Upgrading from a D40x on a budget

<p>Unless you need flash sync of 1/250 instead of 1/200, I think the extra money put on a D300 would be a big waste. You would be better off putting that money into a lens, or even a good tripod. The D90 and D300 are very similar and you won't see any difference in image quality. You will see a difference with better lenses.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>the price of the used D300 will probably be dropping soon. Can you wait 6-12 more months? </p>

<p>do you shoot sports or similar? if not, then you do not need autofocus at all. the money you spend on upgrading could be used to purchase some nice glass.</p>

<p>You could just use a light meter with your D40x to meter when you shoot with AI lenses. Then you could keep saving until you can buy a D300 or a D700.</p>

<p>Thanks again for the precious advice. Definitely waiting for a D300 price drop and saving a bit more, looking at what the DX lens market has to offer...<br>

Considering all I can live with some manual focus lenses :D</p>

<p>Honestly, as others have also said, I don't see the D200 as an "upgrade". The D200 is certainly a great camera, but from what I understand the sensor progression went something like:</p>

<p>D200 -> D80 -> D40x -> D60</p>

<p>All of which, again if I understand correctly, are the same sensor with slightly improved processing in each iteration. I owned the D80 and my wife the D40x. I do believe there was some slight improvement over the D80 to the D40x.</p>

<p>What you do gain, as you've said, is the ability to use non-AF-S lenses, which opens up a plethora of great quality inexpensive glass. That alone could be worth it. Also obviously the body is much more solid and weather proof (which, can be very comforting). It will however be a <strong>lot</strong> heavier. The D40x is remarkably lithe little camera for the quality of output.</p>

<p>Personally, as it sounds like you are thinking now (and others have suggested), the D300 would probably be the way to go (or D90, if you don't mind the not being able to use manual lenses). Both the D300 and D90 have much greater dynamic range and high ISO capability.</p>

<p>Even with a (rumored) "D300s" coming, I doubt the older D300's will be selling for much less than the D90 anytime soon (it too will probably drop if an "D300s" version comes out). Certainly nothing will touch the price of a D200 (or D80 for that matter) for quite awhile.</p>

<p>BTW - if you are looking at the D300 or D90, I'd call Cameta Camera and ask about their refurbs. They can be remarkably inexpensive, the bodies are basically new (and look so), and the give a year warranty (90 days Nikon, the rest Cameta - but they send to Nikon anyway). They have never given me an issue on a return either (yes, a few of the refurbs have had problems, but with the no hassel return/replacement, it's been a non-issue). No, I am not affiliated, I've just had good luck with them.</p>

<p>Speaking of which, good luck to you on your search here!</p>

<p>I am having a D40 X and is giving me superb results.No need to upgrade to D200 as it will not make much differnce.If you want to upgrade then go for D700..Otherwise use the D40 X.You can choose from a variety of lenses instead..That will make the diffence..Comments...</p>

<p>@Harmeet</p>

<p>I think you're right, though the D700 isn't for those on a budget! ;-)</p>

<p>Wish I had one though!</p>

<p>You can use MF Nikkors just fine on a D80 or similar bodies. Yes, there is no meter reading but you take a guess, shoot, look at the results, and adjust accordingly. Not that big of a deal but a great feeling of satisfaction as "you did it yourself". Just like using a meter-less Leica in the old days!</p>

<p>go with a d90 instead of a d200</p>