not a camera to grow into. On the other hand it would still make a nice starter camera at the right price.

I ddi upgrade from a D40 to a D90. Well, the D40 was a great camera then and it is still a good one today, but it doesn't have any quality that you won't find e.g. On the D3100, with the notable exception of wireless shutter release support (which the D3100 surprisingly does not have) and a flash sync speed of 1/500s. The latter still makes it stand out, Very most, even much more expensive ones, rarely exceed 1/250s. I believe that this is the main reason why it still sells for such high prices, as that ability is extremely helpful for using fill flash in bright sunlight.
Also, back in its time it did unusually well in low light situations and still doesn't fall all that far behind the D5000/D90/D300.It had an older sensor but benefitted from the big pixels, unlike its immediate successors.

The autofocus system is quite limited though, so unless you absolutely need the flash sync, you should get a more recent model such as the D3100.

Your budget fits in the brandnew entry-level cameras today. The D40 would be worth getting if you only use half of your money. You will run into trouble when getting additional lenses though as the D40 doesn't have the AF motor built-in.

At your budget, I recommend getting the Pentax K-x. You'll get more ISO and shutter speed range and the kit lens is fantastic.