What to get Nikon D40 or D40x?

[ricasanta]

Im looking for a really good hobby and i find photography really very interesting though i have no idea on the do's and dont's.

FOr a beginner what DSLR should i buy? i have no idea but im aiming for NIkon D40 or D40x.

Need big help! im planning to buy this week end that is why i need feedback asap..

Thank you!

 

[asfixiate]

What kind of shots are you going to be doing?

 

[Mav]

^ Ditto. I personally prefer the D40 and it's actually better than the D40x and the D60 that replaced the 40x in a number of ways while also being cheaper. It does depend on what sort of photography you think you'd be doing though, so it's impossible to give any advice without knowing what you plan to shoot. Sports? Indoor? Outdoor? Landscape? Kids? Random? Do you think you'd want to play around with a ton of different lenses and especially primes, or just stick with zooms? There's some good links in my signature to check out too.

 

[Socrates]

^ Ditto. I personally prefer the D40 and it's actually better than the D40x and the D60 that replaced the 40x in a number of ways while also being cheaper. It does depend on what sort of photography you think you'd be doing though, so it's impossible to give any advice without knowing what you plan to shoot. Sports? Indoor? Outdoor? Landscape? Kids? Random? Do you think you'd want to play around with a ton of different lenses and especially primes, or just stick with zooms? There's some good links in my signature to check out too.

I don't think that those points make much difference. The D40 is the way to go.

 

[RubyMagic]

I agree. For a hobbyist...just get the D40.

I use one, too! It's great for shooting live music.
Especially because its small and cheap, allowing you to
be more free with the camera if youre dealing with the crowd.

 

[djacobox372]

Neither... for $100 less then a d40 you can pick up a gently used nikon d70 on ebay. Both cameras have the same picture quality and speed, yet the d70 is a step up the ladder when it comes to features and backwards compatibility--a big one being the d40's lack of an internal focus motor.

The only drawback of a d70 vs a d40 is the smaller lcd screen on the d70, and the d40 is smaller and lighter (because of less features).

 

[Mav]

The D40 also has the great info screen on the back. I hated it first, but now I love it and hate the way everything older is setup. And the D40 also has an RGB histogram display that the D70 doesn't have either. That's critical for judging exposure and seeing if you're blowing out channels or not. The blinky display only goes off of one channel I think.

 

[snaremop]

I have a D40 and love it. I always thought that the D40x was better, though, because of the extra megapixels and other features... Is this not true?

 

[Mav]

I have a D40 and love it. I always thought that the D40x was better, though, because of the extra megapixels and other features... Is this not true?

The D40 has:

- a faster base ISO (200 vs 100)
- is a stop better at high ISO (the D40 still looks great at 1600, the D40x/80, not so great)
- superior 1/500s flash sync, critical for fill flash in harsh light with your kids running around (40x is only 1/200s)
- is overall sharper
- works better with cheaper lenses
- 6MP is still plenty for even 3 foot wide prints
- is $200 cheaper

Extra megapixels is the hugest selling feature of the 40x, but is only really important enough if you crop a lot, in which case the 10MP sensor will still have enough of a photo left over to still do big prints with. It's more critical that you fill the frame completely as possible with the 6MP sensor since there isn't much to spare if you plan to print big.

 

[sultan]

The D40 is better - faster flash sync and less noise at high ISO. Go for it.

 

[RKW3]

- a faster base ISO (200 vs 100)

Is that even a good thing? What if your trying to do long shutter speeds in bright light?

- is a stop better at high ISO (the D40 still looks great at 1600, the D40x/80, not so great)

Wouldn't a D80/D40x's noise look similar (if not better) if you reduced a D80/D40x's image down to a D40-sized 6mp pic? And I'm pretty sure a D40 would not look as good as a D40x/D80 when enlarged to a D40x/D80's size.

- superior 1/500s flash sync, critical for fill flash in harsh light with your kids running around (40x is only 1/200s)

I won't argue with that, nice feature to have.

- is overall sharper

Why/ how would that be? I doubt there would be a very big difference in sharpness.

- works better with cheaper lenses

I don't understand, you just said a D40 was sharper so wouldn't it show the flaws of a cheaper lens?

- 6MP is still plenty for even 3 foot wide prints

Sure it is, but of course a 10 mp image size would be more desirable.

- is $200 cheaper

That's a big reason, that's why if I had to choose between a D40 or D40x, I'd get a D40.

Extra megapixels is the hugest selling feature of the 40x, but is only really important enough if you crop a lot, in which case the 10MP sensor will still have enough of a photo left over to still do big prints with. It's more critical that you fill the frame completely as possible with the 6MP sensor since there isn't much to spare if you plan to print big.

I agree, 6 mp files are plenty if your not a guy who prints large or crops a lot.

Sorry for pickin your post apart, just wondering how you will back your statements up.

 

[JimmyO]

I dont think it really matters what type of photography your doing but d40 is way to go. Only think your losing is .5 fps, 100 higher base iso, and a few MP. But you can save money and put it towards nice glass.

 

[Harmony]

I dont think it really matters what type of photography your doing but d40 is way to go. Only think your losing is .5 fps, 100 higher base iso, and a few MP. But you can save money and put it towards nice glass.

Unfortunately, if you choose either the D40/40X, you're going to have to be putting lots of money towards nice glass. Both the D40 and the D40X lack an internal focus motor. Now, this might not be a problem for you. If you intend to take photos that don't involve lots of movement, lack of AF isn't going to be that much of a problem. In fact, I love to use an old manual focusing 55mm Nikkor for my close-up shots. However, once things start moving, they start moving out of planes of focus quite rapidly. Trying to keep up with them in manual focus is a headache. If you want lenses that auto focus, be prepared to spend big.

 

[Mav]

Is that even a good thing? What if your trying to do long shutter speeds in bright light?

Yeah unfortunately there's no hack mode to get to iso100, so just add another stop to your ND filter and use a 4-stop rather than a 3. Or double stack a circular polarizer on top of it.

Wouldn't a D80/D40x's noise look similar (if not better) if you reduced a D80/D40x's image down to a D40-sized 6mp pic? And I'm pretty sure a D40 would not look as good as a D40x/D80 when enlarged to a D40x/D80's size.

Noise is definitely worse on the 40x/80, and downsizing photos doesn't make the noise go away. I've printed 3-feet wide from both cameras and they both looked great. Even with your nose in the prints you seriously can't tell which was which. There are people with D2h cameras, Nikon's old 4MP sports camera, and have printed even bigger and gotten great results too. People thinking they need more and more megapixels is nothing but the result of industry brainwashing. If people knew that they could print 3 feet wide with only 6MP and get outstanding results, what do you think that would do for the sales of higher end models with more profit margins? :mrgreen:

I won't argue with that, nice feature to have.

It's the main reason my D80 sits at home while my D40 sees all the action when we take my daughter out to the park.

Why/ how would that be? I doubt there would be a very big difference in sharpness.

The D80 is said to have a stronger anti-aliasing filter, which softens things up a bit. And the higher pixel density on the sensor is more demanding of lens performance. I've noticed that the 18-55 kit lens is noticeably softer on my D80 but looks great on the D40. If you put some hot PRO glass on it like the 17-55DX f/2.8, suddenly it looks fine, but even better on the D40! D80 files need more post-processing work both in terms of sharpness and noise, whereas a lot of my D40 shots can come straight off the camera and go straight to the web or print. Even at medium ISO the D80 is noticeably noisier than the D40.

I don't understand, you just said a D40 was sharper so wouldn't it show the flaws of a cheaper lens?

No you're backwards. Higher pixel densities and linear resolutions tear up lenses more, and show their flaws better. If you have a high pixel density and a lesser lens, you'll end up getting a lot of pixels that really aren't showing additional detail and are just splitting hairs that the lens can't resolve anyways. Backing off the number of pixels means lower linear resolution on the sensor, and thus it's not out-resolving lesser lenses and every pixel is now showing actual detail, thus giving sharper results.

Sure it is, but of course a 10 mp image size would be more desirable.

I had that mentality when I bought my D80, not wanting a "lowly" 6MP D50 or D70 at the time because a lot of point and shoots out there had more MP's than that and I was still infected by the "more is always better" mantra. And I thought that "surely" the 10MP files would look superior when printed 3-feet wide vs the 6MP. Nope, both look great. Then you learn about how stuffing more and more pixels into the same sized sensor actually degrades sensitivity and high ISO performance, and how the bigger sensor is also far more demanding of lens performance, thus requiring even more expensive lenses, and then suddenly that 6MP sensor looks really nice. I use high ISO all the time and there's just no comparison between the 10MP and 6MP sensors. The 6MP has much lower noise, maintains better color and contrast and dynamic range whereas the 10MP is pretty gritty. I don't like shooting my D80 at anything above iso800, but have no problems at all shooting my D40 at 1600 if I need to.

That's a big reason, that's why if I had to choose between a D40 or D40x, I'd get a D40.

Deposit the $200 you save into your pro glass fund. :mrgreen: But since the D40 gives better results with cheaper lenses, you might not feel the need to.

I agree, 6 mp files are plenty if your not a guy who prints large or crops a lot.

I do print large. Here's another way to look at things.

At 3 feet wide, the D80's 3872 pixels wide comes out to: 107 dpi
At 3 feet wide, the D40's 3008 pixels wide comes out to: 83 dpi

Big whoop. The marketers will claim a 66% increase in "resolution" just based on the megapixel increase, and "10" is a nice even number which makes it a great selling feature. You're really only getting a 29% increase in linear resolution. 83 or 107 dpi is still roughly in the same ballpark as a typical computer screen resolution (72 dpi is the standard, but a lot are around 100 dpi these days), but you're never going to look at a 3 foot wide print as closely as you will your computer screen.

Human eyes can resolve at about 1 minute of arc, or 1/60th of a degree. Viewing a 3 foot wide print at a typical distance of 6 feet, your eyes are still not going to come anywhere close to out-resolving even a 6MP photo. At 6 feet away from a 3 foot wide photo you're looking at about a 27-degree viewing angle. That comes out to 1620 pixels you can resolve. Nowhere close to 6MP, and this is why you can even get away with larger prints on 3MP cameras as long as you're viewing them from appropriate distances. Yes, as you get even closer (closer than 3 feet) eventually you might be able to tell the difference. But actual photographs are a lot different than test patterns. With my nose into 3 foot wide prints of 6MP and 10MP photos I couldn't tell. Changes in tone from one pixel to the next are much more gradual in photos than they are in test charts. I bet you could tell the difference fairly easily between 6MP and 10MP 3 foot wide test chart prints at 2-3 feet away, but it'd be irrelevant since photos are very different from test charts.

Sorry for pickin your post apart, just wondering how you will back your statements up.

No problem.

 

[Senor Hound]

Go with the D40. As you can tell with the argument going on, both are so close in terms of quality that it would be difficult to say one is better than the other (only different). That, being said, the D40 will give you the better value.

But you might want to look into the D60, if for no reason other than the kit lens is a VR. To buy a d40 body and put a VR lens on it would put you only $100 or so away from the D60 kit, making the price comparison between those two much more close than the D40 and D40x.

BTW the 1/500 flash sync on the D40 is outrageous. You could go to the beach with that camera, and take photos of people under parasols and everything (beaches are notorious for being hard to photograph, especially when people are sitting underneath umbrellas and whatnot) with such a fast flash sync. The closest the competition comes is 1/250, so you'll be able to take some shots which are "Nikon only."