40D vs D90

[Ajecphotos]

Tried both. Like both.

Like to take pics of everything, especially family.

Not tied to any brand at the mo. have used Canon and Nikon before in the past.

Unsure which to go for. Both feel good. Both around the same price. Help!

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Canon 40D vs Nikon D90 - Our Analysis

D90 was the winner by quite a bit.
the 40D still had some interesting advantages though, and possibly important ones.
it will all depend on which features are important to you.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

This will be completely personal preference for you in this choice, because the cameras are not even comparable models. The D90 was released nearly a year after the 40D, so the tech in the D90 is far and beyond what was available for the 40D.

The D90 has a better image quality, more color depth, larger dynamic range, It shoots video, it has a flash commander, the autofocus is faster, Max ISO and Boost ISO are both higher, it has a larger sensor, more viewfinder coverage, larger resolution LCD, & better high ISO performance (low noise at high ISO).

Looks like camera to camera the choice is obvious. So, once again, it comes down to personal preference on this one.

 

[Ajecphotos]

D90 looks the winner to me

 

[Derrel]

Canon 40D vs Nikon D90 - Our Analysis

The Nikon wins on multiple metrics that REALLY matter: better AF system, and better DYNAMIC RANGE being the two key aspects, as well as better color depth for the Nikon, the Nikon shoots movie clips (the D90 was the very,very FIRST d-slr that did that, so it is not as good a movie-shooter as much newer cameras), and the Nikon has better HIGH-ISO color and higher-ISO capability standard, plus about 20% more megapixels. The 40D is already multiple generations behind the curve...the D90 is still plugging along as a very capable, satisfying enthusiasts's camera that is now available VERY affordably,both new, as well as used. Honestly, I am NOT very impressed with ANY crop body Canon that Canon has released until the EOS 60D...Canon slipped into a very bad period from 2007 to 2011, in which they failed to innovate, and just started regurgitating last night's dinner, over and over, while the NEWLY-HIRED Nikon senior executive team had a fire lit under their collective butts, and REALLY worked diligently to release a series of excellent "shooters". And this is not just my opinion...this failure to innovate was also noted by #1 Canon fan Michael Reichmann, at The Luminous Landscape...who criticized what he called Canon's "failure to innovate" on multiple occasions. The EOS 40D is a good example of failure to innovate...it was stale when it hit the shelves, as was the 50D...

For those who disagree that the 40D is/was "stale"...LOOK at the color-blind flash and color-blind ambient light metering it has, the primitive flash metering it has, and the lack of multi-flash built-in commander. Nikon kicks Canon's a$$ in ALL those categories, with the D90.

 

[Ajecphotos]

Canon 40D vs Nikon D90 - Our Analysis

The Nikon wins on multiple metrics that REALLY matter: better AF system, and better DYNAMIC RANGE being the two key aspects, as well as better color depth for the Nikon, the Nikon shoots movie clips (the D90 was the very,very FIRST d-slr that did that, so it is not as good a movie-shooter as much newer cameras), and the Nikon has better HIGH-ISO color and higher-ISO capability standard, plus about 20% more megapixels. The 40D is already multiple generations behind the curve...the D90 is still plugging along as a very capable, satisfying enthusiasts's camera that is now available VERY affordably,both new, as well as used. Honestly, I am NOT very impressed with ANY crop body Canon that Canon has released until the EOS 60D...Canon slipped into a very bad period from 2007 to 2011, in which they failed to innovate, and just started regurgitating last night's dinner, over and over, while the NEWLY-HIRED Nikon senior executive team had a fire lit under their collective butts, and REALLY worked diligently to release a series of excellent "shooters". And this is not just my opinion...this failure to innovate was also noted by #1 Canon fan Michael Reichmann, at The Luminous Landscape...who criticized what he called Canon's "failure to innovate" on multiple occasions. The EOS 40D is a good example of failure to innovate...it was stale when it hit the shelves, as was the 50D...

For those who disagree that the 40D is/was "stale"...LOOK at the color-blind flash and color-blind ambient light metering it has, the primitive flash metering it has, and the lack of multi-flash built-in commander. Nikon kicks Canon's a$$ in ALL those categories, with the D90.

Waw, you do love Nikon!

 

[orb9220]

Actually Derrel loves and uses both Canon & Nikon. And in this case is correct the D90 kicks 40D butt for the reasons mentioned by him and others.

Even All things exactly equal in features and performance would still choose Nikon for it's superior flash system. But in this case when you throw in the better High Iso & Dynamic range,Color depth would be an easy choice for me. Which in my case ended up being the D90.
.

 

[jaomul]

Shot with a 40d The Guardian of the seas | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
shot with a d90 a L i t t l e p i e c e O f T h e E n t r a n c e N o r t h | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I don't have to much faith in the comparison site. Both those shots are of a somewhat similar theme. Both cameras as you know are very good. I use canon and like the 40d but I have used the d90 and it does have something the canon doesn't. I would recommend the nikon

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Shot with a 40d The Guardian of the seas | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
shot with a d90 a L i t t l e p i e c e O f T h e E n t r a n c e N o r t h | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I don't have to much faith in the comparison site. Both those shots are of a somewhat similar theme. Both cameras as you know are very good. I use canon and like the 40d but I have used the d90 and it does have something the canon doesn't. I would recommend the nikon

your end result is in agreement with the rest of us. However, you are comparing two images that have both had a good bit of post processing done to them. A real comparison would be done in camera, or on a computer without post.

 

[Derrel]

Canon 40D vs Nikon D90 - Our Analysis

The Nikon wins on multiple metrics that REALLY matter: better AF system, and better DYNAMIC RANGE being the two key aspects, as well as better color depth for the Nikon, the Nikon shoots movie clips (the D90 was the very,very FIRST d-slr that did that, so it is not as good a movie-shooter as much newer cameras), and the Nikon has better HIGH-ISO color and higher-ISO capability standard, plus about 20% more megapixels. The 40D is already multiple generations behind the curve...the D90 is still plugging along as a very capable, satisfying enthusiasts's camera that is now available VERY affordably,both new, as well as used. Honestly, I am NOT very impressed with ANY crop body Canon that Canon has released until the EOS 60D...Canon slipped into a very bad period from 2007 to 2011, in which they failed to innovate, and just started regurgitating last night's dinner, over and over, while the NEWLY-HIRED Nikon senior executive team had a fire lit under their collective butts, and REALLY worked diligently to release a series of excellent "shooters". And this is not just my opinion...this failure to innovate was also noted by #1 Canon fan Michael Reichmann, at The Luminous Landscape...who criticized what he called Canon's "failure to innovate" on multiple occasions. The EOS 40D is a good example of failure to innovate...it was stale when it hit the shelves, as was the 50D...

For those who disagree that the 40D is/was "stale"...LOOK at the color-blind flash and color-blind ambient light metering it has, the primitive flash metering it has, and the lack of multi-flash built-in commander. Nikon kicks Canon's a$$ in ALL those categories, with the D90.

Waw, you do love Nikon!

Yeah...I do love Nikon. Nikon has been good to me since 1982. I have ALSO owned about $10,000 worth of Canon gear for the last half decade or so...I own the 580 EX-II Canon flash, and eight CANON-branded lenses, including the 24-105-L, 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS USM, 85/1.8, 135/2-L, 135 2.8 Soft Focus, 50 1.4 EF, 50/1.8 EF, 100/2.8 USM Macro, as well as the Sigma 80-400 OS, Sigma 18-125 DC. The Canon 40D is an older-tech camera, and is easily bettered by multiple newer cameras. It was basically a WARMED-over 30D with a bigger, yet still CRAPPY LCD on the back...

Like I said earlier, I have NOT been "impressed" by a crop-body Canon released recently,with the exception of the 60D. The 60D is one of LESS THAN a HANDFUL of Canon's that have color-aware ambient and flash metering. Other Canon's are dumb as a post in terms of metering and flash metering. For beginners, or run-n-gun shooting, my opinion has been that Nikon offers BETTER flash metering, better flash CONTROL (absolutely NO COMPARISON in terms of multi-flash commanders in Nikon vs Canon bodies--none,zero,zilch-Nikon OWNS that area), and in general, offers a better control interface and better performance for BEGINNERS, and for those who want to trust the camera not to **** up dead-simple exposure situations.

THE above is why Canon has FINALLY,17 years after Nikon did it,developed its own non-color-blind metering systems...and why Canon is desperately trying to catch up in flash control, and flash metering...

 

[MLeeK]

This seems like a no-brainer to me. The D90 is the more up to date camera with more abilities than the D40. If you are buying them for nearly the same price why would you buy the more outdated camera?
Comparing images like that is almost the same as apples and oranges. The lenses have a big impact, the post processing and you aren't looking at them at 100% crop.
Both cameras are capable of creating a great image. That's not the question. The advances in technology and ability, however, are the point here. THe D90 is an improved camera from the D40

 

[belial]

Despite the stats I would still go canon for superior lens selection. With the canon you can run Nikon lenses. The revers isn't true

 

[KmH]

I doubt the nuances regarding lens selection issues would be relevant to the OP. Maybe 5 years from now, but probably not even then.

Many think Nikon's lenses are just plain better than Canon's lenses, regardless the selection.

 

[belial]

I doubt the nuances regarding lens selection issues would be relevant to the OP. Maybe 5 years from now, but probably not even then.

Many think Nikon's lenses are just plain better than Canon's lenses, regardless the selection.

The reverse can be true as well. I have yet to see a Nikon beat the 35L 50L and 135L

 

[Overread19 7]

Despite the stats I would still go canon for superior lens selection. With the canon you can run Nikon lenses. The revers isn't true

Somewhat true, but honestly the only Nikon lens that I'm aware of Canon uses using is that awesome wide-angle lens (I forget which one specifically). The thing is whilst you can use Nikon lenses on a Canon camera body you lose a few features (af) and have to jump through some hoops to get others (aperture control). The result is that barring one or two specialist lenses its really far easier just to use Canon lenses on Canon camera bodies (especially since the gain is often minimal to negligible between the two brands for most common lenses).