Nikon d3100 v.s. D40?

I'm looking to get into serious photography. I've been fooling around for a while, but I'm looking to invest in a decent camera. My friend has a d40 and he says it's a decent camera. But I've heard great things about the d3100. I just want to know the pros and cons and if the d3100 is worth the extra amount of money.

The D40 is, in terms of cameras, is the almost senile grandfather. What I mean by that is that the camera has been discontinued for 3 years. Its first replacement was the D3000, and the D3100 was the second replacement.

so yes, the D3100 is worth it, over the D40 (as I do have a D40 myself)

just because it is old, doesn't mean its not decent, but newer, better stuff does come out and takes the place of the old.

The D40 was the D3100 today five years ago. If you're concerned with all the technological advancements, get the D3100. If you are after low cost, get the D40.

The D40 is ancient and has been discontinued many years ago. The D3100 is the least expensive DSLR from Nikon at this moment, and yes, it is worth the price if you are willing to learn how to use it.

The d3100 is better as it is the current replacement in the d40's lineup. The D3100 is actually a d40 with video, liveview, twice the megapixels, better low light shooting, and an easy mode or in fewer words a newer D40. I would say the D3100 is worth the extra money.

As to delhiguy, Ken rockwell isn't a "pro" and the D40 isn't either a pro level camera nor more expensive when it was new. That award went to the D2xs (and currently the D3s) which is priced at $5200