D40 vs d100?

[musashij]

im sure these have been posted before but mine is a bit different. My older sister got rid of her d100 and has passed it down to me. I don't know how i have done but but before that my best friend passed his d40 down to me. I never really used either much but have recently got more and more into photography. The d100 is perfectly working while the d40 has its on board flash dead- im not really sure how important that flash is as i do own an SB-400 because it wasn't worth replacing the ****ty flash on the d40.

Now knowing everything, which one do you guys recommend? The d40 is lighter and also seems to take pictures faster. The d100 though is very sturdy and has a motor so i don't need to buy lenses with a motor.
If anyone has any recommendations i'd love to hear which camera is better for a amateur.

Thanks and i appreciate your time.

 

[tirediron]

Hmmm... that's a tough one. My only concern would be which one performs better at higher ISOs... I think for the most part it's a draw. I would be inclined to go with the D100 just because of the better build-quality and additional feature-set.

 

[iAstonish]

Hmmm... that's a tough one. My only concern would be which one performs better at higher ISOs... I think for the most part it's a draw. I would be inclined to go with the D100 just because of the better build-quality and additional feature-set.

x2

I think you'll also "grow into" the d100 better and learn the settings, because you'll have to.

 

[shutterbugsdesign]

i own a d40 but i haven't tried the d100 yet. but since the d100 has built-in motor, i'd say go for that. it would really save you money when you purchase and upgrade your lenses.

 

[musashij]

thanks guys. That is what my friends recommended as well! i very much appreciate the quick feedback. I think i will keep my eyes set on the d100 and try to learn it.

 

[djacobox372]

I think the sensor is basically the same--the d40 has better software which leads to better looking photos, but if you shoot raw it's the same.

One major drawback of the d100 is the screen size... it's very small. The d40 screen is 3x as big.

 

[iAstonish]

Or just sell both the d40 and the d100 and get a d90?

 

[musashij]

hmmmm i like that idea. I am not sure how much i could get for them both since a d100 that is used and in good contion online the price varys way too much! oh well, im gonna go check that out.

 

[--ares--]

Keep both of them in the short run, the d40 might (but probably won't) out perform the d100. Like everyone else I think the d100 will be your daily runner because it is a "pro-sumer" model and has an internal motor.

anyways good luck and go take some photos!

 

[Derrel]

The imager (sensor) and the image processing engine of the D40 is quite different from the D100's setup; the D100 has the "old Nikon digital" look to its in-camera JPEG files--dingy, dull-looking, and very unsharp looking images that ALL need post-processing. The D40 is several generations newer in sensor design and in the way the images are processed by the camera. The D40 has a much peppier tone curve and the out of camera JPEGVs are sharpened more, and they look much closer to the way the final images ought to look...the :"old Nikon digital" look from the D1 and D100 days was always very dull and low-contrast...the D40 puts out a snappy, eye-candy like image,and if turned to Vivid, the D40's Straight Out of Camera JPEG files need almost no processing. Although the D100 does have an in-body motor, I think the D40 is actually the better imager, and the better overall camera.

 

[--ares--]

The imager (sensor) and the image processing engine of the D40 is quite different from the D100's setup; the D100 has the "old Nikon digital" look to its in-camera JPEG files--dingy, dull-looking, and very unsharp looking images that ALL need post-processing. The D40 is several generations newer in sensor design and in the way the images are processed by the camera. The D40 has a much peppier tone curve and the out of camera JPEGVs are sharpened more, and they look much closer to the way the final images ought to look...the :"old Nikon digital" look from the D1 and D100 days was always very dull and low-contrast...the D40 puts out a snappy, eye-candy like image,and if turned to Vivid, the D40's Straight Out of Camera JPEG files need almost no processing. Although the D100 does have an in-body motor, I think the D40 is actually the better imager, and the better overall camera.

He could shoot RAW
But being an older model it might take a bit of time to process and write...

 

[KmH]

but since the d100 has built-in motor, i'd say go for that. it would really save you money when you purchase and upgrade your lenses.

Not really.

Other than the AF 50 mm f/1.8D, most of the lenses that don't have a focus motor in them are faster, prosumer-level lenses, and have a slower, consumer-level AF-S equivelent that is a lot less expensive. Many of those AF-S lenses also have VR.

Some examples:

AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - $200 ......... AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D - $390

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - $200 ......... AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED - $670

AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED - $250 ........ AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - $1225

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED - $460 ........ AF Zoom-NIKKOR 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF - $745

 

[djacobox372]

The imager (sensor) and the image processing engine of the D40 is quite different from the D100's setup; the D100 has the "old Nikon digital" look to its in-camera JPEG files--dingy, dull-looking, and very unsharp looking images that ALL need post-processing. The D40 is several generations newer in sensor design and in the way the images are processed by the camera. The D40 has a much peppier tone curve and the out of camera JPEGVs are sharpened more, and they look much closer to the way the final images ought to look...the :"old Nikon digital" look from the D1 and D100 days was always very dull and low-contrast...the D40 puts out a snappy, eye-candy like image,and if turned to Vivid, the D40's Straight Out of Camera JPEG files need almost no processing. Although the D100 does have an in-body motor, I think the D40 is actually the better imager, and the better overall camera.

Have you compared them in raw? I was under the impression that nikon just recycled their pro technology into their later consumer model. Meaning the D100/d70/d40 have the same sensor tech as the d1x.

It makes sense that they would improve the software, but improving the hardware would mean retooling their entire manufacturing process.

 

[JamesMason]

Personally id go with the d40, derrel summed it up nicely. Id even go as far to say that the built in flash being broken is a bonus as you wont be tempted to use it. Of course you could always just shoot with both, learn the strengths and weaknesses of each and use each for different situations.