d90 or 40D?

[tonynitz]

im looking to up grade to either ther the d90 or the 40d. As of right now im leaning towards the d90 because of the better sensor and more megapixels. I was wondering what one prefored better in low light and shows less noise. Any advice you guys have before i make my final choice? thanks

 

[chrisburke]

well do you prefer nikon or canon? if nikon, go with the d90, if canon the 40d...

what are you upgrading from???

 

[und3r.th3.sink]

Nikon's are really user friendly and great cameras. The D90 is amazing (my friend has one, and I have spent lots of time with it), but the video recording component is not the best. I say forget about the video component and get the D90 regardless, but if that does concern you go with the canon.

 

[tonynitz]

a canon rebel xti, i want to get a camera i can keep for a few years and still be a good camera. I don't really have a preference.

 

[chrisburke]

if you already have canon, you should stick with canon, because your use to it, and likely already have canon lens...

 

[tonynitz]

i sold all but one lens because i thought i was for sure gonna switch to nikon, now i'm not sure.


but what one has better images in low light?

 

[chrisburke]

its mostly going to be your lens which determins quality.. especially in low light.. and nice f1.8 or 1.4 will give nice shots in low light

 

[inTempus]

Tony,

I was in the same boat you are now not long ago. I was ready to jump ship from Canon to Nikon, specifically the D90. I spent a lot of time researching the 50D and the D90 then went to a local camera store and fiddled with each side-by-side for quite some time and here's what I found:

This week I gave myself the opportunity to reevaluate the 50D and the D90. I spent quite a while driving the lady nuts at the local camera store playing with both. Shooting pics, playing with the auto-focus in various light conditions, playing with the menus, figuring out what features I like and don't like... what I need and don't need.

I'm not predisposed to any particular brand as I just got in the DSLR game about a month ago. I was really torn between the D90 and the 40D (at the time) and even after my purchase continued to research the D90 and compare it to my 40D. I sold my 40D this week and started over (I do things like that).

So, here's what I came up with. These items are in no particular order, they are more or less random thoughts on my side-by-side comparison.

1) 50D "feels" much better built than the D90. I suspect it's because the 50D is magnesium and the D90 is mostly plastic. I much prefer the feel of a metal body. I did play with a Canon XSi and I agree that the Canon plastic frames don't feel as well built as the Nikon... but then I don't care for plastic frames in general... and I feel the D90 is more evenly matched with the metal framed 40D in terms of price point and features. The Canon wins in this department.

2) The Nikon kit lens did "feel" better in terms of how smooth and solid the zoom was. The Canon doesn't feel bad at all... but the D90's 18-105mm lens offered a little more resistance to my input than did the Canon 28-135 lens. Having spent time behind the Canon 28-135mm lens I can say it's a pretty good lens and have no problem with it at all. I would say it's a draw here.

3) I much prefer the menu of the 50D. To me it's more logically laid out and easier to navigate. It's not cluttered with a bunch of useless features (to me). I don't care to edit my pictures on the camera or overlay pictures on the camera, I much prefer to use my PC for that. Having these features on a DSLR doesn't make much sense to me and I think it clutters things... gimick features I would never use. The Canon does have one annoying feature, the sRAW stuff. On the 50D they took it even further and now have two levels of sRAW, or compressed RAW format. I see no reason to use sRAW vs. RAW or JPG. This is a relatively minor point. I also don't care for the HD Video of the D90. I thought this would be a really cool feature and it haunted me after purchasing my 40D. Now that I've played with it, I can honestly say I would never use it. It's really pretty bad. Just another half developed gimick I have no use for. Canon wins here.

4) I prefer the button layout on the 50D. Even the trigger on the D90 wasn't to my liking. It points pretty much straight up at an uncomfortable angle (I have huge hands). With the 50D the trigger is angled more forward and is easier for me to comfortably rest my finger on. There were a couple things about the adjustment wheels I did like about the D90. You have one under your trigger finger (Canon has it just above the finger which is good too) and they have one by your right thumb. I like the wheel under the right thumb vs. the big wheel much lower on the 50D's layout. The LCD light button is also easier to hit on the D90 (power switch surrounding the trigger button). Aside from these two buttons/wheels, I like the overall layout better of the other buttons. I especially like the big wheel for menu navigation on the Canon. I could do with either, but the slight advantage goes to the Canon.

5) Playing with the AF was another key issue I wanted to further investigate. I wanted to see if the D90's 11 point auto focus was any better in practical use than the Canon 9 point. I played with them for about 30 minutes, comparing them side by side. I honestly found very little difference in their performance. The D90's AF point markers in the viewfinder were way more subtle and I found it difficult to see them under certain lighting conditions. The Canon was always easy to see regardless of the lighting conditions. Both cameras performed the same under lower light (I couldn't test outright dark conditions) in my tinkering. I found no practical difference in the 11point vs the 9point systems and I prefer Canon's viewfinder AF point markings. I gave a slight advantage to the 50D.

6) I liked the LCD screen on the 50D better than the D90's. While they have similar specs in terms of resolution on paper, the 50D's LCD seems sharper and is viewable at a wider angle than the D90's. I didn't get a chance to see them both in direct sunlight, but in general I really like the 50D's display. It BY FAR blows away my 40D's display, and this alone would be enough for me to jump ship from the 40 to the 50D.

7) I like the fact the 50D has a faster continuous shutter speed than the D90. I also like that I have an extra stops on the ISO and on the shutter speed with the 50D. In practice I don't know how much of a difference this would make in shooting pictures or how often these extra stops would be used (I'm still a noob after all)... but I do like having them there to play with.

8) I don't have first hand experience, but I've read on the 'net that the D90 has trouble connecting to PC's sometimes via its USB cable and to be prepared to use a card reader to get your images off your camera. I didn't have this problem with my 40D and I suspect the 50D is no different. I prefer to connect my camera via USB and not be forced to pull my memory card out every time I want to dump images or be forced to carry a card reader with me in my Macbook Pro bag.

9) I've not seen any appreciable difference in image quality between the two cameras. I would say they're pretty evenly matched on this front. It boils down to features, layout and construction for me.

I would say I'm quite comfortable sticking with Canon and the 50D on my next purchase.

If I were looking at staying in the D80/XSi-XTi realm I would have to do another evaluation. But in the higher end models such as the D90 and 50D I believe the advantage goes to Canon - at least for my personal needs. Heck, I would say the 50D is more evenly matched with the Nikon D300 than the D90 which is even better given the price difference.

If I were you, I would look also at the 50D. I had a 40D and upgraded to the 50D and absolutely love it.

 

[und3r.th3.sink]

tony knight?.......

 

[msgsti217]

i would go with the 40D. i've had one for about a year and love it.

hey tharmsen, how much different is the 50D than the 40?

 

[DRoberts]

D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D, the 5D M II or at very least the 50D as mentioned above.
Also as mentioned if you already have a Canon it might be good to stay with it, especially if you already have lenses or other accessories.

 

[inTempus]

i would go with the 40D. i've had one for about a year and love it.

hey tharmsen, how much different is the 50D than the 40?

The difference is subtle, but if you've used a 40D for a while you might find the differences pretty significant.

The LCD screen is AMAZING. It's probably the best 3" screen I've ever seen on a camera. It makes the 40D's look really bad by comparison. I never relied on my 40D's LCD screen to see if a shot was really in focus or not. Half the time I thought it was, then when I got home I found out it really wasn't. With the 50D you can easily tell, it's like a HDTV vs. an old school analog TV.

The Quick Menu is extremely useful. I can touch the set button and have access to all camera settings. It's great for low light shooting instead of fumbling for the backlight button on the top LCD display. I use this all the time.

The micro-adjustment for your lenses is another useful feature. You can calibrate each lens to the camera and the camera remembers the settings (for each lens).

Live View now has it's own button (the print button we all never use). Not only does it have it's own button, but it now can focus while in Live View mode. This coupled with the much higher quality LCD screen means you can actually use it.

Those are the big things, but there are a bunch of little things in the menu system that are new/improved.

All together, the 50D really is a much improved camera. Is it worth the upgrade cost? For me, it was.

 

[inTempus]

D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D, the 5D M II or at very least the 50D as mentioned above.
Also as mentioned if you already have a Canon it might be good to stay with it, especially if you already have lenses or other accessories.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think the D90 is evenly matched with the 40D. The 50D, in my view, passes the D90 by.

The D300 is a direct competitor of the 50D.

The D90 couldn't come close to competing with a 5DMkII. That thing is way ahead of the D90. The D90, after all, is a plastic body, crop sensor semi-pro. The D700 and 5DMkII are full-framed, metal bodied professional cameras.

 

[sultan]

D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D, the 5D M II

Are you kidding? You think comparing the D90 to a 5DMII that costs nearly 3 times as much is a fair comparison? The 40D is the closest thing in Canon's range to the D90, price-wise. Of the two, the D90 has slightly better detail and high ISO performance, and a much better LCD. The 40D is tougher built though, with a metal body frame and weather sealing. They are both good cameras. Get whichever one feels right in your hands.

 

[feRRari4756]

D90 vs 40D is almost apples to oranges. If you are looking in the range of the D90 then you should be looking at a more a comparable Canon, which would be the 5D, the 5D M II or at very least the 50D as mentioned above.
Also as mentioned if you already have a Canon it might be good to stay with it, especially if you already have lenses or other accessories.

Hahaha. The 5D mkII is comprable to the d700....