D40 to D7000-- talk me into it.

<p>I have had a D40 since Christmas 2007 (my first DSLR). I have been pretty happy with it but have been thinking of upgrading and saving up to do so for about 1 year. My main reason for upgrading is landscape and the wish for better resolution and to enlarge with better quality. Of course I wouldn't mind many other bonuses such as better iso, faster focus, video. I had my eye on the D90 which seemed to be very well reviewed and well loved. I got to try one in a store and compare with my lens to my D40 and the image quality looked significantly better to my eye. Before I had enough money saved up the D7000 came out which looked better still. The reviews looked generally good and I was convince that this was the camera for me, but now I think I might be starting to over analyze it. I have seen a couple postings from people not thrilled with image quality with certain lenses and even a couple from people with D40's implying the D7000 was no better !!!<br>

So I just wanted to talk to people who have upgraded (especially from the D40) Are you thrilled? Is it worth the money? Do feel like regular lenses still give you great images or do you need to up grade your glass too? <br>

FYI for lenses I have the 18-55 non VR that came with the camera. Nikon 70-300, Nikon 35 1.8, and sigma 10-20. Thanks for your advice.... Brian</p>

 

<p>I went from a D70 to a D90 and saw some pretty good improvement in image quality (of course, it certainly could have been my learning curve, tripod and new lenses, too!). I do really like the bigger images from the D90--it allows me to crop a bit and still be able to enlarge like I want. Having seen the D7000 specs, I am thinking it is yet another pretty large step up from the D90. (And I sometimes wonder if I could have waited a bit to get that one instead of the D90). Ah, well, you know what they say: The best camera for you is the one you have in your hands at the moment! I am still learning and have not yet "maxed out" my D90, so I'll likely wait a year or two and skip a Nikon prosumer generation. Bottom line: You have probably "maxed out" with the D40, so I'd go for the D7000 if you have the bucks. I think you will be thrilled. P.S. Get a good camera guide, too, so you can use all those new bells and whistles.</p>

<p>You might look at the D3100. A few dollars less, but for landscape images -- the D3100 will do right well. You would have to shop around some to find a *body only* as Nikon is convinced you gotta have a VR 18-55mm lens as part of the kit. The D3100 has almost 3x the pixels per image over the D40.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The + side of the D7000 - you can use non-AF-S lenses. But since you have AF-S lenses, you would save a few hundred $$$s.</p><div></div>

<p>Brian, I am about 2 weeks ahead of you. I just recently sold my D40 and moved up to the D7000. LOTS of camera here. I am only a weekend warrior for photography, so this camera might last me a long time.<br>

Glass is very important for the D7000 as I am finding out due to the very dense 16MP sensor. I had the Nikkor 18-200 3.5/5.6 VR on the D40 and that gave very nice shots. It didn't work well at all on the D7000. I just bought a Nikkor 35 1.8, a Tamron SP 70-300 Di VC, Nikkor 16-85 VR, and just getting the Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 today. The 35mm and the Tamron are awesome on the D7000. Jury is out on the Nikkor 16-85, although I am still tweaking the settings in the Picture controls. I hear good things about the Sigma 10-20. I have my fingers crossed.<br>

So to answer your question, I would definitely go with the D7000 and try all your existing glass. You might be very pleasantly surprised.</p>

<p>I personally went from a D60 (which like 1/2 a generation newer than the D40), to a D5000, to a D7000.</p>

<p>Each step was an significant upgrade. I would say though, that if you're mostly shooting landscape, a lot of the D7000's features don't matter so much (the FPS, the dual card slots, the AI-S support, etc.). So, if you have any desire for another lens, it might be good to stick with a cheaper D90 to save money.</p>

<p>That said, the D7000 is thoroughly astounding. After using the D7000, the D5000 and D3100 both have shutter lag to me. The D7000's noise cleans up really well in ISO1600, and ISO3200 is very useable. 6400 is probably pushing it. For the D60, I often though ISO800 was pushing it. The autofocus is 'meh' when birding (perhaps my technique), and there is that small buffer issue, but other than that I've been completely satisfied. Was it worth my $1200? I do think it's pricey.</p>

<p>I think my point is, whether you get a D90 or a D7000, you're going to be making a rather big leap over the D40. You'll get auto-CA correction, off-camera flash, AF-D lens support, resolution, dynamic range (which is rather poor in the D40/60 etc.), and high ISO. The D7000 will be a bigger leap... faster FPS, more resolution, dynamic range, etc., but is it worth nearly double the cost? That's up to you to decide. The D7000 will definately last you longer (it's packed with the latest features), but the D90 is simply a great bargain right now (though it's slightly long in the tooth).</p>

<p>You have a good lens collection so I think you don't need to upgrade glass... except for perhaps the 18-55. You mind as well grab a kit lens since you're buying a camera, and get VR.</p>

<p>No matter what you do... it might be a good idea to keep the D40 also. It's a rather unique camera... high flash sync speed, base ISO 200.</p>

<p>one thing to consider is the difference in resolution between 6mp and 16 mp may reveal flaws in your optics you didnt notice before. so there are possible hidden costs associated with a d7000, otherwise known as NAS. would i upgrade if i were you? if i had the $$, yup.</p>

<p><em>Are you thrilled</em>? Yes, absolutely!</p>

<p><em>Is it worth the money?</em> Yes, absolutely! In fact, not only is it worth the money, it is a bargain for what you get.</p>

<p><em>Do feel like regular lenses still give you great images.</em> Yes. I don't seem to be encountering the differences some are claiming (I am not saying they are not there, just that I am getting favorable results even with the 18-200mm). I have not done a side-by-side test but may in the near future and will be sure to post the results. After shooting about 2500 images over the last two weeks with a variety of lenses including the 35mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 80-400mm, 70-700mm, I find the IQ to be really, really, really great and notice no difference from any other Nikon body.</p>

<p>Wow thanks for all the great replies. I am glad to hear most seem very happy. I definately will hang on to the D40 mostly because my 11 year old son wants to use it all the time and I don't think its worth a lot on the used market. I can relate to the comment that the D7000 will last longer. I would worry that if I go for the D90 I would soon think about shopping all over again...</p>

<p>I can't speak to those lenses on the D7000 but on a D90, the 18-55, 35 and 70-300 (it's the AF-S VR version, right?) are all excellent, and I wouldn't hesitate to buy one as an upgrade to a D40. The step up in linear resolution from 12MP to 16MP is less than 20%, so I've got to assume that those lenses are also going to be good on a D7000 and anybody having very bad results is probably doing something wrong.</p>

<p>The D7000 is an all-around upgrade to the D90. If I were buying now, it's what I would want. But as Jerry said the D3100 is a substantial image quality upgrade to the D40, so if you like the D40 but want to upgrade its image quality and a video mode, and you're feeling budget conscious, that might be the way to go.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 and a D40.<br>

If I were you I'd take the D3100 right now. Small, light, video AF, decent ISO, excellent IQ - what more to want?<br>

OK, D7000 has a sealed body - but without the sealed lenses is useless. Also better resolution (more demanding on lenses and technique), higher ISO (but much smaller than the difference from D40 to D3100), better DR and faster FPS - all differences non relevant IMO compared with the big $ difference. If sometimes you'll want to go D400 or even FF, the 3100 could be an excellent second body.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, the D7000 is an awesome camera but ask yourself if you'll gonna really use all that features or you just want to have the best there is now just for the comfort.<br>

In fact, these days I am trading my D7000 for a D90 and use the difference to buy a Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm f1.7 lens so I have DSLR quality wherever I am going ;)</p>

<p>I recently moved from a D60 to the 7k as well. I think that the D7000 has a more noticable mirror slap than my old D60, but everything else about it is pretty stellar. Going from 3 to 39 AF points has allowed me to capture a lot more shots where I'd previous miss something on the D60 (the 3D tracking is pretty awesome... to a point!) and the sensor has given me the confidence to shoot with an extra stop and a half of ISO without worrying so much about noise (part of that is me "getting over it" as well).</p>

<p>The only three downsides I can think of are the mirror slap (which I'd expect from this larger camera), the metering in low light (it seems to just report "LO" in lowish light, whereas the D60 would attempt to give some shutter reading unless the exposure time is >10 seconds - in REALLY low light) and the LCD power-off detector which I believe exists on the D60, but not the D40 - basically the LCD auto-offs when you raise the camera to your eye. Everything is a significant improvement. Learning the AF system takes a little time if you're stepping up though.</p>

<p>Very much loving this camera in combination with my 70-300VR. The 70-300 is able to resolve the additional resolution, and is still pin sharp on a good shot. The distortion correction works a treat on the 18-55 at the wide end too.</p>

<p>You may notice a pretty big computer slow down, going from 6 to 16mp. If you already have a two or more core setup, not as much.</p>

<p>The D40 is a really good 6mp jpeg camera, and you may also miss the 1/500 sync. Other than the moderate cost, the D7000 gets a great report.</p>

<p>I did a quick, pretty much unscientific test between the D40 and D700 using the 18-200mm at200mm. I shot RAW, opened the files in CS5, upsized the D40 image to the same size as the D7000 image. No processing of any kind.</p>

<p>And to add some fun to the discussing, I processed the D7000 image with DXO adding a bit of sharpening.</p>

<p>I noticed the D7000 had a slight amount more purple fringing than the D40 image. Otherwise IQ was pretty much equal between the two throughout the frame.</p><div></div>

<p>so, elliot, your conclusion is what, exactly? you say IQ is equal but you give the d7k three thumbs up. i cant tell b/c those pics are too small to see any meaningful difference, other than the d40 pic looks darker.</p>

<p>Eric, I guess I should have clarified my statement about the IQ. It has been reported that there is a decline in IQ with the D7000 when not using pro glass. I just don't see it anywhere. Aside from more resolution which seems to yield a sharper image, I don't see any real differences in IQ (sharpness/detail between the two except as noted about the purple fringing. As you can see in the DXO processed image, it is easily handled.</p>

<p>I have gone ahead and enlarged the 3 images for easier viewing.</p><div></div>

<p>To coin a phrase from Nike... Just do it! You'll never look back!</p>

<p>Here is the D7000 crop.</p><div></div>

<p>And finally the processed image.</p>

<p>(Again, I am not disputing the results others are getting - I am just not experiencing it with my D7000.)</p>

<p>Image here</p><div></div>

<p>The above image was upsized from a smaller file I was working on. This is the correct file, cropped and sized properly.</p><div></div>

<p>I went from the D40 to the D7000 (I think that I was in B&H's first batch shipped) although I am not a camera expert I find that the D7K leaves you a lot of room to grow. It will definitely take me a while to figure out all of the bells and whistles. The book stores in my area finally came out with 3 different aftermarket guides. Thom Hogan's is scheduled around June. The Nikon manual will not help you figure out all of the features (at least they didn't help me). Image quality is a large leap from the D40. You can crank up the ISO to levels that the D40 could never hope to achieve and still get pretty decent images. I still haven't tried the video feature (don't know if I ever will). My main lens are the 18-200, 50 1.8 and the 35 1.8. The 50 1.8 will autofocus on the D7K. I am seriously considering a 2.8 lens upgrade I think that I need something faster than the 18-200... still trying to decide on the focal length. I am not thinking of getting rid of the D40 though, it never hurts to have a backup. I'm not quite brave enough to take the D7K kayaking. I guess that I will attach the obligitory image. <br />D7000,18-200 <a href="mailto:lens@150mm">lens@150mm</a>, 1/160 sec, f5.6,800 ISO shot through a fence<br />Florida panther not to be confused with a Florida cougar. Panthers are endangered and not as aggressive as the cougars....HA</p><div></div>

<p>elliot, i was hoping to compare the d40 and d7k files at larger sizees...the sharpened d7k file doesnt tell us anything. oh well...</p>

<p>Eric, I will post large files for sometime over the weekend and put the links here. </p>

<p>D40 image here:<br /> <a href="../photo/12709234&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/12709234&size=lg</a></p>

<p>D7000 image here:<br /> <a href="../photo/12709232&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/12709232&size=lg</a></p>

<p>(these were converted with ViewNX2)</p>

<p>Perhaps those who are show results contrary to these can post their sample images.</p>

<p>Interesting... I just noticed that the purple fringing I was seeing in CS5 and DXO is barely visible in ViewNX2. There must be some default processing going on in ViewNX2.</p>