D40 Help--One last question

[Gsurf1029]

Ok, so ive decided to go with the Nikon D40. Im wel aware of the limitations, but i have one last question.

Ive been shopping around to see what the best deal was. I recently noticed the D40x, with 10 megapixels and a faster burst than the D40. Im just not sure if the d40x is worth the extra money.

So i gott one last question...

Should i go with the D40, the kit lens, and a 55-200mm

or

D40x wih just the kit lens for around the same price?

Im just not sure if the advantages of the D40x are worth it for a first time DSLR owner such as myself. Any input?

 

[Mav]

The 6MP D40 has:

- cleaner noise and better dynamic range at high ISO
- is sharper with cheaper lenses
- superior 1/500s flash sync vs 1/200s on the 40x/60/80/etc
- is $200 cheaper

10MP is only really useful to me if I'm going to be cropping images a lot, which I don't. And you're not really going to notice the difference between 2.5 fps and 3 fps either. 6MP is still plenty big enough for great looking 3 foot wide prints, too.

My recommendation is either stick with the regular D40 which is a great value, or skip the D40x and D60 and go straight to the D80 which is a far more capable camera. The D40 is limited, but dirt cheap. The 40x and 60 have the same limitations and are too expensive given the limitations, in which case you might as well just get the D80. I speak only for myself, but I know there's some others here that woudl say about the same too.

 

[JimmyO]

I got the d40x as a gift, but if i had to buy i would have gone with d40 for that very reason. For almost everyone 6MP is perfect.

 

[Gsurf1029]

alright cool

i didnt know if the 10mp would be a large advantage or not. Will the 10mp make the pictures noticably sharper.?

 

[Socrates]

alright cool

i didnt know if the 10mp would be a large advantage or not. Will the 10mp make the pictures noticably sharper.?

Not unless you're going to print 24" X 36" AND view the print with your nose six inches away!

 

[Mav]

If anything it'll make photos look softer. At 10MP on these sized sensors, the sensor will actually start to out-resolve a lot of the lenses unless you put some really nice glass on them. I've noticed that the same exact 18-55 kit lens tends to look a bit better on my 6MP D40 than on my 10MP D80, as an example. For the best sharpness, you want the best possible lens that you can afford. That'll make the biggest difference, not the body.

What Socrates said too. :mrgreen: I've made 3 foot wide prints from my D40 though, and they've still looked great.

 

[Clikon]

If anything it'll make photos look softer.

Can you quantify that? I mean, how much softer and under what circumstances. How noticeable is this going to be say, under full-auto?

I'm on the fence as well, between some of the Nikon DSLRs.

Thanks Mav...I appreciate your input as well as you other regulars':hug::.

 

[JimmyO]

Its not going to be HUGE. I guess it wont make a huge difference. I suggest you check out kenrockwell.com . He has tons and tons of info on D40

 

[Mav]

Can you quantify that? I mean, how much softer and under what circumstances. How noticeable is this going to be say, under full-auto?

It's difficult to quantify precisely, but just something that I've noticed over time, correlated by observances of others elsewhere, backed up by scientific principles. Yeah it's not going to be huge like Jimmy mentioned. But shoot a D80 and a D40 back to back a lot like I've been and you start to notice the subtle differences. But mainly I like the cleaner high ISO noise and better dynamic range of the 6MP sensor. You notice that first. The subtle sharpness differences between the 6MP and 10MP is something you have to go digging around a bit to see. In normal sized prints you'd probably never see it.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

Small-format DX and 1.6x DSLRs were ideal for digital SLRs up to about 6MP back in the dawn of digital photography. By about 10 MP in small formats, most of the extra pixels today are splitting up the limitations of your lenses (and our own photo abilities) into smaller pieces instead of showing us more detail. Having more pixels on a small format doesn't make a sharper picture if all these extra pixels are doing is splitting up a lens' limited resolution (or subject motion or limited depth of field or small-aperture diffraction) into more pixels.

So then you might wonder how 8/10/12 MP little pocket cameras are working. They have the same problems, only worse. I've looked at some full-sized image samples of some of these ultra-high MP P&S's out there today, and they're far worse than anything that comes out of my DSLRs.

I know it's counter-intuitive, but sometimes less really is more.

here's another good article to read:

The Megapixel Myth

Sorta like how I wanted a quicker car, so I got rid of one with 200 bhp in exchange for one with 190 bhp. huh? Yeah, less power to go faster. :mrgreen: The one with less power had a superior powerband (way more torque over a broader range), 300 lbs less weight to drag around, much better gearing, a more efficient manual vs a lossier automatic, and would run circles (literally) around the "more powerful" one. I took a lot of these things for granted with the first car, but not with the second. Overcranked megapixels in cameras is sorta the same. You're getting more, but is it really more? No, not really in a lot of cases.

I'm on the fence as well, between some of the Nikon DSLRs.

Thanks Mav...I appreciate your input as well as you other regulars':hug::.

you're welcome!

 

[jlykins]

I just did a 20X30" print that I took with my d40 and an 18-200vr. It has NO noticable issues as far as looking pixilated and such. The D40 is a quite capable little camera. I keep my 18-200vr on it and throw it in the "on the go" bag and reserve the d70 for my 50mm and tamron lens'.

 

[Clikon]

you're welcome!

..this might not be the right thread for this comment, but:

I just now (literally) got back from "Action Camera" near my house. I would love to buy from him because I so appreciate a camera shop like that for their knowledge and so forth. However, he wants $867.95 for the D40 "value pack" (which includes the 18-55 and the 55-200 VR + a bag and some DVDs. BUT, online, at ritzcamera.com, I can get the same thing for $749.99 (no shipping, no tax).

That's a siginficant difference...bummer. Any thoughts?

 

[Mav]

Dunno, any other good shops in the area? Ask if they'll match the Ritz price w/o the junk (bag & DVDs) I'm fortunate to have a very nice pro shop just 10 minutes down the road from me with pretty good prices on the big stuff (they rip you off on accessories though to pay for the retail overhead). So I get my big stuff from them, which I'd prefer to anyways, and order accessories online for the most part.